Joe Walsh
Question:8 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the steps, if any, he is taking to eliminate the special levy introduced by factories for the disposal of specified risk material. [8659/97]
Priority Questions. - Specified Risk Material Special Levy.
Helen Keogh
Question:13 Ms Keogh asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the action if any, he proposes to take to prevent meat factories from imposing levies on bovine animals and sheep in order to cover the costs of complying with regulations regarding specified risk material; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8398/97]
Tony Killeen
Question:19 Mr. Killeen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the action, if any, he has taken during the two weeks prior to 17 March 1997 to ensure that a service is available to farmers in County Clare at reasonable cost to remove dead animals from their farms; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8387/97]
Robert Molloy
Question:33 Mr. Molloy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has for the incineration of specified risk material of animal carcases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8404/97]
Liam Aylward
Question:43 Mr. Aylward asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will make a statement on the implications for farmers and the meat industry of the recent decision by the Cavan County Manager to require a company (details supplied) to make an application for planning permission for the collection and storage of specified risk material; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8412/97]
Gerard C. Connolly
Question:46 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the plans, if any, he has for the safe storage and disposal of specified risk material. [8420/97]
Brian Cowen
Question:50 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the, if any, he is taking to eliminate the special levy introduced by factories for the disposal of specified risk material. [8422/97]
Brian Cowen
Question:54 Mr. Cowen asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if he will publish the two reports prepared for Government on the disposal of slaughterhouse waste. [8421/97]
Mary Harney
Question:75 Miss Harney asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the action, if any, he proposes to take to ensure that the carcases of dead farm animals are disposed of safely in order not to pose any threat to the environment or to human health; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8397/97]
Dermot Ahern
Question:218 Mr. D. Ahern asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if his attention has been drawn to the extreme difficulties being experienced by the farming community in County Louth in relation to the disposal of carcases which in recent times has been made much more difficult due to the fact that a licence for disposal in the mid-Louth area has been revoked and that the only alternative is to bury the dead carcases which obviously is an extreme environmental hazard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [8508/97]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 8, 13, 19, 33, 43, 46, 50, 54, 75 and 218 together. Since the introduction of the Diseases of Animals (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy) (Specified Risk Material) Order 1977 on 21 February it is a requirement that specified livestock offal, which is mainly the skulls and spinal cords of cattle and sheep over one year old will be separately collected, treated, transported, processed in a dedicated rendering plant and disposed of outside the animal feed chain. The order, which is part of our BSE eradication plan, has implications for the livestock industry, including meat processors and additional costs arise as a result.
I have endeavoured to ensure the disposal costs at the dedicated rendering plant are kept at a minimum. Consequently I do not believe the disposal costs which are now being applied are such as to warrant the imposition of a special levy and, in any event, should be seen in the context of protecting the overall viability of a very valuable industry.
As the cattle and beef industry has experienced great difficulties this year and this problem is an additional cost, will the Minister consider reducing or seeking to have reduced the levy imposed by factories on the price of cattle which reduces the price of cattle to farmers? Will the Minister take some steps to ameliorate this problem?
The question of financial assistance and the £3 per head levy concerns me greatly. There was no choice but to put in place a specified risk material ban because we were not able to export. We introduced a ban on exports of meat and bonemeal unless SRM was taken out of it. It was essential for our beef industry, vis-á-vis the EU Commission and the SVC that this be done and we volunteered it as part of our eradication plan. This is a permanent sea change in the rendering industry. EU financial assistance is not available. We sought it, but it has been ruled out. We have a dedicated plant at Monery in County Cavan exclusively dealing with specified risk material. There have been teething problems in distribution and so on. My officials and I are working actively with the abattoirs, the knackeries and the beef industry to try to get a workable solution. Further to the progress we have made in these talks, I understand the cost of taking in specified risk material has been substantially reduced from £350 per tonne to a fraction of that figure. That makes this £3 levy no longer necessary. I appeal to the Irish meat industry to drop this levy. I see no justification for it and I believe the concessions we obtained in reducing the charges being imposed by Monery on the meat processors can justify waiving it.
What implications are there for the storage of specified risk material? The county manager in Cavan requires planning permission for its storage. Is the Minister concerned about the number of fallen animals which are left on farms because of the cost of disposal? Where is this material stored?
