Billy Timmins
Question:93 Mr. Timmins asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the amount of meat and bonemeal generated each week; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20187/04]
Other Questions.
Animal Carcase Disposal.
Each year the meat sector in Ireland generates 550,000 tonnes of animal by-products, which in turn are rendered into meat and bonemeal, MBM. A total of 138,453 tonnes of MBM were produced in Ireland in 2003, which represents a weekly average production of just over 2,662 tonnes.
The production of animal by-products and, in turn, of meat and bonemeal is a necessary part of a livestock and meat processing industry. In the absence of any domestic facility for using the product, either in industry or energy production, it must be exported for incineration to other EU countries.
Is there any other way the Minister can envisage getting rid of the product? Incineration is obviously not available, but is there any other way that it might be dealt with? It is a significant problem and is obviously costing the country a great deal of money. That weekly tonnage represents a vast volume. Is there any other system we might use rather than incineration?
As Deputy Hayes has said, this is a major and expensive problem. In 2002, I established an interdepartmental group to examine ways and means of disposing of and utilising that very large amount of meat and bonemeal. The committee recommended that it could be used for co-incineration in the manufacture of cement, as happens in other EU countries to which we export it for that use. Our difficulty is the cost of that transportation and export. The use of meat and bonemeal as a substitute fuel for energy production is another possibility and we are considering landfill, incorporation into fertiliser and alkaline hydrolysis. We are keeping the matter under review.
That report was sent to the industry. We talked to people in the cement and energy industries to see if we could encourage them to use the product. All the risk material has been taken out of it. It is treated to international standards for time and temperature combinations which render it totally inert, and it is an entirely safe product. The Food Safety Authority was involved in the interdepartmental committee as an agency. However, it is regrettable that to date we have not been able to get any industry or part thereof to take an interest in meat and bonemeal as an energy or fuel source. We have been left with no option but to store and export it for use in the very same industries in other countries around Europe. We are finding a European solution to an Irish problem.
Does the Minister see any possibility of reducing the amount? Will it stabilise, or is it likely to increase? What options are there? He mentioned the task force and the group set up to examine it. Have there been any significant developments in international research that might suggest a way forward apart from incineration?
Following the total ban on using meat and bonemeal in feed, the volume naturally increased, as did the risk material. A few years ago the brains and spinal cord were removed, but now larger amounts of risk material are extracted. As far as I can see, the volume will remain considerable. The question is therefore how we dispose of it. We will examine best practice in other countries, particularly in Europe, in that regard. We will keep in touch with the scientific bodies in other countries too. However, we are still left with a large problem in that several hundred thousand tonnes of meat and bonemeal must be disposed of. In the Irish situation, we cannot use thermal treatment; nor can we utilise it for animal feed because of the ban. The only alternative is to pay for the cost of storage and transport subject to industries in other countries paying a knock-down price since one has no alternative but to get rid of it.
The Minister mentioned alternatives. Alkaline hydrolysis has been mooted several times, and I am delighted to hear that the committee examined that proposal. Might it be possible to pursue that, perhaps encouraging companies to take that route, which seems the environmentally friendly alternative to incineration among the options the Minister listed?
Is it difficult to get suitable storage facilities for meat and bonemeal? There was a great deal of talk about incinerators being built in this country for that purpose. Has there been progress in that area?
How much is it costing per tonne to export it? What is done with it in Germany or wherever it goes?
We have examined every possible way of disposing of and utilising meat and bonemeal, several of which I mentioned. Deputy Hayes asked about alkaline hydrolysis. We need the European Commission to approve that method and validate the process. We hope that that will happen very shortly. However, there is a shortcoming since with alkaline hydrolysis one must use a very considerable amount of water, and one produces a significant amount of sludge as a result. For a relatively small operation such as a farm or a butcher's shop, it would be a suitable way to dispose of the product. However, for larger processing plants, it would have limitations. Nonetheless, in following up such matters we must examine every possibility.
Regarding storage, one will get it if one pays for it, and it is costly. We are fortunate there is currently no beef intervention store, meaning that storage facilities are fairly readily available. Planning permission is a difficult matter at any time for a private house, never mind incineration, as I am sure Members are aware. I wish anyone applying for an incinerator the very best of luck. Nonetheless, we have made some progress in that area in that at least outline permission has been granted in one case. However, another element follows. The Environmental Protection Agency must give permission too and the detailed rules governing the procedure must be observed.
