Vol. 598 No. 6
65 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she intends to review the control and monitoring of chicken imports in view of the recent warning from the Food and Agriculture Organisation that the virus causing bird flu may be impossible to eradicate; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6951/05]
Avian influenza is an infectious disease of birds. Migratory waterfowl, most notably wild duck, are the natural reservoir of avian influenza viruses, and these birds are also most resistant to infection. Domestic poultry, including chickens and turkeys, are particularly susceptible to epidemics of rapidly fatal influenza.
Avian influenza viruses rarely affect humans and do not normally infect species other than birds. The virus has on occasion, however, been isolated in humans, and in Vietnam, the H5N1 virus was isolated from a number of patients who died. There is, however, no evidence that the virus can be transmitted from poultry to humans other than by direct contact with infected birds. The risk from poultry meat to humans is negligible as the virus is destroyed during meat maturation, by cooking and by stomach acids.
The conclusion of a three-day conference in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, which was jointly organised by the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations and the World Organisation for Animal Health is that while progress has been made in disease detection and in rapid response to the disease there is need for more vigorous control campaigns in the countries in south-east Asia affected by avian influenza. Extensive publicity campaigns are suggested as well as the principle of segregation of species on family production units. It is hoped that these measures and others will, with the injection of appropriate funding, aid in the reduction in the risk of the spread of the virus to non-avian species and humans in the region.
With effect from 23 January 2004, the European Commission invoked safeguard decisions to control the importation from south-east Asian countries that were approved to trade with the EU.
My understanding of the FAO report is that this disease will be present for several years in the countries which experienced outbreaks in 2004 and will be impossible to eradicate. It is also the view of the World Health Organisation that it is not a question of whether there will be an outbreak but rather when there will be a pandemic. Human health is primarily at issue, as are the implications for the poultry industry should there be an outbreak here. In this context, does the Minister of State think we have adequate resources in place to deal with inspection and regulation, particularly at border inspection posts?
The resources are not a difficulty, they are more than adequate. Moreover, all consignments being imported into the EU must first be presented at EU border inspection posts. At the BIPs they undergo a documentary and identity check and the physical checks are carried at frequencies laid down by EU law. Where required, samples for laboratory analysis for the purpose of safeguarding human and animal health is also carried out. Once imported meat has met all the required conditions, it is released for free circulation within the Union.
Other than the border inspections posts, through which consignments of any product are brought in for trade purposes, there is also a concern in regard to people bringing in personal imports of meat and other products. According to a reply by the Minister to a parliamentary question, up to June 2004, 2,500 tonnes of food was seized and destroyed but no prosecutions were undertaken in respect of the seized personal imports of animal products. Does the Minister of State think there are adequate numbers of inspectors to monitor those imports and what action can be taken? I am recording what is stated by the WHO and the FAO to the effect that it is almost inevitable that there will be a pandemic, with a huge impact on human health and possibly for the poultry industry.
On a more general note, we are keen to ensure that consumers of poultry meat have the right to the maximum amount of information about the food they are offered for sale so that they can make informed choices. In this regard, a number of regulations have been initiated in the past year and sanctioned by the Department of Agriculture and Food.
I know the Deputy has raised the issue of labelling on a number of occasions. The Minister raised the issue of labelling at EU level during a Council meeting and was supported by her German colleague. I assure the Deputy that the Minister, at every opportunity, raises this issue and is concerned to have in place a proper labelling regime, particularly for poultry which is imported from third countries.
The issue is not one of labelling but rather one of detection and the procedures which are in place for it. We must have learned a very hard lesson from the foot and mouth disease. At that time there was a knee-jerk reaction whereby all the systems moved to protect Ireland from an outbreak of foot and mouth disease after it had been detected and declared in the UK. We were particularly lucky to escape as we did. We had good systems in place but there was a knee-jerk reaction in response. However, we now have an opportunity to put in place a system in advance. What plans does the Department have for such a system?
The results of the conference in Vietnam are being evaluated by the European Commission at present and it will report its findings in due course.
