I am profoundly disappointed at the failure of the Minister for Agriculture Food and Forestry to present himself in the House this morning to take this debate.
Beef Industry: Statements (Resumed).
Does the Deputy think I am not a good substitute?
I do not consider that the Minister of State has any direct responsibility for the matter under discussion this morning, and that is not the issue. It is a measure of the interest the Minister has in this issue and his responsibility to consumers and producers that he has failed to present himself. The Minister does not know where he is. When he is at home in his constituency holding clinics, he likes to believe he is in Dublin Airport. I would like to know where he is this morning.
The most important thing is that the Minister will be here to answer questions later today.
He is with the spin doctors.
He does not need a spin doctor.
That might be the Minister of State's understanding of the gravity of the crisis. It is not mine.
A week ago this morning when I stood up to speak I was tempted to describe the Minister as "Ivan do little". Now I am convinced I must call the Minister "Ivan do nothing". We now face the most critical period for our beef industry since the foundation of the State. The beef industry is one of the most important pillars of the economy. It provides a livelihood for upwards of 100,000 farm families, several thousand workers in the processing sector, all of whom, I would like to remind the Labour Party, are PAYE workers, and several thousand more in agri-business and related industries. In total, beef is worth about £2 billion a year to the economy. This crucial industry deserves nothing less than a major united national effort at the most senior level of politics, industry and agriculture to confront and surmount the deep crisis facing it at this moment. Above all else, it requires a person of competence and conviction to lead and direct this campaign.
I regret I am no longer convinced the Minister is the right person to get this country out of the crisis in which it now finds itself. The handling of the issue from day to day since the BSE crisis hit last March has been complacent, incompetent and deceitful. The Minister deceived this country when he gave the clear impression two weeks ago that he negotiated the Russian beef deal, that he defended the Irish position, struck the best available deal, and only conceded when the gun was put to his head, and he signed the Protocol with the Russian officials. Now we know that none of this is true. We know the Minister was holding a constituency clinic at home in Wexford when this crucial and critical deal was being signed by officials from his Department at Dublin Airport — I will come back to that later.
The Minister has forfeited the trust of the nation. For that reason it is my belief that he is not the person to take this country and its key industry out of the present crisis. What I respectfully suggest is that perhaps he should move aside and hand over this important task to somebody who is prepared to devote his time and make it a priority item in his daily agenda. It is now clear that both the Minister and his Department have lost the confidence of the international markets and of the Irish markets as the confidence of the international and Irish markets and the credibility they should have on behalf of the Irish nation.
There is an urgent need for the creation of a new national agency, which is independent of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, to oversee food hygiene and quality. This agency should report to the Minister for Health or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, or to both, but not to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It should be run by a board that is truly representative of all interests, not just farmers and processors but consumers, health and veterinary professionals and retailers. Its starting point must be the welfare and well-being of consumers. From now on this business must be consumer driven. The new agency would, I hope, command more respect and credibility, domestically and internationally, than is held at present by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, whose reputation has been tarnished by successive scandals and has further been sullied by the performance of its Minister in recent days.
What officials represented our interests at Dublin Airport when the Protocol was signed? Who signed the Protocol? Who gave them the authority to sign it? What right had they to single out three countries, two of them in Munster? If Munster with its golden vale has always been known for anything, it is for the quality of its food —"Macaire méith na Mumhain". On what scientific evidence did unnamed officials sign away the selling rights of Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan to the Russians? My questions must be answered.
For many years public policy has sought to establish Cork as the food capital of Ireland. It has one of the country's most respected food science faculties in University College, Cork and some of the best land in Europe. It also has some of the best restaurants, as adjudged by international experts in that field. The basis of that judgment has been the quality of the raw material and the quality of the food. If the raw material is no good, no trick of the culinary trade will turn it into a dish that will meet with the approval which has been accorded to food in the restaurants of Cork. In one fell swoop anonymous officials in Dublin Airport undermined a reputation which had been painfully and painstakingly built over years. This Government should try telling the farmers in my county why their county was selected for exclusion by the Russians. They should also try to explain it to the farmers in Tipperary. I include County Tipperary because I know the county well. It is part of the golden vale and enjoys the traditional reputation of that part of the country for the quality of its food and food production.
Thousands of jobs are at stake. We should not seek to set farmers against consumers in this debate because what is good for farmers is good for consumers. When farmers have money in their pockets they will spend it in the towns, villages and cities. That underpins the economy of those towns and employment in shops, garages and other businesses. That message must be given to the Labour Party and Democratic Left who appear to have taken a position of splendid isolation in this debate. If they have taken part in it, it has been to indulge in farmer bashing. I hold no brief for any interests other than those of our citizens.
Look at what has happened since the BSE crisis arose and at how little the Government has done. A senior official in the Department was arrested and subsequently charged with illegally selling Irish cattle health certificates for British livestock. That did not inspire much confidence in our international customers. What image did it present of our capacity to police the beef industry? The beef tribunal highlighted the extent of malpractice and maladministration in the Department. Three years after its report was published little has been done to put our house in order. Instead, we read about further additions to the Department's catalogue of disasters. The Minister has called on the Garda to investigate farmers suspected of deliberately introducing BSE infected animals into their herds to claim compensation. This is being done after a multimillion pound campaign to seal the Border with Northern Ireland was abandoned. The scandalous abuse of illegal growth promoters continues unabated. The recent conviction of several farmers seems to represent the tip of the iceberg.
News travels fast in this era of global communication. Do we really believe that we can continue to tolerate rampant abuse and illegality in our beef industry and still expect foreign customers to have confidence in our product? We produce wonderful food in the most natural and hygienic way. We produce top quality food that is fit for our tables and for export markets. What good will that be if nobody believes it? What good will it be if the Minister, Deputy Yates, has conceded otherwise to the Russians? The Russians, not the French, are the new experts on cuisine. If they have decided beef from counties Cork and Tipperary is not fit for consumption that message will go to the French, British and Germans, our long-term customers.
It is interesting that the Russians should take action to exclude Irish beef. Russia is our single biggest market in terms of volume. It imported approximately 100,000 tonnes of our beef in 1995. However, Russia is not a commercial market. It is classified as a third world country by the EU and all beef sales to such markets are heavily subsidised through the export refund mechanism. Beef going to Russia attracts an export refund of about £1,400 per tonne. The average market price paid by the Russians for Irish beef in 1995 was approximately £9,000 per tonne as opposed to £14,000 per tonne paid by other markets. Through the generosity of the EU Russia is getting our beef for next to nothing. If customers who are getting our product at a knock-down price are raising questions about its safety, what does that imply for commercial customers who have paid four times as much for the same product? There are already reports that the Iranians are proposing a county by county ban similar to the Russians. How long before our top commercial customers in the lucrative European markets start doing the same? If that happens we will be in serious trouble.
It is a well known maxim that the consumer is king in the food business. For a long time large segments of the Irish beef industry paid lip service to that concept. We developed a dependence on intervention and on relatively undemanding third country markets, a business usually conducted by the State trading agency. This trade did not involve contact with supermarkets, retail butchers or consumers. Our customers are much less demanding than the Sainsburys and Tescos of this world. We must break away from our current unhealthy dependence on subsidised artificial markets. Armed with that knowledge we must put in place a new national agency, independent of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, to oversee food hygiene and food quality. Producers and processors must be represented on the board of this agency. It must include also people from the retail trade and primarily consumer interests. If the consumer is sovereign in a market economy we should reflect that fact in our system for policing the food industry.
The creation of the new agency need involve no increase in the overall size of Government bureaucracy. It would simply involve a transfer of function from one area of Government to another. That should happen in such a way that efficiency, effectiveness, reliability, independence and accountability are drastically improved. A new agency reporting to the Minister for Health or the Minister for Enterprise and Employment would command respect. We must set about putting such an agency in place sooner rather than later.
One of the essential priorities of this agency should be the introduction of the principle of traceability to all aspects of our food industry, including beef production. This system already works in a small way with some supermarket chains. The retailer can identify the individual farmer who produced the beef being sold and, therefore, can be assured of its quality. If there is a problem with it, the producer ultimately pays the price. This system must be extended across the whole beef industry and across the food and livestock industry. Implementation of such a system would involve a certain amount of difficulty and expense but there is no reason for not proceeding and there is every reason to begin to proceed today rather than tomorrow.
We have ignored the failures of our current control system for far too long. These failures are now beginning to cost us dearly in terms of lost reputation, lost markets and lost export earnings. Since the beginning of March the Government has stumbled from one damaging incident to another, hurdled helplessly in a sea of inaction and failed to take any kind of initiative. We believe we can prevent major international customers for Irish beef from exploiting our stumbling. The position has gone from bad to worse. That the Minister is not present only adds to his failure to be present at Dublin Airport when the famous Protocol was signed well in advance of the time for signing our contract with the Russians. He has failed this House, the farmers and the workers. He has no further useful constructive contribution to make to the development of the food or agriculture industry and as such must take the condemnation of this House.
I wish to share my time with Deputy Paul Connaughton.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I have often said I welcome the opportunity to take part in a debate such as this. Unfortunately this debate is taking place for all the wrong reasons. In the words of one of the elected representatives from my county it is intended to do the greatest amount of damage possible to the Government, the farming community and the nation. Deputy Quill made an interesting comment that we should not have any more involvement with third country markets, that we should concentrate on European and other markets and should not depend on European export refunds. At one time we were selling 1.6 million tonnes of beef with the benefit of export refunds, either on live cattle or dead meat. Under the MacSharry agreement this year we will still be able to export one million tonnes. If we ignore that market we do so at our peril and at enormous damage to our farmers and others.
Deputy Quill referred to the need for a serious and united effort to sustain our biggest industry. I question the sincerity of that statement. I have not witnessed much serious or united effort in the House over the past ten days to try to save our single biggest industry. I have seen the exact opposite. I attended a public meeting of Monaghan farmers the other night. While I am extremely annoyed that Monaghan, Cork and Tipperary have been called into question by the Russians, the farmers at that meeting were extremely reasonable and tolerant and their only interest was in ensuring the best possible deal was done on their behalf. Had we not accepted the Russian deal we would have to rely on the MacSharry-Walsh safety net intervention of 78p per pound.
What has taken place in this House during the past few days is nothing short of national sabotage. The only interest of the two Opposition parties, especially the main party, is to ensure that whatever problem we have with Russia is highlighted in order to do the greatest amount of damage to other markets. They say all one has to do is get on a plane and fly out to these markets. A former leader of that great party, none other than Charles J. Haughey, when in Opposition was able to get into a plane, fly out and write the contract in the sands of Libya. The record when in Government was slightly different. The record states clearly that we did not sell a beast to Libya in 1991 or 1992, when BSE was only being talked about. So far as dead meat is concerned we did not sell one pound to Libya in 1988, 1989, 1990 or 1991. The Iranian market, which it has been suggested could be opened by a visit, took only 12 tonnes in 1991 and none in 1992. That record shows whether a simple air flight can solve all these problems. Why was the Opposition not able to do it when in Government? They had full access to intervention but ensured, by their negotiations, we would not have it at a later date.
The record states that in 1995 580,000 tonnes of meat was sold out of this country, which includes 150,000 tonnes of intervention. In 1995 we sold 105,000 tonnes of meat to Russia, which included 40,000 tonnes of intervention. This means that in 1995 we sold only 430,000 tonnes fresh. To date with all the problems and the sarcasm against the Minister, the Department and An Bord Bia we have sold 460,000 tonnes fresh and, as yet, only 40,000 tonnes into intervention.
What possibilities were open to the Minister and his Department regarding the Russian deal? Is the Opposition saying we should have refused the Russian deal? I suggest not. Deputy Quill said the price being given was low but it still meant a major benefit to farmers, processors and those involved with the meat industry. Some people who thought it would be difficult for me and my colleagues to attend farmers' meetings said the price of cattle would fall by £100 a head. That did not happen and will not happen unless through their efforts to score political points because there never was more interest in the purchase of Irish meat and live cattle than today. I accept there was a high level of live cattle exports for a few years but the record clearly shows that during the previous six years average exports were only 44,000 cattle per year. This should be contrasted with the figure of more than 100,000 cattle this year. In 1991 there were no exports of live cattle. That is the record of the Opposition in Government.
It is important to clarify the action taken by the previous Government to deal with BSE. I have read with interest the comments made by the former Minister for Agriculture, Senator O'Kennedy, at meetings in England and elsewhere. He referred to the great job he did and how he organised matters. He introduced legislation to curtail the use of meat and bonemeal but it was couched in such complicated language that no one could understand it. He also failed to police the implementation of the legislation. Many of the animals which have been diagnosed as having BSE were fed with meat and bonemeal even though this legislation was in place.
In the coming years farmers will thank Senator O'Kennedy for what he did as Minister for Agriculture.
They will be more thankful to him than Fianna Fáil was.
The beef tribunal, and whether a departmental official should be brought to justice, raises many questions. Efforts were made for a long time to cover up matters.
Did the Deputy say on "Morning Ireland" that the Minister signed the deal on the steps of a plane? I listened to him and that is what he said.
Let there be no further interruptions, please.
The Deputy is inviting them.
I did not say on "Morning Ireland" that a Minister signed anything on the steps of a plane.
What did the Deputy say?
If the Deputy did not say that then what did he say?
He does not know what he said, he forgets.
There are serious problems in the beef industry and farmers are anxious about their livelihoods. However, all Fianna Fáil Deputies are worried about is the next general election. They do not give a damn if they are elected on the backs of farmers.
