Vol. 539 No. 1
21 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development his views on Teagasc findings that up to 17% of ear tags inserted in sheep can become detached under farm conditions; if he has come to any conclusions as to the implications of that finding for the national sheep identification system; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18419/01]
The loss rate quoted by the Deputy occurred in one particular season a number of years ago where Teagasc identified a specific quality control problem with one particular tag. The relevant information was passed on to the manufacturers who implemented quality control measures. The more usual loss rate experienced by Teagasc has been of the order of 3% to 5%. At my Department's request Teagasc has put in place a monitoring programme using a number of the NSIS approved tags. Loss rates to date under this programme are less than 1%. My Department, in conjunction with Teagasc, will monitor this issue on an ongoing basis.
Is the Minister aware that farmers when they can get the tags, which not all of them can yet, are being advised that if they use a little washing-up liquid it makes it easier to change them? The scheme requires tags to be changed from time to time. Is the Minister aware that the lack of availability of these tags has resulted in the lamb kill being 30% down on what it would normally be during this period? Will the Minister agree, even before this scheme comes fully into operation, that there is a number deficiencies in it which will cause him problems in the immediate future?
It is my information from Teagasc that the new tags are quite functional and remain on the animals.
Undoubtedly functional, but very easy to change.
Will Deputy Dukes allow the Minister to reply because a number of his colleagues wish to contribute?
The loss rate is less than 1%. The tagging of sheep has been an unhappy saga for some time. There has been resistance from farmers and farm leaders. At any rate, in May 2001, farmers were issued data on the tagging programme, which specified a date of 21 June. It was 15 June before any farmer applied for a tag. That showed that farmers were not anxious to participate fully in the scheme. It is a pity that farm leaders have not encouraged members to do so.
That tag fell out for a start.
I acknowledge what the Minister said, but is he not aware that a number of farmers now have over-fat lambs that they cannot sell because they are waiting up to a fortnight for the tags from the supplier to whom they applied? Having got the farming organisations to finally accept the scheme, will the Minister agree that it behoves him and them to ensure that they work together with suppliers so the market will not be adversely affected and lambs fit to sell will not have to be retained because of the nonavailability of tags?
Does the Minister accept that he and farm organisation leaders are to blame? He guaranteed in the House that the tagging system would be in place by 1 March. It is now almost 1 July. Is the Minister aware that supermarkets, which have spent much money promoting Irish lamb, have empty shelves? Does this serve as a good advertisement when trying to reintroduce Irish lamb to the market? The Minister's activity in this regard is a shambles.
Does the Minister agree, given the concerns and limitations associated with the current tagging system, that we should move on to the next phase and look at the possibility of electronic tagging? The system should be robust and animals should be traceable. Rocket science should not be necessary. We should look at the investment options in this regard.
Will the Minister give an undertaking to the House and every sheep farmer that the meat processors will continue the identification process from the live sheep to the carcase and from the carcase to the market product? There are grave doubts whether that will happen.
I agree with Deputy Bruton that inconvenience and disruption are being caused, particularly to those farmers who have finished fat lambs. I have communicated with the accredited suppliers of the tags, who work throughout the weekend. My information is that 1.35 million tags have been given to farmers and that the tags are being manufactured and made available at the rate of 165,000 per day. In our plants, we slaughter about 100,000 lambs per week so there should be an adequate number of tags. The problem is that farmers did not apply on time. Additionally, in an IFA press release on 18 June, it was stated that farmers should put the brakes on lamb supplies. Mr. Frank Corcoran, the chairman, said farmers should withhold supplies. That is not a good way of encouraging the supply of lambs to factories.
Deputy Crawford suggested it was my fault and I accept that is reasonable coming from the Opposition, but it is not factual. With regard to the comments of Deputy Upton, her recommendation that electronic tags should be used—
How could it be reasonable but not factual?
I tend to be reasonable at all times.
Reasonably evasive.
Will the Minister check the record?
Deputy Upton's very constructive suggestion concerning electronic tagging is sensible. It is what we should do.
The Minister has done nothing about it.
The current tags cost about 10p to 15p each.
The Department is putting the brakes on it.
Let the Minister finish.
In the regulations, there is accommodation for electronic tagging, which is what will happen. If we can get tagging up and running, it will be very important.
Deputy Connaughton raised an important point concerning full traceability from the live animal to the carcase. I am insisting that factory managers apply this. I want to see a comprehensive quality scheme based on a system of traceability. It can be done only by tracing through to the finished carcase.
Will they do it?
I will insist on it.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