The net position is that we do not have thermal treatment facilities and that will continue to be so for some time. I do not know the cost per tonne but will communicate that directly to Deputy Crawford.
What happens in Germany?
Combined heating and power.
Combined heating and power is used, as for industry in other countries.
On-Farm Checks.
John Perry
Question:94 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his plans to streamline farm inspections; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20175/04]
It is necessary to simplify the on-farm checks as much as possible, consistent with a system that will be acceptable to the European Commission. Consultation will take place on this with all interested parties before 1 January 2005. I intend that individual farmers will be informed about the minimum standards they will be expected to meet under the various directives, including the requirement to keep land in good agricultural and environmental condition. Under EU regulations governing the single payment scheme farmers are obliged to observe good farming practice and environmental conditions. A single inspection will replace the inspections to check compliance with the various premium schemes in place. A minimum of 5% of farmers will be subject to on-farm checks for eligibility of the land declared. The inspection approach to these checks will be similar to the annual area aid inspections carried out hitherto and some of these will be carried out by remote sensing.
Farmers in receipt of the single payment scheme are also obliged to comply with the statutory management requirements in environment, identification and registration of animals, public, animal and plant health and animal welfare. It will be necessary to inspect 1% of farmers for compliance with statutory management requirements, except for identification and registration of animals where 5% of applicants must be inspected. My Department is drawing up an integrated control system for cross-compliance. My policy is to limit the number of on-farm checks to the minimum while ensuring that the interests of the EU taxpayer are protected. It is difficult to estimate the precise number of inspections overall but there will be a significant reduction in the number of on-farm checks.
The Minister has already dealt with this issue but when does he expect that an inspector would furnish a report or make a decision after an on-farm inspection? Is it fair that someone should wait for several months without receiving the result of an inspection? What is the Minister's attitude to that sort of laxity?
I want a simple system consistent with audit requirements and by which people would if possible receive a few days' notice of the inspector's call. The result of the inspection should be furnished as quickly as possible thereafter. If there is a problem caused by a deliberate action a penalty would be imposed but an innocent error such as the loss of a tag should be rectified as soon as possible. The independent appeals office deals expeditiously and humanely with farmers at oral hearings where it provides them with assistance. I expect that to continue as part of a sensible approach to the matter.
How will the 5% to be inspected be nominated? Does a system exist? Will the selection be made on a county by county basis? Will a person inspected this year be taken out of the loop for a certain number of years or what process will apply?
It is a fairly arbitrary process and would be difficult to organise scientifically. If a person who has been inspected became complacent for three or four years it would not be very effective but equally it is not desirable to carry out frequent re-inspections. We need to approach the matter sensibly. A sample check with a reasonable geographic spread should continue to be the basis for the selection. The criterion should be that the EU auditors, the Oireachtas Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General are satisfied with the system.
Long-term Land Leasing.
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:95 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food his proposals to facilitate long-term land leasing; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20182/04]
The rapid economic growth since the early 1990s and the small amount of land for sale have contributed to significant increases in the price of land. Non-farmers competing with farmers for the limited amount of agricultural land that becomes available can make the cost prohibitive for many farmers. Land sales are at an exceptionally low level — less than 0.2% of agriculture area — and leasing is the only alternative for farmers wishing to develop the necessary scale for improved viability.
In November 2003 I made a submission to my colleague, the Minister for Finance, seeking an extension of the rental income exemption for long-term leases then available only to farmers over 55 years. On budget day 2004 the Minister for Finance announced that the age limit for qualifying lessors was being reduced from 55 to 40 years and the annual exemption thresholds were being increased from €5,079 to €7,500 for leases of five to seven years, and from €7,618 to €10,000 for leases of seven years or more. These changes were made effective from 1 January 2004.
Is the Minister aware that there are approximately 30,000 farmers aged 66 or over who receive non-contributory pensions? Would he agree that penalising them if they lease their land, by reducing their pensions, is a disincentive to them? Will he examine the social welfare code and the possibility of a greater exemption for people on non-contributory pensions and other social welfare payments?
