The objective of this motion is to ensure that timely and effective measures are taken so that Irish and foreign consumers can continue to consume with confidence healthy, quality, nutritious Irish beef, so that farming families all over Ireland can continue to make a living from producing it and so that our processing plants can continue to employ Irish people in processing Irish beef into an ever expanding range of safe, healthy food products. I invite the Government to say tonight that it agrees with these objectives, that it will provide the national resources that are required for timely and effective action and that it will press the European Union authorities to do likewise.
The European Union Agriculture Ministers, the heads of state and Government meeting in Nice last week and the beef management commit tee meeting today have only begun to scratch the surface of this problem. I deplore the fact that both the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development last week refused to answer a question I tabled, asking what proposals they would bring to the EU summit in Nice. I ask the Government now to accept the programme outlined in this motion and to treat the current crisis with the seriousness it deserves.
I regret to say that, as matters stand at the moment, the Government's ability to deal with the issues before us is seriously compromised by the many unanswered questions concerning the activities of the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. The Minister of State has serious questions to answer.
First, is he the Edmund O'Keeffe who, according to records in the Companies Office, purchased £1.4 million worth of animal feeding stuffs from Ballylough Milling Limited in 1999? Second, if he is that Edmund O'Keeffe, why did he purchase £1.4 million worth of feedstuffs if, as he claims, he has no connection with the running of his family's farming businesses? Third, what were these feedstuffs used for – were they fed to animals in the O'Keeffe family farm enterprises? Fourth, what kind of feedstuffs were they – did they contain meat and bonemeal? Fifth, why was payment for these foodstuffs still outstanding to the milling company at the end of the year?
If the Minister of State is the Edmund O'Keeffe who bought those feedstuffs, he must answer those questions tonight. If his answers are not satisfactory, he should resign. If he does not voluntarily resign, he should be dismissed. If he is the Edmund O'Keeffe who bought the feedstuffs, no conceivable answer that he can give will be satisfactory, since his position demands, for reasons that have been well ventilated in recent days, that he should have no connection whatever with any of the activities of his family farm enterprises.
The Labour Party has tabled an amendment calling for the suspension of the Minister of State. At this point, I do not think that is enough. However, I am disposed to accept the Labour Party amendment in the interests of having a united Opposition front and so that the Government can agree with the motion. The Minister of State in charge of food quality and safety, who is so compromised in all the ways that have recently emerged, is clearly a major obstacle to the kind of action which we now need our Government to undertake to deal with the grave issues that confront us.
The motion sets out the framework for the action which we believe is required. We must provide for immediate testing of all beef animals entering the food chain. This is so that we can identify, track and eliminate BSE. That testing must begin at the earliest possible moment, must continue for as along as is required and must be carried out as widely as is required.
I know there are arguments about the relative risk levels of different categories of cattle. It is believed that some categories of animal do not pose any risk. It is said, for example, that no case of BSE has ever been found in the categories of animals normally sold by Irish butchers to our consumers, which I think is true. The fresh beef consumed in this country is typically beef from young heifers, and no case of BSE has ever been found in such an animal. Equally, no case of BSE has ever been found in a steer. Prime Irish beef exported to other member states of the European Union and third countries is typically prime steer beef. It has been said to me, with justification, that the implication that a beef animal aged 32 months is somehow inferior to a beef animal aged 28 months gives consumers an inadequate picture of the facts.
I have no doubt that there are grounds for all those arguments and that, on the basis of what we know up to now about this affliction, it can be said that they are true and should be taken into account. We must be conscious, however, that we are dealing with a very important public health issue and with consumer perceptions. However much we might like that it were otherwise, education and information take much longer to form opinions than perceptions. That being the case, it is entirely reasonable to test all animals over 30 months of age.
It is worth pointing out that such testing has been carried out in Ireland in the past. One multiple store in 1996 applied the ENFER test to beef animals that went into the products it sold on its shelves. No disease was found in any of those animals. When the birth cohorts were tested, a small number of cows was detected. However, no beef animal that entered the food chain was found to have posed any risk, and none of the animals that were found to pose a risk had entered the food chain. That testing continued for a year. The enterprise in question, having found no trace of the disease during a year of testing, discontinued the tests.
My contention, however, is that even if we find that to be the situation, we should keep on testing. That is necessary from a prudential point of view and in restoring consumer confidence.
If, as I would expect, no indication of the disease is found in prime steer or heifer beef entering the food chain from Irish herds, we should ensure that fact is known. We should also ensure it is known that we are testing comprehensively. In that way we will be able to market prime Irish beef, tested and proven to be BSE free. That is the central, fundamental logic of applying testing at the earliest possible moment as widely as we possibly can and for as long as it seems to be required. It would be an expensive programme, as the Minister said recently on television, but it is one we must undertake as there is no shirking it.
