Olivia Mitchell
Question:69 Ms O. Mitchell asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the action she is taking to ensure all third country beef is properly labelled; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6787/05]
Other Questions.
Beef Imports.
Beef imports into the European Union from third countries must have been sourced, first, in countries and, second, premises listed and approved by the European Commission and which are subject to veterinary audits by the EU's Food and Veterinary Office. In addition, such imports are subject to checks laid down in the harmonised rules prescribed at European level and must be accompanied by the prescribed veterinary health certification from the competent authorities in the country of export.
The Community beef labelling requirements, which are compulsory in all member states, apply to beef sold at retail level within the Community, regardless of whether that beef was produced within the Community or a third country. Where beef is imported into the Community from a third country, that beef must, at a minimum, be labelled as "Origin: non-EC", with an indication of the third country in which slaughter took place.
There is a gap in these EU requirements in so far as they do not apply at restaurant and catering sector level, and Ireland has raised this with the Commission. It is my intention to proceed with a national legal requirement that country of origin must be displayed in respect of beef served on such premises. Proposals to this effect will be brought forward once the legal options allowing for this development have been fully examined. In this regard, I am in consultation with the Tánaiste and Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, on the appropriate legal mechanisms to give effect to such labelling.
I thank the Minister for her reply. Has the European Commission put forward a proposal to Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay to increase their imports into the European Union by approximately 300%? The Minister referred to audits by the EU's Food and Veterinary Office. Two separate audits were carried out in Brazil and both uncovered similar problems which have not been resolved. This threatens the issue of biosecurity of imports to this country and raises serious questions on traceability.
The Minister stated the requirements do not apply to catering, which leaves the system open to abuse. It is also open to abuse in regard to the issue of substantial transformation. Will the Minister provide a timescale for addressing this issue? Ireland should be setting the agenda. Will she do this ahead of Commission proposals?
The issue of substantial transformation was raised by me on Monday last at Commission level, most particularly in regard to the poultry sector. The issue of labelling has now dawned for many EU member states which were vehemently opposed to this when it was led by the Irish. There is a change within the Council in regard to substantial transformation and sourcing, including date and place of slaughter. However, in the interim, Ireland is proceeding on the issue. While it would have been better and easier to do this in the context of a European decision, we are not prepared to wait.
I met the Tánaiste. She will facilitate primary legislation through her Department, at which stage we will be able to give legal impetus to a statutory instrument that I will put forward on this issue.
What primary legislation is required and what is the timescale for it? I am glad the Fine Gael Private Members' motion put the Government and the Commission in focus.
I would not get too big a head. I do not know if the Commission reads our reports.
It focused the Minister's mind.
My mind would have been more focused on this issue, particularly in the poultry sector, than the minds of some of the men in this House over the years. I am supporting our poultry sector. Some people may be surprised that consumers are not aware that in the majority of cases, the poultry they eat, particularly the majority of chicken breasts, do not come from this country.
It is not coming from the EU.
It is coming through the EU, assisted by the trains. Our fresh produce is good.
I was prepared to introduce a statutory instrument when I came to this Department and I had been advised by the Attorney General that it must be supported by primary legislation. I found that it was going to take me some time to get back to the House with primary legislation and on that basis I am being facilitated with such legislation by means of a new health Act which the Minister for Health and Children will hopefully bring forward at the beginning of the next term if we get through everything else in this term.
I thank the Minister for her answer and I welcome the progress being made. Another related issue is that of traceability. This is not just a matter of labelling. One can insist on any labels one wants to. First, there are issues surrounding the language in which labels are presented. Second, the issue of the Sudan Red 1 dye which has emerged in the past couple of weeks has made a significant impact for consumers regarding what they are eating and what other components might be in a product, not necessarily in beef or poultry but across the whole spectrum of foods we eat.
I would like to know if there is any way of co-ordinating that information across the Departments. I appreciate that the Food Standards Authority has overall responsibility but the Minister's Department will not take questions regarding Sudan Red 1. It makes it very difficult for spokespersons on agriculture to get a response on behalf of the consumer who is eating these products. Traceability is therefore a major issue.
I appreciate that but it is not really my responsibility. The Food Standards Authority of Ireland, FSAI, comes under the Department of Health and Children because traceability is a food safety and public health issue. We must tackle the labelling issue in many ways. To be able to see what is on the label would be a start. People must also understand what is on the label, which is what Deputy Upton is speaking of. There are methodologies by which we can identify country of origin with date and place of slaughter, which is important. It is on that basis that we will look at that type of information.
One of the major issues under the regulation is the transformation issue. I have indicated strongly that it is open to abuse, that it is not acceptable and that we are prepared to close it. I regret I cannot do much about the issue involving the FSAI but I reassure Deputy Upton that there is ongoing consultation between the FSAI and my Department on many issues, not necessarily on a weekly basis but very regularly.
I am glad that attention has been given, as it needs to be, not just to labelling and traceability but also to the catering and restaurant business as that has been a glaring omission for a long time. Will the Minister say if the labelling reviews are looking at the need for a common label for Irish organic produce, which has suffered in marketing terms because of the diversity of labelling of food coming into the country and on Irish produce? I know that many organic producers have sought to have one label and I wonder what progress has been made on that.