66 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will report on the acreage of potatoes grown here in 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and in the latest year for which figures are available, and if she will take action in the breach of contract between a company (details supplied) and growers in north County Dublin which has put the sale of 4,500 tonnes of stored potatoes in doubt. [6975/05]
The area of potatoes grown in Ireland for the years requested is as follows:
|
Year |
Hectares |
|
1970 |
56,835 |
|
1980 |
41,583 |
|
1990 |
24,300 |
|
2000 |
13,173 |
|
2004 |
12,604 |
The issue regarding the sale of 4,500 tonnes of stored potatoes does not come within my remit and is a matter for resolution between the growers involved and the company with whom they carry on business.
Tugaim faoi deara óna figiúirí a thug an tAire Stáit dúinn go bhfuil laghdú ann. I appreciate that negotiations are ongoing and I hope they will have a satisfactory outcome. However, the wider issue for which the Minister of State is responsible is the overall welfare and development of the potato growing sector in Ireland. As he has clearly outlined, the fact that the total area under production has fallen from 56,835 hectares in 1970 to just 12,000 at present represents a huge decline in potato growing in a country which should be exporting its produce as we are in other sectors. It is alarming. Some 20% of growers have left the business in the past five years and more will leave this year.
Does the Minister of State have plans to develop the sector and arrest this decline? For example, does he recognise that there are particular difficulties in the seed potato sector at present? An application has been made for grant assistance in the development of the potato seed sector. More generally, if a grower is required to spend €3,000 to grow an acre of potatoes and needs to sell the crop at approximately €200 per tonne but is lucky to get €150 or €130 per tonne, how can he or she be expected to continue to grow potatoes? Is there a message in this that the Government does not expect people to continue growing potatoes in Ireland and that the sooner they sell their land for development the better? That is the message which is being sent out. Potato growers are being asked to do the impossible, to grow potatoes for less than €130 per tonne.
Has the Minister of State addressed this problem? Will he meet the IFA and the growers with a view to resolving the problem so that growers can continue to survive? They cannot do so on speculation as to what they might sell. They need a firm commitment on what they can sell. Will the Minister of State help in this regard?
Only last Thursday I spoke at the IFA-Teagasc national conference on potatoes and I met individual farmers both before and after my address. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and I have had a number of meetings with different stakeholders in regard to the potato industry. We recognise that it is a very valuable and important part of our agrifood industry. We met individual groups and industry figures representing the processing point of view as well as that of the growers. We also met the IFA national potato committee on a number of occasions. In addition, the Minister has met numerous potato growers and farmers in Donegal.
We are very conscious of the issues outlined by the Deputy. The figures I supplied in my initial reply demonstrate that there has been a huge drop in the growing pattern in Ireland. At the same time, the value of the crop is approximately €85 million and is very important. Recently, the Minister approved projects to the value of €6 million. Some time before that, projects to the value of €3 million were approved in regard to the upgrading and provision of new facilities. I do not accept the Deputy's argument that the Government is suggesting people should get out of the industry. The message we are giving to the farmers is that the industry has a future. Individual farmers are investing hugely in providing modern facilities with the support of the Department, which demonstrates that we have absolute confidence in the industry.
The fresh potato sector has been under pressure for some time. I visited Ballymoney Foods in north Antrim at the request of Seán Farren of the SDLP where I met the SDLP and DUP representatives with the management and workers of that factory. The facility is owned by farmers north and south of the Border. We are anxious that they will be able to extend their processing facility. When I was in the Deputy's constituency I visited some state-of-the-art facilities where huge investment is taking place and where produce is being processed to the highest standards. We have invested a great deal in the past number of years in providing new facilities.
We must improve value added potato products. Consumer eating habits have changed. There has been a growth in demand for pasta and rice and the prepared and convenience food sector has grown enormously. The number of meetings the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and I have had with different stakeholders in the potato industry clearly shows that we are determined to arrest the decline, at a minimum. We are also anxious that further investment takes place.
Members who come from a different part of the country where livestock and dairying are the predominant agricultural activities have often spoken out against milk quotas and EU regulation. However, Deputy Sargent might agree that the common market organisation for certain products has had benefits as well, in that it provides stability. Potatoes are one of the few agricultural commodities that do not come within the common market organisation. In 2003, there was a 16% growth in potato production at EU level. Such growth leads to over supply and poorer prices for individual growers. That is part of the problem.
Production is decreasing. The amount of potatoes being sold in a number of retail outlets is increasing so there is a demand for the product. I accept what the Minister is saying but actions speak louder than words. Is there a grant for the seed development sector or can we expect one?