Is the Deputy not worried about the election?
A member of Fianna Fáil said this issue would haunt us during the next election campaign, which is all his party is interested in. The report of the beef tribunal makes interesting reading and Deputies opposite should be careful about accusing people of telling untruths and of not being able to answer for their actions. It is interesting to read the account of what happened on particular days, not to mention weeks, and the conversations between various personnel. People were given millions of pounds in personal gifts.
To whom were they given?
Who is the Deputy talking about?
Deer farmers in County Monaghan are very worried about their industry. When I asked journalists to investigate some of the activities of the former Minister and Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, in regard to deer enterprises, many of which are now facing bankruptcy, they refused. I am interested in the well-being of beef and deer farmers in County Monaghan. Many questions about the activities of senior members of the Fianna Fáil Party in these areas need to be answered. I stand over my representations on behalf of livestock and beef farmers and the people of Monaghan generally.
The Deputy did not tell County Monaghan farmers what to do with their beef.
The price is increasing.
The Deputy could not even remember what he said last week.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Fianna Fáil and the Progressive Democrats have one question to answer. They have referred to the warts on the deal with Russia but they have not said what would have happened if the deal had not been signed. Do they believe that cattle prices would have remained at the level they have been at for the past ten days if our trade with Russia fell asunder? They should answer this question directly and honestly. The Deputies opposite know as well as I do that if this deal had not been signed farmers would have lost between £40 and £50 per head.
It should never have been allowed to reach that point.
Unlike me, they do not stand beside the ring at marts and see what is happening on the ground. We export 80 per cent of our beef and one either sells the beef or one does not; it is as simple as that.
Since this debacle began in March we have had to avail of intervention schemes. Nobody wants intervention and we have done our best over the years to get away from it. We want to produce the quality product required by consumers and to by-pass intervention. However, EU Ministers for Agriculture have had no alternative since March but to open up cold stores. At the same time we have been trying to rebuild our commercial markets. The figures show that these markets have been gradually increasing over recent months but we do not know how they will pan out following the findings by English scientists yesterday.
We have already dumped 1.1 million tonnes of beef into intervention. In the past this meat was sold to Russia for next to nothing. There is nothing to prevent the same thing happening next year but it would be much better to get these cattle out of the chain this year by selling several hundred thousand of them to Russia. I dread to think what would happen to farmers if there was entire intervention this year and next year. We must be realistic about this issue: irrespective of the price, cattle must be got out of the chain this year if next year's cattle are to be sold. If this does not happen farmers will be in dire trouble in 1997. This is why the deal with Russia is outstandingly important.
I never liked the idea of regionalisation but the most important point is that such countries are taking their full import requirement throughout the winter and early spring. Before the debate is concluded I want Fianna Fáil to say what other country would have bought that volume of beef from us. I do not believe any other country would have done so. This deal achieved a dual purpose in that it secured exports and ensured that this year's cattle did not have to compete with next year's cattle for the same market. Anyone who knows anything about agriculture will understand this.
Deputies do not realise — the Ceann Comhairle alluded to this on the Order of Business — that comments made in this Chamber or in the media are transmitted to European and world capitals within two hours. The comments made by those opposed to this deal have already been transmitted to our competitors.
Does the Deputy want to introduce censorship?
We want accuracy.
We will give it to the Minister of State.
The Deputy in possession should be allowed continue without interruption from either side, please.
Deputy Davern should not talk about censorship.
Why?
The Deputy has made his contribution and he should allow me to make mine. I want to tell him a few more home truths.
If the Deputy in possession addressed his comments through the Chair they would be less provocative.
There is a BSE problem and I do not know who can be blamed for it, the farmers of Ireland are not to blame. There is loose talk about who is to blame. There are seven million cattle in this country and while the number of BSE cases has at least doubled since last year, we have a low incidence of BSE. We have a good quality product, which we must communicate around the world. That is why the Russians dealt with us. Should we not deal with them because they excluded three counties? The other nations would say if it was not good enough for the Russians, it was not good enough for them. There was no alternative on the day. I agree with the chorus that we now have to do everything we can to convince the Russians there is nothing wrong with the three counties. I think it was non-scientifically assessed and will be changed.
Every time we hear a case of BSE confirmed in Ireland it is a nail in our coffin. Irrespective of our political sides, a case of BSE is bad news. We will have to take steps, however difficult they might be, to minimise any effort to introduce BSE. I have no concrete knowledge that anyone tried to do that. We need to ensure traceability, which we have talked about for long enough. Various Governments have discussed traceability but have not done much about it.
We should deliver what the consumer wants. We have the cattle, the environment, the grassland and the know-how. There has been a break in the link between when the animal is sold and when the meat is put up for sale. We have to fill this gap. There should be a birth certificate or identity card which has information on the animal. This has been discussed so many times in this House that I will not waste time on it. The consumer, on request, will know where the animal came from, what type of animal it was, the food it ate and what environment it was reared in. Until recently some people would have laughed at this suggestion and said they had enough trouble with a blue card without adding a sheaf of papers. We can convince the Russians that every single animal in Ireland offered for export is as good as they will get anywhere else, or better.
In so far as other markets are concerned, there is intense activity to get more markets for cattle because we are not short of them and will not be in the future. It is incumbent on us, and I have every confidence in the Minister for Agriculture and his officials, to make representations in every corner of the world to ensure we give our farmers a chance to sell their cattle. When this matter has blown over, many people will ask why Fianna Fáil made such a rumpus about what is basically the farmers' income.
Do not blame us.
Fianna Fáil's view is we should not have signed the Russian deal. If we had not, the price of cattle would come down. Fianna Fáil will get their answer from the farmers at the marts in the next couple of months, as is happening already.
It would never have happened.
Do not go over the bridge too often.
A few weeks ago, I expressed satisfaction that the Minister for Agriculture Food and Forestry was at last backing the case for the removal of the Border and a special status for Northern Ireland beef exports. Deputy Cowen and I had argued for that in a number of debates during the year. I did not think the Minister was about to agree to redrawing the border around counties Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan.
Farmers are appalled by the situation and how the Minister let them down in negotiation, not that he was even present at the final negotiation. We are not putting blame on anyone. We were not being hard on Deputy Crawford, as I believe he only read the note given to him by the Government press officer when he said on radio that the deal was signed at the end of the steps of the plane. We are not holding him in any way responsible for being misled on that particular issue.
We know more about meat then the Deputy ever will.
Deputy Crawford did not know who was at the airport.
For months past, the Minister and the Government have been assuring everybody that Irish beef was the best, safe to eat, and that there was no BSE problem of any consequence here. The Minister maintains that line, despite the Russian agreement which clearly carries the contrary message. If the Protocol carries a misleading and false message about Irish beef to the world, should he have agreed to it? Will he not have some difficulty convincing the outside world of its harmlessness, especially when he cannot even convince his own colleagues? Yesterday, the Tánaiste was on "Morning Ireland", making excuses for his diplomatic inaction, saying we had to sort out our BSE problems before we could export to Iran, contradicting, as Deputy Cowen pointed out, the optimistic message of the Minister that we do not have any real problem with BSE here.
While the rise in the number of BSE cases here in the last few months is disturbing, they are still of minimal significance compared with the situation in Britain. Since March, there has been no increased incidence of a new CJD epidemic anywhere in Europe. As a result, beef markets in Europe are recovering. I read a report recently that said German consumption of beef was now only 10 per cent down, compared with last year. The latest scientific report, which is not conclusive, tells us very little that is new. The authors are talking up the importance of their research, with reference to worst case scenarios. There is a good chance that BSE will go the same way as the egg salmonella scare a few years ago, which also came from Britain. After the initial panic, and then the passage of time in which people notice that nothing in the real world has changed, they slip readily enough back into their old consumption habits. There is nothing wrong with that. There may be a residue of a problem for a while. For this to happen it is right to take all sensible precautions to eliminate any risk from BSE, so that the risk of catching CJD from eating infected beef remains very low on the scale of risks to health.
I am dumbfounded that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, whose job is to defend the reputation of Irish beef and food, would collude with any foreign authorities in discriminating against our beef on an unscientific county basis. Even though he may not accept it, the Minister will be represented as advertising to the world that Ireland now accepts it has a BSE problem. The principle of this is dangerous and the precedent more so, even if there is no major impact on beef prices or outlets in the market immediately. The Minister has diminished the image of Irish food. It gives competitors a stick to beat the Irish product with, which they will use, especially as we all know it is difficult to effectively police county boundaries. I presume the Minister is not proposing to post Garda checkpoints on the county boundaries.
The Minister is refusing any similar concession to Iran and Libya. However, the principle is the same. It is either right or wrong to regionalise the country from the point of view of animal health. I do not understand the logic of accepting county exclusions for one market and refusing it for others, effectively saying to those other buyers that we do not regard their trade as being of the same value or status as the Russian trade, which they will remember with interest.
The Minister made our future negotiations with third countries more difficult to get out of a real short-term difficulty. It has been implied that some pressure may have come from France, a large country with many regions. Ireland is effectively one region as recognised in European negotiations on many issues. We should never have allowed any of our competitors to undermine our animal health status as a single unit. The choice of counties is totally illogical and does not relate to the incidence of BSE per capita.
The Minister had a keen political interest in ensuring that an objective criteria were not used. If he chose the three counties with the highest per capita incidence of BSE, Wexford would have been included instead of Cork. It is sixth on the list and Tipperary is ninth. To all intents and purposes, Tipperary is administered as two counties and Tipperary South Riding is free of BSE to date. To have insisted on a scrupulously fair approach would have cost the Minister a seat in a keenly contested constituency in the next general election. He did not push that argument too strongly with the Russians. When the final crunch came he did not put the vital political arguments and make decisions. As we now know, he was nowhere near Dublin Airport at the time. This matter is far too important to leave to veterinary officials.
The Minister offered to travel to Moscow, but he did not travel up the road to Dublin Airport when it mattered despite telling the public "I did a deal with the Russians last Saturday at 1 p.m. in the VIP lounge in Dublin Airport". He subsequently said "The gun was held to my head and I had to decide". I accept the Russians good military technology but the gun held to the Minister's head must have been a long range Iraqi supergun.
It is time to take the gun out of Irish beef.
We were given the impression the Minister was some latter day Michael Collins, facing the threat of immediate and terrible war on the trade front if he did not agree immediately to Russian demands. Why did he allow 11 days to elapse before correcting the record? Did he hope to get away with it? When he stated in the Seanad, "I will not be signing any more Protocols", was he not effectively stating that he had signed the one at Dublin Airport? When I asked last week for Protocol to be laid before the House the Taoiseach did not answer my question. If a Protocol had been placed in the Library last Thursday we would have known the Minister did not sign the Protocol and that he was not at Dublin Airport. In all interviews, debates and television programmes since, he did not correct the impression given to the Irish public that he was at the airport. Are those the sort of political standards this Government is prepared to stand over after all it said in the past?
In 1921 we had to sign away Six Counties. This time we signed away another three, but the ultimatum did not even come from a Russian Minister, it came from three vets. This is no way to do intergovernment business. Are we now being led to believe that the Minister made a decision on an ultimatum from three vets over the telephone — even a mobile telephone has been mentioned? I would like a full statement from the Minister about where he was and what he was doing when those negotiations were taking place. Who contacted him? Who did he consult? An inexperienced Minister of less than two years standing does not make those type of decisions on his own without the Taoiseach's knowledge and backing. The Taoiseach was nearer to the airport than the Minister. The new M50 would have got him there in jig time to conclude the negotiations. Why was he not involved, or was he involved? What really happened on that Saturday morning? Unfortunately, the Minister has to come into the House to answer questions, but did he really know what was happening? Who dealt with the correspondence with the Russians in the first place? Was it the Taoiseach? Was he carrying out the negotiations and was the Minister sidelined? Should we focus on the Taoiseach? I hope the Minister can put the record straight today and tell us the Taoiseach's role in the negotiations.
If it is the case, although I doubt it, that the Minister did all this on his own and was in his Department — although others believe he was in his constituency — and decided to send officials to conclude these important negotiations and sign a Protocol, is he really competent enough to be a Minister? If he did not check with the Taoiseach, or the Tánaiste or travel to the airport himself, should he be sacked?
One of the obligations in any Government is to provide justice and impartiality for all citizens in its jurisdiction. I accuse the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry of maladministration in allowing foreign officials to treat parts of this country inequitably and in allowing such an agreement to be signed. The farmers of Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan will not forgive a Minister who was prepared to allow blatant discrimination against them and foreign officials perpetrate an injustice against them, to protect his own political backyard.
The farm organisations have lost confidence in this fair weather Minister, who is showing over and over again that he is not good at handling political pressure in a crisis although what pressure was he under in the case when he was not there? How can anyone have any confidence in the Minister to protect or promote any vital national interest in future?
The Minister breached the most elementary rule in the negotiating book by conceding to last minute ultimatums from vets. Much though I value our trading relations with Russia, it is unacceptable that a Russian Government vet — no doubt in an effort to help the Minister out of the hole, and at his behest — should adopt the domineering tone towards the Irish people and the Irish market that we have heard in the last few days. It is unheard of for a foreign vet to enter into public debate with farm organisations or political parties here, but I do not blame him. I blame the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
I question the Taoiseach's involvement in this. As he wrote a letter to the Russian Prime Minister he must have been fully briefed. It is inconceivable that the Minister would have sacrificed three counties without the Taoiseach's explicit agreement.
