Billy Timmins
Question:6 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his plans to change the policy of full herd culling of BSE infected herds; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14757/04]
Other Questions.
Bovine Diseases.
I have no plans to change the policy of full herd culling of BSE infected herds for the present, although the position is kept under ongoing review. Current EU law requires the slaughter of the entire herd, birth cohorts and progeny when a BSE case is confirmed. However, it also permits by derogation the slaughter of birth cohorts and progeny only where the epidemiological circumstances justify such an approach. In practice, other member states with substantial numbers of BSE cases avail of this derogation because it is generally accepted that, from a scientific perspective, the main cause of BSE is consumption of infected feedstuffs, with a theoretical possibility of maternal transmission from dam to calf. Horizontal transmission is not considered to be a significant factor in the spread of the disease. Such countries are not, however, as heavily reliant on exports as Ireland and all have substantial domestic markets. Over time whole herd depopulation along with the full spectrum of BSE controls operating in Ireland have become critical elements in providing reassurance to consumers and in marketing Irish beef and dairy produce at home and abroad. In these circumstances and while cases continue to be confirmed at current levels, it is not possible to assess precisely the market reaction to any decision to terminate Ireland's whole herd slaughter policy. In addition, a change in policy would impact on individual farmers whose herds may be affected by the disease. Farmers left with animals which have been in the same herd as a BSE positive animal would face grave difficulties in selling beef or milk to processors.
All the evidence available indicates that BSE numbers here are declining and that the reduction will be maintained. Consequently, net Exchequer costs of whole herd depopulation will be lower in 2004 and in future years compared with expenditure in 2003. Although savings could be achieved through adopting a partial depopulation approach, such savings must be weighed against the possible adverse reaction on markets, particularly in third country export markets which are valued at €1.4 billion per annum, and the impact on individual farmers. I am, however, keeping this and other aspects of our BSE controls under ongoing scrutiny.
The Minister of State, Deputy Treacy, when discussing GM foods, stated he was relying on the best scientific brains for advice and direction. Does the Minister agree there is no scientific evidence to show the route we are taking at present is the correct one? Does the Minister not have any concerns that, with the import of replacement cows, the arrival of Johne's disease has the potential to be a greater danger than BSE has been?
All the scientific evidence shows the main cause of infection is infected feedstuffs. The main reason for full herd depopulation is commercial. If, for example, a farmer supplying milk for the production of infant formula food has a BSE occurrence in the herd and only partially depopulates, it will be extremely difficult for the manufacturers to have the confidence to continue taking milk from that herd. At present, however, whole herd depopulation, a complete fumigation of the premises and an interval before repopulation with a new herd obviates that situation. The same applies to export markets, particularly third country markets, for our dairy and food products.
Deputy Upton referred to confidence. Confidence is the key issue, particularly in Ireland's case given that we export 90% of what we produce. If a scare arose somewhere and it was discovered that infection occurred in some herds in Ireland and this was followed by only partial depopulation, it would leave us vulnerable. Thankfully, the numbers are relatively small with only 62 cases this year. The incidence is reducing considerably so there is not a large cost involved. However, the commercial implications are major. I intend to continue with whole herd depopulation for the present. It is worthwhile.
The Minister correctly identified meat and bonemeal as the element responsible for infection. Is there ongoing monitoring of meat and bonemeal? If that item could be taken out of the equation, BSE incidence in younger animals ought to disappear. It is a cause of concern that young animals occasionally present with BSE. There was a recent case in County Meath. Will the Minister give his view on the action being taken to ensure no meat and bonemeal is available in the system?
I can give an assurance, as far as it is possible, that there is a total ban and it is being implemented. The figures will show it is effective. There is a later question on the situation in County Meath and it is answered comprehensively. There will always be an occasional outbreak but, thankfully, they are few and far between. The vast majority of the current small number of cases are in excess of six years of age. We hope that trend will continue.
Rural Environment Protection Scheme.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:7 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the situation with respect to REP scheme III; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14754/04]
Johnny Brady
Question:48 Mr. J. Brady asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when REP scheme III will commence; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14785/04]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 48 together.