Yes. We are giving particular attention to the seed certification sector. We have had meetings ad nauseam with the different stakeholders. Furthermore, we have agreed with Bord Bia a specific promotion this year for potato products.
67 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if any increases will be provided in farmyard pollution grants, especially in areas in which additional storage will have to be provided to take account of the extra week’s storage capacity that may be demanded of farms through the nitrate agreement; if she will report on efforts being made to provide grant aid for small farmers of under 20 livestock units who will be forced out of farming if no support is provided; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [7055/05]
Consultations are currently ongoing with the European Commission in regard to the action programme for implementation of the nitrates directive in Ireland. The question of possible changes to the levels of grant aid currently payable under the farm waste management scheme will be decided in light of the requirements of the action programme when agreed.
Does the Minister accept that an increase in grant funding is needed, especially in those areas where a longer period of storage will be imposed? Does she accept that the current situation, where those with under 20 livestock units are ineligible for grant aid, must be changed? Otherwise, that sector will disappear. Can the Minister give us an assurance that proposals are being drafted in that regard? If any structures are to be put in place this year and given that planning permission and so forth must be taken into account, it is long past time there was a degree of certainty on this issue. I appreciate the Minister's problems in this matter.
This year I provided €30 million for the scheme. Naturally, applications are slow in the context of the changes that arise from the nitrates directive. Under Sustaining Progress, we increased grant aid from 20% to 40%, which is substantial. We carried out an audit under Teagasc of what is available in the country at present. Under any agreement that is reached there will be a financial imposition on some farmers. As it stands, this is the case in the Deputy's constituency. We are evaluating that and examining the cost implications. I have €30 million this year for the farm waste management scheme.
There is an issue with the 20 livestock units, particularly for part-time farmers and small farm enterprises. The Commission has opposed the concept of anything less than 20 livestock units. I do not agree with that view but the Commission believes that fewer than 25 is not viable. I will evaluate and ascertain, in the context of the changes that have taken place, the implications for those with fewer than 20 livestock units and what can be done to support them following whatever decision is made on the nitrates directive. I cannot give a commitment now as to what will be available. People have anticipations and others have made recommendations but until I know the full implications of it, I will not be in a position to ascertain how the scheme will look.
I appreciate that the Minister has only been in office for a short time and that she has much work to do to rectify the damage done by her predecessor, who was in office for ten of the last 12 years and did nothing on the nitrates directive. The Minister said she has €30 million, although I believe the amount is €38 million, allocated for farmyard pollution. In 1997, £60 million was spent on this while last year only €17 million was spent. Taking account of inflation, is the Minister satisfied that the €38 million is sufficient or is she relying on the fact that there is so much red tape, farmers will be unable to draw down the money? The sum of €38 million will not do much in this day and age to rectify the serious problem that exists. Does the Minister understand the anxiety among farmers over whether they will be in production in 12, 18 or 24 months as a result of this nitrates directive?
I am acutely aware of the repercussions of the nitrates directive. A considerable amount of investment has already been made by farmers. We do not build slurry pits every few years; they last for a considerable period of time. The considerable investment farmers have made over the years has been grant aided by this Government. The Deputy has 20:20 vision with hindsight. As I recall it, the rainbow Government abolished the farm waste management scheme and on our return to Government we re-introduced it.
I believe we have adequate resources at present. In the event of changes in the nitrates directive we will have to ascertain their financial implications for both commercial and small farm enterprises.
Has the Department made any decision on the earthen banks and wintering pads?
I have met Teagasc and it has almost finalised its views on those issues. Ultimately, the cheaper options might not be the best. In my constituency, people vehemently oppose the provision of such facilities as they are inadequate for the climate. There are also safety issues. However, if they are dealt with in the proper fashion, they might provide an opportunity for some farmers in certain parts of the country.
I agree with the Minister on that issue.
Perhaps the Deputy would let the IFA know, when its representatives are roaring at me, that it is the same in his constituency.
68 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if her attention has been drawn to the fact that digestate from anaerobic digestion may be spread on land under certain conditions but that a statutory instrument here still prevents spreading of digestate; and if she will consider the case being put by farmers such as a person (details supplied) in County Waterford who wrote to her Department on this matter in early January 2005. [7053/05]
Council Regulation (EC) 1774/2002 sets out the provisions relating to the disposal of all animal by-products including the digestate produced through anaerobic digestion in approved biogas plants. Under this regulation digestate, which may include animal by-products from such plants, may not be spread on pastureland.
