Vol. 530 No. 5
9 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the number of herds depopulated under the BSE eradication programme in 2000; the number in 2001 to date; the number of such valuation cases which were concluded in each period; the average time elapsed between depopulation decision and valuation, and between valuation and payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4104/01]
In 2000, there were 145 cases of BSE in 141 herds with four other cases confirmed in cohort animals. Some 127 of these herds were valued and agreed in 2000. In total, 129 herds were depopulated following confirmation of BSE during 2000.
Up to 8 February this year, there have been 24 cases of BSE. Of these, 18 cases have been valued and final agreement has been reached in 13 of these cases. The number of herds depopulated this year to date is eight.
A Department valuer normally makes contact with the herdowner shortly after positive confirmation of BSE with a view to valuation of the herd being carried out within two weeks of the date of positive confirmation of BSE. There is no fixed time frame laid down in legislation for the valuation to be agreed. The herdowner may need time to consider the initial valuation, or alternatively he may wish to avail of the appeals procedure.
The herd will normally be slaughtered within one week of the conclusion of the valuation process although this can vary having regard to the size of the herd and the capacity in the sole approved slaughtering plant. Payment normally issues within two weeks of receipt of the relevant documentation.
For a variety of reasons, a backlog of herds awaiting valuation had arisen but I am pleased that these have been dealt with. In recognition of the difficulties created for the herdowners by the delays in commencing valuations, my Department has arranged for interim payments of compensation and, in addition, is finalising arrangements for the granting of ex gratia payments to the herd owners involved.
I am glad the Minister has cleared the backlog. How many cases are currently awaiting attention? Has he appointed new valuers to the scheme? How is the interim payment determined?
All the backlog has now been dealt with in terms of the valuers having carried out valuations. In some cases the depopulation has yet to take place. I certainly regret that this delay occurred. The trauma of the breakdown is bad enough without having animals left on the farm. In dairy herds, as most of them were, the milk had to be spread throughout the farm, which was an additional awful ordeal. As a gesture I agreed to an interim payment and an ex gratia payment for the losses incurred. I hope that with the valuation system in place and properly structured such a problem will not again arise. I have also been informed that a contributing issue to the problem was the lack of rendering capacity. The one rendering plant, namely, Monery, became completely clogged and was unable to cope with the difficulties, but it is thankfully back in business.
Does the Minister think an independent valuer should be introduced sooner? From some cases in which I was involved it seems the Department valuer visited the farm while the herd owner got a person to carry out an evaluation on the animals, with the assessment of an independent person being accepted. Things could be speeded up if an independent assessor was introduced sooner in the process.
The process is fairly straightforward. Valuation is carried out by the Department's valuer. If the herdowner does not agree with the valuation there is an appeals procedure, with valuations from independent valuers, and an arbitrator. That process takes a number of weeks. It must be done in a professional way because while the herdowner is traumatised and seriously out of pocket, at least one herd owner is serving a jail sentence for infecting his herd. He would not have done this unless there was some benefit. Therefore, it is necessary for us to be extremely careful, as we are. I regret there was a backlog in recent weeks, but thankfully this has been cleared and I hope it will not recur.
Regarding the lack of rendering capacity, what progress has the Minister made to set up an incinerator for this material?
I am blamed for almost everything related to rendering and BSE. I am not responsible for rendering or incineration capacity. However, it impinges on the industry. A natural resource industry will produce animal waste which must be disposed of. Otherwise the industry must be closed. We were left with one processing plant – Monery – and when that buckled under the strain two plants applied for EPA licences, one in Waterford and one in Ballinasloe. Their applications are currently in train. Another plant in County Meath sought an extension of its low risk rendering capacity, and that has been commissioned. We are no longer able to export the problem because of the new regulations. In any event we must deal with the problem ourselves. The process for rendering capacity involves applying for planning permission and being granted an EPA licence. If we want a natural resource industry we must deal with the waste.
It was recommended in 1997 that a facility be set up as a matter of extreme urgency under the control of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development for the incineration of all BSE suspect carcases. What action was taken on foot of that recommendation?
The difficulty in addressing that recommendation, as with addressing many other aspects of rendering capacity, is that we do not have an incinerator. Up to autumn 2000 infected cattle were buried on the farm on which they were found, under controlled conditions. Because of a difficulty in Galway, those carcases could no longer be buried on farms and are now stored in various places around the country, which is quite unsatisfactory.
10 Ms O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development the total moneys allocated to his Department to fund the current BSE slaughter scheme; the length of time this scheme will continue; if he has plans to ensure that a market for beef will continue to exist following the withdrawal of this scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4237/01]
In accordance with Commission Regulation 2777/2000 establishing the purchase for destruction (PFD) scheme, the EU will fund 70% of the purchase price of animals entering the scheme. The cost of the remaining 30% of the purchase price, together with all related transport, storage, rendering and other costs connected with the disposal of the carcases under the scheme, must be borne by the national authorities. The regulation also states the PFD scheme shall apply until 30 June 2001. It is currently estimated that the cost to the Exchequer of financing the PFD scheme for the six month period involved will be in excess of £100 million, based on a throughput of 300,000 animals. Clearly the cost will be determined by the number of animals slaughtered under the scheme.