As I stated in my reply to Question No. 1, the European Commission presented Ireland's proposals for amendments to REPS to the agricultural structures STAR committee meeting on 11 May 2004, with a recommendation that they be approved. Following discussion on a technical issue raised by another member state, the chairman deferred the vote on the Irish proposal to the next meeting of the committee to allow for clarification of the issue by the Commission's legal services. The issue relates to the manner in which REPS payments are related to a land area, which may not be the same as the area that is subject to agri-environmental undertakings. It arose from further legal interpretation of the regulation within the Commission services since the current REPS was approved in September 2000.
Does the Minister believe this problem will be resolved by the end of next week?
I am confident that it will be resolved at the Commission services level next week as we are in continuing discussions and exchanges of information with the services. However, another STAR committee meeting will take place next month. Once we get assurances from the Commission services, we will proceed to make application forms available and crank up the system. We have an estimate of €250 million for expenditure under this enhanced scheme with a 28% increase in payments. As it is also highly relevant to the nitrates directive, we want to get moving on it.
Having made the submission in the first week of last December, we feel enough time has been wasted, although at least we will have retroactive application of the scheme from 1 March. Approximately 40,000 farmers avail of REPS II at present and we want to ensure they graduate to REPS III with the more enhanced payments as soon as possible. I hope the Commission services will agree on the clarification of the technical problem next week and I intend going ahead with the scheme then.
EU Directives.
John Deasy
Question:8 Mr. Deasy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions he has had with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government with respect to the nitrates directive; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14756/04]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. My Department has had ongoing discussions with that Department on the development of a draft action programme giving further effect to the directive. This draft action programme was presented in December 2003 to representatives of the main farming organisations and other stakeholders. A period of two months was provided for stakeholders to submit their comments on the document in writing to either or both Departments. Written submissions on the draft action programme have been received from some 70 stakeholders, including all the main farming organisations, and a revised draft is being prepared by officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government together with officials from my Department.
Can the Minister confirm that the farm organisations and other bodies are wasting their time lobbying to have the 170 level increased? How many farmers will it impact? What is the estimated cost if the revised draft is as we have been led to believe?
The directive is primarily a matter for the Commission. Contrary to what some people believe, it is not Commissioner Fischler but the Commissioner for the Environment, Ms Wallström, who has responsibility for this matter. The general limit is a matter for that Commissioner. However, we have received indications from the Commission that following the court decisions, this has gone from being a scientific matter to being a legal one. While the Commission indicates that 170 must stand as a general limit, it would be sympathetic to considering a derogation to the 250 level, which we seek.
The number of farmers involved has been the subject of some research by Teagasc. It has been suggested that up to 10,000 farmers would need a derogation at the 170 level. In other words, 129,000 of the 130,000 farmers would be within the limit. In reality those 10,000 are the more commercial and intensive farmers and their competitiveness in the EU and with third countries could be stymied. It is important that we get a directive implemented here and an action plan, which will not stymie our better and our more intensive farmers. I believe that can be done by way of derogation provided we can get the minimum of red tape and conditionality attached to those derogations.
I believe my question has been answered. I wanted to know whether he thought the view of Commissioner Fischler would have any impact, since at last week's meeting of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food he seemed to think that a derogation would not be a huge difficulty.
How will the derogation work? Will it be on an individual farmer basis or on a townland basis? While I know it will be done on a scientific basis, would it be possible for one farmer in Offaly to get a derogation?
I am not sure. The sequence is to have an action plan submitted to Brussels in the next two months and parallel with that an application for a derogation. Commissioners Fischler and Wallström have indicated that they would be sympathetic to a generous derogation. We will not be sure about the details attached to a derogation and whether it will apply by individual farmer or otherwise until we get to the negotiations. However, we will have the best possible scientific evidence. As I said, discussions on the general limit have moved into the legal arena because of a Dutch court case and the Irish court case on 11 March. With the derogation, we can rely heavily on scientific support.
I appeal to stakeholders and the social partners to meet representatives of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Department of Agriculture and Food along with Teagasc to work out a sensible and practical derogation from the directive, which will allow our more commercial and better farmers the competitive edge they need to continue in business in the future.
Food Labelling.