In addition, however, Ireland has adopted national controls to counteract the spread of BSE. The need to prevent the spread of this disease has been of central importance to Ireland since its discovery here in 1989. Over the years as scientific knowledge has progressed, a sequence of measures was introduced in the EU to combat the spread of BSE. These measures are aimed principally at ensuring the safety of the consumers of beef and at preventing the exposure of cattle to the infective BSE agent through feed. Ireland has adopted control measures in advance of other member states and, in some cases, has adopted more stringent controls than elsewhere in the European Union. One of the controls in place and laid down in S I 551 of 2002 prohibits, in effect, the spreading on land of digestate from a biogas plant where the feed stock used in that plant had any animal by-product in it containing animal protein.
The robust approach we have taken has been successful in having Ireland's BSE controls validated within the European Union and by countries outside of the Union, thereby protecting valuable export outlets for our agricultural production on which we are uniquely dependant. In addition, the fall in the numbers of BSE cases in recent years and the increasing age profile of the cases detected is concrete proof of the effectiveness of the control measures in place.
However, in view of the declining rate of BSE cases here, I have asked my officials to review the need to maintain specific control measures in the disposal of certain animal by-products, including those that may be included in digestate from biogas plants.
I welcome the Minister's response, particularly as she is prepared to consider the current situation rather than dwelling on an historic situation which may not be as relevant as it was. I appreciate her precautionary approach. Naturally, we do not want to be reckless or in any way put at risk the important status we hold.
To follow on neatly from Deputy Crawford's question, if there is to be a prohibition on the inclusion or acceptance of certain material for anaerobic digestion, what other plans are in place? Is it satisfactory that we would continue to stockpile? Will the Minister announce the outcome of whatever review she is undertaking given that producers have invested in plant and machinery for anaerobic digestion?
All things being equal, it is a beneficial win-win situation in that it creates energy and material which is nutritious in terms of land spread being of an even consistency — more so than the raw material — and disposes of what otherwise would be a waste product. Will the Minister state when she plans to have an outcome of the review so we can reduce waste and benefit from other technology?
This also arises in the context of the directive under discussion. One of the concerns that has been brought to our attention by pig and poultry and producers, for example, is that they will not have adequate lands available to spread slurry. Therefore, on that basis, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, considered the issue of energy crops and biofuels. The issue of anaerobic digestate is annexed to this. In my constituency, the farm relief service proposes to introduce an anaerobic digester.
The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government drafted the national biodegradable strategy. However, to progress and transfer from landfill to anaerobic digestion would require the amendment of statutory instruments. On the basis of present consultations, the changes with regard to BSE and the issue of dealing with the nitrates directive are at the top of the agenda for consideration. Changes will be made as quickly as possible.
It is new technology for us but old for others. On the basis of an attitudinal change in this country, opportunities arise in regard to this new technology. It is being advanced with other technologies to deal with what is perceived as a waste product but, as Deputy Sargent rightly suggests, which can be used. I hope an attitudinal change will also take place in the planning process, although I note Deputy Upton is rightly throwing her eyes to heaven.
Does the Minister accept that the land spreading of digestate is much easier than spreading the raw material as it does not have an odour problem? Has the Minister visited any of the anaerobic digestion plants, as I have, including one not far from the home area of the Minister of State, Deputy Browne? Farmers are using this. While the Department may not be familiar with it, many farmers take it as an integral part of their overall operation. A number of farmers are feeding raw material into one anaerobic digester I know of. They benefit greatly from easier spreading as well as creating a waste product which contains energy.
I have not had the opportunity to visit such a plant. The Deputy is correct to state that odour is reduced because the digestate is dry. Much work has been completed on the technologies involved. However, one of the difficulties is the not in my back yard syndrome. People do not want this type of facility in their vicinity. However, among the farming fraternity, producers are coming together to deal with this issue. For example, the poultry sector in County Monaghan provided facilities to deal with the effluent issue there. The Deputy is correct that this is the way forward. How far we progress will depend on the result of education on its benefits.
The Minister can expect an invitation.
Will the Deputy take me somewhere nicer?
The Minister will love it.