The Minister was in an unenviable position, because he and other members of the Government had not done their legwork. We would not be so dependent on the Russian market, if more effort had been made to reopen other markets, such as Iran and Libya, since March. In this context, I single out Iran. I am confident from our own contacts with the Iranian authorities that the problem arises from the political position of the Irish Government and not merely the incidence of BSE. The Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, has consistently refused, for political reasons, to authorise a meeting of the Joint Ireland-Iranian Commission or to travel to Iran. This is because he does not want to offend other powerful Western interests. I regard his attitude as craven and out of keeping with Ireland's independent foreign policy tradition which is well understood by others.
Under Fianna Fáil Ministers for Foreign Affairs we developed excellent trade relations with Arab and Middle Eastern countries. Good relations with Iran were restored when Deputy Collins secured the release of Brian Keenan and brought forward the day when other Western hostages were released. Similarly, we helped maintain a good beef export trade with Libya and, while Deputy Crawford made little of this, the facts are on the record. Deputy Haughey and others, in Opposition and in Government, developed those contracts and Irish agriculture interests have been grateful. Deputy Cowen and others in my party endeavoured to maintain those relations in the past six or seven months while Ministers were travelling around the world but did not bother to stop off in any of the countries that might have helped us resolve some of these difficulties.
I always get the feeling that in relation to issues other than Northern Ireland our Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Spring, is simply going through the motions without any particularly strong interest or commitment. He is no doubt fatigued by his non-stop jet travel and overnight stays in overheated luxury hotels. Management of foreign policy has become dull, uninspired and unimaginative. The grandiose White Paper on Foreign Policy may have been worthy enough, but it said very little, and it is now virtually forgotten. We rarely seem to have any ideas of our own. We do not take many foreign policy initiatives these days. Even though we want the Irish Presidency to be a success, it is being criticised as a damp squib and people are saying nothing will be achieved at the Dublin Summit. The Taoiseach said yesterday that I had to search for such criticism, but those were the reports in a number of British newspapers yesterday. I hope the American President attends the summit and gives it some side shows and life.
Bill would not like to be considered a side show.
The Minister of State is seeking to achieve agreement on a draft document at the summit meeting. That is some achievement.
It is an important declaration including rural development.
An important draft document which the Germans consider will be worth little or nothing. However, that is not today's business. We do not see many foreign policy initiatives these days. We are for the most part just going along with or speaking for the herd, mouthing nothing except endless bland risk free platitudes.
I accept that we have the responsibility as holders of the Presidency of expressing the EU consensus but we miss the spark and enthusiasm that was there in the time when Deputies Lenihan, Collins and Andrews were Foreign Ministers. Not to be too partisan about it, Dr. Garret FitzGerald at least put some life into it also. We should not be afraid to pursue our commercial interests as vigorously as other countries pursue theirs.
The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry had too few cards in negotiation with the Russians. Perhaps that is why he did not turn up. If the Russians had called off their deal he and the Government would have been exposed. My argument is that if we had been as energetic as we should have been in securing other markets since March, the negotiating ploy of excluding certain counties would not have been possible. If the Minister is right that he was left with no choice at such a late stage, it was because of the collective failure of the Government over the past six months and the lack of effective support from his colleagues. We were urging action.
It is a devastating sign of political weakness when officials on behalf of the Minister agree that three counties, Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan, can be unjustly singled out, not even on the basis of objective criteria. The moral is obvious. The farmers deserve a better Minister and a better Government. No Fianna Fáil Government would ever let the farmers down in that way.
In severely criticising the Minister, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste, I have no desire to create any increased difficulties for our farmers in foreign markets, and neither have my colleagues. That is why, in Opposition, we sat on the Russian story for three weeks. We heard of the difficulties and discussed them. Our spokesperson said it would be against the interests to say anything about it. He tried to sound it out formally and informally to see if something was happening. When we attended the world ploughing championships the Minister told everybody there was nothing in the story, instead of trying to check what the real facts were. We played along with that game of saying nothing because we might have hurt somebody and caused problems. Let no one say that we did not act responsibly, even though the Taoiseach jumps up and down in the House, ranting and raving. When he is asked a question he never answers it but instead makes the same old speech about the beef tribunal. I cannot even hear what he is saying.
The Deputy does not want to hear.
If the Taoiseach spoke properly we could hear what he was saying and we might be able to give him a coherent answer.
We acted with total responsibility. Deputy Cowen could have blown the Russian deal up weeks ago but he did not. He acted responsibly, as did the Fianna Fáil parliamentary party.
Having got itself into this situation, the Government will have to get out of it as soon as possible. I would not care to be a Fine Gael or Labour Party candidate seeking votes among the farmers of Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan at the next election. The House is empty now so they must be hiding. People can see that the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, has been sent in here on his own.
A brave man.
There is nobody else on the Government side.
They are waiting for the departmental brief.
They are waiting for social welfare and medical cards. They will need them.
The Minister and the Government have damaged the integrity of Ireland's reputation as a food producer for pragmatic short-term reasons. I hope that serious damage to our interests can be avoided. It is appalling, however, that they should be put at risk in this way. We need an independent food standards authority as quickly as possible.
We need to uphold the honour and integrity of this House. We have listened to all that old blather from the Government concerning openness, transparency and accountability, about operating behind a pane of glass and about providing full answers to questions. We need answers to questions we have posed over many months.
Truthful answers.
We need the truth but unfortunately there is no hope of getting it. The reason Government Ministers are missing now is that they are working out a line to spin. Before the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, comes to the House today ten handlers will be chasing around the corridors giving out the old spin. What went on last night was unsightly. In every corner people were saying that the Minister would make an explanatory statement tomorrow. They said it was understandable and explicable, but none of it is explicable.
Once again the Government has refused to be open, transparent or accountable about anything, including the beef issue. The reality of operating Government behind a pane of glass is that the window cleaner has not turned up since December 1994 so nobody can see through it any more.
They should have sent the Minister of State to the airport.
Let us have similar order for the Member in possession as obtained for the previous speaker.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the House and to defend the record of the Government in its handling of this important and complex issue. The truth is bitter so the Deputy may call it "The Grapes of Wrath".
I note that after a week of often hysterical and over the top commentary an air of reality is beginning to return. I welcome the assessment of some independent and respected commentators who, while accepting that the temporary restriction on exports from three counties represented a setback, stressed that the critical objective of keeping open the Russian market, our largest third country market, has been achieved.
The decision to sign the Russian Protocol must be judged in its proper context and it is timely to recall the background leading to the situation we now find ourselves in. While BSE has been around for more than a decade, the House of Commons statement on 20 March, which suggested a possible although tenuous link between BSE and CJD, sparked off the biggest public health scare regarding any product. The result was an immediate and drastic reduction in beef consumption worldwide and a total ban on the export of cattle, beef and beef products from the UK.
While the UK is the only country with a high incidence of BSE, all beef producing countries were adversely affected, even those which have never had a case of BSE. We are still dealing with the fall out from this global public health scare and it is unlikely that full consumer confidence in beef will ever be fully restored. Yesterday's announcement in the UK about new research findings highlights just how complex and difficult this entire issue is. It also confirms, if proof were needed, that this is a technical and not a political matter.
From the outset the Government has adopted a strategic approach to BSE and this was never more evident than in the aftermath of the 20 March announcement when my Department, the Department of Foreign Affairs and An Bord Bia worked very closely together to inform our third country customers of the factual position on BSE in Ireland and the extensive controls which have been put in place to guarantee the safety and quality of Irish beef. This work has continued unabated since that time.
Political initiatives have been taken where and when appropriate and with some success. An example is the reopening of the Egyptian market following the intervention of the Taoiseach. However, this is firstly and primarily a public health issue which requires a detailed technical response. It is naive and simplistic in this era of mass communication and sophisticated consumers to say that political intervention will overcome genuine food safety concerns.
When the first case of BSE was confirmed in Ireland in 1989, a comprehensive programme of controls was put in place to deal with the disease, including the depopulation of the entire herd in which a case of BSE has been found. This latter measure is not scientifically based but was adopted specifically to reassure consumers and purchasers of Irish beef about the safety of our product. That policy has operated well although there have been periodic setbacks, notably when some new information on BSE came to public notice.
The controls in Ireland have been continually updated in line with all new scientific data and we have been successful over time in keeping all major markets open to Irish beef. I would emphasise, however, that while the depopulation policy is a central element of our control system, the overall situation is much more complex and we should not delude ourselves into thinking that we will completely reassure third countries by simply telling them that we have a depopulation policy. Specifically in relation to Russia there were two occasions when there were difficulties in this market but these problems were overcome following visits from senior Russian veterinary authorities and inspections of our controls. In recent years Russia changed from being a purchaser of intervention beef to becoming a major importer of commercial beef. The import of Irish beef into Russia reached an all time high of some 100,000 tonnes valued at £325 million in 1995. Russia was the biggest third country importer of Irish beef in 1995 and this situation continues in 1996. The fact that Russia is by far the most important third country purchaser of Irish beef gives it a negotiating power and importance unmatched by any other third country.
The Russian market remained open following the statement of 20 March in the House of Commons because of ongoing contacts with the Russian veterinary authorities and their familiarity with the comprehensive controls in place in Ireland to deal with the disease. In addition, a veterinary officer from Russia had been assigned to Ireland to supervise the loading and shipping of contracts for that market. The continuance of trade with Russia at this critical time helped to shore up the Irish beef market during a very difficult period and to prevent an even more serious fall in beef prices than we have experienced to date.
The current difficulties with Russia commenced during the summer when the number of BSE cases in Ireland increased, albeit overall numbers are still very low in a cattle population of 7 million. There have been 38 cases of BSE in Ireland in 1996 to date compared with 16 cases in 1995 and a previous high of 19 cases in 1994. The increase was particularly marked during July and August. I am completely satisfied that this rise does not represent more than a temporary blip which can be expected when dealing with such low numbers. Nevertheless, it does raise certain technical questions for third country buyers, particularly in the post 20 March climate where there is heightened public concern relating to the safety of beef in the first case. Third country purchasers now have to contend with not alone beef at the best price but with convincing a sceptical public that the beef being purchased is completely safe, particularly beef from a country with a record of BSE, no matter how small. The reality is that it is a buyer's market. We are the sellers of beef. Russia is a major buyer and the issues have to be seen in this context.
As already stated, the Russian authorities began to express concerns during the summer which were discussed with their representative in Ireland and there were also direct contacts with the authorities in Moscow. However, the matter was raised again in mid-September when I met the Minister for Agriculture and the chief veterinary officer of the Russian Federation during a visit to the Moscow Food Fair. On that occasion the Russian veterinary authorities said that they had decided to sign that very day an order banning the import of all Irish beef from I November. I was faced with that stark reality when I visited those people in Moscow in September. It was made absolutely clear that this action was being taken on public health grounds because of the increased incidence of the disease in 1996. I protested in the strongest possible terms that the decision was precipitous and unjustified and outlined in great detail Ireland's record in relation to BSE and the elaborate controls in place to protect consumers of Irish beef. I requested that any action be deferred until there had been full and detailed discussions at technical veterinary level. The Russian side accepted that our controls were comprehensive but pointed out that, notwithstanding such measures, the level of cases had more than doubled this year. They had a duty to protect public health and this required the banning of Irish beef pending further study of the incidence of the disease in Ireland. They pointed out that Russia has a long record of public health concern and that they had been the first country to ban imports of beef from the UK.
Following this meeting I sought and obtained an immediate meeting with the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Zaveryuka——
The Minister of State is naming them now.
——with the help of the Irish Ambassador in Moscow and I would like to acknowledge the role he played in this crisis During that meeting I argued Ireland's case very forcefully and pointed to the political and economic consequences of the proposed action. The Deputy Prime Minister accepted these arguments and agreed that no action should be taken until there had been full discussions at technical expert level.
The Minister and Taoiseach were kept fully briefed at all times of the developing situation. On my return from Moscow contacts were initiated at the highest political level to reinforce the points that had been made during my meetings in Moscow. The Taoiseach contacted Prime Minister Chernomyrdin, the Tánaiste spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister and the Minister contacted the Minister for Agriculture. Following these contacts it was agreed that a high level veterinary delegation led by the Russian chief veterinary officer should come to Ireland to consider the matter at first hand. An Irish delegation had been on standby to visit Moscow but the clearly expressed wish of the Russian side was for technical discussions to be held in Ireland so that they could assess the situation. The Russian concern was a public health issue and a point had been reached where the matter had to be dealt with at a technical level.
The Russian delegation arrived in Ireland on 7 October and following initial discussions with the Minister and me, they completed a comprehensive programme of inspection visits, which they had specifically requested, including beef and rendering plants and the depopulation of a BSE herd. The delegation also met the Taoiseach and held detailed discussions with the Department of Health. The final discussions commenced on 11 October when, following the assessment of our controls, the Russian side stated that they would no longer recommend an outright ban on Irish beef but instead would seek an export restriction on certain counties for a temporary period while they studied the continuing incidence of BSE in Ireland. The Russian side made it absolutely clear that unless this compromise was accepted a ban would be implemented on all Irish beef with effect from 1 November. They also made it clear that there was no question of delaying this decision. The compromise had been put forward in light of the high level political representations and nothing further could be achieved at this time.
The proposal was contained in a draft Protocol presented by the Russian side and it was initially proposed that seven counties would be excluded. There were other conditions in relation to age and labelling but they did not present any difficulties. I would like to make it very clear that the counties were selected by the Russian side on their analysis of the data. The basis for the selection is not altogether clear but it does take into account the level of cases in 1996.