Richard Bruton
Question:9 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the progress he has made with respect to improvements in the labelling of foodstuffs since 1 January 2004; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14746/04]
The food labelling group established in July 2002 reported in December 2002, making a series of recommendations. We accepted the recommendations and because food labelling is a particularly complicated and broad based area, involving a number of Departments and Government agencies, we set up an interdepartmental and agency group to progress the implementation of the report.
In December 2002, responsibility for food labelling was as follows. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had policy responsibility for the main legislation for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs under the European Council Directive 2000/13/EC and the Director of Consumer Affairs was responsible for the enforcement of that directive. The Department of Health and Children was responsible for policy on other food labelling legislation such as nutrition claims and novel foods, with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland having responsibility for enforcement of the legislation. The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was responsible for the policy on labelling of fish and fish products with the FSAI again responsible for enforcement and the Department of Agriculture and Food was responsible for policy on legislation for the labelling of specific products ranging from beef, poultry and sugar to spirit drinks, coffee and fruit juices, with the FSAI responsible for the enforcement of the beef labelling regulations and the health boards operating the controls on the other products under the general aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
I am very happy with the progress that has been made to date on the implementation of the recommendations in the labelling report. There was a total of 21 recommendations, many of which are beyond the remit of the Department and some of which were to be activated only after others had been completed. It will take some time to fully implement all the recommendations of the report.
The two main issues that emanated from the recommendations of the labelling group were centralising enforcement in one agency and the definition of origin. Enforcement of all of the food labelling regulations has been centralised in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. This will not only streamline the enforcement measures, but will also provide a one-stop-shop for any complaints on mislabelling of food. The centralisation of food labelling policy enforcement — except on fish — in the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Agriculture and Food achieves another recommendation of the food labelling group.
I was struck by the number of different bodies responsible for labelling which were referred to in the Minister of State's comprehensive reply. I acknowledge his reference to the centralisation of control in the Department of the Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the Department of Health and Children and of enforcement in the Food Safety Authority. However, a submission was made yesterday to the Committee on Enterprise and Small Business during which the issue of incorrectly labelled imported food was raised. Is it within the Minister of State's remit to introduce legislation which ensures that one can see where a product was produced and what is in it simply by examining the label? While I acknowledge that food processing is complicated, many manufacturers operate a policy of deception with their products. Can we make one body responsible for everything, be it fish or fowl?
We have reduced the huge plethora of organisations involved and centralised responsibility in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. There was full agreement within the food labelling group that consumers had a right to information on the origin of the meat they cook in their homes and eat when dining out. While the group could not agree on how origin should be defined, there was unanimous agreement that further research was necessary to establish consumers' wishes in this area. At our request, the consumer liaison panel has carried out this research, the results of which were presented to me in December 2003. We are determined, in so far as it is within the powers available to us, to meet the wishes of consumers identified in the research.
At the beginning of this year, we introduced two regulations on the labelling of poultry meat. The first of these regulations requires poultry meat, whether loose or pre-packaged, which originates outside the EU to bear an indication of the country of origin when offered for sale in a retail premises. The second regulation requires information about class, price per unit weight, condition and slaughterhouse details in respect of loose poultry meat to be provided to the consumer. In addition to the above action, we have arranged that each sector will be reviewed on a commodity-by-commodity basis to identify any deficiencies from a consumer viewpoint in labelling regulations. Further action will be taken over the coming period in other commodity areas. EU beef labelling regulations on origin do not apply to beef sold in food service outlets. The European Commission published a review of these regulations at the end of April.
The report does not favour the extension of these regulations to the catering sector. However, whether they are purchasing beef over the counter in butcher's shops or supermarkets or opting for beef in restaurants and catering establishments, consumers have a right to know the origin of a product. The labelling regulations should provide for this. There is a gap which needs to be addressed. We arranged to have the European Commission report discussed at the EU special committee on agriculture meeting in Killarney last week under the Irish Presidency. The meeting was chaired by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh. In addition, we will press this matter when the Commission report comes before the Agriculture and Fisheries Council following preparation by the special committee.
