Vol. 592 No. 5
1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she is taking to re-open the live export trade following the imminent withdrawal of the European Diplomat; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29498/04]
The Government has supported the continuation of the live export trade, as an essential market outlet for Irish farmers. Regarding the transport of animals by sea, my Department's function is to approve sea vessels for the carriage of livestock. The Department works closely with applicant companies to ensure that the conditions aboard such vessels are consistent with national and EU animal welfare requirements. Within this framework, 18 dedicated livestock vessels and three ro-ro vessels have been approved for the carriage of cattle since 1995. However, the actual provision of such services is a commercial matter. It is not possible under EU law for the State to intervene directly in the provision of a service as the Commission previously ruled that State aid paid to secure a similar shipping service to the Continent was incompatible with the single market.
I am exploring all options to facilitate continuation of the live export trade. I have met a number of stakeholders in the industry and have raised the possibility of re-opening the landbridge through the UK with the EU Commissioner, Mr. Byrne. At this week's meeting of the EU standing committee on the food chain and animal health, the Commission indicated its willingness to bring forward a proposal on this matter at an early date. Officials from my Department are working closely with prospective service providers on providing an alternative ferry service. Nevertheless, the transport of live animals is ultimately a commercial matter and my Department has approved a sufficient number of vessels to provide a service if the commercial demand exists. Likewise, it will inspect any further vessels that are proposed for use in transporting cattle.
I wish the Minister well in her new portfolio. The withdrawal from service of the European Diplomat directly threatens the export of more than 200,000 cattle, with an impact on earnings of €150 million per annum. Will the Minister agree there is a need to secure the long-term viability of live cattle exports? Will the Minister elaborate on the discussions that have taken place at EU level? I understand she is seeking approval for the UK landbridge through the UK. What timescale is involved in this? While the Minister states the decision is a commercial matter, will she consider the introduction of legislation to oblige all ferry companies to carry legitimate cargo, including livestock? Will she outline the discussions between her Department and the Commission on securing Marco Polo programme funding to enhance the viability of a service from Ireland to France?
I wish every success to Deputy Naughten as front bench spokesperson and congratulate him on his recent marriage. As the Deputy is from County Roscommon, I do not need to convince him of the importance of the live export trade. From my meetings with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and the farming organisations, a number of ways of resolving this issue have arisen.
One group has expressed an interest. It is looking for guarantees, not necessarily financial, from the Department and is working with the farming organisations and the exporters. Securing Marco Polo programme funds was explored but it is a matter for the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Gallagher. It is based on there being no competition on the route. The Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources has considered something similar to a PSO, but it would take six months to work out. Following this, it has been decided to re-examine the UK landbridge. I wrote to the EU Commissioner, Mr. Byrne, last week and there was a positive reaction last Monday at official level.
However several barriers have to be crossed. Live animals cannot be transported through the UK and the Welsh Assembly Government will have to be consulted. That will be a matter between the UK and the Commission and I will refer this to my UK counterpart when I am in Brussels on Monday. There is the issue of security in transporting animals and ensuring that they will not be replaced. There was a debacle over animal welfare but there have been considerable changes in animal welfare legislation.
I am not buying or investing in a boat. That said, I am doing everything I can to support both options. As an island nation, we need access to the French market, both for live exports and tourism. I have not considered a legislative framework yet as I prefer not to have to take that road. It is a lucrative business from what I have ascertained from discussions with carriers. I hope market forces will reflect this.
Will the Minister agree that as ferry companies are not obliged to provide services to all cargo, it is a barrier to trade? What action has the Department taken on the French authorities considering introducing IBR-free status and its impact on the export of live cattle through France?
We are not at a stage where we do not have the willingness to carry live exports. The problem is that the service has been withdrawn. Obliging another carrier to take on live exports is not the issue, as carriers have indicated they are more than anxious to ensure that live cattle exports continue from Rosslare. There was a problem regarding exports from Dublin using the landbridge. However, following discussions with exporters, I investigated this only to discover there is no impediment to doing so. The IFA won a case regarding the obligation for a ferry company to carry live cattle. That expired last year, yet live exports continued. The main issue is we have not secured a ferry operation that will carry on live exports.
Live exports is a hot topic and there are those who are vehemently against it, including farming organisations. However, I see it as a fruitful way of ensuring competition and it helps rural areas with the export of weanlings. I have not found any opposition from any our EU partners to this trade.
2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the recent diagnosis of a variant CJD case here; the consequences she foresees for the agriculture industry; her proposals to step up BSE and variant CJD prevention measures; if she has plans for increased rigour in the testing of animal products from non-EU countries arising from the recent case; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29496/04]
It was with regret that I learned of the illness due to variant CJD of the young man and I wish to convey my sympathy to his family and friends.
The Minister for Health and Children has dealt with the public health dimension arising from this case. Ireland has operated a range of controls in the cattle and beef sectors against BSE since the confirmation of the first case in 1989. The objective of these controls, which are kept under constant review and are in line with best available scientific knowledge, is to eliminate the cause of the disease and to protect the consumer of Irish beef. The controls were substantially extended in 1997 when a possible link between BSE and variant CJD was first confirmed in the UK. While the EU further extended the mandatory controls on meat and bonemeal and specified risk material removal in late 2000, Ireland put in place the main elements of these in 1996 and 1997 for public health protection.
My Department operates the controls in place in Ireland in the export plants. In small local abattoirs, the local authorities operate the controls under the supervision of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Irish BSE controls remain subject to ongoing external audit and examination by a range of bodies, including the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the European Commission Food and Veterinary Office. Based on an extensive examination in 1998 the EU categorised Ireland's position on BSE controls as optimally stable, which is the highest category of control effectiveness. The Irish BSE control system is also subject to examination by the veterinary and public health authorities in certain non-EU beef importing countries.
In respect of the current case, both the CJD advisory group and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland have indicated that there is no need for concern about the public health and or safety of Irish beef. In particular, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland stated that it is "confident that based on current controls consumers of Irish beef are not being exposed to the BSE infective agent". Animal products from the non-EU countries may be imported only from countries that the EU has approved on the basis that their veterinary, animal health and residue controls for the products in question are at least equivalent to those of member states. Therefore, harmonised provisions are operated in accordance with community legislation and these standards are audited by the EU food and veterinary office. Where there are concerns with regard to the effectiveness of controls being operated in an approved third country, the European Commission, in consultation with the standing committee on the food chain and animal health, may introduce specific controls by means of a safeguard measure to ensure the protection of human and animal health.
I thank the Minister for that detailed response. I too extend my sympathy to the family of the patient who has been diagnosed with CJD. Is there any ongoing surveillance similar to a small survey I carried out at the weekend whereby I discovered that 29 of the cases identified this year were nine-year old animals? It was a disproportionately higher figure than for any born in any other year that were diagnosed as positive. Geographically, it was clear that BSE occurs more frequently in certain parts of the country. To an extent that reflects the number of cattle in those counties but there are other elements that might be worthy of investigation. Will the Minister comment on any such surveillance and any progress that could be made to address clearly identifiable areas or ages of animals that might be worth studying?
We discussed the number of BSE cases at the last Question Time and they have been reduced considerably by almost 30%. The trend of which the Deputy speaks is that it appears, except for six cases, that the animals were infected before 1996-97 when the enhanced controls were implemented. A few BSE cases have been confirmed in animals born after that time but this appears to be consistent with the situation in other member states, as was predicted. One cannot be complacent about this. The veterinary officers in my Department and in the district offices actively consider this matter. Farming activity and its intensity indicate where BSE is likely to appear.
Although we will never be totally happy about the issue, our procedure was proactive and resulted in quite high numbers at the time. We carried out a cull which assured us and the customer that the matter was being dealt with as expeditiously as possible. That was the best policy, as all the Deputies would probably agree. The Department consistently examines this matter. It is independently audited by the EU and supported by the independent Food Safety Authority.
Approximately €20 million is available from the European Union to fight animal disease. Will any of that be dedicated to BSE in particular?
Does the Deputy mean in terms of research?
No. In terms of eradication of animal disease, €20 million in funding is available from the European Union. Will some of that be dedicated to dealing with BSE?
There are many animal diseases for which the money is provided and BSE is one of those.
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the level of market research and scientific evaluation in her Department undertaken to measure the impact on food production here if the widespread use of municipal and toxic incineration commences. [29613/04]
My Department is not directly responsible for decisions concerning the use of municipal and toxic incineration. These matters are handled through the planning authorities under the aegis of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Environmental Protection Agency also has a major role in this area. In November 2003, the Food Safety Authority published a report entitled Waste Incineration and Possible Contamination of the Food Supply with Dioxins. Several studies carried out by the authority over the three years prior to that on foods likely to be contaminated by these environmental pollutants concluded that levels in Irish-produced foods are extremely low and that consumers of these foods are not at risk. This is reflected at different points in the food chain. Ireland continues to have lower dioxin levels in the environment than most other European countries.
The report goes on to state:
In relation to the possible impact of introduction of waste incineration in Ireland, as part of a national waste management strategy, on this currently largely satisfactory situation, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland considers that such incineration facilities, if properly managed, will not contribute to dioxin levels in the food supply to any significant extent. The risks to health and sustainable development presented by the continued dependency on landfills as a method of waste disposal far outweigh any possible effects on food safety and quality.
The European Commission's strategy for dioxins, furans and polychlorinated biphenyls aims to reduce human exposure at safe levels in the medium to long term, with a quantitative objective to reduce human intake levels below 14 pico grams WHO-toxicity equivalence per kilogram bodyweight per week. This year, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in collaboration with my Department monitored dioxin occurrence in meat, offal, fruit, vegetable, cereals and dairy produce. A similar exercise was carried out on eggs in 2003. I understand there is a study under way on fish.
The results of these surveys indicate that the levels found are well below the existing EU maximum levels and will also be below the proposed levels, which will include levels for dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls. I am satisfied that there is no risk to the safety and quality of food produced in Ireland. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland report referred to earlier also stated that: "as part of an overall waste management strategy, as reflected in the EC Waste Hierarchy, incineration coupled with waste prevention, reduction, recycling and other treatment methods is the preferred option". My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, is actively pursuing an integrated waste management approach, which is the practice used by the best waste performers in Europe and reflects the internationally recognised waste management hierarchy.
I thank the Minister for her reply. There is nothing new in that she is reiterating what has been found, which is reassuring for the present. The results are a matter of national pride as well as market advantage because Ireland has lower dioxin levels, particularly in milk samples, than other countries, including Switzerland, Germany, Holland, France and the United Kingdom. Presumably the Minister has made the connection between the results and the fact that those countries are already proponents and operators of incinerators.
Does she accept that there is a need for her Department to articulate a particular concern that, for example, when people talk about ingesting emissions or inhaling dioxins, in fact it is the food chain, that more easily captures dioxin emissions? Is she aware that research has calculated that a litre of milk would deliver as many dioxins as a human would ingest breathing the air next to a cow for eight months. Discussions on incineration need to focus more closely on food than they have done up to now.
Has the Minister spoken to Senator Jim Walsh? He claimed in the Seanad that purchasers of meat from outside this country have specifically asked how close the source is to any incinerator and that a radius of 40 kilometres is given in reply. The importance of the marketability of Irish food in the future should be a matter of concern right now, rather than waiting until incinerators are up and running. Will the Minister be more proactive about it, rather than waiting for reports to arrive on her desk from the Food Safety Authority or the EPA? Will she speak up in the interests of the Irish food industry in advance of any difficulty that might arise?
We carried out a pre-emptive study initially to see what would be the impact of implementation of the waste management policies. It clearly indicated that we have a very low level of dioxins in our food. The most important words to be used are "properly managed" and that is the pre-requisite for any signing off by the FSAI. The proper management of any waste management strategy is paramount.
One takes one's opportunity in the political world to provide an argument for or against something. That is life, as we know it. This issue has not been much part of any debate. I am not enamoured with using the food chain in an argument that can be tangled up into something of which it should not form a part. On the basis that food chain, food supply and food quality are paramount to the Department, we will be vigilant towards the impact that anything would have on our food chain. It is on that basis that this matter will be actively reviewed. We will also be vigilant with regard to any new proposals that will have any negative effect on our food chain. Based on what has been made available to us, we took the proactive step of advising ourselves of any implications. The properly managed aspect of anything is the key.
I did not get any answer there. Has the Minister spoken to or will she speak to Senator Jim Walsh? I will say it to him myself. It is important the Minister has all the facts before going any further.
He is not an expert on the FSAI, but he would be an expert in what he represents, or where he represents.
He is a messenger.
There is a proposal in his part of the world with which he would not be enamoured. All arguments are supportive.
It is national.
I will stick to the big picture.
4 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she is taking to prevent a reduction in the Irish sugar beet quota; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29499/04]
The European Commission's proposals for reform of the sugar regime, which were outlined in a communication to the Council and the European Parliament in July, envisage a reduction in sugar quotas across all member states. I have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals in their current form are unacceptable because of the serious repercussions they would have for the sugar beet growing and processing industry here.
Reform of the sugar regime, which was not included in the main CAP reform process in 2003 and 2004, has now come high on the EU agenda because of developments at WTO level and other international pressures. The Commission's proposals will be discussed at the Council of Ministers agriculture meeting next week, but the legislative proposals will not emerge until next year. There will be a long and difficult negotiation process. My objective is to protect the viability of sugar beet growing and processing here and I will work vigorously in common with like-minded member states towards that end.
Under the current proposals, farmers plan to lose up to €26 million per annum, which would make sugar beet production completely uneconomical here. There are 8,000 jobs involved directly and indirectly. Ireland is self-sufficient in sugar and we do not have a difficulty with over-production as do other countries. Does the Minister agree that we need to ensure the viability of production in the medium to long term? Will she ensure that there will be no changes prior to mid-2006 when the current regime ceases? Will she also ensure that full compensation will be provided to farmers for the loss of either price or quota cuts that may be proposed? Has the Department looked at the issue of designating the sugar industry as commercially sensitive at EU level in the context of the WTO negotiations?
My colleague, Deputy Kehoe has raised a question and I hope the Minister will answer it. Who actually owns the quota? Is it Greencore, the State, or is it the farmers themselves? What is the Department's position on the possible transfer of quotas from this country to other EU countries?
There are a number of implications to the proposal, which is only an indication and not a directive. I have taken the opportunity of garnering some support from my other colleagues in the European Commission. We have created what is known as a blocking minority. The French, who would normally be very supportive of agriculture, are vehemently opposed to us on this issue and that creates difficulties. I want to see a vibrant sugar regime here for beet growers and processors. There are major implications involved in the issue of quotas and prices. The quota transfer is a high ball that everyone will go up for. My view is that it is a nonsensical proposal and we will not accept that. When we tried to look at a quota transfer within the EU on other issues, it was shot down as being illegal. The issue of compensation will be there. However, there are a number of core issues that will have to be addressed, especially those of quotas and prices. We can have all the quotas in the world, but if we do not get a price for our product, then it will be irrelevant and self-defeating. Compensation is nonetheless an issue and will be part of the package.
I have been asked to consider sugar as a commercially sensitive product for the WTO and it is being considered. Ownership of the quota is an issue I believe will become a distraction to the main issues. The Minister of State advised me that in Wexford, it has been part of the concerns expressed by farmers. We have never had a definitive decision on who actually owns the quota. It is not a beet quota, but rather a sugar quota. I have asked the Attorney General to examine that issue and to give me legal clarification on the issue. We have our own views within the Department, but I will be better qualified to give a definitive answer if it is legally given to me.
I hope the Minister will give it to me when she has it.
I will do that.
The regional allowance that is there at the moment is partially because we have a lower yield here. Will that be retained? What type of case is the Minister putting on that issue? What about merging the A and B quota, which would have a big impact here in comparison to other EU member states?
The regional allowance was raised by the farming organisations. One of the issues is that it has a cost implication as well. However, the priorities are prices and quotas. I said that we would look at the regional allowance, but I hope it will not detract from the base line. The A and B merger will have implications for us and we will fight strenuously on the permutations of that.
As far as I can ascertain, having listened to many people who have great experience of negotiating on issues of this nature, it seems likely that we will find it very tough. A great deal of work, such as the forming of alliances, and compromise will be required if we are to retain our sugar industry. I do not think we should throw our hat at it. It has been suggested that we could give it to the Brazilians and let them at it, but that is not the Government's preference. I will look for political assistance and the support of the farming organisations to ensure we are helped to achieve what we want to achieve. I will indicate strongly on Monday that Ireland is not in a position to accept any of the things on the list which has been proposed by the Commission.
5 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the investigations she has carried out arising from the import of animal feed found to be contaminated with bone; her views on this case; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [29497/04]
Two shipments of sugar beet pulp were imported into Ireland on 18 and 22 October for use as animal feed. Samples of the feed were taken and analysed in accordance with the feeding stuffs control plan of the Department of Agriculture and Food. The samples were found to contain traces of terrestrial animal bone. Some 4,160 tonnes of beet pulp were imported in both shipments from Germany via Rotterdam.