Whose data was that?
It was not a case of swapping one county for another. Adding a particular county would not get a county already on the list excluded. The proposed categorisation was rejected and the meeting concluded without agreement.
Following high level discussions within the Department and an assessment of the repercussions of the closure of the Russian market for the Irish beef market, the negotiations resumed again that afternoon. The Russian side agreed to reduce the number or counties to three, Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan, and to include a three months' review clause which allowed for the relaxation of the restrictions if the incidence of the disease had improved in those counties. Furthermore, the beef could be supplied by an approved plant in any county. Again the proposal was not agreed and the Russian side reiterated in very stark terms their intention to implement a complete ban on Irish beef from 1 November. In the light of these considerations, a decision was taken very reluctantly to accept the terms put forward by the Russians. The agreement was signed prior to the departure of the delegation to Moscow at the end of a series of long and difficult negotiations. A member of the delegation, an epidemiologist, is staying in Ireland to study the BSE disease further.
The decision taken is the right one and it will be vindicated in time. What were the alternatives? The luxury of continuing negotiations was not an option as the Russian side had made it clear that a ban on Irish beef with effect from 1 November would be promulgated immediately on their return to Moscow. In any case the trade needed to know where it stood because it takes a number of weeks to fill a contract. A ban from 1 November would mean no contracts from now. The compromise had been achieved following intense political representations at the highest level and no more could be achieved at that time. The Minister could have refused the agreement and accepted the consequences of a total ban on Irish beef. He would not have been thanked for this decision of principle and there would have been an even greater outcry if, as a result of this decision, producer prices had fallen by another 5p per pound and we were plunged into safety net intervention. The decision would have resulted in the exclusion of Ireland from a market with an import requirement of 500,000 tonnes of beef and the loss of commercial contacts carefully built up over the years. The international beef market is currently oversupplied by one million tonnes and our competitors would have been only too ready to stand in and supply Russia's short-term needs and we would have handed the market to them on a plate. In the longer term, we would have succeeded in undermining Russia as a commercial market — an action which is in nobody's interest, least of all the Irish beef producer.
I do not accept that the scenario I outlined is more acceptable than that in which we now find ourselves and that our BSE strategy is in a shambles. The Russian market is open to Irish beef and our producers can continue to exploit the real trade opportunities in that market. Our traders have established a dominant position in this market. Continuation of this trade will maintain Irish beef prices and will ensure that the low level of take-up of Irish beef into intervention remains the position. The only real strategy for the viability of the Irish beef industry is the development and maintenance of commercial markets. Is anybody seriously suggesting that the loss of our biggest commercial market would have served any useful purpose other than to create even more serious problems for an industry already facing difficult times?
I fully accept the farmers in these three counties are aggrieved and concerned that their beef could be regarded as an inferior product. There is no scientific justification for the exclusion of the three counties and the beef from these counties is safe. However, we are dealing with consumer concerns and fears which are not scientifically based. The Russian side would probably accept that there is no scientific basis for the exclusion of particular counties but they are dealing with an anxious public and have to take measures to justify why they continue to buy beef from a country with an increasing, albeit low incidence of BSE.
If the shoe were on the other foot the Irish consumer would also question why beef was being bought from a country with BSE rather than one with no BSE and would not be overly interested in the detail of the controls which ensured the safety of the beef. They would not accept the assurances of foreign politicians that the product was safe but would rely on technical, expert opinion. Our control systems for food imports are based on technical criteria. The consumer increasingly sets the standards for food products and we, the producers, must comply or else we will lose markets. This is not to suggest that we accept indiscriminate demands but it is well to remember that the buyer sets the standards.
I do not accept that the market price for beef from these counties will fall as a result of this action. The European market, which takes 200,000 tonnes of beef, continues to be open to the product from these counties as do markets in other third countries which take more than 100,000 tonnes of beef. Despite doomsday forecasts, the price for beef in these counties is the same this week as that in other counties and sales at marts have not fallen.
I am pleased Saudi Arabia has recently reopened it markets to Irish beef without restrictions. Some 35,00 tonnes of beef were exported to that market in 1995 valued at £50 million. While a limited, temporary categorisation of Irish beef was accepted in relation to our largest third country market, this will not be agreed in respect of any other market. Recent reports in the press about Iran and Libya are unfounded and mischievous. The Minister has already made it clear he had rejected a similar proposal from the Iranian authorities prior to the discussions with the Russians. There have been no contracts with Libya in recent days and we are awaiting details of the technical delegation which it was agreed would travel to Ireland following the Minister's visit to Tripoli. Ireland fully complies with the international trading code put forward by the Organisation for International Epizootics, OIE, and our product is traded freely to a large number of countries world-wide. Much of the recent debate ignores the fact that Ireland has an incidence of BSE, albeit a low level, and that BSE has been linked to CJD. The restrictions imposed by third countries are as a direct result of these facts and the position is that the rise in our cases during the summer has caused disquiet in third countries. BSE is still making news world-wide and any report or reference to BSE carried in our newspapers is also carried in the international press with a resulting negative impact on consumers in our third country markets. This is a fact we must live with and which the more intemperate commentators would do well to remember.
The Department continuously monitors and updates its controls on BSE to provide the maximum possible guarantees to consumers and, in this context, it is proposed to introduce a full traceability system at the earliest possible date. In addition, new controls have been introduced on the production and sale of meat and bonemeal. However, the Department cannot protect the industry single-handedly. While we can and have stepped up our controls, it is up to all elements of the industry, including producers and processors, to ensure the highest standards are maintained. The recent increase in BSE cases probably stems from the continued feeding of meat and bonemeal to cattle, notwithstanding the introduction of a ban on such feeding in 1990. The Department cannot inspect every cow byre. The industry must also act responsibly and play its part. In this regard, some commentators would do well to examine their own patch rather than heap unjustified criticism on the Department. This is a team effort and the co-operation of all will be required if the objective of safeguarding the beef industry is to be achieved. The Department is willing to play its part; I hope other sections of the industry are also.
I defend the officials in my Department against the serious allegations made by Deputy Quill this morning. It is unfair to use isolated incidents to brand all Department officials.
This decision was taken in the best interests of the beef industry and this is now being acknowledged. The agreement is a temporary measure and the Minister will travel to Russia to seek a relaxation of the restrictions on the three counties. It is easier to seek a relaxation of limited restrictions under an agreed mechanism than to negotiate the lifting of an outright ban. Experience has shown us that once a ban is imposed it can be difficult to lift. While the immediate reaction to this decision was understandable, it is now time for good sense and cooler heads to prevail. There is nothing to be gained from talking ourselves into a crisis. Rather we need to deal with this situation as pragmatically and effectively as possible.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Power and Tom Kitt.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
This whole matter has been very badly handled by the Ministers involved. Last Wednesday morning Deputy Crawford, as advised by the spin doctors, said that the Minister signed the Protocol on the steps of the airport. I referred to this matter in the House recently and I could imagine the jet waiting, with papers flying all over the place while the Minister decided where he should sign.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Metaphorically speaking.
That is what the Deputy said. The Minister, however, was not even at the airport for what was alleged to be a tremendous deal.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): What difference did it make?
He should have been there because the deal was in the interests of all farmers. Again last Saturday morning on a radio programme it was implied that the Minister was at the airport and that he signed the Protocol, but it was his officials who signed it. It would be interesting to know who decided the counties that would be excluded. The Minister said that the decision was made according to the statistics. Who decided that Monaghan, Cork and Tipperary would be excluded?
The Russians.
On what basis?
On the basis of the incidence of BSE this year.
Tipperary is ninth on that list and Cork is seventh, but Wexford is way up the list. I suspect that somebody suggested the Minister should not be embarrassed by excluding his constituency, but they were prepared to sacrifice Tipperary.
There is not one incidence of BSE in County Tipperary, yet farmers there are the victims. The good news the Minister had for Tipperary farmers when he met the IFA and ICMSA, surrounded by Fine Gael councillors to ensure the matter would not get out of hand, was that if they bought bullocks last year in Kilkenny, Limerick, Clare or Galway, they could sell them to the Russian market, but they could not sell Tipperary born animals.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They can sell them to everyone else.
They are not good enough for Russia but they are good enough for everyone else. Is that the attitude of the Government? Tipperary was sold out. A year ago I was a member of a deputation that met the Minister to raise with him an issue relating to the Abattoirs Act. In compliance with that Act, ratepayers in south Tipperary pay £140,000 subsidy per year to ensure animals are inspected before and after they are killed so that consumers get the best product available. Despite that fact, they are now the victims. Such an inspection is not carried out in Kerry——
It is.
It must have started only very recently. It is not carried out in Kilkenny, Waterford or Limerick, counties surrounding Tipperary. Even though our ratepayers are paying £140,000 in subsidies, they are sacrificed on the altar of expediency.
I put in place a nationwide scheme.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): The Deputy should put forward one good idea.
Deputy Browne is not an expert in farming. I demand immediate intervention to provide a specific rate for animals from Tipperary that are ready to be killed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): They have been sold.
The Deputy should stick to writing poetry. At least he got some publicity from that.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I did much better than the Deputy is doing now.
I would rather write better poetry than the Deputy.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Davern did not read it.
I am glad the Deputy did not hold copyright for it. It might have cost him money to register it.
The killing period is here but what is the Minister doing for the farmers of south Tipperary? What is he doing for the workers in beef plants in south Tipperary?
They can bring in beef from other counties to be slaughtered.
Are we supposed to put on a rodeo show with our animals? There is no incidence of BSE in my county but the Department sold us down the line and I am angry about that. Down the years the county council in the area, manufacturers and producers built up a name of good quality product, of which we were proud, but as a result of an arbitrary decision it has been wiped out. That is absolutely disgraceful. Since Tipperary is ninth on the list, Cork is seventh and Wexford is fifth, how was the decision made?
It was based on the number of cases of BSE rather than per head of population.
With 640,000 animals in County Tipperary there were only four cases of BSE whereas Wexford with 279,000 animals also had four cases.
There were eight cases in total in Tipperary whereas there were five in Wexford.
The decision was based on this year's figures. What will the Minister do about the allegation that somebody deliberately introduced BSE into a herd?
That matter is with the Garda.
The investigation should take place as soon as possible to ensure that whoever carried out that treacherous act, wherever he came from, is thoroughly investigated.
It would be very interesting to know where he is living now.
Yes, and where he came from. Previous allegations of fraud should also be investigated and the person concerned should be crucified publicly in the courts because he is a traitor. He carried out a treacherous act which affects not only his county of adoption but the whole country.
We have encouraged people to eat Tipperary beef, but the Minister has sold us out in every regard. It is unacceptable to say that Tipperary farmers can sell to the Russian market bullocks bought in from Limerick, Kilkenny and other places which do not comply with the Abattoirs Act but they cannot sell their own cattle. Why were they blacklisted? I am angry, bitter and very disappointed about that.
I have no doubt there was political intervention in terms of Wexford's exclusion. Since Tipperary is ninth on the list of counties with BSE and Cork, the biggest county in Ireland, is seventh, why were those two counties excluded? I hope the Minister will explain why he did not sit with the Russians in the final negotiations. As an earlier speaker said, he would not have been affected by the gun smoke because it was too far away.
On 30 May last in a debate here on the beef industry the Minister, who had returned from Russia, stated: "I have just returned from an extremely successful visit to Russia where I have been promoting the quality and safety of Irish beef and beef products". Five months later, I am sure everybody agrees that the visit was not as successful as the Minister first thought. He came into the House last week and implied that he was placed under enormous pressure. He said that the gun was put to his head and that final agreement was not reached until the plane was about to leave. Having listened to his replies at Question Time yesterday it is obvious he did not get involved in the discussions to the extent he should have.
Shortly after his return from Russia last May the Minister indicated, as widely reported in the media, that a new £20 million promotion involving the introduction of fantastic measures would be launched to restore consumer confidence in beef. We are almost in November and there is still no sign he will deliver on this great promise. All we have had is a mickey mouse £500,000 promotion on the home front by An Bord Bia, all of which has gone straight into the pockets of the newspaper barons without an extra pound of beef being sold on the home market. The Minister has become known as "promising Ivan" as a consequence. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, gave no indication this money will be spent. There is a crisis of confidence in the beef industry and the problem must be tackled in a serious fashion.
There has been much talk this week about a new quality assurance programme to ensure traceability in the beef industry. The Minister has promised to introduce such a programme since his return from St. Petersburg last May. In agricultural circles as well as in his own Department the Minister has become known as "banana skin Yates", he is sliding from one catastrophe to another. He has suspended all of the farm investment schemes and failed to deliver on his promises to sheep and tillage farmers. Not to put a tooth in it, despite the fact that he has four full time PR officers working on his behalf, no one can believe a word he says. That is unfortunate. On assuming office he went to great lengths to point out that he would resolve all of the ills of the farming community but his performance has been disappointing.
Confidence in the beef industry must be restored and the consumer reassured on the safety and quality of the product. Progress will only be made if every member of the Government understands the problem and is prepared to do his or her best to assist. Given the reaction of the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, and the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, the future looks bleak. While the Tánaiste is available to fly to any corner of the globe for a photo opportunity, he is not prepared to bat on behalf of the beef industry.
The Minister for Social Welfare has never shown a great understanding or appreciation of the agriculture industry. While he changed many of his policies to secure a seat at the Cabinet table, he remains baised against farmers. While I would not expect the Taoiseach who has a difficult job to do to dress down the Minister for Social Welfare in public, he should take him aside and make him aware of his responsibilities not just to the small percentage of the electorate he represents but to the country at large.