I emphasise that our primary aim is to protect consumer interests and ensure the consumer is properly informed. Ireland is a major exporter of food and food products and the destination of a considerable volume of food imports. It is imperative that the same standards are applied to the labelling of foods in every sector and that there is a level playing field for the food industry at all levels. We hope to achieve this through the implementation in as full a manner as possible of the recommendations of the food labelling group. We hope to have ensured the further consideration of this matter before the Presidency concludes.
I thank the Minister of State for his extensive answer. No detail was left out. I hope he will forgive me for saying that it reminded me a little of food labelling. To identify ingredients, country of origin etc. from a label requires a magnifying glass. At the next meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, will the Minister of State suggest that simplification would enhance the information for the consumer? While I appreciate that there are technical and legal matters which must be addressed, complicated information is often included to confuse. It adds nothing to consumer information.
It is important to ensure the consumer knows exactly what he or she is buying. We have had numerous instances of products which contained genetically modified components which were not declared on labels. We have had health supplements which were irradiated, but that was not declared on the labels. We are tracking these products like Inspector Clouseau and it is a huge waste of time. Labels must be simplified and made more accessible to consumers and exporters.
I agree with Deputies Timmins and Upton. We must simplify these issues for consumers irrespective of the level at which a product is purchased or consumed. We will do our utmost to establish a consensus across Europe to achieve that simplification. Labels and logos must be clear, precise, simple and focused. To find common agreement among the countries involved is not an easy task. While we will do our utmost in this regard, we must ensure that we protect our consumers and our great export market.
EU Directives.
Trevor Sargent
Question:10 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the situation regarding the nitrates directive in view of the fact that many farmers are complaining that the Government is giving neither guidance nor assistance to ensure compliance.[14826/04]
Ireland is legally obliged to put into effect an action programme for the further implementation of the nitrates directive. The European Court of Justice in its judgment of 11 March 2004 held that Ireland had not fulfilled its obligations by reasons of its failure to establish and implement an action programme in accordance with Article 5 of the directive. It is open to the court on the application of the European Commission to impose substantial fines on Ireland if early action is not taken to give full effect to the directive.
The terms of the action programme must be finalised at an early date as EU co-funding of the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, various compensatory schemes and single farm payment which commences on 1 January is conditional on cross-compliance with the nitrates directive.
A draft action programme was prepared by my Department in conjunction with the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and in consultation with Teagasc. It was presented in December 2003 to representatives of the main farming organisations. Written submissions on the draft action programme have been received from 70 of those bodies and a revised draft is being prepared by officials of the Departments involved.
Under Sustaining Progress, the Government is committed to using the flexibility of the nitrates directive to seek European Commission approval for organic nitrogen limits of up to 250 kg. per hectare per annum. When the draft action programme is finalised and submitted to the Commission, Ireland will also submit a derogation proposal designed to take account of the unique characteristics of Irish agriculture. Guidance documentation to support farmers in the successful implementation of the action programme is being developed by my Department.
Since the Estimates and the 2004 budget, account has been taken in a number of significant ways of the costs involved in meeting the requirements of the action programme. In Sustaining Progress, the Government stated: "recognising the importance of the nitrates directive and its impact on certain farmers, a number of initiatives shall be taken in the context of optimising the use of available EU and national budgetary resources". These initiatives included a review of REPS funding which was increased by €70 million from €190 to €260 million. This translated as 28% higher payments. We also changed the conditions of the farm waste management and dairy hygiene schemes, increasing substantially to 40% the rates of payment. The ceilings under which people could qualify were also raised. Funding for these schemes has increased by more than 75% over 2003.
All these improvements took into account the nitrates directive. Improvements in the farm waste management and dairy hygiene schemes are already in place and it is hoped changes to REPS will be approved shortly. The changes will have retroactive effect from 1 March. The scheme of capital allowances for expenditure on farm pollution control has been extended to the end of 2006, and a committee is examining issues associated with the possible introduction of low cost wintering facilities such as earthen banks for the storage of livestock manure.
