Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Feb 2001

Vol. 531 No. 2

EU Commission Beef Proposals: Statements.

I want to ensure that the Labour Party has ten minutes for its opening statement and five minutes for a further statement.

The time limits were agreed by the House this morning.

Why was the Labour Party's second speaker excluded?

The House decided that this morning.

I will bring that matter to the floor of the House next week.

The proposal was put to the House this morning.

There were five minutes available—

There is limited debate. The proposal was put to the House and the Chair has no choice.

Are there not five minutes available for our other spokesperson on food?

The Chairman is governed by the decision of the House on the Order of Business.

I want to inform the House of the Commission's proposals for the reform of the beef regime, and to deal with the foot and mouth disease issue. The proposals, and I emphasise that they are only proposals, were adopted by the Commission last week and will be discussed in the Agriculture Council for the first time on Monday 26 February. The background is the BSE crisis which erupted in a number of member states last November and has led to a substantial reduction in beef consumption within the Community and the loss of third country markets.

Before I comment on the proposals I will outline them in general terms. First, it is proposed that the special beef premium quota be converted into an individual producer quota subject to regional limits based on payments made in one of the years 1997 to 2000, whichever is the highest, plus 3%. National reserves etc. amounting to between 1% and 3% are to be set up. The Commission estimates that this will reduce the number of male animals qualifying for the SBP by 9% and will save – 178 million per year. The option currently available to member states to waive the 90 head limit is to be removed.

Second, on suckler cow premium, the 20% heifer facility is to be amended to require producers to submit heifers for at least 20% of their suckler cows quota. The option would be increased to 40%. It is also proposed that unused suckler premium rights be frozen in the period 2002-04.

Third, the stocking density limit for the suckler cow premium and the special beef premium is to be reduced from 2.0 lu/ha to 1.8 lu/ha. Fourth, the ceiling of 350,000 tonnes p.a. on sales into intervention is to be abolished for 2001 and 2002 in order to avoid recourse to safety net intervention.

The Commission intends to replace the purchase for destruction scheme with a special purchase scheme to run until the end of the year. The main difference between the new scheme and the old is that member states can store beef for eventual distribution as food aid, or free food to the poorer sections of the community, or to destroy the beef as under the purchase for destruction scheme. This proposal circumvents the ethical problems many member states have with destroying healthy beef. Whatever one thinks about the Commission's proposals, effective measures are needed at EU level to re-balance the beef market.

We are in the middle of an unprecedented crisis. There is major reduction in beef consumption in European markets. The Commission's estimate is that consumption has fallen by 30% since the beginning of the crisis last November and that consumption for 2001 as a whole will be down by 10-12% on last year's level. A large proportion of our third country markets have been lost temporarily. Given the dependence of the Irish beef industry on export markets, both within and outside the European Union, effective measures must be taken to restore balance in the market. Otherwise, the current market difficulties will continue indefinitely and Irish producers will suffer.

This is not to say we are prepared to accept the Commission's proposals as they are currently presented. I have difficulties because they do not include any effective supply control measure and, to the extent that such measures are proposed, they are targeted at the suckler herd. This would have a disproportionate impact on Ireland.

Individualisation of the special beef premium quota will not achieve much except additional bureaucracy and the introduction of impediments to inter-farm trade. The proposed reduction in the special beef premium quota is also unacceptable. I welcome the proposal to remove the intervention ceiling for 2001 and 2002. The scale of the problem means it will be necessary to purchase substantial quantities of beef for the next two years. The abolition of the ceiling is to prevent prices falling into the safety net. The proposed replacement by the PDS is welcome as it ensures an even spread of the burden. Only a few states implement it meaning it is less effective in removing the surplus. The burden is being borne by France and us. That it is unfair. The efforts of the Commission to involve all member states in the scheme are welcome.

I am alarmed at the proposal to exclude steers. I took this up with Commissioner Fischler. We would suffer more than any other State. The calf processing scheme was effective and ought to be reintroduced, although many States are opposed to it on ethical and animal welfare grounds. In addition, it is a mechanism to ensure that member states, where beef comes predominantly from the dairy herd, make a reasonable contribution to the supply control effort.

