Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 13 Feb 2003

Vol. 561 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Bovine Diseases.

Mr. Crawford

I am grateful to be allowed to raise this matter and to see that there are three Ministers in the House to listen, though perhaps not for long. This is a serious issue which involves the disposal of all animals in BSE infected herds. I raise the matter because of the injustice to an individual farmer which has been brought to my attention, although there may be similar cases. The date of diagnosis of the herd was used against the farmer in question. I have information about that, but I do not wish to go into it at this point. While the technicality involved caused the loss to the farmer of at least €6,000 to €7,000, I wish to look at the bigger picture. The Book of Estimates showed that agricultural provisions have been cut by 9% since the introduction of the disease levy and this week the Minister has cut €45 million from supports for the rendering of meat and bonemeal. In that context and in the context of good industrial practices, I question the need to destroy every animal in a herd.

Our Danish counterparts who also trade in world markets have decided to cease to do that and they have got agreement from their markets, including Russia. Russia will accept animals in light of new arrangements. It is obvious that Brussels and the market structure accept this. How can we tell a farmer with a fine herd that due to one BSE infected animal, which may not have been raised on his farm, all his animals, including calves and young cattle, must be taken? It may have been the right thing to do when these circumstances first arose to appease the marketplace, but as the Minister said moments ago, we have the best testing regime. Everything that can be done is being done. In light of that I urge a re-examination of our practices. I realise I am not going to get the perfect answer tonight, but I would like to hear the justification for destroying an entire herd. Is there a veterinary or medical reason involved?

The other day I came across a young man with cows giving 1,700 gallons of milk per year, who is to have his whole herd removed as a result of one animal which is not even in his herd at the moment. This is a very serious situation which represents a cost not just to the farmer, but to the nation at a time of dramatic cutbacks in the money available to farmers.

The reason meat and bonemeal can no longer be used in poultry and pigmeat relates to BSE and the dangers of possible cross-contamination. The Minister proposes to withdraw all subsidy from 1 March. I have received letters from meat factories and the poultry industry, as well as from Corry's Proteins in Cavan that is recognised for doing an excellent job on behalf of the industry generally. My correspondents say they will have to get €150 extra per tonne for the waste going from McCarron's pig factory and the same thing is happening right around the country. This will mean a drop of €3 in the price of pigs if Corry's Proteins and McCarron's can pass that on to the pig farmers, which would mean €20 for each animal. I do not have an exact figure for poultry, but this situation affects beef and dairy products. This is a retrograde step and some efforts should have been made to phase it out, rather than just ending it abruptly. It is another reason it will be more difficult to obtain agreement from farm organisations to join in the national wage agreement.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Aylward)

I appreciate Deputy Crawford's point of view on this matter which, as he will know, was also the subject of Parliamentary Question No. 10 earlier today. I raised the same issues on many occasions before being appointed as Minister of State.

The depopulation of herds in which animals are diagnosed with BSE is a policy with serious consequences for the beef and dairy sectors, for the national economy and for individual farmers whose herds are affected by the disease, as the Deputy has outlined in individual cases. It is not a policy which was embarked upon lightly, nor is it one which can be discarded lightly. In this regard it is worth reminding ourselves of the context in which this policy was adopted, and the possible risks involved in dismantling part of a framework of controls which has served this country well in controlling and eradicating BSE, and in providing customers for our agricultural produce with the assurances they require in relation to animal health.

Ireland has implemented a whole-herd depopulation policy where BSE is confirmed since 1989. This procedure was introduced in the context of concern about the potential impact of the disease on human health, uncertainty about the epidemiology of the disease and for market reasons, which are in turn related to public sentiment in various countries towards the disease. Much has been learned about the disease since that time, although there are still some unanswered questions. There is general acceptance in the scientific world that there is no evidence of horizontal transmission and that the main route of transmission is through the consumption by cattle of infected feed, with a theoretical possibility of maternal transmission.

European Commission rules currently require full depopulation, but allow for a derogation where measures of equivalent effect are in place. The minimum requirement is for the slaughter and destruction of the infected animal and of the birth cohorts and progeny born within two years of confirmation.

Perceptions of the likely risk and reward are pivotal to a decision to continue or otherwise with whole-herd depopulation. With the current range of measures there are no significant public or animal health risks in moving to a partial depopulation approach which would be less costly than whole-herd depopulations. On the other hand, there could be potential market repercussions as well as implications for individual farmers. It is difficult to estimate or precisely quantify what these risks are but we have to acknowledge that the stakes are high.

For a combination of these reasons, most third country markets require that beef be derived from cattle from BSE-free herds and we, by virtue of the total herd depopulation policy, have been able to provide an absolute assurance to those markets that this particular requirement has been met. The important point is that for a country that exports over 90% of its beef, we have entered several markets by virtue of the fact that we have total depopulation and that is acknowledged by third country markets.

Mr. Crawford

We are still not in Egypt.

Mr. Aylward

There are also sensitivities, particularly in relation to milk and most notably the infant formula sector which involves the export of 80,000 tonnes per annum, valued at about €500 million, and employs approximately 850 people in this country.

I have indicated before that all of the controls relating to BSE are under constant review to see if they can be improved upon or made more cost effective in light of operational experience, scientific knowledge or changing circumstances.

I wish to deal with the issue of the subsidy to the rendering industry. In December 2000 a ban on the feeding of meat and bonemeal to farmed animals was introduced by the EU and that ban remains in place. As a result of the ban, feed grade meat and bonemeal, which had been a commercial product, became a waste material with a significant disposal cost. In addition, unlike most other EU member states, Ireland has no approved disposal facilities for meat and bonemeal, such as, for example, incineration or landfill. That is a problem that Deputies could perhaps face up to in various places throughout the country.

Mr. Crawford

I know about that.

Mr. Aylward

In January 2001, to address the emergency situation faced by the meat sector, my Department introduced a subsidy towards the cost of rendering offal into meat and bonemeal, and its subsequent storage. It was never the intention that the subsidy would be paid indefinitely and the policy of the Government has been to gradually return responsibility for disposing of offal to the industry itself.

By the end of this month when the subsidy ceases, the overall expenditure on supporting the production of meat and bonemeal since the introduction of the ban will have been €138 million. An additional bill for the disposal of the 170,000 tonnes in storage will have to be borne by the Exchequer at some future date.

Since the introduction of the subsidy, the costs associated with disposal abroad have been reduced. The industry has also had time to arrange outlets for the disposal of meat and bonemeal on an ongoing basis and has done so since last December. I am of the view that in the absence of the Government subsidy the industry will achieve greater efficiencies than at present. There are already indications that lower cost disposal options are being actively explored. I would expect in those circumstances that rendering and disposal costs will vary within the industry as greater efficiencies are achieved. In such circumstances I would not be prepared to speculate as to what level of additional costs will fall on farmers. There is, however, every incentive for all the stakeholders in the industry to work towards the achievement of lower offal disposal costs.

I acknowledge, however, that there is an ongoing debate concerning this matter. It is something that is under constant review in the Department of Agriculture and Food. I will take into consideration the points that have been made by Deputy Crawford.