The destruction scheme is due to expire on 30 June 2001. However, the Commission has this week announced that it intends to replace the scheme with a special purchase scheme under which member states will have the option of either destroying beef or placing it in storage at their own expense. My Department is examining this suggestion which will be discussed at the Council of Ministers as part of the measures recently proposed by the Commission to deal with the surplus of beef within the EU market.
By its nature the destruction scheme is a temporary measure to support the market at a difficult time. My strategy is to ensure that the maximum quantity of beef is marketed commercially. With this in mind, several measures, including the effective implementation of the wide range of controls, the extension of the definition of SRM and the introduction of rapid BSE testing for all cattle over 30 months, have been taken to increase consumer protection and help to restore consumer confidence in beef in the EU, which is a prerequisite to market recov ery in the sector and the reopening of those third country markets which have imposed a ban on the import of beef from the EU.
Every effort is being and will continue to be made to convince our traditional import markets of the safety of Irish beef with a view to restoring normal trade in the least possible time.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Since this is a demand led scheme, is it possible that the cost to the Exchequer could be substantially in excess of £100 million? If, for example, blast freezing and storage of specified risk material are involved arising from the EU slaughter for destruct scheme, could it be substantially higher than that?
In relation to the proposals from the EU Commission for the special purchase scheme, would the Minister agree it is a bit rich of the EU Commission to expect the Irish taxpayer to foot the bill for intervention? I would favour the intervention mechanism even though it will mean an overhang in the market. Be that as it may, however, is it not a bit rich for the EU Commission to expect Irish taxpayers to foot the bill for storage of food which has proved, under tests at any rate, to be excellent, wholesome food? It expects us to foot the bill because EU member states failed to adhere to the rules and admit they had a problem?
Would the Minister agree that the problem originated due to an ostrich like syndrome adopted by other EU member states who failed to play the game properly? Are we too good as Europeans?
I agree with Deputy Penrose that the present problem is not of our making. Nothing has happened in Ireland and in the operation of the control systems which made any contribution whatsoever to the problem. The problem arose when member states in continental Europe, which officially had no BSE problem, suddenly found that they had a BSE problem. The worst of it is that we now contribute disproportionately to restoring balance and confidence in the market.
For example, in the destruct scheme, apart from France and ourselves, just a small amount in Spain, Italy and Germany say they will, though not yet. They are not contributing in any way to the restoration of balance. We now have a proposal for nationally funded intervention or renationalisation. That is a non-runner and I totally disagree with it.
The cost is somewhere over £100 million, though no one can say whether it is based on, say, 300,000 head of cattle. The likelihood is that it will be more than that. The contributory factors to the cost are increased as we do not have rendering capacity and the blast freezing and storing of waste material is at an inordinate cost.
I asked my Spanish colleague recently how he was dealing with his BSE problem. He said he was not getting much support from other Mini sters and that he was on his own. I asked him what he was doing with the meat and bone meal and he replied that there were plenty of furnaces in Spain, that it was a great energy source, that the cement industry use it and that it was a reduction in the cost of the overall matter. We are paying people to store waste material in Ireland when it is a good energy source. We cannot, however, get any part of any industry to use it. Many of those considerations will have to be taken into account to see what the overall cost will be but it will almost certainly be more than initially estimated.
Did the Minister do anything to ensure that the measures we adopted were also adopted throughout Europe? Why were they not adopted throughout Europe? Has the Minister had discussions with the Department of Finance regarding the money this will cost? What pressure is this putting on the CAP?
Is it right that we should ignore the 1997 proposal that this issue should have been dealt with then? It was inevitable that this would happen. Is the Minister aware that it is not animals over 30 months which constitute the problem at present? At least there is the culling scheme for that. There are, however, severe difficulties for farmers with younger cattle. Should we not examine the possibility of getting some of them into intervention at a reasonable price rather than feeding these animals to increase their weight thus making them even more difficult to handle?
We are having intensive and regular meetings with the Department of Finance to monitor the cost of the scheme to ensure it will not go completely out of control and also to seek to ensure that the destruct scheme is not the best show in town or that it would be institutionalised as we want to get back to commercial markets as soon as possible. I feel strongly that export refunds, for example, should be substantially increased to get back into third country markets. Anyone who read the editorial in the Irish Farmer's Journal today knows that things are picking up a little, particularly in France, which would be helpful to us.
In relation to the other countries – Germany, for example – they have decided to opt out and to dump their problem into other member states, including our own. It is bad enough for the Germans to do that but they could not do it without people in Ireland aiding and abetting by taking this cheap bull beef and processing it here.
In relation to the CAP limit, there is a Berlin limit in the CAP and we will shortly be seeking that.
