Billy Timmins
Question:52 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the plans he has to amend the current sheep tagging procedures; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [29354/03]
Ceisteanna – Questions (Resumed). Priority Questions. - Animal Identification Scheme.
I have placed a very high priority on improving Ireland's animal identification and traceability systems and I am determined to ensure that Ireland operates to the highest standards of disease monitoring and control, and remains at the forefront of consumer assurance and food safety in this area. In the wake of the foot and mouth disease crisis of 2001 and against a backdrop of earlier unsuccessful efforts in this regard, I introduced a comprehensive individual sheep identification system known as the national sheep identification system, NSIS, which provides full individual identification and traceability of sheep from farm of origin to carcase and is designed to be multi-functional, facilitating aspects such as flock management, consumer assurance and disease monitoring and control.
The foot and mouth disease crisis underscored the potential damage to which our economy and the agriculture sector is exposed in the event of serious disease outbreaks where shortcomings exist in animal identification and traceability. Based on monitoring of the sheep identification system and feedback to my Department from various quarters since 2001, I am satisfied that all elements of NSIS are now firmly embedded across the sheep sector and working well. I have, however, made it consistently clear that I am always willing to enhance and improve NSIS and to address any operational difficulties which might arise, while maintaining its key components.
A new harmonised system of sheep identification for the whole of the European Union has been proposed by the European Commission. The current proposals provide that there will be electronic individual identification of sheep from January 2008, together with a central movement database, recording movements on a batch basis. The implementation date is subject to review following a Commission report in 2006. For the interim period it is proposed that all sheep be double-tagged and identified individually, but that all recording would be on a flock basis. It is anticipated that the final form of the proposal, on which the Italian Presidency is working to bring before the December Council of Agriculture Ministers, will afford member states which already have systems in place offering a higher level of traceability than would be the case under the interim period system the option of retaining their own systems until the advent of electronic identification in a few years from now.
I support the broad principle which underlies these proposals. In particular, it is necessary to have in place a robust, harmonised system of sheep identification backed up with good record-keeping allowing full traceability of animal movements at all times. I have always been in favour of making use of new and efficient technologies to achieve this end, subject of course to practicalities and cost-effectiveness, and I am very anxious that Ireland and other member states are in a position to move at the earliest possible date to an electronic system.
Additional information not given on the floor of the HouseIn the interim, the system now in place and operating throughout the Irish sheep sector will continue to afford Ireland the level of protection and assurance in relation to both identification and traceability which is strategically appropriate to this country having regard in particular to the difficulties encountered during the foot and mouth crisis. I have no plans therefore to dismantle NSIS and roll back the progress which has been made in this area since 2001, which would see Irish sheep farmers, marts, meat processors etc. being asked in a few years from now to once again reinstate and accommodate individual identification and traceability by the 2008 target date for the introduction of electronic systems. However, as I stated earlier, I am willing to examine and address aspects relating to the operation of NSIS in so far as these are addressed within the community system that is put in place.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply and will ask him a few questions. In effect he has said that the Government has no proposals to change the current system and will simply go along with what the European Commission has proposed. I understand – if I am incorrect the Minister of State may let me know – that we have not outlined our position to the Commission. If we have, and the situation is as the Minister of State has outlined, does he agree that it flies in the face of the commitment given by the Government in Sustaining Progress that it would review the current situation, a commitment given in light of the representations from the many farm groups in touch with the Government, outlining the unnecessary bureaucracy in the current system? Does the Minister of State agree it is of no advantage to traceability to have an individual tag rather than a flock tag? Does he agree this additional work is putting Ireland at a disadvantage relative to other EU and non-EU countries in that this is only an animal disease measure and has no impact whatsoever on consumer confidence? Will the Minister of State confirm that a vote on this issue may take place on 16 December?
On Sustaining Progress, we have regularly been in touch with the farming organisations, even as recently as yesterday. The contents of today's reply to this question were also discussed with the IFA members present yesterday. We have set out our position and they will return with certain proposals as a result of yesterday's meeting.
An agreement could of course have been made some years ago, but that did not happen because of intransigence on the part of some of the farming organisations. As a result we had an outbreak of foot and mouth disease and the new regime was put in place with an eye to the markets. It is no great source of joy for the Department to have to impose regulations but the export market is very important, which is why the new regime was put in place.
Deputy Timmins asked if the Government made this decision on its own. The Government was in communication with the European Commission, and I travelled to meet Mr. Byrne some weeks ago when this matter was on the agenda. We outlined our position to him and it is widely accepted, and will be agreed, that countries like ours, whose systems are ahead of the systems now being proposed at European Union level, will be allowed to operate our own schemes.
I emphasise that the regime has not come in under diktat. There was full consultation with the farming organisations. We met them as recently as yesterday – we meet them on an ongoing basis. They have to report back on the basis of the information given yesterday.
Does the Minister agree that since 2001, the number of farmers engaged in sheep production has decreased by 15% and that ewe numbers have fallen by 14%? While he mentions the importance of the sheep industry, with which I agree, this situation is a clear indication that the system we have at the moment is impacting negatively on our economy in terms of a 15% drop in sheepmeat production?
It is important to say that the past two years have been the two best on record in the sheep industry.
That is all the more surprising given that the numbers involved have dropped.
To try to tie the reduction of the numbers of sheep in the country to the single identification system is not correct. The Deputy will be aware of the reconciliation problems of last year and we took care of those problems. No matter which scheme we operate there will be room for improvement. In consultation with our partners, the farming organisations, we intend to improve.
We can be very proud of the scheme. I would hate to think we would step backwards and have to make a huge jump forward in 2008. It is important that we do so on a phased basis. That is what we are doing with the interest of farmers at heart.