We must eliminate all animals that may pose a risk. That is the logic of a testing for destruction scheme agreed by the EU Agriculture Ministers. It means we must have comprehensive testing. The testing for destruction scheme has a function in that anybody who has an animal that should enter the food chain must want, and be required, to have it tested. If there are any other animals about which there is doubt the destruction scheme will address that.
We must have comprehensive testing, but we should be clear that this will entail huge costs. These will take the form of reduced asset values, the reduction of herds and the reduction in overall output. That is where serious income losses to farmers will arise, where throughput and income losses will arise in the processing industry and where social and community problems will begin. No area of the country will be unaffected and in making provision for these schemes, we must recognise that fact. That is why there is an urgent need to define the system of compensation which will deal with these problems.
The motion identifies the need to secure the best possible valuation for animals for destruction under the EU scheme. I submit that the Minister has enough experience with the difficulties of valuations and enough goodwill in trying to resolve those problems to know what I mean when I say it would be extremely important to have a satisfactory level established for animals that go into the destruction scheme. The motion goes on to call for the immediate institution of a direct income support scheme for affected beef producers in the context of a common EU wide scheme which would aim especially at farmers who are wholly or mainly dependent on beef for their income. This will require the institution of a form of slaughter premium backdated to the emergence of this latest round of the problem. It will be needed to offset the dramatic reductions in income which now face beef producers all over the country.
I do not accept the dismissive approach of EU Commissioner Fischler, interviewed again on this issue a few days ago, when he says the EU does not have any money. The EU is faced with this problem in the same way as the member states. There must be a co-ordinated common response.
The compensation scheme will have to be underpinned by an effective EU-wide market intervention measure. Realistically we must expect a substantial reduction in the demand for beef in the EU. We have already seen the closure of certain third country markets. All of that is bound to affect beef sales. We need a substantial intervention measure to ensure that reasonable levels of activity can be maintained in the beef processing industry. It must be available throughout the EU on equitable terms to farmers in all member states. We cannot accept the kind of price differential that has up to now been a deplorable and common feature of EU intervention measures in the beef sector.
Once we have traced and eliminated the animals that may pose a risk we must dispose of the carcases. That means we must provide for incineration. We can no longer rely on the process we used up to now, that is, rendering and storing these carcases until we can export them to Germany for incineration. Storage is not a method of disposal; it merely postpones the problem.
Burial is not an acceptable method of disposal. Until recently it was regarded as being a less unacceptable means of dealing with the carcases of suspect animals than transporting them around the country, but too many questions surround it. Nor is it practical to propose a sealed burial for suspect animal carcases along the lines of the systems used in some other countries to bury nuclear waste – in the hope that it will have been forgotten by the time they pose a problem. That is not an option.
Since neither storage nor burial is acceptable we must inevitably opt for incineration and we must make provision for it ourselves, even if it is only because the facilities abroad, which currently incinerate our rendered carcases, will themselves have a huge problem to deal with. The argument against the incineration of carcases by environmentalists are theoretical, perfectionist nonsense. We are dealing with a problem we would not ever wish to have. Whether we could have foreseen it is not the issue. It is with us and it must be addressed.
Arguments against incineration are in the realm of fantasy; we must deal with the real problem in the real world. That will require a substantial public capital expenditure, a coherent policy to ensure that the right animals are targeted, trapped and destroyed and a clear sighted and determined policy on location. Environmental denial of this would be irresponsible.
We need as quickly as possible to be in a position where we can certify tested BSE free beef to home and export consumers. We must be able to track beef from the farms to the processors, retailers and the table. That will require the utmost co-operation from all involved in the chain and it will mean effective and transparent administration. It is the only approach which gives us any hope of being able to begin what will be a long and demanding process of restoring consumer confidence and making beef production again a healthy and profitable part of our food production sectors.
We must ensure that there is common and concerted action on these problems at EU level. The current problem has been magnified by the failure of other member states to take the kind of action we took in 1996. Irish beef producers are being unfairly penalised for deficiencies on the part of other member states. It is especially galling that one of the member states where the problem has now emerged as a major issue of confidence is France. We all remember the holier than thou attitude the French Administration took to Irish beef even in the wake of the very substantial and difficult measures we introduced in 1996.
I stress that the action taken must be common and concerted between the EU members states. They must tackle this problem together. Consumers can be protected only by common action. Consumer confidence will be regained only by common standards and farm families can be effectively helped only by common action. It is surely clear by now that non-participation by some other members states in the action taken in 1996 was disastrous.
I have already said that a differential effect of any intervention measure will not be acceptable in Ireland. Irish farmers who have supported difficult actions, which have been costly to them since 1996, will not now accept any less favourable treatment than that given to farmers in other member states.
When all these measures are put in place, as they must be, at the earliest possible moment, Bord Bia, with the co-operation of all players in the beef sector, must adopt an energetic and innovative approach to the market promotion of certified and tested BSE free Irish beef. That promotion must be backed by credible measures on farms and in beef processing plants. It must also be backed by Ministers and Ministers of State whose credibility on the issue is beyond any possible question.