I thank my colleagues, Deputies Power and Davern, for sharing their time with me. I understand the anger of Deputy Davern who represents the constituency of Tipperary South. As someone who hails from the west, I have some understanding of the farming sector.
For the past few weeks a colour photograph of a young, smiling farmer from Borrisokane, County Tipperary has been hanging over the meat counter in my local supermarket. This was a novel way of reassuring customers about the origin of the beef on sale. Thanks to the recent actions of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Yates, that smile is fading rapidly and the effectiveness of this marketing campaign has been destroyed.
The acceptance by the Minister of a partial ban on the export of beef to Russia opens up a Pandora's box of difficulties and complexities. It is shortsighted and shows a complete and reckless disregard for the consequences of such a concession. This decision brings into question whether the Minister legitimately represents the interests of this country and whether he is fit to negotiate on its behalf. It brings into question whether he can any longer realistically and credibly function as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. It is not overly dramatic or in pursuit of narrow partisan political interests to state that he has betrayed the country.
It tends to be forgotten that there is still a perception in the minds of people, if not the Governments of other countries, that Ireland and Britain are linked politically and economically. The acceptance of the ban by the Minister may be seen therefore in a populist sense as an admission that Ireland is rife with BSE, a problem which has led to a virtual blanket ban on British beef. We are in serious danger of being tarred with the same brush. The partial ban in Russia may well be the slippery slope to a succession of bans on Irish beef. Following this debacle surely other countries will adopt more stringent criteria and have second thoughts about our livestock exports.
In this context it is remarkable that, despite three requests from the IFA, the Tánaiste, Deputy Spring, has refused to travel to Iran, a country with which we are seeking to reopen export markets, to represent the interests of the industry. This sits uneasily with statements by the Minister that there will not be concessions to Iran and Libya. How long will it be before the actions of the Government provoke a response from those countries and further markets for Irish exports are lost?
The Minister's decision to follow the French policy of regionalisation is both irresponsible and reckless. By regionalising the market at home to save the Russian market which is worth £300 million he has put exports to so many other markets at risk. Irish consumers were beginning to recover their confidence in the beef sector but this growing confidence has been shattered by the Minister's ill judged decision at the eleventh hour. By accepting this deal he has effectively proposed a vote of no confidence in Irish beef.
Consumers are now forced to ask questions which until now they believed did not need to be asked. Immediate answers to the following questions are required from the Minister. Did the Russians provide evidence to support their refusal to accept Irish beef from certain counties? Did the Minister provide evidence to the contrary? From what countries does Ireland export beef to Russia and from what counties does the beef in the local butcher shop come? Why should the Irish consumer eat beef from counties which have selectively been banned by the Russians?
In accepting this crude deal the Minister has shown scant regard for the sensitivities of the consumer and does not seem to understand market forces. Markets are volatile and often work on a perception of success and a climate of confidence. Once that is shattered there can be a domino effect. Free floating fears and apprehensions as to the quality of Irish beef could lead to a virtual collapse of the industry on pure speculation, hearsay and rumour without any firm evidence to demonstrate that something is amiss. A partial success in the Russian market, a shabby deal will do nothing to save Irish beef from a possible universal blackball.
The Government cares little about the beef industry. When in Government in 1987 the Fianna Fáil Party established an Office of Food. The Department should be renamed the Department of Food, Agriculture and Forestry. Unless this problem is addressed and untangled immediately by the Government one of the central mainstays of the economy is in jeopardy. The Minister has sold the beef industry down the river for a fistful of roubles. In doing so he has done untold damage to the green island image which has been nurtured during the years. It will take much effort to restore this image as a producer of pure, wholesome and healthy food.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Upton and Browne.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on an industry which is of fundamental importance to the economy and my country in particular, the premier beef producing county in the country. As an agriculturist by profession and agriculture consultant for almost a decade, I possess much more knowledge than Deputy Quill. I am proud to chair a Labour Party sub-committee on agricultural policy and rural development.
As a member of the sub-committee on EU legislation of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs I recall discussing in detail the agricultural aspects of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the implications arising for Ireland. Because of the importance of beef to Ireland's economy and the dependence of the beef industry on exports, particularly exports to non-EU countries, the problems arising from the agreement were magnified for Ireland. Beef is more than 11 times more important to Ireland's economy than to the overall EU economy. Only 12 per cent of Irish beef production is consumed in Ireland which means that almost nine out of every ten animals produced are exported. Exporting countries like ours are most vulnerable to market over-supplies.
Ireland has a particularly high dependence on beef exports to non-EU countries. While this country accounts for less than 7 per cent of total EU beef production, we account for almost one quarter of EU beef exports and are the largest net exporter of beef in the EU to third country markets. I make these factual observations to indicate that we all knew the combination of the reformation of the CAP and the new GATT would impact on beef prices, and the new subsidy regime for each male animal was put in place to compensate for this reduction. Likewise, area aid was introduced for cereal growers.
I intend to be constructive in my contribution. Ranting and raving might sound good but it achieves nothing in our efforts to help an industry worth approximately £2 billion. The Labour Party believes it is imperative that we adopt an approach that is in the national interest.
The calamitous announcement by the British health Secretary, Stephen Dorrell, on 20 March triggered the greatest crisis ever related to consumer confidence in beef worldwide. There has been a sustained effort, in addition to the necessary allocation of resources, to ensure that its effects on beef farms and our vital exports are minimised.
The introduction of limited regionalisation is regretted and we hoped there would have been some other way of resolving the problems. The exclusion of three counties from trade after 1 November leaves the industry open to the threat of similar type action from other market buyers. This is a serious problem and we must not lose sight of the fact that Russia takes more than half the steers we sell into third countries. There is no scientific justification for what the Russians have done, and the quantification of the numerical occurrences of BSE in those counties indicate that the restriction is equally unjustified, but the fact remains that the Russians decided to exclude them. What was the option facing the Minister? He had to ensure a major market like Russia remained open.
Before we engage in criticism and the unhelpful rhetoric we have heard from some of the farming organisations, let us examine this deal in a businesslike fashion. What would be the position today for all our beef producers if we lost the entire Russian contract for 300,000 head of cattle? It would be disastrous and would result in the safety net intervention network coming into play. Farmers would receive at most 77p or 78p per pound, a loss of up to 5p per pound for beef.
Securing the Russian market was critical to ensuring prices did not fall. While it is deplorable and unsatisfactory that Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan were excluded the Minister did his best in difficult circumstances. I hope the promised review will take place sooner than three months and that the Minister will travel to Russia immediately to seek to have the ban lifted. We must not forget that the Minister had a choice: to continue selling £0.5 billion worth of beef or lose the entire market. Engaging in doomsday predictions or behaving ostrich-like in relation to the problem will not serve the interests of the industry in the medium to long-term.
Last year we exported 580,000 tonnes of beef of which 430,000 tonnes was sold on the commercial market and 150,000 tonnes out of intervention storage. To date in 1996 we have exported 460,000 tonnes of beef which indicates we are successful in finding markets for this important product. This week I learned from farming contacts and from farmers at the mart in Mullingar that prices are steady and improving. My advice to farmers is to continue to dispose of cattle as they become fat.
I want to put forward some proposals which would help to confirm the credibility of our agricultural industry and the health status of our beef. I note the Russian contract insists that age and labelling requirements be adhered to. What are those requirements and how will they be satisfied? We must put in place immediately an independent quality assurance scheme. Employees in factories work to ISO 9000 standards and strive to maintain those standards. We must have a totally independent authority which would put a stamp of quality on our beef. Such an authority was called for recently by the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners Association. It recommended the establishment of a strategic forum on beef quality involving the Ministers for Health, Agriculture, Food and Forestry and Foreign Affairs. The forum would devise an independent quality assurance scheme similar to the ISO 9000 quality standard and would include consumers, health experts, beef processors, beef exporters, veterinary specialists, meat inspectors and beef farmers. The establishment of such a forum is the way forward.
The possibility of establishing an independent food agency which would deal with all aspects of food production and processing should also be explored. It would deal also with the issue of traceability. It should be possible to implement a system of tracing which would monitor the movement of the animal from the originating farm until it reaches the processing stage and eventually the consumer. The consumer must be assured that our beef is of the highest quality. The consumer is king and that is how it should be.
There must be no equivocation about people who tarnish our industry by the use of illegal substances as their use has severely damaged the industry and the full rigours of the law must be applied. If the law in this area needs strengthening, amendments should be immediately brought forward. The public is not prepared to tolerate the use of hormones or growth promoters and, as the consumer is the central player in the food chain, we must act accordingly.
We have legislation which is not being implemented countrywide. We must ensure that meat destined for the domestic market is slaughtered under the appropriate veterinary supervision throughout the country and not just in local authority areas where the Abattoirs Act has been fully implemented. It is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to provide the required resources to cash-strapped local authorities to ensure veterinary inspections are carried out. I call on the Department to provide the funds to allow local authorities comply with their statutory obligations under the Abattoirs Act or assume responsibility for those functions.
In 1989 the then Minister for Agriculture, Senator Michael O'Kennedy, introduced what was known as the slaughter policy. In 1990 a ban on meat and bonemeal was also introduced. These were positive measures in that it was vital to slaughter all animals in an infected herd and remove them from the food chain. Did that happen and what is the present position?
It is important that every ingredient in feed rations is clearly identified on the bag. Were rations formulated subsequent to the ban in 1990 which contained meat and bonemeal? Will the new controls be effective? It is incumbent on farmers and the industry to act responsibly in this regard. It would be opportune also to examine the proposal made recently by the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners Association to remove old culled cows from the food chain and give appropriate compensation including a subsidy for rendering. Those measures would be part of a profound confidence building strategy as opposed to cosmetic moves.
As a young agriculturalist in the late 1970s I warned farmers of the dangers of purchasing land when interest and inflation rates were volatile. My words have subsequently become a haunting reality for many farmers. I was involved in an advisory role as an agricultural consultant helping some of the farmers who found themselves in great difficulties at that time. I take this opportunity to caution farmers not to pay outlandish prices for land with milk quotas attached. The reason for that has been outlined by my former mentor, Professor Sheehy. This debate is necessary and rather than acting in a defensive way we should be proactive and produce a long-term strategy to deal with this crisis. There will be further problems when the new trade agreement comes in and when there is further reformation of the CAP. We should be ready to meet those challenges and not react from the back foot as we have done since 1973.
I agree with the remarks of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry about his officials when he expressed his fullest confidence in them and his admiration for their work. That is also my sentiment as I have known many of them professionally for many years.
The timing of this debate is of some significance, not because of the Russian ban, which is political or the efforts being made to embarrass the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry because of his difficulties. It is relevant and significant because of the paper published in the scientific journal Nature this morning. That was of great importance and we would be foolish to dismiss it. It is more convincing evidence that BSE can be transmitted to humans. While that case is not beyond question, the balance of probability is now loaded in that direction.
This paper indicates new, clear evidence that BSE is responsible for what has been discovered in recent cases, particularly the BSE found in younger people. That is a marked change from past experience. It also indicates considerable differences in the pathology of the disorder and that is also significant.
There are inevitable consequences arising out of that discovery. The first is that BSE is here to stay. It will be a problem at least for the short to medium term. Who knows if it will be a long-term problem? The beef industry must accept that reality and behave accordingly, as does the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. There is no purpose in continuing to talk down this problem. It is significant that there is a certain risk attached to the consumption of beef. We must assess that risk, put it in perspective and level with the public on it. We must see the risk in the general context of food consumption. A risk-free diet is not available. It would be nice if it was. Many foods contain contaminants in amounts which are quite toxic if consumed beyond a certain level. Those would be levels in excess of what normal people eat as part of a normal diet. That is the context in which we should see BSE. Bland, reassuring statements that beef is risk-free are unsustainable and we should desist from making them. I was fascinated by the tone of the statement from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry on the radio this morning which said they anticipated this discovery. They might have but it is news to us to hear that because the "spin" of their public relations was not in accord with such anticipation. Their reply was that there was no evidence.
I support Deputy Penrose's suggestion of the ISO 9000 concept being applied to the beef industry. We need an independent assessment of the risk and to conduct this debate in the language of science rather than that of political point scoring.
We also need to be aware of the enormous ignorance of this disorder. It is very early in the history of this disease. We do not know the incubation period for the disease; it may be five or 15 years. We do not understand how it is transmitted. These are important factors and will come into play as more knowledge becomes available. The Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, the Irish beef producers and the whole Irish economy needs to deal with those eventualities. We must treat the public as rational, sensible adults and not as nervous children who need fairy tale assurances. Life is not like that. It is full of risk.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to share my time with Deputy Kemmy.
Acting Chairman
Is that agreed? Agreed.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): Is ar scáth a chéile a mhaireann na daoine. Sin an seanfhocal. Is ar scáth na bhfeirmeoirí a mhaireann sinne go léir. Because of that, the treatment of this problem by the Opposition, certain people in the IFA leadership and the media is doing nothing to help this situation. It is unbelievable. The editorial of the Irish Independent of 16 October and the Sunday Independent of 20 October dealt with this in a serious way, analysing the problem sensibly. The editorial of The Sunday Tribune of 20 October has the headline “Bluff Turns to Blunder”. The writer of that article should not play poker or advise anyone on how to deal with that problem. I do not have time to quote from the article.