While the Commission's most recent proposals concentrate on eliminating the new beef surplus through supply control and intervention type measures, I emphasise that the best long-term solution is to restore consumer confidence in beef and secure the re-opening of those third country markets which have been closed.

While the Commission's most recent proposals concentrate on eliminating the new beef surplus through supply control and intervention type measures, I emphasise that the best long-term solution is to restore consumer confidence in beef and secure the re-opening of third country markets that have been closed. The measures taken at EU level in relation to the ban on meat and bonemeal, the extension of the SRM list and the introduction of rapid BSE testing are all designed to restore and achieve these objectives and allay consumer concerns. In addition, I have pressed the Commissioner for an increase in export refunds which would facilitate exports to third countries.

Measures are needed to rebalance the beef market, but I disagree with the measures that have been proposed and their form. The Commission's proposals are not fair or equitable between member states and I will seek to have the balance redressed in the negotiations that begin next Monday.

Foot and mouth disease – FMD – is on the minds of everybody involved with the agri-food sector today. The outbreak in the UK of FMD is of great concern. An outbreak of the disease in Ireland would have the potential to cause enormous economic damage to our agriculture and food processing sectors and would have far-reaching implications for our export markets. There has not been a case of FMD in Ireland since 1941. This has been due to the manner in which we responded to outbreaks elsewhere in Europe in the intervening years, most notably in the UK in 1981 and on a much more extensive scale in 1967. There is a clear understanding among all concerned with our agriculture and food processing sectors of the threat posed by FMD. I stress that if the disease spread to Ireland, the consequences would not be confined to these sectors alone, but would permeate the entire economy. We must remember that we only consume approximately 10% of what is produced. The enormity of the problem, if it occurred, should not be underestimated by anybody.

I am, therefore, determined that we should respond to the situation as effectively as in the past and that every necessary measure should be taken to prevent the spread of the disease from the UK to this country. While particular responsibility will be imposed on those involved in farming and the food sector, I stress that the full commitment and co-operation of the entire population will be necessary if we are to succeed in our efforts. This should be seen as nothing less than a national issue that has the potential to adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the well-being of everyone in the country. Our response must reflect the gravity of the situation.

Within hours of being notified of the FMD outbreak in the UK, my Department had moved swiftly to put in place the first wave of protective measures. First and foremost we introduced an immediate ban on the importation from the UK, including Northern Ireland, of cattle, sheep, pigs and goats and of meat, meat products, milk and milk products. I pay tribute to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform for the alacrity with which it approached this serious matter. It provided the wherewithal to do what was necessary at short notice. Arrangements were put into effect in Border areas last evening and they will be further consolidated today. Last evening, the EU Commission imposed a ban on the export from the UK, including Northern Ireland—

The Minister's time has concluded but perhaps the House will agree to give him another minute to finish his contribution. Is that agreed? Agreed.

My Department is currently drawing up guidelines for the public and retail outlets indicating what is necessary at present. My Department is maintaining extremely close contact with the relevant authorities in the North on an hourly basis. The chief veterinary officers in the North and the South are working closely and we are also in close contact with the authorities in London and Brussels as events unfold. We are watching matters very closely.

Investigations into the suspect vehicle are ongoing. They involve the farmer and the truck driver, but there is not yet an outcome. We are dealing with this matter in conjunction with the Garda Síochána and I hope the investigations will be concluded this evening. We are receiving full co-operation and commitment from everybody. If people or their families are going to the UK or elsewhere, I ask them to be extremely careful because this is a virulent organism that spreads extremely quickly. If we work together on this occasion, as we did in the past when confronted with a similar danger, there is every possibility that we can manage the situation as successfully as we did in the past.

I welcome this opportunity to contribute to this short debate on two hugely important issues for Irish farmers and consumers which will directly affect our export markets. Regarding the outbreak of foot and mouth disease, I appreciate the Minister's comments, but he did not provide all the information I would have liked – perhaps this was due to time constraints. Has the source in England been identified? It is crucial in dealing with foot and mouth disease to know the origin of the outbreak. If that is known, it can be ring-fenced by the veterinary service in so far as that is possible. Given that the Minister did not mention it, I assume the source has not yet been identified.