The rendered product from the specified material is being stored separately pending arrangements for its final disposal by the firm involved in the dedicated plant in County Cavan. No definitive decisions have yet been taken on disposal. I am aware that the Cavan county manager, as the local planning authority, has been in contact with the plant concerned. Additional costs will arise from the processing plants in regard to specified offal but I do not believe that these costs are such as to require the imposition of a special levy. In any case these costs have been seen in the context of the overall industry.
As regards the disposal of dead farm animals, the plant concerned is accepting animals at £30 per tonne for specified material. I have asked the plant to look at ways in which the transportation costs of delivering material can be reduced. I am prepared to look at further ideas as to how the efficiency of collection and disposal of fallen animals can be improved. Under the European Community regulations, knackeries are required to be licensed by my Department. No licences have been revoked by my Department in the Louth area.
Considerable consideration has been given to the question of disposing of animal waste. An interdepartmental committee which was set up by the Government last August examined all options. The committee forwarded an interim report to the Government in October and an updated report in December. Those reports were of assistance to the Government in determining its policy on the issue. However, it is not my intention to publish those reports and this matter is being kept under continuing review.
The Minister is correct in saying that the £350 per tonne imposed by the Cavan firm has been significantly reduced to £220 per tonne. However, the corresponding figure in the UK is £80 per tonne. Last month the Minister announced grants for renderers amounting to £6 million to enable them to deal with this problem. Can he make the payment of those grants conditional on the abolition of the levy? He said that he does not believe the levy is justified. If this is so can he withhold the payment of the grants to ensure that it is removed?
There are two issues involved. First is the specified risk material. Second is the EU directive whereby each member state, from 1 April, must heat treat all manufactured meat and bone meal to 133 degrees centigrade for 20 minutes at 3 bar pressure. None of Ireland's nine rendering plants can carry out this heat treatment and, therefore, they have to be modernised to bring them up to this standard. That will cost £12 million of which we are giving grant aid of £4.7 — £4.8 million.
The levy is being imposed by meat factories who buy cattle from farmers who are being charged £220 per tonne for SRM. It is not being charged by the renderers. The £220 per tonne is only being charged by Monery By-Products.
The renderers are owned by the factories e.g. Munster Proteins.
There is a common ownership of both and that is why we have been involved in discussions. The SRM only arises in one dedicated rendering plant. The Deputy has spoken of the £220 charged in Ireland as opposed to £80 in the UK. I will pursue this point. There are economies of scale. We might consider a second dedicated plant to introduce competition. These discussions are ongoing but there is a transition period while the new procedures come into effect. I am concerned about this and my objective is to ensure that no levy is imposed. Farmers are not prepared to slaughter their cattle if a levy is being charged. There is an interim market factor occurring in relation to the supply and delivery of cattle to meat processing plants. I will call on the Irish meat industry to remove this levy on the basis of the reduction in the SRM charge from £350 per tonne to £220 per tonne. This is a substantial reason to waive the levy.
Has the Minister any plans to grant a licence for a dedicated plant in the southern part of the country in view of substantial transport costs involved for people in that area? This would provide competition.
We have had an application from Cashel, County Tipperary, from a renderer who wishes to establish a dedicated plant. I am considering this application. The difficulty is that we produce approximately 100,000 tonnes of meat and bone meal every year which is rendered from offal. The SRM is only a small fraction of this produce. Therefore, it would not be adequate to sustain an entire dedicated plant. The question of capacity and economy of scale must be balanced against transport costs and competition. I will keep this under active review.
I wish to see the Monery plant up and running with an adequate throughput without imposing a levy so that the knackers can operate. This partly involves the introduction of a transport network. This is easier said than done but that is my focus of attention. All of these measures will have to be based on commercial criteria. We will do what we can to aid its development in the early stages. However, the fallout of these changes whereby meat and bone meal excludes specified offals is a permanent change arising from concerns about food safety. Every state will have to accept this.
Is the Minister aware that there are approximately 200,000 fallen animals every year? Heretofore the knackers yards or kennels took the animals from the farm. Many of the Minister's and my constituents want to know what will happen to these animals. Will they have to be transported to County Cavan? Are the beagles in the kennels going to be fed Pedigree Chum? Some farmers live 250 miles away from County Cavan. What about their position? In the past we have seen animals left on the roadside, on beaches and in rivers. Will the Minister's new proposals bring about a repetition of this, creating environmental and health hazards? Has he considered the fate of the 200,000 fallen animals?