If this was a debating society in a university, the history lessons from Fianna Fáil would be a source of laughter from the audience. No doubt we will hear of 26 March, September and October. There has not yet been one sensible suggestion as to how one might force the Russians to take beef if they do not want to take it. The Russians are sensible and well versed in science. Their abbatoirs are top class. They decided not to take beef from certain counties. Shakespeare told us long ago: "There is nothing either good nor bad but thinking makes it so." If the Russians decide they do not want beef from three countries and they are prepared to close the whole market it is serious. It is nonsensical to suggest that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry should have had all the counties of Ireland rejected. What position would we be in now if we had no Russian market from 1 November? Some of the discussion has been crazy.
On the phrase "a gun to his head", if I said: "Most of the Opposition is talking through their hat", would there have to be a debate on whether they had hats on? Using a metaphorical phrase does not merit the time the Opposition has spent analysing this nonsense.
I have every sympathy for the three counties left out because I agree with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry that there is no scientific basis for banning them. The beef from those counties is as safe as the beef from the other 23 counties and anyone in those three counties who thinks otherwise is a fool. The same rules hold for the other counties but the issue was that the Russians would not buy beef from those three counties and were prepared to close the whole market.
We have heard nothing sensible from the Opposition on what should be done. If we had spent two days and three hours of private Members' time discussing what we could do about BSE and the danger to the beef industry we would have achieved something. Most of the debate has been a waste of time and political point-scoring. Despite the fact that some Opposition speakers said they would not score political points, they immediately attacked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. What would they have done in his position?
I thank Deputy Browne for sharing his time. I did not intend to intervene but, listening to the debate, it was more than flesh and blood could stand. This farce of the Skibbereen Eagle keeping an eye on the Czar of Russia has been mentioned and the debate reminds me of that.
It is like putting the large end of a telescope up to one's eye with the small end pointed at a distant country, making it a speck on the globe. This debate has been about magnifying one's own importance and minimising what one is looking at. The performance of the Fianna Fáil party, from leader down, has been shameful. The Fianna Fáil party and the IFA are using each other. The end result is tremendous damage to the beef industry, agriculture and the consumers. The consumers are not fools. The sooner we stop the nonsense in this House and deal with the situation the better. Lives will be lost if angel dust is abused and we do not adhere to the strictest regulations.
We cannot tell customers what they should and should not do. We cannot tell the Russian people they should buy from us if they have another idea in mind. They could be wrong, but in this case the consumer is right. As Deputy Browne said, to adopt a dog-in-the-manger attitude, as Fianna Fáil is doing, is wrong. The Minister had to compromise — that is what negotiating is about. It is better to get nine tenths than to get nothing. That was the option. There was nothing we could do. We had no discretion in the matter. The Minister did his best, and the sooner this debate is at an end, the better for all of us.
I thank the Chair for the opportunity to object again in the strongest terms to the agreement by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to ban three counties, Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan, from providing meat to Russia. The previous speaker said that the debate should be conducted on the basis of scientific considerations. However, I asked the Minister on two occasions the scientific basis on which he selected those three counties and he was unable to answer. Such selection was unfair when there is no scientific evidence. Three counties have been victimised but ten others have a higher incidence of BSE than Country Monaghan. Five counties, Cavan, Monaghan, Mayo, Offaly and Wexford have had no outbreak between 1990 and 1996.
I represent an area which is involved in intensive agriculture, producing poultry, pigs and cattle. Cattle is produced intensively and Monaghan has maintained high standards of hygiene and husbandry. Now it is being hammered by this ban. Containers of poultry products go out every day from my village to the major supermarket chains in Britain. My greatest fear is that this ban will mean that we are carrying a stigma, a tag on our shoulder, which will affect not just beef but poultry and pigs.
The question of traceability of animal movements was raised. I and others have been pressing for this for a considerable time. Many years ago I recommended to Department officials and to Ministers that a stock register system similar to that operating in Northern Ireland be initiated. At present traceability is poor in that a farmer in my area whose herd was tested last week could sell an animal in the west and there would no trace of that animal until another test was done in 12 months time. That is a serious failure which needs to be dealt with.
When TB was rampant in the Border region we had meetings with officials from the Department, with veterinary inspectors, etc. We were told at that time that within two years computerisation of information relating to all animals would be in place. Six years on we are still being told that this is on the way. I am convinced that there have been delaying tactics. According to what I heard at a meeting of a farm organisation recently, Deputy Joe Walsh brought in computerisation in Portlaoise when he was Minister but since then there has been a slackening off in the provision of money for this purpose.
Today a Fine Gael Deputy criticised me for saying on Tuesday that the Minister's action could haunt him. What the Minister did amounted to partitioning an area of our country that is already partitioned. The same Deputy's statements in support of the Minister could very well haunt him, because he was handed a script to read when he went out to RTE and he read it, which is a dangerous operation at any time. I am critical because in the past few months the Minister has presided not alone over the BSE scare but also over the demise of the pig industry. I was also concerned to read a headline in a newspaper to the effect that the incidence of salmonella is up owing to imports of foreign junk poultry.
The pig industry was never better thanks to the Minister's intervention.
The pig industry was never better in most of the country but not in Monaghan. Let me give the Minister of State an idea of the situation. Early this year a pig slaughtering and processing plant in Cavan closed down owing to trade disputes. In August another plant in my constituency was closed down overnight. North of a line from Dublin to Galway, there is no pig slaughtering.
Acting Chairman
We are discussing the BSE crisis, not the pig industry.
There are better prices in the North and producers are taking their pigs there.
My area produces half a million pigs per year, one third of the entire production of pigs. The Minister's record in our area is not good. The Minister's selection of three counties, including Monaghan, has damaged the reputation of a county that has been so careful in the context of disease. Monaghan poultry plants have the highest standard of hygiene and husbandry. That has been proved. What I contest is that we should be included in a ban which we do not deserve.
Much of the debate has centred around whether the BSE crisis is a technical or a political issue. Strong cases have been made in support of both arguments but the truth lies somewhere between them. There are technical aspects. We are not getting much information in that regard — it has to be dragged out. However, we know a certain amount about the political aspects. Considerable time has elapsed since the issue came into the public domain and little has been done by the Government. Most of those who look objectively at the problem have some sympathy for the Minister, Deputy Yates, and the choice that confronted him last week, wherever he was. However, the reason the Minister is the subject of criticism is that he was faced with the choice at the last minute. For several months he did little to ensure that he would not be put in such a position. That, more than anything else, is a damning indictment of the Minister and those charged with responsibility for the beef industry.
We have been slow to realise and accept that we must produce according to the wishes of the consumer and prevailing rules and regulations. We have been even slower to address the manner in which we might do that. There are costs involved for farmers. There are also costs involved in establishing a coherent policy. That clearly has not happened and it has undermined public confidence.
Everybody can understand the anger and frustration of the public representatives of the three counties affected. They are representing the real fear and anger in their constituencies. However, the fallout from the decision to exclude those counties extends far beyond their borders; it extends to the heart of Irish beef production and the good name of Irish beef in general.
There is a great deal of confusion about what constitutes a Protocolumn There are so many versions and counter versions it is difficult to know what we have and do not have. In that regard, I welcome the IFA's advertisement in the daily newspapers today. The IFA in taking a leadership position on this issue is far ahead of those charged with political responsibility. From the farmers' point of view that is welcome but it is worrying from the political point of view. Members of the House who have berated the IFA and Opposition Members for drawing attention to the crisis are mistaken. They must realise that the consequences of a policy of concealment or denial are more damaging in the long-term than facing up to the truth in the short-term. The difficulties the Minister will encounter later today are due to that fact.
In some respects this issue has more to do with truth and trust than with BSE and beef. That has implications for the Minister which he must face. It also has implications for the consumers' view of Irish beef and, in the long-term, for our ability to sell that product to consumers in this country and elsewhere.
Deputy Upton and others referred to an article which has drawn attention to a further possible link between BSE and CJD. Simultaneously, other Members have said that Opposition politicians and the IFA should not draw attention to it. Of course the article got publicity. It received front page coverage in most newspapers because it was published in a learned journal. There was a suggestion in one of the newspapers that since a health element was involved the Minister for Health, Deputy Noonan, ought to become involved. On the evidence of last week I strongly counsel against involving the Minister at any level.
It was interesting to hear Deputy Kemmy's contribution. It was the opposite of what his party colleague, Deputy Upton, had said. He obviously missed that contribution. The Deputies' points were so strongly at variance that it is difficult to account for their coming from the same party.
I welcomed the consensus approach urged by Labour Party backbenchers in today's newspapers. However, I must contrast that with the Tánaiste's reference to "your" product when talking about Irish beef. It is not "your" product, it is our product and it behoves the Tánaiste, the Taoiseach and everybody who has an interest in Irish agriculture and its exports and in the Irish economy and people to regard it as our product.
As we gradually get more evidence of the Government's inaction we have more reason to be critical of the Tánaiste's inaction. The balance within the Government has moved in favour of the left-wing parties and a strong anti-farmer bias was recently demonstrated by the Minister for Social Welfare, Prionsias De Rossa. It is also apparent in the actions of the Tánaiste. If he believes he suffered as a result of the beef tribunal and surrounding events he should not take it out on farmers and the beef industry. If he handled the beef tribunal badly it is his own fault.
There is much justified concern that the partial ban imposed by the Russians and accepted by the Minister and his Department will be reflected in other markets. While the Minister assures us that it will not happen, his assurances do not have the same strength they might have had a week ago. Neither he nor the Government has given the issue priority during our Presidency of the EU. It is not the only issue that has been neglected. If the Government had been a little less concerned with being good Europeans and a little more attentive to national issues it would have served us better. The Minister has committed himself to visiting Russia and Iran, but these urgently required visits are continually postponed.
In the middle of this crisis we are threatened with a revaluation of the Irish green pound which will cost farmers £60 million. Last weekend Mr. Robert Foster predicted that we face low beef prices for two years or longer. Unless production in the EU drops dramatically and consumption increases even more dramatically major problems face the beef industry over the short and medium term. These are the problems which must be addressed.
The singling out of three counties has rightly incensed farmers in those areas. The beef industry is structured so that steers tend to be moved at least twice and sometimes more frequently in their lifetimes. We have been told that animals from counties outside the three excluded counties which might be slaughtered in the nine plants in the excluded counties will be eligible for the Russian market. It is difficult to see how that can be done. Farmers are looking to the Minister and the Department for direction. They need to know what action they should take. Dr. Seamus Cross of Moorepark recently referred to the need for a major initiative to encourage young people into farming. The way things are at present it will be difficult to tell young people that they ought to consider it.
Deputy Leonard referred to the pig industry and the axing of dairy hygiene grants and alternative enterprise grants. There is a suggestion that the Government is considering imposing rates on farm buildings at a time when farmers are unable to contend with the difficulties already confronting them. The economy's dependence on its beef exports and the number of jobs involved in farming and in the meat plants is of such magnitude that the Government should take this crisis more seriously. It has let much time elapse during which little has been done.
Much of the damage of recent days as a result of the Russian contract could have been avoided had the issues been faced up to sooner. While the Minister may say that, metaphorically, a gun was put to his head, the reason was his inactivity and the failure of the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste to support him in ensuring these markets would continue to be open to the Irish product. The ban on the three counties is bad news for the counties concerned but the admission at Government level will have implications which will be difficult to deal with in the short, medium and long-term.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Crowley and Nealon.
I am sure that is satisfactory and agreed.
I thank the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Deenihan, on the magnificent work he did during his recent visit to Russia, on his successful efforts in convincing the Russian officials not to impose a blanket ban on our beef exports to that country and in persuading them to send a high level veterinary delegation to Ireland to find a solution to the problem. It is vitally important for our beef industry to ensure we have a premium type product to offer to our customers throughout the world. I compliment the Minister, Deputy Yates, and the Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan, on their strategy and wisdom in protecting the export market for Irish beef and defending the interests of the overall sector and helping it overcome the serious effects of the BSE crisis.
Listening to the hyped up hysteria of Opposition speakers during the past two weeks on the Adjournment, it is evident they are trying to gain short-lived kudos for their respective parties and showing no leadership in this serious crisis. I remind some of the Opposition speakers who are highly critical of the Minister that this was a legacy which the Minister, Deputy Yates, inherited on becoming the occupant of that high office. In the late 1980s and early 1990s when Fianna Fáil had the privilege of occupying the Agriculture, Food and Forestry ministry there were outbreaks of BSE and both Ministers involved did nothing to arrest the disease and nip it in the bud.
I made several representations during that time to the then Minister for Agriculture regarding a suspected outbreak in a herd in my constituency; I asked him to depopulate the herd but he sat idly by. A ban was imposed by the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. O'Kennedy, in 1989 on the importation of meat and bonemeal for bovine feed. If this had been a real ban rather than a cosmetic exercise the present crisis may never have occurred. One can only describe that ban as a mickey mouse one. During the Kennedy-Walsh era of 1989, 1990 and 1991 one week's work only was devoted to the outbreak of BSE.
The statement in the House of Commons on 20 March set off a sequence of events which has impacted on every aspect of our beef industry. Why did the previous Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry not treat this matter in a serious fashion rather than imposing a mickey mouse ban on the importation of meat and bonemeal in 1989? Why did the then Minister not take action to depopulate herds when outbreaks of BSE were notified to him in the late 1980s and early 1990s? No action was taken on that occasion by the Ministers concerned to arrest the serious outbreak of BSE. It is clear the Minister had only one option when the Russian veterinary team visited this country. There was a choice between signing or not signing the Protocol.
