Vol. 474 No. 4
12 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry his views on whether current measures in relation to weights for intervention are adequate to ensure the orderly disposal of the beef herd in the first quarter of 1997; and the steps, if any, Egypt is requesting to reopen the beef market to that country. [3211/97]
Since last March I have succeeded in securing flexible intervention arrangements with regard to weight limitations and eligible categories, despite reservations from the Commission and most member states. These were significant factors in underpinning market prices to date.
The Commission indicated quite clearly early last year that the higher weight limits would only apply for a limited period and that they would move to the 340 kg weight limit as quickly as possible. The Commission is accordingly progressively reducing the weights for intervention tenders in January, February and March from 380 kg to 360 kg. It had also intended excluding the 04 category. I succeeded in getting a derogation providing for the continued eligibility of the 04 category for this period. Intervention purchasing can therefore play a very significant role in underpinning cattle prices in the first quarter of 1997 as up to 50 per cent of steers will be eligible under these arrangements. In addition, the recovery in beef consumption in the EU should allow our exporters to regain some of the market share lost since the crisis.
Accordingly, the support measures in conjunction with improving commercial markets will allow for the continued orderly disposal of cattle.
As regards Egypt, the authorities there have suspended the importation of live cattle but beef has continued access to that market.
On weight limits, does the Minister agree that the effective reduction in the weight limits from 380 kg in January, 370 kg in February and 360 kg in March will exclude up to 40 per cent of eligible animals? Can beef producers look forward to the Minister reversing that decision?
I want to be clear about what happened in 1996 regarding this matter. The Commission made it clear around the middle of the year that one of the ways they would cut production was by cutting average carcase weights. Average carcase weights had gone up in the EU by about 10 per cent over the previous 9 to 10 years. They saw a fairly painless way to cut production was to slaughter cattle at lighter weights. They signalled this progressive timetable of weight reduction by the end of 1996.
I got a derogation so that there was virtually no reduction until January 1997. I then publicly spoke, as the Deputy may remember, about what I called "elephants" of cattle and that marketing for these cattle would be very difficult. I said people buying cattle into sheds should not consider heavy cattle for intervention. It is simply the age and weight at which the animal is slaughtered, which is at the farmer's discretion. As the months went by, the French and others made it clear to us that we were on our own. They had all washed these heavy cattle out of the system.
I made it abundantly clear to all concerned and I will continue to press the question of weights. The Deputy is right: with existing statistics, if there is no change in farmer patterns of slaughtering, up to 40 per cent may be excluded. That would be at 360 kg. The O4 category is a significant factor and it would be double if it was not for that.
There is a permanent shift in the intervention purchasing arrangements both because it is difficult to dispose of heavy carcases and weight needs to be shed without shedding numbers.
With regard to cutting off a number of markets in third countries, farmers logically look to the Minister to negotiate a better regime in relation to weight limits rather than more cutting or excluding a further 40 per cent of cattle. They were not impressed by the Minister reprimanding them for the production of elephantine cattle. Can the Minister say he will make a better effort——
Any effort.
——and show more aggression in supporting Irish farmers in their present dilemma?
I do not lack the political or diplomatic skills to secure a favourable outcome for farmers in Brussels, as they know. My record speaks for itself.
Not in Enniscorthy.
I take the Deputy's point that if the third country markets on which we are dependent deteriorate, we will become more dependent on intervention. We will use that argument. When the Deputy was in office there was a change in the weights at which lambs were slaughtered. Lambs were slaughtered at 60 kg live weight and now they are slaughtered at 35 to 40 kgs. The same shift has to take place with bovine animals. It is nothing to do with the negotiations. One might get a temporary derogation but the long-term shift is clear. I asked Teagasc, in their cattle advisory and breeding advice programmes, to factor this into the permanent change likely to occur in this regard.
This was a two-pronged question——
If we do not deal with the next question, it will not be dealt with.
The second part deals with Egypt and I will answer it.
Then let us be brief or we will disadvantage another Deputy.
Can the farming community and beef producers look forward to the reopening of the Egyptian market? Will they have more success with the Minister than they have had in Brussels?
A veterinary delegation from Egypt visited Ireland and was met by Government and industry interests and it has reported back on its visit. The Egyptian authorities are still considering that report. In so far as beef is concerned, while we are still working out the certification, they do not wish to take joints close to the spinal cord. We are in negotiation on certification and there are some problems in that regard.
When the ban on live exports was announced in early January I tried to dampen expectations of a quick reversal of it, with a focus on shortening the six month review period. The latest indications from Cairo are not as positive as I would like. While no decision has been taken I am more hopeful than confident or optimistic. I assure Deputies that the Tánaiste has been in contact with the Egyptian Foreign Minister. I am prepared to go to Cairo if that is appropriate. It seems that their chief veterinary officer, Dr. Moussa, is not disposed to a quick reversal of his earlier decision.
Is the Tánaiste the new Minister for Agriculture?
I have been in constant dialogue with my counterpart in Egypt, Dr. Wally. It was in response to representations that the Tánaiste became involved. The Deputy's party was critical of the Tánaiste's lack of involvement, yet now that he is involved Deputy Hugh Byrne is critical.
If the Minister was doing his job the Tánaiste would not have to be involved.
If there was no BSE he would not have to be involved.