For a variety of reasons, some of them good, policing the Border is much more difficult than it was in the past. We must be concerned about the Border in so far as that is possible, but this is an all-Ireland problem, the issue is equally important for farmers in Northern Ireland and the South. The country has strengths and weaknesses in terms of health problems, but one of our great strengths in relation to foot and mouth disease is that Ireland is an island. We must react to this problem on an all-Ireland basis. Huge surveillance operations must be mounted at all our airports, large and small sea ports, fishing ports and ferry ports.

I am old enough to remember the 1967 outbreak in Britain. We managed to keep it out of the country then, but it caused many problems. Every fair and mart was closed and country markets were stopped. However, better techniques are available now. I regret the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had to leave – I appreciate he is on his way to Brussels – but I ask the Minister for Defence to convey to him that strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement must be brought into play now. If it means anything, this is the time to implement it. The North-South Ministerial Council dealing with food safety should come into effect now – I assume Ms Bríd Rodgers is as concerned about this matter as the Minister. Both Governments and the Northern Ireland Assembly should get together and work on Ireland's behalf.

Although we sincerely hope it will not happen, what contingency plans have been put in place if foot and mouth disease is found in Ireland? Ireland has enjoyed disease free status because of the absence of foot and mouth disease. It would cripple Ireland as a food exporting nation if we had to contend with foot and mouth disease in addition to BSE. This foot and mouth disease scare has come at an inopportune time for us.

I am glad Members have an opportunity to address this matter before the crucial BSE meeting next Monday in Brussels. Some of the proposals would make a bad situation much worse. I wish to refer to three issues in that regard. The first is that I do not understand why T-bone steak was banned in Ireland. I am flummoxed regarding the reason for that ban, given the control mechanisms that have been in place over the years. It sends out a terrible signal and it is not an image Ireland deserves.

The Minister should put up a strong fight next Monday to have that removed as it is highly unfair to us.

We made great play on it, at great cost to our tax payers, when we killed off all cohort animals in the BSE infected herds. Nobody else in Europe did that until recently. I understood that was extremely well received by the markets, the consumer organisations and, more importantly, by the veterinary council in Europe. Against that background I cannot see why we are being nailed on that issue on this occasion.

I did not think I would ever hear myself say it on the floor of Leinster House, but in order to re-balance the volume of beef that will exist in two year's time we have no alternative but to bring back the calf-processing scheme. I do not like it, I am sure the Minister does not like it and there are others who do not like it, but it is better than the destruct scheme for fine quality cattle. It was implemented in some European countries in recent years, when more than one million cattle were taken out. Had they not been culled we would now face a significant problem. We must watch what the volume of beef will be like in two year's time.

This proposal to mess around with the cow suckler quota is serious for Ireland. The extra 20% on the dry heifer end of the quota should not be let through on any account as we depend more on suckler cow quota than any other country per thousand head of farmers. Another thing worth mentioning is the question of the individualisation of the special beef premium. It is certainly a mechanism to ensure there will not be any expansion no matter what is done afterwards. If that succeeds God knows where it will finish.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should put the boot down next Monday. He has friends in the Council and there are other countries that have much the same problems we have. The Minister might say our head is in the lion's mouth because we depend heavily on EU financing of the destruct scheme and so on, but other countries have problems as well. A strong opposition stance must be taken on Monday on the issues about which I have spoken, many of which the Minister has identified. There are a few hugely important issues, for instance the suckler cow issue, the special beef premium and the calf processing scheme. If, at the end of the day we got a calf processing scheme on a community wide basis, everyone would share responsibility.

I hope at the end of all this the perception of beef in Europe will change just as it changed in the UK. Having been the cesspool of BSE for five or six years which saw thousands of cases of the disease, the UK is the only place in Europe which has experienced an increase in beef consumption. Whatever hope we have for our farmers it is that, if this terrible storm blows over, some of the hysterical remarks made about BSE will cease. Given another day or two, remarks made about foot and mouth disease will also be hysterical.

Ultimately, I hope consumers will believe in the health controls put in place. There is no place in which to see a better example of that than in the UK. There was no place in the world where there was such a detestation of beef. The people in their millions in the UK stopped eating beef and now they have returned to eating it. I hope, when this blows over that is what will happen in France, Germany, Italy and in many other countries. We cannot accept what will be on the table in Brussels next Monday.

I wish to share three minutes of my time with Dr. Upton.