He did not sign.
Either decision would have consequences. It was a question of weighing the balance and making the right decision for the beef industry and that is what he did. Had the agreement with the Russian veterinary team not been signed, a complete ban on imports of Irish beef into Russia would have been automatically imposed. What would have been the outcome for the beef industry? Iran would have followed suit and banned the importation of all our beef, so also would Libya, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and all other outlets to which we are exporting. This is only a temporary ban and if there are no further outbreaks of BSE within the three counties the ban will be lifted automatically within three months.
I do not have to outline to Opposition Deputies the serious consequences which would have been created if this deal had not been concluded with Russia. We could have been cut off from our most important market to which we export almost 500,000 tonnes of beef per year. There is a surplus of 1 million tonnes in Europe, so there are plenty of competitors to seize that market. The only alternative would be the safety net of intervention and producer prices would fall by 5p to 10p per pound. What would be the reaction of the Opposition to that scenario? By signing the Protocol the Minister has protected our position on the Russian market and in the other 80 outlets throughout the world.
I appeal to Opposition Deputies to stop trying to score goals at the expense of our major export industry, the beef industry. I urge them to put the country before their political play acting and act as responsible Members.
Every statement that appears in the national press finds its way into the various embassies throughout the world. Not one logical proposal has come from either the Fianna Fáil spokesman on agriculture or the leader of Fianna Fáil or any of his backbench or frontbench members that would enable the Minister, once and for all, to wipe out the BSE disease which is the scourge of the beef trade throughout Europe.
I attended a mart in Bandon in my constituency on Monday last. Each farmer to whom I spoke was highly complimentary of the action the Minister was taking in trying to alleviate the serious problem of the continuing outbreaks of BSE. All agreed every effort should be made by everyone concerned, from public representatives to members of local government, the farming bodies and the farmers themselves to ensure this disease is wiped out.
A comprehensive package of over £70 million to assist farmers was paid out to them recently. It may not cover all the losses but it will go a long way towards relieving the difficulties posed by the outbreak of BSE. The only feeble suggestion offered by the Opposition was that we should threaten the Russians and seek to have their refunds cut. The EU would not agree to such a proposal. It would alleviate our customers and give an advantage to our competitors in the beef market. This is the time for a cool approach to this major crisis which hangs over the beef industry. Together we stand, divided we fall. I call on the Opposition parties to row in behind the Government and the Minister to ensure he is in a strong position to negotiate with the senior Russian veterinary advisers to remove the ban from the three counties concerned as quickly as possible, thereby ensuring that nothing will frustrate his efforts in having this decision accepted by the Russian Government as soon as possible.
I congratulate the IFA for having the wisdom to publish in the national newspapers a code of practice on quality assurance. This will help restore credibility to the beef industry. I also congratulate the ICMSA and the UFA for the way in which they have dealt with this serious issue.
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate which is of importance to everyone, particularly farmers. By keeping the issue in the headlines we have done more to harm the beef industry than was ever done by anyone, including the Russians, Libyans and Iranians. The message given to consumers is that beef is dangerous and they should not buy it. I specifically blame Fianna Fáil for keeping this issue in the headlines. We would be up in arms if the Russians, Iranians or Libyans did to us what we are doing to ourselves.
In 1990 the then Minister for Agriculture stated that meat and bonemeal should no longer be used. This was like saying to a four year old child that he could take sweets from the jar in front of him. The enforcement of this decision is long overdue but at least action is being taken. It is a tragedy that this was not done previously as it has cost farmers a substantial amount of money.
The Minister, Deputy Yates, has dealt with this matter head on. The end result of signing the Protocol does not matter to me but the reality is that if it had not been signed the Iranians, Libyans, Saudi Arabians and Russians would not have taken any more of our beef. One can imagine the consequences for the economy if we lost our export markets for beef and its impact on everyone, regardless of whether they live in a town, city or rural area.
If we are united and serious about this issue then we can make a major impact on those markets. However, we will not achieve this by fighting among ourselves and keeping the issue in the headlines. One would think that Ireland was the only country which exported beef. New Zealand, Australia and France also export beef and they are ready to move into our markets. If we do not do an effective job in an organised way the public and, in particular, farmers will pay a high price.
Regardless of which party we support or where we come from, we have a common interest in ensuring that beef exports to Russia are handled in the best possible way. We all know there was no scientific basis for this regional ban and that it was wrong, but it was the decision of the Russians, the consumers. The question which arises is whether the Minister, Deputy Yates, could have secured a better deal and retained the entire Russian contract without the imposition of these restraints. Fianna Fáil states, predictably, that it would have been possible to secure a better deal, but it is secure in the knowledge that this cannot be proven one way or the other. All the indications are that the Minister secured the best possible deal.
There have been many references to the great deal Fianna Fáil secured with North Africa. If I recall correctly, all Fianna Fáil Deputies came back from North Africa with were shoes full of sand. Having considered all the advice available to him, the Minister made the correct decision. He did not want to take this decision but it has now been accepted by farmers as the right one. As Deputy Sheehan correctly said, there has been a change in the mood among farmers. The Minister weighed up all the options and agreed this deal which is in the best interest of farmers and the nation as a whole. He has safeguarded the export of 120,000 tonnes of beef to Russia each year. This is equivalent to 350,000 cattle. If he had not secured this deal the position at marts today would be very different and Fianna Fáil would be shouting the opposite of what it is now shouting. The Minister has obviously made the correct decision.
This matter called for a low profile reaction — take what is on offer, get on with the job and ensure all the necessary stringent regulations are imposed to keep herds disease free. The row about the deal has done infinitely more damage to the beef industry than the ban. This row is being fed and fanned and kept in the world headlines by the Opposition. It is important to remember that it is consumers who make the final decision on whether our beef is bought.
The ban on the export of cattle from counties Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan was unfair and there was no scientific basis for it. This unpalatable deal was accepted by the Minister in the national interest and in the interest of farmers. Apart from the Opposition, this deal is now accepted by everyone as the best possible one. Fianna Fáil is engaging in opportunistic politics with this issue. While this is its function, this is no ordinary issue. The Opposition also has an obligation in so far as the beef industry is concerned and it should reconsider its actions which are creating major difficulties for the industry on an international level. I hope the ban will be temporary and I have every confidence that the Minister will renegotiate it in three months so that counties Tipperary, Cork and Monaghan are rightly restored.
I wish to share my time with Deputies Kirk and Keaveney.
That is satisfactory.
This is our third opportunity in recent weeks to debate the beef industry, during which the crisis has got worse.
A British programme last night broadcast something as fact when it was not a fact. This is frightening and does untold damage to consumer confidence and the marketplace. The price for beef has dropped. In January it was approximately 225p to 230p per kilo while now it is about 180p, which represents a significant drop for those involved. Despite that drop in income, headage payments due have not been paid.
Under Fianna Fáil, they were not paid until July.
Premium payments made last year in October have not been paid this year. This is a source of major problems because this is the time of year when many farmers have to pay bills accumulated for rented land and other commitments regarding procurement of fodder and feed for the winter. I appeal to the Minister to arrange those payments immediately. They are processed and await the pressing of the button of a computer. When I ring the local office in Sligo I am told the payments have been processed since last September and have not been paid. This is hard to explain.
We have heard a great deal about the importance of the Russian market. However, it is a volatile market for a number of reasons. The situation should have been resolved long before the Minister says a gun was put to his head. The veterinary personnel should have taken their instructions from the Minister. The Minister of State, Deputy Deenihan said yesterday this problem had arisen six weeks ago and he had to use influence to persuade a Deputy Prime Minister to continue the trade. That is when the first warning bell rang and something should have been done. Last week it was Hobson's choice as to whether it was a three county ban or a total ban and the Minister did not have a bargaining position.
We were in that position last week because we lost the Libyan and Iranian markets and a question mark hung over some of our other Middle Eastern markets. What was done by the Minister or the Department to try to get those markets reopened? Will the Minister outline the efforts he and his Department made regarding the reopening of the Libyan or the Iranian markets? They were two of our main third country markets. I gather he went to Libya on the understanding the Libyans would sign a contract but he returned and said they were not prepared and would do nothing until November. The day after the Minister left Libya they signed a contract for 50,000 head of cattle from Australia.
An Iranian veterinary delegation visited Ireland a couple of weeks ago. I hope the Protocol to be agreed with Iran will not exclude certain counties and we will be in a position to certify the health status of the cattle to fill contracts there. I know the Minister wishes this approach to be taken. It is important that the departmental veterinary people take the same attitude, and be prepared to certify the animals from herds which have had no contact with BSE. That is what is being proposed in another part of this island at the moment as a way of getting back into international trading. The Minister gave this his support in Belfast recently when he said he was prepared to support a traceability policy. In that context we need to deal with the use of illegal growth promoters. I am glad the courts have decided to take positive action on the issue, which affects consumer confidence. If someone in Iran, Russia or Ireland feels his health is under threat, he will not eat meat.
It is imperative that the Minister arrange subsidy payments due to farmers to help them weather the crisis. All the necessary processing has been done and claims have been with the Department for payment for the past two months. The Minister made a submission to Brussels regarding headage payments. In view of the present crisis, I ask him to withdraw that. If he does not, he will force 50 per cent of the population of the west of Ireland out of farming because these payments constitute their entire income. If the exclusions proposed regarding age etc. are implemented, they will suffer seriously.
I thank Deputy Ellis for giving me an opportunity to speak on this important topic. We are experiencing one of the worst crises ever in our largest industry. It is out of control and unfortunately the Minister is not exerting any positive response. He is merely reacting to the action of others, who are dictating the agenda as far as BSE and the future well-being of the beef industry is concerned. Capitulating to the Russians and allowing them to ban beef from three of our counties was a monumental error and has had a devastating impact on the perception of the beef industry. Like politics, marketing or selling is perception business.
We have tacitly admitted we have a BSE problem. We are saying to the Russians and our other valued customers that there is a BSE problem in our national herd. Eradicating that perception from the minds of customers will take a long time. The beef industry is low margin, capital intensive and is not well structured at primary production level. It is the largest industry within agriculture. It should have been restructured at primary production level, in addition to making the fundamental structural changes needed at the processing end. Because of the interdependence between farmers who produce calves, those who produce stores and those who produce finishers, there will be many casualties in the next six months. Is there light at the end of the tunnel for those who want to remain in the industry? What decisive action is being taken to resolve this crisis?
Members of the Opposition and the Minister have accepted the need for a quality assurance scheme for our beef. Figures of £9 million and £14 million have been mentioned as the cost for introducing such a scheme. There must be a traceability system and customers, Irish, Russian or Iranian, should be assured of the quality of our produce. We need a fully integrated computerised animal identity system. When will such a scheme be introduced? Do other parties around the Cabinet table not want funding provided for this urgent scheme? Last Sunday in our newspapers and on the radio we had a parade of typical Democratic Left prejudice when the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy De Rossa, trotted out plenty of anti-farmer bias. If a member of the Cabinet can publicly berate members of one of our industries in such a manner, what type of judgment does he bring to bear on decisions about our crisis-ridden beef industry? Is he prepared to row in behind the Minister's proposal to introduce a quality assurance scheme? I doubt it. Are members of the Labour Party prepared to support it? How soon does the Minister think he can introduce such a scheme? It is only one of the measures — but an important one — that must be introduced to restore confidence and stability in the beef industry.
A number of Government backbenchers berated spokespersons and backbenchers on this side of the House and claimed we had talked up this crisis. However, we have stumbled and staggered from one crisis to another and we have lost control. Our economy may be booming in particular sectors, such as services, but some people attribute the stagnant employment level in manufacturing to the difficulties in the beef industry. We cannot afford to lose our biggest industry, which exports an estimated 75 per cent or 80 per cent of its produce.
The Minister is on record as stating that he foresees the day when the numbers in full-time employment in the agricultural industry will steadily or dramatically decrease and that there will be approximately 60,000 full time farmers by the year 2006. That would be a significant decrease on current figures, but if this crisis is not resolved there will be an accelerated exit from our largest industry.
I want the Minister to introduce a quality assurance scheme so that consumers can be assured about the quality of Irish meat. Our customers abroad must know that we have the best beef in Europe. We have been sinned against in this débâcle. There are other sinners in the arena but because of the export oriented nature of the industry we have been taking the rap. We must confront the matter and resolve the crisis. Let us adopt a more proactive approach to the crisis.
I thank my colleagues for giving me an opportunity to express my condemnation of the Minister's decision to agree a ban on the export of beef to Russia from Counties Cork, Tipperary and Monaghan. His mishandling of the issue is admirable only in its consistency from 20 March. With the Irish Presidency has come a greater sense of helplessness in the agricultural domain. At the outset there was a call to open up third country markets, to restore consumer confidence and to set up a system of traceability. While the compensation in June was welcome, it was insufficient and did not go to those most in need. In July there were proposals to introduce culls, from which Britain opted out. We were encouraged to kill our calves, healthy young examples of prime Irish beef and part of the quality Irish grass-based breed that other countries envy. Those calves would go into intervention, discarded as relatively unimportant. Whatever about killing off the older members of the cattle herd and thereby reducing production and intervention levels, we should not take young calves out of the system when farmers rely on them for premia and jobs.
Funding from a 7 per cent reduction in the area aid scheme is also unacceptable. Why rob Peter to pay Paul? How can we ask for increased production while taking away our source of support? That is a dangerous precedent. What has been done about a traceability system? Is operation matador on or off? As a Border Deputy I see both scenarios.