An exemption introduced in the 1990s for REPS was a major incentive to encourage people in the west of Ireland in particular to enter that scheme. More land is available for leasing and will come up because of de-coupling but there are too few incentives to take it up. Will the Minister consider lowering the age limit of 40 years to 30 years to encourage and enable young farmers to lease land?
I agree that farmers are constrained if they must buy farmland. The recent budget reduction of the age limit and the increase in the tax exemption for leasing land were welcome moves. I will discuss the matter of the non-contributory payments with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs because I sympathise with people receiving these payments. It was the system for many years when there was no PRSI. In the past seven or eight years people have made RSI payments and are entitled to a full contributory pension. Those caught in the previous system are on a low threshold when the pension is reduced. I would like that to be taken into account. Although it is not my direct responsibility I will discuss it with the Minister for Social and Family Affairs.
The price of land is prohibitive. Most people agree that income from general farming would scarcely meet the repayments on the cost of land. Nevertheless a difficult hilly farm in West Cork, with approximately 62 acres of arable land, sold a couple of weeks ago for €1.3 million to a local farmer. One needs only read today's Farming Independent to see similar stories.
Was it Paddy Sheehan?
I could not advise any farmer on this because he or she would get a very poor return on the outlay as only 0.2% of land becomes available at any time, making it a very restricted market. The vendors do extremely well. I met the farmer who said that selling the farm was the first bit of ease he had got and he can look forward to a decent lifestyle in retirement.
Disadvantaged Areas Scheme.
Seymour Crawford
Question:96 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the position regarding his negotiations to have the remaining part of County Monaghan reclassified as severely handicapped; his views on whether this area has been seriously discriminated against over a long number of years; if or when it will be reclassified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [20246/04]
On a number of occasions during the past two years our Department raised the issues of extension and reclassification of Ireland's disadvantaged areas at meetings with the European Commission. On all occasions, the Commission services strongly made the point that a review request for reclassification of any area could lead to a demand for justification of the current designation and classification of all Ireland's existing disadvantaged areas.
On the most recent occasion when our Department endeavoured to progress this matter — at a meeting with the Commission on 9 December last — we were again advised to be well aware of the risk associated with an examination of any formal request for reclassification. In light of the Commission's attitude, which has its basis in negative comments by the European Court of Auditors, our Department is examining at present how best it can progress this matter further.
Does the Minister of State realise that what has been done to farmers in the area of County Monaghan to which the question refers is totally illegal, immoral and unjust? The census carried out by officials of the Department clearly showed that vast areas which have been left out of the scheme are much more entitled to be included than areas which were included on previous occasions. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, laughs about this matter but this is the only portion of Connacht-Ulster that has been left out. The latter was done for political reasons.
I ask again that the Minister put the proposal to Brussels because I do not believe it will be refused. His predecessor put the other half of the remainder of Monaghan to Brussels through the STAR committee and this was accepted. It was only when this happened that it emerged, on foot of ministerial replies, that certain areas had unjustifiably been left out. When will the remainder of County Monaghan be included?
I listened with interest to Deputy Crawford who has been on both sides of this issue for a long period. I recall his making representations on behalf of a particular organisation about it in the past.
It was the Minister's fellow countyman who shafted us on that occasion.
My countyman did a great job.
Yes, because all of the Minister of State's county was included while a portion of mine was not.
Is the Deputy stating that it was his decision?
We certainly have a problem.
I did not realise he was a politician.
He was not a politician.
Then that contradicts the Deputy's earlier assertion that this was a political decision and that the area in question was left out for political purposes. One cannot give credit to somebody for making a decision that had positive benefits for one part of the country and then claim that political negativity applied to another. That argument does not stand up and is not sustainable.
The Minister of State should tell that to the people of Monaghan.
This matter has been reviewed and considered in great detail and changes and progress have been made in County Monaghan. The Minister and his team, our colleagues, the Ceann Comhairle and I have made serious and strenuous representations about this matter. We would like to be able to ensure that a positive conclusion will be reached in the near future. That is what we want. However, we have come up against a stone wall. Professor Seamus Sheehy chaired a committee which examined this matter and concluded that the deal we had obtained was the best available. Perhaps as we go forward with great optimism into the future there may be one or two great Irish people who will have a key role to play which might ensure that there will be a positive conclusion to the Monaghan symphony.
Professor Sheehy was not allowed to visit Monaghan.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.