I am glad for the opportunity to address these two important issues. We have already spoken about the beef proposals at our committee meeting. Because of the fundamental importance of livestock to the well-being of our multi-billion pound agriculture industry, it behoves us all to unite in a response to the foot and mouth outbreak in Britain and to support all measures introduced here to ensure that the national interest is protected by the implementation of strict and rigid controls.

I agree with Deputy Connaughton that it is critical that controls are implemented on an all-Ireland basis. We only consume about 10% of our animal produce so the importance of the export markets and the protection of the agricultural industry compels us to adopt a belt and braces approach to ensure it does not reach this island. We support the measures proposed.

However, there are a number of questions to be answered. The disease is a highly infectious and contagious viral disease which is spread over great distances with the movement of contaminated animals, products and objects, both animate and inanimate. If it reaches our shores it will represent a dreadful hammer-blow to our beleaguered industry. It is important that we should have contingency measures in place in relation to this disease, which spreads to all cloven-footed animals such as pigs, cattle, sheep and goats.

I do not expect the Minister to reply to these questions immediately, but what is the level and frequency of contact with the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the UK? Is there a structure in place to ensure that, as information becomes available, a speedy exchange of such information is possible? Has that been the case to date?

It is important to stress to everyone through the media, whether readers, viewers or listeners, the importance of people near affected areas and exclusion zones in Britain ensuring that they keep away from farms and to report it if they go to such farms. Casual visits to a farm can spread dis ease. Were one even to stand, looking over a fence, it is possible to inhale the virus which can stay in the nose for two days. That is why it is important to report casual visits to affected areas. The virus can survive for a long time and can be spread very easily.

Has there been any definitive identification of the source of the outbreak? Many farms in Britain are now being investigated in an effort to trace the source. It is critical that we discover the source. Prices in Britain are dropping by 20%-25%. It is clearly having a major impact throughout the European Union.

Have there been new cases? What is the position in relation to information for retailers of food products on our shelves – those that might have imported pork products in particular over the past week or ten days? Have they been requested to withdraw or examine those in light of information becoming available? That may be addressed in the guidelines but it is an important issue. My colleague, Deputy Upton, will refer further to it.

Many of the EU Commission proposals do not make any sense and both I and Deputy Brady addressed this matter in committee. Commissioner Fischler aims to try to support the beef destruction scheme until the end of the year and to stay within the Berlin limits. That is all he is doing.

The proposals fail to fundamentally reform the type of farming that takes place on the Continent. The Minister is correct in that this has a disproportionate impact upon us. Intensive-feed farming on the Continent gets away scot free. EU member states should be encouraged to move toward extensification such as that which has been in Ireland, the Scottish highlands and the Welsh valleys for a number of years now. Grass reared beef is not only less likely to harbour BSE but tends to have less fat and more nutrition than that intensively farmed. It is lunacy to attack the beef farming industry at a time when we should promote it.

The move to individualisation is spoken about everywhere we go, but in relation to the special beef premium it is a novel idea for male bovine animals. It is the antithesis of flexibility. If proposals were made here to take away the flexi-milk option, the Minister would have to use the personnel carrier trucks of the Army to get into Leinster House. This proposal is the equivalent of doing that to the beef farmers.

I come from an area where farmers have survived for four years and were just getting off their knees when this body blow descended upon them. They are now being hit with the threat of foot and mouth disease as well. I have not ever seen as sober a reaction among the farming community as I did in recent days.

I was disappointed Ireland did not vote against the ban on T-bone steaks. That was a mistake. The UK, Portugal the other countries received a derogation from this measure but Ireland, which since 1996 had applied the most strict and rigid independent control measures for BSE, did not. If every other country had applied such measures, we would not be in the current position. Other countries denied they had even one case of BSE, thinking that this disease stopped at borders. Their people were feeding meat and bonemeal to ruminants and were not removing specified risk material. We were doing all this good work and we are penalised disproportionately. I hope the message will be made clearly to Commissioner Fischler that there is no way we will accept a disproportionate imposition upon this country. Under the former Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, we did good work in 1990. We tightened up the measures in 1996 and now we have tightened them up further. Everybody else's measures are five years behind ours.

In the new destruction scheme, farmers have the option—

Deputy Penrose, there are three and a half minutes remaining in this slot.

We are being asked to pay 30% of that cost also. The people who did nothing want to load the whole problem on us, but on this occasion, we say "No". It is rare that we are unwilling to compromise but on this occasion I ask the Minister to take the matter to Commissioner Fischler and tell him that the culprits should pay.

Dr. Upton

I refer, first, to the ongoing BSE problems. I want to address the need for a serious and credible effort to eliminate BSE in Ireland. We should refer again to the purchase for destruction scheme. That scheme should be reconsidered in the light of older animals being culled. This has been mentioned a number of times and we have been given reasons it should not or cannot be done, but that should be revisited.

In the long-term there is no advantage to the Irish farmer, the food industry or the consumer in behaving in a blinkered fashion about the incidence of BSE, particularly regarding its occurrence in some Border counties. I want to address this matter from the point of view of eliminating the disease, not just dealing with its effects because to date that is what we have been doing much of the time.

The Minister mentioned measures regarding specified risk material, the temporary ban on meat and bonemeal and a testing programme. These measures will not ensure the elimination of BSE. The emphasis must be on the removal of the primary source, that is, the infected cattle and contaminated meat and bonemeal. I strongly urge that we forget about some of the cosmetic measures we have put in place, such as the ban on T-bone steaks, and about specified risk material. If we are to believe that meat and bonemeal was not fed to animals since 1996, animals under four years of age should not be affected. Why then are we banning T-bone steaks from animals younger than that age? Why are we banning SRM? Does it matter? The fact that SRM audits were carried out and people were found to be in breach of the law in that regard is a different matter which relates to the effectiveness of the monitoring system, but we must look at the cosmetic effect of banning T-bone steaks and at the fundamental method for removing the primary source. I refer to the need to address hot spots in the country where BSE is occurring and to ask the relevant questions about the continuing high incidence in those areas.

The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain is potentially very damaging for Ireland. To put the matter in prospective, the cost to the Exchequer is estimated to be in the order of £8 million in the UK.

Has the Minister considered the need to recall meat products from Irish retail outlets because the incubation period for foot and mouth disease is in the order of 14 days and, therefore, in a way we are playing catch-up? Products already infected could be on the shelves. I do not have the answer to that question but I would like it to be referred to the food safety authority, which might have a view on it.

In the event of foot and mouth disease infecting animals in Ireland, what contingency plans are in place to cope with the containment of the disease, the destruction of animals and the disposal of carcases? I sincerely hope Ireland is not affected but if it is a case that the disease is in Northern Ireland, the transmissibility is enormously effective. It can be carried approximately 100 miles by air and, therefore, we are dealing with a potentially very serious problem of containment.

I rarely intervene on agriculture matters, having had the privilege of spending five years in the Department of Agriculture, but I feel obliged to join in the common position being endorsed in the House. I intervene for a variety of reasons. I want to state beyond doubt that Irish beef is safest because from the start we were the only country to take effective action when even the Commission and the other member states of the European Union were reluctant to respond. For that reason I have been very much opposed to the slaughter for destruction scheme introduced here because it conveys all the wrong signals to the consumers abroad about Irish beef as well as other beef when ours is the safest and best for the simple reason that from day one we have always imposed the strictest and most reliable controls in the interests of the consumers of Europe and of the world.

For that reason, I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Department have, again, taken immediate and effective actions regarding the current outbreak of foot and mouth disease in England. That is what we did in 1989 when there was an outbreak of BSE in England. I want to tell not only the House but the nation and our customers abroad that every day after that event I received a report from the chief veterinary officer in the Department on whether there was any incident in Ireland. When, as I recall well, a case was reported as suspect in July 1989, action was taken immediately. When it was confirmed about a week later, I immediately went to Government insisting that we would, first, introduce an immediate slaughter policy with full compensation for every herd affected and, second, immediately ban the use of meat and bonemeal for ruminants in line with the best scientific knowledge available then.

As a third measure, we told the European Commission that we had found a case and that we wanted it to take note of the actions we were taking and to introduce a European regime. However, the Commission did not introduce a European regime – my colleagues on the Council of Ministers saw no need to do so because they saw they did not have a problem. I often wondered about that because ours was a natural grass-based industry and these other member states, which had intense feed lots and were using meat and bonemeal in 1989 and 1990, miraculously did not have a problem. Of course they have it now, but we were the ones who came out front at that stage. I appreciate, as the House will be aware, the actions were improved here in accordance with the state of scientific knowledge in 1996, but our record before Europe and the world must be relied upon now. The consumers are entitled to know that.