I would like to see an increase in organic capacity and to see the price issue addressed, as no doubt would Deputy Sargent. The issue of labelling will be considered in the context of changes made. A labelling group made a number of recommendations which have now been addressed but there are still opportunities and a need for reorientation. Perhaps even the organic producers should consider a particular symbol with which they would be synonymous as a group. That may be a matter for the trade itself, but I know that trademarking, and having an affinity with something one can see, is as important as labelling. If we are to compete in the organic area, which I would like to see happening, we must look seriously at the cost issue and the disappointing fact that so much of the organic food consumed in Ireland is not grown here.
Animal Diseases.
Ciarán Cuffe
Question:70 Mr. Cuffe asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the situation with regard to Johne’s disease here. [6979/05]
Johne's disease is widespread in other EU member states and indeed worldwide. It is a chronic infectious disease of cattle, which gives rise to gradual wasting and loss of condition. Most cattle are infected early in life and while adult animals can become infected, it is rare and they usually have other problems such as deficiencies with their immune system. The disease has been notifiable in this country since 1955.
Until 1992, strict import conditions ensured that Johne's disease was relatively rare in Ireland. However, since 1993, the increase in the number of cattle imported in the aftermath of the single market contributed to a significant increase in the numbers of reported cases of the disease. In 2002 and 2003, 100 animals and 150 animals respectively were diagnosed as having Johne's disease.
Figures of incidence of the disease for 2004 have not been collated. Results on samples submitted for culture can take up to six months because of the extremely slow growth pattern of the organism. Farmers in general appear to be more aware of the disease and the increased volume of samples particularly blood samples being submitted for analysis suggests that an increasing number are actively managing the disease on their own farms. Control of Johne's disease centres on hygiene and on-farm animal management in particular with respect to the rearing of potential breeding animals. I recognize the need for support of an effective national strategy to arrest and reverse the incidence of the disease.
In an effort to raise awareness and to promote higher standards of hygiene management practices and calf rearing, my Department published two booklets in 2002 on Johne's disease. One of these is aimed at the farmer and the other at the private veterinary practitioner. These booklets detail the precautions individual farmers should take to keep the disease out of their herds. It would also be prudent for any prospective purchaser to seek private certification of freedom from Johne's disease from a vendor of cattle either imported from abroad or sourced within this country.
In early 2003, my Department discontinued the policy of slaughtering affected animals when it became apparent that this approach was not effective. A strategic review, which involved consultation with relevant interests, of the approach to tackling the disease was initiated. The process generated a number of very useful proposals of a practical nature.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. Does he recognise that the open market did not take account of the ability of diseases such as this to spread? I did not hear him mention quarantine in his reply, but will he consider the view I have heard expressed by farmers and vets that there is a need for closer attention to be paid to the quarantine issue, particularly for specimens of breeding animals coming into the country, and that this has slipped in the past? Will he agree that part of the problem is that there was not sufficient attention paid to the possibility of the spread of Johne's disease in the past? Have we learnt lessons to ensure that this spread is halted?
Farmers are finding it difficult enough to compete, but if there is some condition which is causing waste, where animals are being fed but there is less production, does the Minister accept that this is adding to the problem? What lessons have been learnt and how do they relate to quarantine?
The Department has introduced a number of initiatives. As I said, it has distributed two booklets, one for the farmer and one for the vet. We have also had a short-time strategy involving a training and information seminar for interested private veterinary practitioners, which took place in January last and was attended by 80 vets. It is intended to hold further seminars with Teagasc advisers and the Department in the near future.
As part of the next phase of the review in 2004, and on the basis of an identified need to generate rapidly increased awareness, Teagasc, the ICOS, Veterinary Ireland and the Department organised a series of workshops. Within the Department, a medium-term strategy involves research and it will include measures such as the evaluation of a number of diagnostic and screening methods for Johne's disease and the interim provision of diagnostic supports at the central veterinary research laboratory. The Department has allocated approximately €400,000 for this purpose over the past two years. The Department is considering consulting the industry and other interested parties on a number of other initiatives which will form a strategy to address Johne's disease. A number of issues must be resolved but we intend to proceed with a pilot initiative.
The Minister of State referred to the publication of booklets and so on. A farmer in a neighbouring county to mine lost his herd to BSE. He bought another herd but one animal was infected with Johne's disease. He bought those animals under the supervision of the Department but ended up with a serious Johne's disease problem. Has an effort been made to prevent farmers from selling animals, which have contracted Johne's disease? If a farmer seeks advice from the Department regarding which animals to buy and they subsequently contract Johne's disease, is there an onus on the Department to compensate him?
The Deputy has received a by-election representation.
The Minister of State partially answered my question regarding the updated methodology for detection. The time lag between taking a sample and getting a result is a major problem. What efforts are being made to fast-track that process? What research developments have taken place?
Are there concerns about the pasteurisation of milk given the tenuous link between Johne's disease and Crohn's disease in humans? Are the terms of pasteurisation under review?
Given that 25% of the adult population have poor literacy skills, will the Minister of State consider issuing a video rather than booklets to disseminate information on these issues?
I will consider Deputy Naughten's suggestion. I would like the pilot scheme to get under way so that all the issues raised can be addressed. There are no concerns about pasteurised milk.
What about my question? