Vol. 596 No. 2
1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she is taking to address the rejection by the EU Commission of the Government’s implementation strategy on the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2132/05]
Implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland submitted an action programme for the further implementation of the directive to the European Commission on 22 October 2004. In parallel with the submission of the action programme, Ireland also submitted a derogation proposal setting out a scientific justification for operating levels of up to 250 kg organic nitrogen per hectare, based on the specific characteristics of Irish agriculture.
The Commission has now conveyed its view, by way of a letter of formal notice under Article 228 of the EU Treaty issued to Ireland dated 22 December 2004, that the action programme is not complete and does not comply with the requirements of the directive and the judgment of the European Court of Justice against Ireland, which was delivered on 11 March 2004. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, and I have met the farming bodies to discuss the current position on the action programme, and my officials are now working with their counterparts in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on the preparation of a response to the Commission.
Continued EU funding of Ireland's rural development measures including REPS and compensatory allowances is dependent on our meeting the requirements of the nitrates directive. It is also one of the statutory management requirements under the single farm payment scheme. We must make every effort, therefore, to secure the approval of the Commission both for the action programme itself and also for the derogation arrangements, which we put forward separately. However, it is my objective, shared by the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, to minimise the burden of compliance on farmers generally and to ensure that the future of the commercial agriculture sector is safeguarded.
I thank the Minister for her response. The European Commission proposes extending the number of weeks slurry storage is required and restricting the number of weeks in which slurry can be spread as well as extending the requirements to other counties. Why are the zones being extended in counties like Donegal, Roscommon and others, and why are the restrictions being extended if no problem exists with nitrate enrichment in such counties? This is a big issue for many farmers. Is it not the case that a maximum of 8% of the country needs to be designated as nitrate vulnerable? In light of this, did the Government not make an awful mistake in proposing to encompass the whole country in the designation under the nitrates directive?
Both the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and I are disappointed that the compromise position of the Brosnan report was not accepted. As the Deputy knows proposals were made in 2003, which were not acceptable to the bodies and therefore further discussions took place. The use of zoning is accepted in principle by the Commission. However, unfortunately it regarded the specified zones to be inappropriate. Following a meeting between the farming bodies, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and me, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government will proceed to defend robustly our original proposals. This will be based on the scientific data submitted by the experts. With his officials he will argue that the proposals should be accepted, as they are scientifically sound.
The question as to whether parts of the country should have been zoned and others not zoned is now almost superfluous. Unfortunately, the Commission was ultimately not happy with the proposed action plan. We need to get agreement quickly on the issue, as the implications of not doing so would mean that a proposal for derogation would not be accepted by the Commission and certain payments could be held up. We now need to try to ensure that in the defence of the proposals, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should be in a position to get agreement from the Commission.
The reason for being in thismess in the first place and now having to get agreement so quickly is that the Government sat on its laurels on the matter for many years. It should have made proposals long before last year. Is it not the case that pigs, poultry and dairy production will now be restricted in the most vulnerable zones that have been designated along the Border, with some of the midland counties included? The European Commission highlighted that the proposals had an inadequate scientific basis. Will the Minister review the scientific evidence on the basis of proposing the nitrate vulnerable areas, whether they be townlands or communities, and submit it to Brussels rather than designating the whole country and imposing huge restrictions that are not necessary to meet the requirements set down under the nitrates directive?
The action programme wasnot rejected on the basis of the scientific data. It was rejected mainly because it failed to create binding rules for farmers, the prohibited periods for spreading fertiliser needed to be extended, the minimum storage capacity needed to be increased and clear rules needed to be established on nutrient management by reference to crop needs. It was not rejected on the basis of any scientific data or because areas were zoned. There was reference to finalisation of some supporting documents. However, those were guidelines to farmers and were not part of the scientific aspect.
Why does the Commission require more information? Is that not based on scientific evidence?
I refute the Deputy's first insinuation that the Government failed to provide a national action plan.
It took it seven and a half years.
Members on the opposite side of the House have pontificated too much about ensuring that we had-——
This goes back to 1992.
Yes, 1992. I do not recall at any time in the past 20 years any Opposition Members calling for a nitrogen action plan.
We worked on it between 1994 and 1997. We established the guidelines before we left office.
They know we had difficulties in preparing it. Many of the Opposition Members present were previously members of local authorities, which introduced by-laws not similar to the proposals made by Teagasc. This will cause some serious problems for people like me and my colleagues on this side of the House who wish to ensure that we get acceptance of the plan.
Counties like Roscommon introduced restrictions and we have no need for by-laws based on scientific evidence.
2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on recent research which indicates that other animal organs, previously considered safe, could harbour BSE and pose a risk of infection in humans; if she will consider a tightening of restrictions here on foot of this research; if there will be a redefinition of SRMs; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2129/05]
I assume the research on BSE referred to by the Deputy is that reportedly conducted by Swiss, British and US researchers and recently published in the journal Science. My understanding is that this research is ongoing.
Decisions on food safety, including questions related to BSE, are constantly kept under review in the European Union and include, where necessary, referral of the results of research such as in this case to the European Food Safety Authority for consideration and review of its findings. The views of that authority are taken into account by the EU Commission in formulating proposals for adoption.
I would not wish to anticipate the conclusions the European Food Safety Authority might reach in this case. However, I will support any Commission proposal to classify organs and other material as "specified risk material" and therefore to be excluded from the food chain if evidence exists that it represents any risk.
I am referring to the research in Science. No one could deny that it is a substantial scientific journal that would be highly regarded and its publications peer-reviewed. On that account, it is important that serious consideration is given to the impact of this research, albeit in mice. The journal suggests that the implications could be significant for larger animals, particularly bovines. What discussions has the Department had with the European Food Safety Authority on the implications of this research and the action that might be necessary? The 30 month rule is arbitrary and I am concerned that there may be no symptoms in an animal because the disease is dormant. The implications of the research are significant.
This is ongoing research that has not been fully evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority, which will make recommendations to the Commission for consideration. It would be imprudent of me to pre-empt the outcome of the research. We will adhere to any recommendations from the European Food Safety Authority to the Commission. I have not been in touch with the authority but the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Department are in constant contact with it about any issues that may arise.
Last week yet another animal born after 1996, after 1997 in this case, showed positive BSE test results and a number of animals have identified as positive since the ban. Is there any cause for concern in those events and this research?
Last year there was a 30% reduction in the number of cases and this month, in comparison to January 2004, there has been a considerable decrease in the number of animals with BSE. The small number of those who tested positive since the restrictions, cause concern and a thorough investigation is being carried out by Department officials to ascertain the cause of young animals contracting, BSE. In normal circumstances they are around five years of age and it is often difficult to get a definitive answer. I have been advised, however, that there would be an expectation that a number of animals would present positive results after the systems were introduced. We would like to see the complete eradication of this disease. In the advent of a case arising outside the timeframe, we vigorously examine the reason for it.
3 Mr. J. Breen asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she will take to deal with the various anomalies in the farm retirement scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2130/05]
A number of issues have been raised from time to time arising from the scheme of early retirement from farming. Those that come up most often are the fact that the rate of pension is not index-linked and the requirement that early retirement pensions can be paid only as a supplement to any national retirement pension payable to the participant.
It is not accurate to describe these as anomalies. Both the current early retirement scheme and the previous scheme, which closed to new entrants at the end of 1999, are governed by EU regulations. One requirement of the regulations is that the early retirement pension can be paid only as a supplement to a normal national retirement pension. Consequently, my Department has no option but to deduct the value of national retirement pensions from the early retirement pension.
As regards the rate of pension, under the previous scheme we are paying the maximum that the EU regulations allow — we cannot increase it. Commission officials have confirmed this several times in response to inquiries from my Department. In its proposals for the current early retirement scheme, which commenced in November 2000, my Department included a provision for annual increases in the rate of pension from 2000 until 2006. The European Commission rejected this proposal and insisted on legal grounds that a fixed rate be set instead.
The mid-term review of the CAP has implications for farmers in the early retirement scheme. In general, the new single payment scheme introduced in Ireland from 1 January 2005 is applicable to farmers who actively farmed during the reference years 2000, 2001 and 2002, who were paid livestock premia and-or arable aid in one or more of those years and who will continue to farm in 2005.
Farmers who joined the 1994 early retirement scheme, which closed to new applications in December 1999, did not farm during the reference period and cannot establish entitlements under the single payment scheme. Where they transferred their holdings by lease, the transferees actively farmed during the reference years and it is they who will have entitlements established for them. Entitlements are attached to the farmer who was actively farming during the reference period, not to the land.
During the course of negotiations with the European Commission on the single payment scheme, Ireland secured agreement for an arrangement that will benefit family members or others who now take over holdings that were farmed by third parties who had leased them during the reference period. Farmers who take over such holdings, by transfer free of charge or by a lease of five or more years at a nominal amount, may apply to the national reserve for payment entitlements under the single payment scheme.
Participants in the current early retirement scheme that was launched in November 2000 who farmed during part or all of the reference period will have entitlements in their own right and can, before 15 May 2005, use the private contract clause to lease these entitlements to the young farmer who holds the lease of their land under the early retirement scheme. In such circumstances, the retired farmer must establish the entitlements in 2005 on a special form provided by the Department. The qualifying young farmer may or may not have entitlements and land in his or her own right.
Does the Minister of State agree with the former Minister, Deputy Walsh, when he said there are serious flaws in the farm retirement scheme? Does he agree that a person who retires through ill health and who returns to farming when his circumstances change should be entitled to resume his benefits? Does the Minister of State agree that if land is leased to a family member, the family member is penalised? If it leased to an outsider, it is the outsider who gains the entitlements. When these farmers retired they had quota and headage payments. When they returned to farming, however, they found that their farms' values had fallen by 50% because they were without quota and headage. Around 6,000 have been affected under this retirement scheme.
The Minister of State has so far refused to meet the group campaigning for the rights of those farmers. Will he meet it? How many acres of land in the State are without quota? Why did the Department of Agriculture and Food break its contract with these farmers? There should be an immediate meeting with those farmers who were affected and their entitlements must be restored forthwith.
A number of groups purport to represent retired farmers with special concerns about the early retirement scheme. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, met some of these groups and I met a deputation from the mid-west in the Department some time ago who outlined their concerns.
Deputy James Breen referred to comments by the former Minister, Deputy Walsh. The then Minister and his officials raised with the European Commission the possibility of increasing the maximum rate of payment in respect of the scheme that operated between 1994 and 1999. The Department and the Minister raised the matter with the Commission on several occasions at that time. The Commission firmly replied that the maximum payment of €12,075 could not be increased under any circumstances, even if the Exchequer paid for it. That is what Deputy Walsh referred to, as far as I know.
The Department sought index-linking when it submitted to the Commission its initial proposal in respect of the current scheme. That proposal was rejected by the Commission, through its legal services, on the basis that one could not index-link or pay by increments a "contract", which is what it considered the retirement scheme to be. I have spoken about some of the issues that have caused us concern over the years.
I discussed some of the issues raised by Deputy James Breen in my initial response to him. People who did not actively farm at that time cannot activate entitlements under the single payments scheme. The scheme pertains to people who actively farmed at that time. The Department and the then Minister succeeded in reaching agreement with the European Commission on a number of issues which will benefit family members or others who can take over holdings which were farmed by third parties who had leased them during the reference period.
That is now.
That concession was sought and granted by the Minister and the departmental officials after protracted and long negotiations with the European Commission. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and I have listened to the concerns outlined by various groups. We had meetings with senior officials from the companies outlining and detailing certain matters. We responded to queries from a number of groups and individual farmers concerned about single payment entitlements, in particular.
Does the Minister of State think this scheme would withstand a constitutional challenge based on people's right to inheritance and entitlement to property, as outlined in the Constitution? I do not think it would.
The Department has been advised that the scheme is properly and legally constituted. It does not inhibit the constitutional rights of any individual farmer or landowner.
4 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she intends to take to support farmers and transporters to meet the new animal transport regulations agreed in Brussels in December 2004 that will require farmers and hauliers to have a special certificate of competence to undertake journeys with livestock of more than 65 kilometres from departure to destination; her views on whether this will have further serious implications and costs for movement of cattle for shipping, marts, factories and above all for those in the pedigree cattle business who go to sales and shows; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [2131/05]
The EU regulation to which the Deputy refers is Council Regulation (EC) No. 1 of 2005. Most of the requirements of the regulation will not come into effect until 5 January 2007. A small number of other provisions will have effect from 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2009. The regulation is designed to improve the welfare of animals being transported within member states and throughout the European Union. It follows intensive negotiations at official and political levels over the past 18 months.
The main provisions of the regulation do not apply to transport by farmers using their own vehicles of their own animals for distances up to 50 km. Several other provisions do not apply to persons transporting animals for distances up to 65 km. More detailed requirements relating to certificates of competence for drivers and attendants, as well as certificates of approval of vehicles, apply only to transport for more than eight hours and not, as suggested by the Deputy, to journeys above 65 km. The Department of Agriculture and Food is considering the arrangements and requirements for the operation of the new regime for the transport of animals at home and to our European markets from 2007 onwards. I intend to consult all relevant parties on the most effective way to implement the regulation.
The final Council agreement did not cover more controversial issues, such as stocking densities and travel times. The Council will review such issues within four years of entry into force of the regulation. In recent years, the Department of Agriculture and Food has actively promoted the welfare of animals at all levels, including at farm and transport levels. I welcome the broad thrust of the Council regulation. I do not expect that it will impose significant burdens on the industry. It will significantly improve the welfare of animals during transport. It demonstrates the commitment to animal welfare of Ireland and the European Union.
I thank the Minister for providing so much valuable information. This is another step in the process of regulating farmers out of business. The Minister might argue that it is not serious because it will not come in for another two years. We spoke a few minutes ago about the nitrates directive, which was introduced in 1992 but has not yet been regulated. How does the Minister envisage that the new regulation will improve matters? The record of farmers in their transport of stock is generally quite good. If one wants to move cattle from County Donegal to another county for show and tell purposes, for example, it will not be very long until one has travelled 50 km or 65 km. In such circumstances, one would have to get a haulier or review one's licensing structure. How do the regulations apply to a person moving a horse to a race meeting?
According to the figures provided by the Minister today, we have destocked 1 million head in this country. We destocked 1 million head between 1998 and 2003, even though the single premium was not in place. If farmers are to remain in business, we have to be very careful about introducing further regulations. How will this regulation improve the livestock sector? Is the Minister suggesting that farmers are not using reasonable means of transporting and handling livestock at present?
I agree with the Deputy's suggestion that farmers are not abusing their animals at present. The Deputy will appreciate that this is a controversial animal welfare issue in the European context. The changes will have a minimal effect on farmers transporting animals less than 50 km. There will be no change in that regard, in comparative terms, because the new regulation is in line with what is being done at present. The only real change relates to farmers transporting animals for more than eight hours, which is far more likely to happen in continental Europe than in Ireland. There are huge exemptions for anything less than eight hours. The changes primarily relate to transport that lasts more than eight hours — certificates of competency, authorisation training and certain other provisions will be needed in such circumstances. We will facilitate and support exporters and drivers to the best of our ability, perhaps through Teagasc or FÁS. The Deputy is aware that the changes will not happen for several years, as I have outlined.
It is important to emphasise that in my short time on the Council of Ministers, I have found that the attitude of many of my colleagues to the transport of livestock is not similar to my attitude or that of Deputy Crawford. This will become an more difficult issue in the future, despite all the supports that have been put in place. The normal transport between farms, marts and holdings will not be affected in any way. People involved in such activity are currently adhering to the rules set out in the new regulation.
I agree there will be changes to rules governing transport that lasts over eight hours. I have indicated the future implications of this regulation to the hauliers. There will be further negotiations with all those involved to ensure that we have the support we need to ensure adherence to the regulation. The implementation of the regulation will commence in 2007 and will be completed by 2009.
The Minister has said the only issue at stake relates to the eight-hour rule. Is it not the case that a certificate will be needed for journeys of more than 65 km?
No, it is not.
Anyone can drive any distance in Ireland as long as the journey takes less than eight hours.
I do not know how many hours it would take to drive from Malin Head to Mizen Head. I suppose it would depend on how fast one was driving.
It is vital because——
One will need a certificate of competency for journeys of more than eight hours. Other issues will also have to be addressed in such circumstances.
As this country's cattle numbers decrease, it is obvious that meat factories will have to close.
I think the Deputy should hold the head a little. There will not be any change in the rules governing the transport of animals for more than 50 km. The changes affecting those who drive more than 50 km but for less than eight hours will be minimal. In this regard, the regulation is in line with the normal methodology used by hauliers, transporters and farmers at present. The Deputy also asked about horses. I know that horses are well looked after when they are transported to race meetings. They are probably better looked after than the fellow driving the jeep.
That might not be the case on the journey home.
It depends on how much money the driver stands to make on the horse.
5 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will make a statement on the potential of renewable energy crops within the context of the reformed Common Agricultural Policy. [2175/05]
Promotion and development of renewable energy in Ireland are matters in the first instance for the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources. In so far as renewable energy crops are concerned, Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003 establishing the single payment scheme introduced an aid of €45 per hectare per year for areas sown with energy crops. The aid is granted in respect of areas where production is covered by a contract between the farmer and a processor, except in the case of processing undertaken by the farmer on his holding. Agricultural raw materials, with the exception of sugar beet, may be grown under the energy crops scheme provided the crops are intended primarily for use in the production of products considered to be biofuels and for electric and thermal energy produced from biomass.
A maximum guaranteed area of 1,500,000 hectares for which aid for energy crops can be granted has been established in the European Union. According to figures provided by the EU Commission, in excess of 303,000 hectares was sown with energy crops in 2004, of which 439 hectares were Irish. From 1 January 2005, farmers may claim the energy crop payment in addition to their entitlement under the single farm payment. In addition to this scheme, set-aside land can be used for a variety of non-food uses, including growing of crops for energy purposes, and will therefore qualify to activate set-aside entitlements under the single payment scheme.
Biomass production from early forest thinnings and short-rotation forestry crops offer considerable scope for use in renewable heat and electrical energy production. In this regard, my Department, through the offices of the National Council for Forest Research and Development, is closely involved with the work of the bioenergy strategy group. The objective of this group is to examine the potential supply and use of wood biomass in meeting Ireland's renewable energy targets.
According to the EU directive governing this area, 2% of all transport fuel sold in the country must be biofuel by the end of the year. The ultimate target is 20%, to be achieved by 2020. Is the Minister satisfied that domestic production and processing of the relevant crops will meet that demand? The success of the initiatives producing rapeseed oil in Wexford proves that there is massive potential for farmers under the new dispensation resulting from the introduction of the single farm payment. Will the Minister clarify the position on the use of sugar beet? As he said in his reply, sugar beet does not qualify as an agricultural raw material for which the grant of €45 per hectare can be claimed. Given the current crisis in the sugar beet sector, particularly the closing of the processing plant in Carlow and the added cost accruing on sugar beet producers because of their having to transport their raw material to Mallow, will the Minister consider allocating a grant to those who are prepared to use their land to produce sugar beet or other crops to meet the target set for 2020?
My Department and the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources are quite confident that we will reach the targets laid down by the European Union. It is a matter under consideration by the bioenergy strategy group, which involves both Departments, and the renewable energy development group, in which my Department is involved.
There are a number of pilot schemes in operation around the country. The forest services are providing for a pilot project involving 47 hectares of short-rotation willow coppice. There is a rapeseed oil project in Wexford and a similar project in Wicklow. Another project involves the use of biofuels by 17 vehicles used by Cork County Council. We are all aware that section 50 of the Finance Act 2004 provides a relief from excise on biofuels where the Minister is satisfied that any biofuel is essential to a pilot project designed to produce biofuel or test the technical viability of biofuels.
This matter is being considered in Brussels at present and we are awaiting a response, which will probably be available very soon. The pilot projects being carried out are very welcome.
We are all very concerned about the closure of the sugar factory in Carlow. A number of Wexford farmers are considering the possibility of utilising beet as an alternative energy source. Their work is at a very early stage but may result in possibilities. Bearing in mind the existence of the strategy groups and the pilot schemes, the Deputy can rest assured that the Department is fully involved and will keep a watching brief on the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources to ensure that we obtain a supply of alternative energy from crop-growing.
6 Ms McManus asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the recent report from the European Court of Auditors on the European Commission’s handling of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001; if there has been any discussion at European Council level on this report; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1925/05]
The European Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 8 of 2004 on the European Commission's management and supervision of the measures to control the 2001 foot and mouth disease outbreak and of the related expenditure was issued on 16 November 2004. The audit was carried out at the Commission and in France, Ireland, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The objectives of the audit were to ascertain whether the analytical method used by the Commission as the basis for the strategy for eradicating the disease was up to date; whether the strategy had been implemented effectively; and the system for reimbursing to member states expenditure on compensating farmers and slaughtering their animals was adequate, rapid and non-discriminatory.
The court found that in the absence of a more clearly defined Community framework for the calculation of compensation to be paid to their farmers, member states were able to introduce a variety of systems that gave rise to variations in the treatment of farmers within the Community. Due to this variety of compensation systems, the Commission's task of determining the amounts eligible for reimbursement proved to be complex. This caused considerable delays in reimbursements to member states. In a number of cases, there were double payments of animal premiums as a result of the authorisation given by the Commission to member states to pay animal and slaughter premiums to farmers, in addition to compensation for foot and mouth disease compensation, without their having to comply with the related control conditions. After the crisis, many shortcomings in the prevention and control arrangements were remedied, but the financial framework had not been revised.
In light of these findings, the court recommended that the Commission clarify the financial framework applicable to epidemics of animal disease, while reducing as far as possible the financial risk to the Community budget. The Commission subsequently submitted proposals to address the foregoing in respect of foot and mouth disease.
The report was discussed at the AGRIFIN working party on financial agricultural questions on 3 December 2004, at which the court's findings and recommendations and the replies given by the European Commission were supported by those member states concerned by the 2001 foot and mouth disease crisis. This matter is likely to come before the Council in the coming months in order for it to take note thereof.
It is very important that the farmers affected by the outbreak of foot and mouth disease be compensated. However, the outbreak had financial implications for many others, including those involved in the tourism industry and other areas of the food industry. Has the Commission a view on further compensation methods that might take into account all the others who may not have been at the front line, but who were very much affected secondarily?
One of the Commission's recommendations was that ways of including farmers in the disease control system should be studied with a view to involving them more closely. Has any action been taken in light of this recommendation?
Naturally, we were part of the audit process. The relevant issues are being discussed and will be brought before Council. It is an issue for the Commission but, having said that, I hope the new procedures being introduced will address the concerns that have been raised.
On the larger issue of compensation, the foot and mouth disease crisis had considerable financial implications. Thank goodness we did not have another outbreak of the disease. Although the disease did not just affect those in mainstream agriculture, the compensation provided was specific to the animals that were slaughtered and destroyed.
What is the Minister's opinion of comments made during the Dutch Presidency of the EU which suggested that farmers would have to fund any compensation for outbreaks in the future and invest in that fund over time?
In light of the foot and mouth disease issue, and the recent EU food and veterinary laboratory report, is the Minister concerned about the importation of Brazilian beef here and the associated risk, as highlighted by our colleagues in the Food and Veterinary Office in County Meath?
In the unfortunate event of another outbreak is there any discussion at European level about vaccination?
The Deputies have raised several issues, remote from the question but that is beside the point.
The Minister is very capable.
I do not know how capable I am but I will do my best on this. Discussion of disease levies is at a preliminary stage and no position has been taken. I have noted the views of most people on the issue. It would be reflected in serious charges that might have serious consequences. Some people might see it as a deterrent but in the overarching discussion it has not come forward for high level consideration yet and is only at consultation stage.
I do not see labelling of beef as the issue but I have indicated in the House that I want to ensure clear labelling is introduced. As it is taking some time to get legislation through the House, the Minister for Health and Children is facilitating me in one of her legislative measures and hopefully we will be able to address those concerns. The European Union expects the same standards for importation as others do.
In response to Deputy Upton, vaccination causes difficulties in exportation because the animals are not disease free but it is the subject of ongoing consideration.
7 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans to facilitate the export of live cattle through the United Kingdom to European markets; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [1794/05]
Following the outbreak of BSE the export of live cattle from, or its transit through, the United Kingdom was prohibited by virtue of Commission Decision of 27 March 1996. Given the possibility that there would be no direct access to continental markets after the withdrawal of the P&O ro-ro service between Rosslare and Cherbourg, I requested Commissioner Byrne late last year to submit a proposal for the re-opening of the UK land bridge for Irish exports. This request was granted.
This matter was the subject of discussions between officials of my Department, the European Commission and the United Kingdom concerning the practical steps needed to give effect to this decision, and in particular to the controls necessary to guarantee the integrity of the consignments being transported by this route. A majority vote in favour of a Commission proposal to provide a legal basis for Irish cattle transporters to transit the United Kingdom was secured at the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health on 17 December 2004. The necessary formal decision of the Commission is awaited.
As someone who comes from the west the Minister is conscious of the major implications of live export. Has she spoken to any of her ministerial colleagues in the United Kingdom or Wales on this serious issue? It must be dealt with at the highest possible level. We need to ensure that it works because if we do not have a live export trade for weanlings come autumn that will have serious implications for the trade, especially in the west.
The Deputy is aware of our personal views with regard to live exports. On the basis of the situation that arose I had to look at every available option, be it a land bridge through the United Kingdom or supporting and facilitating the reintroduction of the crossing. I spoke with the relevant Minister and Minister for State in London and we have been facilitated at Commission level.
There may be difficulties with the land bridge, particularly the question of whether operators of the ro-ro between here, the United Kingdom and mainland Europe would be prepared to carry livestock. The farming organisations and some welfare people have raised problems about this. If I had no option I would have to pursue it more vigorously.
We have facilitated the reintroduction of the ferry service from Wexford to mainland Europe which hopefully will address the important livestock industry and perhaps remove the necessity of following up the land bridge.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