I also remember when the cost of this was considered. At Government the then Taoiseach asked me what the measures would cost and my immediate response was, "I do not have a clue but it will cost us a lot more if we do not do it", and we implemented those measures.

For that reason, I agree with Deputy Penrose, Deputy Connaughton and everybody who has spoken so far that we are entitled to say that we should not be subjected to a purchase for destruction scheme and we should not have considered that scheme. It is not appropriate for us. It gives the wrong signal to the markets. It was wrong of us to agree to the ban on T-bone steaks. That is nonsense. If others are obliged to do it, that is fair enough because it is about time they took the action which we took.

As you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will be aware, foot and mouth disease had a major impact on my county in 1941 to the extent, although I do not want to be frivolous, that it cost us an all-Ireland championship, but all of us did what was required of us then.

There will be a gathering of my parliamentary colleagues and some Members of this House in Killarney over the weekend and I have instructed the secretariat to make all my colleagues coming from Britain aware of the significance of this for us. I am sure they will all behave responsibly anyway but I have instructed that they make sure before they arrive at our shores that they report to the desk of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in case there is even the remotest risk that any one of them, who are coming here for a common purpose with us, have been in contact with foot and mouth disease. This is an opportunity to demonstrate to world markets that we have always had the best and safest product and we should not compromise that image under any circumstances.

It is with great sadness that we discuss the alarming situation in the agriculture sector. I wish to comment on the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Agri-industry exports are worth about £15 million per day, a matter which cannot and must not be ignored. It must not be ignored either by the Government that the situation along the Border is different today than it was during the previous outbreak of foot and mouth disease when Customs posts, among other forms of security, were in place. It is vital that a solution is found to the problem in a positive fashion.

The Tánaiste was asked on the Order of Business if direct meetings or discussions had been held with the Northern Ireland Minister, Bríd Rodgers, to ensure everything was done to keep the whole island clear of foot and mouth disease. It is much easier to man ports than patrol the Border, important though that may be. There are cross-Border industries which did not exist on the occasion of the previous outbreak. The co-operative industry and others have a major involvement on both sides of the Border. The crisis in milk production and other areas is serious. The facilities established under the Good Friday Agreement must be utilised to ensure contacts are made to deal with the problem on an all island basis.

There is a need to ensure imports from third countries, including meat, are curtailed. I have raised the issue of poultry imports on previous occasions. It is not certain that they are subject to the same veterinary restrictions as in Ireland or elsewhere in Europe.

The cuts suggested by the European Commission to deal with BSE will cost the Irish agri-industry about £200 million per year. Ireland is being asked to bear more than its fair share. The Commission which talks about extensification must recognise that our production is grass-based. The Minister must fight hard. It will be more difficult than before because we have lost much support due to the actions of the Minister for Finance. I hope we can regain it because we will need friends in the European Union in dealing with this issue.

Suckler farmers should have the opportunity to opt for in-calf heifers rather than dry heifers because there will be a need for quality beef when this problem is resolved. The European Commission is investing 1 million per year in maize production. We must compete with intensive bull beef production in Europe, the feed for which is subsidised. Yet, we are being asked to cut back. It is unacceptable that this production is maintained in Europe at our expense. German beef is being dumped here.

The calf processing scheme has been mentioned. Although a dairy farmer, I hate that scheme. I like to watch calves being born, reared and jumping around the fields. It is more realistic, however, to have that type of scheme than to remove finished cattle of the best quality. The Minister must fight hard to ensure such a scheme is introduced in the long-term.

The suggestion that steers be removed is another direct blow to Irish agricultural structures. As the consumer is extremely important, there is a need to ensure live and other beef exports to third countries are resumed. The best we can do is to ensure everything we have done to make our product special and perfect is used in promotion and sales.

As a farmer, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Unfortunately, the Minister has had to leave the House, but he has a good replacement in the Minister for Defence, Deputy Michael Smith, who has a good knowledge of agriculture.