I am not sure the Minister's words are any comfort to the farming organisations. They are understandably suffering from shock given the way the Government ignored the nitrates directive for so many years, only then to put the vehicle into gear and pedal to the floor. Farmers are left wondering how this came about so suddenly. We are entering a period of large-scale lobbying with the IFA writing to Members and MEPs. Will discussions include not just REPS but also quantify costs of implementing the nitrates directive? The IFA has claimed minimum storage requirements on farms will cost €1 billion. Will the Minister clarify the costs that will be involved and the number of farmers affected? Has the Minister had any recent discussions with the farming organisations? Will any assistance or guidance be put in place to help those affected?
I do not know if anyone can take consolation from the fact that though this directive was introduced in 1991, it was not implemented until 2004. To date, no other member state of the EU has adhered to an action plan. The Netherlands was taken before the European Court in October 2003 and Ireland in March 2004 for failing to implement the directive. The time has come to address the problem by way of an action plan, while at the same time seeking a derogation from the tight limit of 170 kg. per hectare to 250 kg. per hectare to allow commercial farmers to be competitive and stay in business. Teagasc has reckoned it will affect approximately 10,000 commercial farmers over the 170 kg. per hectare limit. We want a commercial and vibrant farming sector but also a directive that can be implemented given the uniqueness of Irish agriculture. Derogation is the way to achieve this.
Commissioners Fischler and Wallström, who have immediate responsibility for the directive, have indicated they would be sympathetic to Ireland's application provided it is supported by scientific evidence. Teagasc has been enlisted to work on providing scientific documentation. The best way to proceed is by submitting an action plan while at the same time seeking a derogation on the limits.
What about the meetings with the farming organisations, which will be critical to teasing out the minutiae of the issues involved?
The farming organisations are consulted on a regular basis. A number of days ago, the organisations had intensive meetings with officials from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Agriculture and Food to reach a consensus to submit an action plan and an appeal for a derogation to Brussels.
Animal Welfare.
Dan Boyle
Question:11 Mr. Boyle asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the outcome of discussions with his EU colleagues on the broiler directive in view of the health and welfare problems associated with the majority of the 68 million broilers reared here which are kept intensively in sheds holding up to 30,000 birds each.[14824/04]
Primary responsibility for the welfare of animals, including broilers, lies with the owner or keeper of the animals. Owners and keepers are obliged to take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that such animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury. The welfare of animals kept for farming purposes, including broilers, is covered in legislation by the European Communities (Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes) Regulations 2000 and the Protection of Animals Act 1911, as amended.
There are no proposals before the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers relating to the broiler sector. However, a number of meetings of an EU Commission working group on broiler welfare legislation have taken place since the beginning of last year with a view to formulating proposals. The Department of Agriculture and Food has been represented at these meetings.
The Commission will formulate a document which will be presented to the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Ireland's perspective will be brought to bear at both official and political level as the matter progresses. In general, we have always been and will continue to be supportive of measures which will improve welfare for animals.
There is a broiler directive and as with the previous parliamentary question, directives tend not to go away. If we have dragged our heels on the nitrates directive since 1991 and now find ourselves against the wire, has the Minister learned any lessons? In our role of EU Presidency, will the Minister take some initiative in implementing the broiler directive so we will not have to seek a derogation at a later time? Will the Minister take account of strong consumer support for implementing a directive aimed at improving welfare in that sector? Why is it not on the agenda given that directive is already there?
There is no dragging of heels by the Minister for Agriculture and Food or his Department on this issue. I hope we can count on Deputy Sargent's support for this directive and the nitrates one, and that we can work to achieve a consensus that is in everyone's best interests.
I am in favour of upholding the law.
The aim of the proposed directive on broilers will be to protect the welfare of broilers specifically. It will be based on the March 2000 report by the scientific committee on animal health and welfare. The requirements of the proposed directive will be in addition to those of COM 98/58. The draft proposals are being examined at technical Commission working group level. The Commission must still carry out its impact assessment. The Commission has also held discussions with representatives of various parties, namely, Compassion in World Farming, COGECA, the Federation of European Veterinarians and others. It cannot be put on the agenda until the technical and other groups involved have completed their work and a report is forwarded. Only then can the Council of Agriculture Ministers give it consideration.
What level of inspection, if any, is there for the welfare of broilers under the conditions described by Deputy Sargent? Are there any sanctions if the owner or manager is found to be in breach of good animal welfare practice? Are there any controls over this area in the absence of a directive?