I have been concerned about the knackeries. This is why we negotiated the £220 per tonne charged by Monery for ordinary skulls, spleen and SRM. This is only £30 per tonne in the case of the knackers. This is a non-commercial rate which, in effect, is being subsidised. We have met the Association of Animal Collectors but there is no representative body for the knackery industry. There are almost 100 knackeries. It is a disparate and unregulated group. We have received applications from 40 of these knackeries and they will have to be regulated.
They will have to be licensed and put on a proper footing. I foresee them having the throughput of scale to justify their putting a distribution network in place. I have many details on the different categories and so on.
I am not prepared to sanction a transport subsidy for these fallen animals — that would be a Pandora's box of endless liability for the Exchequer.
It is not permissible for farmers or anybody else to leave dead carcases lying around, it is a danger from an animal health point of view and illegal. Through local authorities we will come down very rigorously on people who throw dead animals in rivers and so on whenever we have evidence of that practice. As a former farmer I often dug holes and buried animals, a facility available to farmers if they do not wish to use the local knackery.
It appears the Minister has the happy knack of transferring blame to farmers at all times. I do not ever remember him, as he said, being a farmer. Perhaps it is opportune to reassure him that I am and that I and my family are dependent on farming for our livelihood. Like everybody else, I would much prefer not to have any mortality rate but this disease has presented an unfortunate hazard. Heretofore farmers had the option of having dead animals removed by kennels, a fantastic service, on the day they died. In present circumstances——
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We are now on Question Time and speeches are not in order.
We have had questions from as far away as Wicklow, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and I know you too were contacted.
Why has the Minister closed the door on these farmers without making provision for the 200,000 fallen animals? I am fully aware that they will have to dig holes and hire diggers at enormous cost but the Minister knows that animals will be dumped in ditches, roadsides and beaches and that responsibility lies fairly and squarely with him. He should refrain from ducking and dodging any more and instead do something which will help farmers in these circumstances. Has he any proposals to replace a system that had been working very well?
The system that had been working very well has been changed by Europe, we simply cannot continue——
Last time the Minister placed the blame on farmers, now it is the turn of the European Union; when over there he should have remained on his knees.
Obviously, Deputy Byrne does not want to hear the answer.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Deputy must cease interrupting. Deputy Byrne has been allowed a lot of latitude on this question and must allow the Minister to reply without interruption.
Deputy Byrne knows well that the answer will be an adequate response. First, we have a £1.7 billion beef industry. We could be faced with circumstances similar to those in another member state if Europe is not satisfied with our BSE eradication plan. We were banned from selling meat and bonemeal up to 25 February. The Deputy should think of the consequences of that——
——an environmental hazard.
The only way that could be changed was by the introduction of this specified risk material order — that is all a fact of life — that is what has changed.
The Minister is just not in control, it is as simple as that.
I happened to look at the small advertisements in yesterday's newspapers——
——looking for a job.
——and, under dead and fallen animals, I noticed that a number of knackeries are still advertising, saying one should contact a certain telephone number if one had dead or fallen animals. Obviously there are some people still in business. Perhaps there is not a future for the 100 or so knackeries nationwide. However, they must be properly licensed and those who invest in proper facilities, in for the long haul, will get licences——
Live horse and you will get grass.
——putting that industry on a proper footing. If Deputy Hugh Byrne is condoning this practice — simply because he blames me politically for dumping dead animals around the country——
I most certainly do not condone such practice.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We must have no further interruptions.
——that is reprehensible and irresponsible of him, he should be giving the clearest possible signal that that type of activity damages the good name of the many responsible farmers, who would never contemplate engaging in such practice.
Mr. H. Byrne rose.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
No, I will not call the Deputy again. I am calling Question No. 9 in the name of Deputy Joe Walsh.
A Leas Cheann Comhairle, I want to defend myself because my suggestion to the Minister was——
That is irresponsible and outrageous advice to farmers — to dump their animals at crossroads, throw them into ditches. I am shocked and disgusted at the Deputy's attitude.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister for misrepresentation.
I will be quite happy for the people of Wexford to pass judgment on Deputy Byrne and me in due course.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I am calling question No. 9.