I commend the Government on its support for the agriculture industry during these difficult years. It has provided substantial necessary support for farming because of unforeseen difficulties which have beset the industry in recent years. Unfortunately, they continue to increase. We are fortunate in that foot and mouth disease has not affected herds in Ireland for the past 60 years.

The work of the farming community is at the root of Ireland's economic success. A vibrant farming sector is vital to overall national development. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development is acutely aware of the importance of the meat industry to the national economy. More importantly, his Cabinet colleagues actively support him. The incomes of those working in farming must be protected in order that this major national industry can continue its important contribution to the national economy.

The European Commission proposals regarding suckler cows and beef premia would be a disaster for Ireland. The Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine gave the Minister its full support for whatever action is necessary at the Agriculture Council meeting next Monday.

Irish beef is the safest in the world. Many refer to the purchase for destruction scheme as a disease remedy. It was introduced to place a floor on the price of beef. If that had not been done, we all know what price we would receive for beef today. I would support a calf destruction scheme, especially for non-beef breeds, which is where we should begin. I do not like to see good beef stock being destroyed, but there is no other option. The Commission intends to replace the purchase for destruction scheme with a special purchase scheme which will run until the end of the year. That is welcome. The main difference between the schemes is that member states will have the option of storing beef for intervention or distribution as food aid or free food to poorer sections of the community. That is welcome and should be implemented. I support the scheme.

I compliment the Government on taking appropriate action to protect the national herd and, thereby, farming enterprises. Foot and mouth is an infectious disease which would have disastrous consequences for agricultural production were it to reach Ireland. Precautionary steps are vital. A full commitment is necessary from all concerned to ensure continued disease-free status. Departmental staff in district veterinary offices and ports, airports and meat factories will, with assistance from the Garda Síochána, police the ban on products from Britain and Northern Ireland. Farmers must also take their own precautions. They must be careful as to who they admit to their property. Disinfection measures must be adhered to in all places where farming and related pursuits are carried on. All these precautions will only be effective if everybody concerned is determined that Ireland must remain disease free.

The threat of foot and mouth disease has now eclipsed the BSE problem which the House discussed earlier. I regret the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development had to leave the House at short notice and that neither of the Ministers of State at that Department are here for this debate. However, I do not underestimate the capability of the Minister for Defence to communicate our concerns to his Government colleagues.

Compensation for farmers who sold off cattle prior to the slaughter scheme should be a priority for the Minister in discussions in Brussels. Direct aid compensation for the BSE slump should also be pursued actively. Newspaper reports today indicate that French farmers expect such direct aid when their Minister defends their case in Brussels next Monday. Despite the warning from the EU Commission that cattle numbers must be reduced across Europe to offset the cost of the BSE crisis on the CAP budget, French cattle farmers now have the reassurance from their Minister for Agriculture of national Government backing. Irish farmers have not yet got such an assurance from our Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, but I hope he also will pursue national measures if an adequate package is not secured at Brussels level.

The efforts of the EU Commission to apply a permanent cut-back in meat production are very disturbing. I call on our Minister to leave aside any kid glove approach and to veto any attempt at EU level to reduce Ireland's suckler cow herd. He should also seek a derogation from the unfair ban on our excellent T-bone steak, which compares with that of any other country. The Irish member of the EU Commission should have resisted that proposal. I hope the Minister, Deputy Walsh, will be successful on this issue next Monday.

A negative response from Brussels would have disastrous consequences for the Irish beef industry. We have the outstanding feature that over 50% of our product comes from beef suckler herds, compared to only 20% in many other EU member states. I urge the Minister to seek support from Brussels to establish a floor price of £350 per cow, to encourage the disposal of dry cows through the slaughter scheme. The relatively disease-free status of our cattle herd provides a vital argument which the Minister should use in the forthcoming negotiations in Brussels.

There are three main players in the meat industry, namely, cattle producers, meat processing factories and workers. Although a safety net has been provided for the producers and the processors, there is no compensation scheme for the workers, many of whom have been laid off by the meat factories. The Minister should also fight the workers' case in Brussels because they are a key element of our meat industry. He should seek a comprehensive aid package which will benefit farmers, processors and workers.

The British people are renowned for their traditional roast beef and yorkshire pudding. They rightly support their own farm produce. That same spirit of loyalty to the home product should also prevail in this country.

Top
Share