What assistance has the Department of Justice provided to make our units mobile? What assistance has the Department of Health provided to outline the lack of conclusive scientific evidence to link CJD and BSE or to promote our healthy product? What assistance has the Department of Enterprise and Employment provided to secure the jobs of the 9,000 PAYE workers in the meat sector? While people abroad considered the North and the South one country in terms of beef, they can no longer do so because of the three county border. That was a dangerous precedent to set. We will not have any recourse if other countries want to jump on the bandwagon and ban exports from other counties.
It is unacceptable that there has not been any real intervention from the Taoiseach or Tánaiste in this matter and there are only promises of a computer system. I want the Government to make political and diplomatic representations at the highest level and to introduce a quality assurance scheme so that we can save thousands of jobs.
While we all realise this is a serious problem, if any of the parties in Opposition were in power we would be dealing with a crisis. They made it clear that had they been in power they would not have had negotiations with the Russians and would not have signed an agreement. In that case every Deputy would be in my situation; representing a county that had been excluded from exporting beef to Russia. Yet, every Opposition Deputy will now try to conclude that the logical decision was to turn away a contract for 100,000 tonnes of beef and see cattle prices drop by £50 a head. That is the Opposition's solution to the negotiations with the Russians.
Many Opposition contributions in the House today, including one by a Deputy from my own constituency, consisted of volume but no commonsense. There was hysteria but no logic, criticism but no solutions. The Opposition told butchers how sympathetic they were. They are bleeding the crisis for political gain but doing nothing for beef farmers.
The same scene occurred last week when we discussed the serious issue of hepatitis C. Once the Opposition thought they had an opportunity to get a political victim, the welfare of the victims of the scandal took second place.
In this case we should concentrate on three priorities. We should try to protect what we have of the Russian market as well as our other markets. In parallel we should try to get the ban on the three counties lifted and to get rid of BSE, although no one has concentrated on that in this House. From some of the contributions made in the House, one would think we did not have a problem and the disease was not in our herds. We boast that the incidence of BSE is not high but we have it, so we should take immediate measures to control it.
The Minister has taken firm and positive action in putting forward proposals to prevent BSE. If we do not control the outbreak of the disease we will not be talking about a ban on three counties but on every county, in addition to other markets following the Russian line. It is crucial to concentrate on that message not only here but in farming. People have sabotaged the industry through their own decisions. We must send out a signal to them that every step they take is detrimental to the industry.
I have already told the Minister, Deputy Yates, and the Russian Ambassador, that South Tipperary has a genuine grievance. There has been no case of BSE in the constituency yet as part of County Tipperary we are included in the ban. Efforts are being made in Moscow to try to get the ban on South Tipperary lifted immediately. It should be said in this House, as it has been said to the farming organisations, that this is a crisis we must approach in partnership for the benefit of the beef industry.
I regret I was not in the House for the entire debate this morning, although I was in the House and in the Seanad last week, as well as for Private Members' Business and Question Time. I regret, however, that it was not possible for me to be here all morning.
By any standards there has been a full and thorough debate on this issue and on the background and circumstances leading to the signing of this veterinary Protocol. I have given full, frank and detailed accounts of these events leading to the agreement on the Protocol. I stand over the version of events I have given to this House both in the statement I made last week and in the Private Members' Motion this week. They are accurate and true.
As I explained on many occasions on this visit the discussions were of a technical nature. I have laboured this point consistently and indeed the main criticism from the other side of the House was that there was not sufficient political intervention. I indicated that I met Mr. Avilov and his delegation during the visit. I did not take part in the technical discussions and I am quite adamant that I did not give, any indication to that effect. It has traditionally been the case that veterinary Protocols are discussed at the appropriate technical and official level and are signed by officials, usually at chief veterinary officer level. This has always been the case and there are numerous veterinary Protocols in my Department going back over a number of years which have been signed on this basis.
I also indicated to this House that I monitored the situation on a continuous basis and the officials consulted me each step along the way. The decision to sign the Protocol was taken by me in circumstances where I was fully convinced there was no alternative other than a total and immediate ban on Irish beef going to Russia.
Wrong.
Dr. Avilov and another member of his delegation signed the Protocol on the Russian side, while on the Irish side the Protocol was signed by the chief veterinary officer and the relevant Assistant Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. These officials signed as authorised officers and with my authority and agreement. The Russian officials were aware this was the case.
In his opening remarks on this issue last Thursday, Deputy Cowen indicated he was holding me politically responsible for this issue and I have accepted that political responsibility. I have not tried to hide behind officials who signed on the basis of authority vested in them. The two Deputies who have been most vocal on this issue have ministerial experience and surely know the procedures on issues like this.
Much has been made of the circumstances under which this Protocol was signed. The most important issue is that the Protocol was signed, as well as the content of that Protocol which allows the continued export of our beef to Russia. I took the right decision and I have accepted responsibility for it. I have defended it and will continue to do so.
There has been reference to a comment which I made on the "Politics Programme" last Saturday which was brought to my attention last evening. I accept that I made that comment which was one of many comments in many interviews. It is one comment in what has been a two week debate on the matter. If I have created a misleading impression I apologise for that. I regret also that in a comment in the House yesterday, I may have unwittingly mislead Deputies on this subject. I had simply forgotten that I had used the sentence. What I meant was that I effected the deal, agreed to it, took responsibility for it and authorised it.
The public and the agricultural sector are interested in the impact of the agreement. I monitored these discussions closely and nothing was agreed without my approval. The impact of this Protocol is that it will facilitate our continued presence in our largest third country outlet for beef; a market with vast potential. It prevents us from falling into safety net intervention or from becoming completely dependent on intervention. It prevents cattle prices from falling by 5p per pound.
Discussions have been held with the Russian authorities and with the meat trade about the implementation of this Protocol. The details are such that it can be done in a way which prevents disruption and avoids any necessity for a regionalised price. I have already indicated that this Protocol has not created a precedent, it has not caused any of our customers to come forward and seek a similar arrangement.
The complexity of the BSE issue has been manifested by the latest research findings which were published in Britain yesterday. While the findings are undoubtedly interesting and important, they are not entirely startling. Once the possibility of a link, however tenuous, between BSE and CJD had been raised it was factored into our control system. Therefore, no new additional control measures are necessary to deal with the consequences of this research.
Considerable research is taking place into BSE and related conditions. This is good but we have to recognise that the consequence of such research is that new information and findings will continue to come forward. I cannot emphasise enough the need to have water-tight controls in regard to BSE and I believe this to be the case. Neither can I emphasise enough the fact that we have to be prepared to provide assurances in a public health context and to deal with the genuinely held concerns of our third country customers.
The House will be aware of the concerns I have as regards problems caused by the use of meat and bonemeal in feed. To address these problems I have already introduced a series of additional controls dealing with both mammalian meat and bone meal and animal feeds containing such meal. The new arrangements which apply from 17 October last, provide for extended controls at various levels, including the manufacturing, retail and farm stages. At manufacturing level, a special licence is required for the manufacture of meat and bone meal as well as for the manufacture of feeding stuffs containing meat and bonemeal intended for feeding to non-ruminant animals or poultry.
There are also strict controls on the possession of meat and bone meal at feed manufacturing premises and mills producing feed for ruminants will not be permitted to have animal feed containing meat and bone meal on their premises except in packages for retail purposes. A licence is also required to purchase any such meat and bonemeal with the exception of packages of less than 5 kilogrammes which are intended for uses other than feeding to animals or poultry. Labelling requirements for such packages are to be introduced with effect from 1 January 1997. It will also be an offence to sell meat and bonemeal to any person who does not hold a licence unless it falls within the above exception.
Stricter controls have also been introduced at farm level. It is an offence to feed a ruminant animal any animal feed which is intended for non-ruminant animals or poultry. Farmers who have cattle or sheep will require a special licence to have on their land any meat and bonemeal or animal feed in which meat and bonemeal has been incorporated. I have also introduced strict rules on the storage and transport of meat and bonemeal products. Those who store or transport meat and bonemeal, or any animal feed containing meat and bonemeal have been put under strict obligation to ensure that these products do not contaminate any other product stored or transported. The granting of licences will be subject, in all cases, to requirements as regards the keeping of records which will enable the location and distribution of meat and bonemeal to be fully verified at all times. Conditions will also be attached to such licences to ensure proper controls on meat and bonemeal. Additional powers to enforce the terms of the Order have also been given to officials of the Department and gardaí.
I intend to make it an absolute priority that there will be strict compliance with the new controls. To this end, the special investigation unit of my Department will be expanded to oversee implementation.
I have also been considering how labelling requirements can provide better information to farmers and others and to remove any doubts about the position as regards the use of meat and bonemeal. The House will be aware that current labelling requirements provide that compound feedingstuffs may not be marketed unless the packaging, the container or the label show all the ingredients used in the feed in descending order by weight. Alternatively compounders have the option of declaring categories of ingredients. These requirements follow the provision of community legislation. In Ireland most compounders have exercised the option of declaring categories of ingredients.
Having carefully reflected on the position and in the BSE context, it is very desirable that additional information should be included on packages and containers which contain meat and bonemeal and-or feedingstuffs which include this product. In particular, I consider that such packages and containers should be clearly labelled to this effect and should also contain a notice that it must not be fed to ruminants. Accordingly, I propose to introduce legislation to require that, where appropriate, packages or containers must include declarations to the effect that they contain mammalian meat and bonemeal and that the feeding of that product to cattle, sheep and other ruminants is prohibited. The precise detail of the declaration to be included will be set out in a statutory instrument which I intend to adopt as soon as possible.
There have been more than enough recriminations about this matter, to little avail. It is time to move on. The same market which existed in Russia prior to signing the Protocol is still there. Our beef trade wants to supply that market and has carved out a dominant position for itself over the past two years. Are we to throw all that away? I have not heard any argument from the other side of the House which leads me to believe that I took anything other than the right decision.
I am happy to have an hour of questions and answers on this matter after Question Time. I wish to make a few comments on points my officials told me were made in today's debate. Work has been continuing intensively in my Department on the issue of an animal location file and traceability. I intend to have consultations with all interest groups and to put such a system in place as soon as possible. I have received a positive indication from the Department of Finance as to the receptiveness of such a proposal. The main problem is the logistics of putting the necessary computerised technology together, but that is well in hand.
I wish to make a political point. The difficulties concerning the trade in Russia and other areas arises from the increased incidence of BSE here. I note that when I defend myself by pointing out that reality Fianna Fáil, in particular, has accused me of hyping the disease. It is a matter of "tails I lose" and heads "that party wins" in that if I try to sweep the incidence of BSE under the carpet it will raise points about my complacency and state that Government inaction is responsible for the difficulty in the markets. Leaving aside the link between BSE and CJD, the truth is that if incidence of 16 cases last year had fallen, the high age profile had continued and cattle born after January 1990 when the ban was introduced on meat and bonemeal were not affected, we would not have any problems. I assure Deputies that I have no interest in hyping this issue or adding to the vulnerability of the beef market, but the number of cases of BSE is still a significant problem. I hope people will understand that is the problem.
I want to be unequivocal about the other matter. I wish to apologise if, for whatever reason, people genuinely feel I misled them.
It is not a matter of the Minister feeling he misled them, he did.
That is the reality.
The spin doctors have been at work.
If I did it——
There is no "if" about it. He did mislead them.
——I assure the House it was inadvertent.
Let the Minister finish.
The Deputy stuck to his story for a week and it was only during Question Time yesterday that we found out about this.
What does the Deputy know about agriculture?
I know the difference between truths and untruths.
This has been a very orderly debate. Deputy Sheehan and others had total order during their contributions and the Minister is entitled to nothing less.
I want to ensure that the truth is clear. Leading up to 12 October I was in continuing contact with the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of the Department in Moscow. They sought X number of counties and as we moved from Friday into Saturday that number was reduced.
My bottom line position over the phone——
As long as it was not Wexford.
Another phone call.
—— was that I sought to do the same as we had done with Iran, that I would go there and that we would not sign anything.
That is not what we were told.
They then said on the Saturday that was unacceptable and it was a matter of take it or leave it. I took the cold, calculated decision to accept it. I want to make it clear that in regard to whatever I said or however it has been interpreted that is the truth. I was in continuous telephone contact in regard to the situation. I was not in the VIP lounge and I never sought to pretend I was.
The Minister said he was there. It is all Deputy Crawford's fault.
If that was the impression given, I unreservedly apologise and I make no bones about that. It is time to move on.
Will the Minister give way?
I have been giving way for an hour.
Deputy Burke has 30 seconds of the remaining 60 seconds to make his intervention.
Will the Minister clarify that it is not an impression and that he said he was there? It is not the case that anybody on this or the other side of the House or elsewhere got an impression, the Minister said he was there.
The Minister misquoted himself on live radio.
I have not seen it on the record that I said I was there.
The Minister misquoted himself.
The Minister is digging a further hole.
What I meant is that if I said I did the deal, I meant I authorised it, effected it and I stand over it. If there was a common misconception about this or there is a feeling I misled people, I apologise and I have no problem about that.
There is no "if" about it.
Well done, Deputy Crawford, you swallowed the line.
(Interruptions.)
When a Member is making a disclaimer against an allegation made against him he should be heard with respect and understanding.
Can the Chair do something to improve the number of seats opposite because there is no room for the Labour Party.
The Deputy's side is very empty today. His party has been licking up to the Labour Party to try to get them back.
I take it the Minister has moved the adjournment of the debate.
Debate adjourned.