The inspectorate staff for this area are excellent and have a unique track record for focused professionalism. The staff do a fine job on behalf of the country. Under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 and under various EU regulations, prosecution is possible against those not adhering to proper care for animals.
Have any prosecutions been taken or sanctions imposed?
I am unable to answer that question now. I could try to ascertain this for the Deputy. I am sure the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform will have some information.
From 1911.
Exhibition Centre.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:12 Mr. Quinn asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has reviewed the report from the Committee of Public Accounts on funding for an agricultural and equestrian eventing centre at Punchestown Racecourse in County Kildare; his views on the criticisms in the report of his Department over its failure to evaluate properly the €15 million funding for the centre; the reason sufficient evaluation was not carried out by his Department; the actions he has taken within his Department following publication of the PAC report; and if he will make a statement on the matter.[14741/04]
The development of the National Agricultural and Eventing, Exhibition and International Show and Competition Centre at Punchestown was funded to address a need for a facility of international standard for the holding of agricultural shows and displays which could represent the agriculture industry both nationally and internationally and, in addition, attract significant international events here. It was a necessary once-off investment in this country's infrastructure for the promotion of agriculture.
The intention was that the facility should be able to attract significant agricultural events such as those connected with the sport horse eventing competitions as well as cattle breeding shows, machinery shows and other special events. It was felt that the World Equestrian Games, which come around every four years, the European Eventing Championships, which take place every three years, and international congresses on the cattle breeding side could be attracted to Ireland at reasonable intervals if the facilities were available. The ability to host such international events would put Ireland on a par with other EU member states, most of which have at least one centre capable of hosting the significant events envisaged. Such centres are, in the main, publicly funded. The project would not have gone ahead without the degree of subvention it received.
I have reviewed the report of the Committee on Public Accounts on the funding for the Punchestown centre. The report acknowledges that the Department's controls and administrative procedures were thorough. The report criticises the degree of evaluation undertaken and states the Department of Finance's 1994 guidelines for the appraisal and management of capital projects in the public sector should have been applied. I am satisfied my Department applied procedures considered at the time to be appropriate for a project of this type.
The Deputy must remember this was a once-off project which did not easily fit the category of scheme normally administered by the Department. The project was not a normal type of grant proposal and was difficult to evaluate in terms of outputs and outturns. As such, it did not readily lend itself to being evaluated under the 1994 guidelines. However, the project was carefully examined in the Department against a number of criteria including the need for the facility, the suitability of Punchestown as a venue, whether other locations could be used and the likely events that would take place there. Before agreeing to fund the project, the Department was satisfied the proposed investment represented an appropriate and justified use of the funds being provided. The letter of approval contained 17 paragraphs of detailed conditions.
As required by the 1994 guidelines, a post-project review will be undertaken by my Department and, as required by the PAC, it will be presented to that committee by 30 March 2005. I have noted the PAC recommendation that the 1994 guidelines should be applied in all circumstances involving voted funds. This recommendation will of course be implemented by my Department.
What kinds of international eventing have taken place at the centre, and how many? The Minister should provide us with this information as that is presumably the purpose for which this building was set up. Will the Minister agree the centre is a white elephant? It is a waste of public money and is not suitable for the kinds of international events that were first proposed. If it is the case that the project was carefully examined by the Department, the Department is clearly in conflict with the findings and views of the Committee of Public Accounts.
The centre is not a white elephant. It is a worthwhile project and will be so considered in years to come. International events have already taken place there and they will continue into the future. It is a fine centre and is suitably located, with adequate housing for animals and parking facilities.
In the matter of the expenditure on the centre, I draw the attention of the Deputy to the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General, which states: "The audit established that proper tendering procedures were observed in connection with the placing of contracts, and that the Department had satisfactory controls in place in relation the processing of payment claims in terms of on-site inspections and detailed administrative checks." The Deputy should consult with her colleague, Deputy Wall, on this issue because he has made some positive remarks about the centre. The centre is in Kildare and the Deputy is familiar with the economics of the equine industry in Kildare and other areas. He said the centre was a Mecca for national hunt activity and that the investment sought to put Punchestown on a par with Cheltenham. I agree with the Deputy.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.