When the Department of Agriculture and Food was notified by the laboratory of the presence of bone of terrestrial animal origin, it immediately started to operate the provisions of its contingency plan for animal feed. It also put in place the provisions of the standard operating procedures for sampling, analysing and following up positive results for processed animal proteins in animal feeding stuffs, which were recently negotiated with the Irish Grain and Feed Association. The procedural strategies helped the Department to notify the trade of the incident quickly. They facilitated an efficient recall process and the speedy collection of the names of farmers who had received any of the affected compound feed. The European Commission was informed of the incident by means of the rapid alert system for food and feed.
The success of the procedures resulted in 96% of the original consignment being detained or recalled to the port stores. The remainder was included in 880 tonnes of animal feed that was sold to 234 farmers. Some 1,770 tonnes of animal feed, significantly in excess of the amount of feed manufactured from the pulp in question, was recalled from the farmers as a precautionary measure. That feed is under detention in dedicated stores. The importers have been asked to submit, for the consideration of the Department of Agriculture and Food, proposals for the disposal of the detained product. The Department and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland analysed the risks involved during their discussions. Given that there was a low level of contamination and an extensive recall of affected material, the Department is satisfied that the danger to human and animal health is negligible in this case.
Earlier today, officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food detained a consignment of maize gluten, intended for use in animal feed, which was imported from the United States. When the consignment was sampled in Ringaskiddy on 15 November last, a positive for bone particles of terrestrial origin was found. The provisions of the contingency plan and the standard operating procedures were brought into force immediately.
This country has invested a great deal of money in ensuring that meat and bonemeal is not used for animal feed. It is doing its best to prevent it from getting into home-produced animal feed. The certain confidence that exists in that regard, apart from a small number of unexplained BSE cases, is to be welcomed. While the recall outlined by the Minister has been successful, a small amount of the product remains in the public domain. The Minister has informed the House that a further consignment of feed with traces of animal bone has been brought into Ireland. Can a system be put in place to ensure that such products are not released into the marketplace before tests on them have been completed? Is it viable or possible to keep such products in storage until a positive result has been received from the laboratory?
The recall system was initiated as soon as possible and every effort was made to trace the affected sugar beet pulp. The Deputy's suggestion that we store the produce until it has been tested is logical, but it is illegal. The House is aware that we have decreased the testing timeframe from two weeks to five days. I have made clear that I intend to reduce it further. I hope problems of this nature will not recur if test results can be made available within 48 hours. It would be an easier way of dealing with the issue. The vigilance of those in charge of the system of importing products has ensured that the possibility of affected products becoming part of the feeding chain has been minimised, to the best of this country's capability.
I appreciate that we cannot impose artificial trade barriers.
Yes.
Given that another consignment that tested positive for bone particles has arrived in this country, it is time to put in place definite and specific measures to deal with this problem. The agriculture industry is being compromised, through no fault of its own, as a result of imports. What sanctions can be applied to the importers or distributors of the animal feed in question? Can the feed be traced further so that those who are responsible for its production face sanctions or penalties?
It has been made clear to me ad infinitum that Ireland has stricter controls than other countries. It is now obvious that it is just as well we do.
Exactly.
As we appreciate that strict controls are of paramount importance, I do not envisage that we will change our modus operandi. The Commission, which was immediately notified of the beet pulp incident, took action in the country of origin. The matter is being dealt with extensively by the Commission. The importers will face a commercial loss because the Government has a policy of not compensating those who import products which are found to have meat and bone particles in them. The loss of their entire consignment will be a sufficient sanction for importers. The Government will not pay for it. These people will receive severe penalties in that way.
I assume that the feedstuffs were brought to this country in good faith. I do not think there is any suggestion that it was a criminal act, because that has not been the case heretofore. The full vigours of criminal law would be invoked if there were such a criminal aspect to the matter. The potential losses to the importers will comprise a sufficient penalty, especially as they will probably face a further battle with those from whom the product was sourced. I assure the House that we will be vigilant in expediting the testing procedures. I hope that process will satisfy Deputy Upton, who has expressed her natural concerns about keeping products in storage while we wait the outcome of tests on them.
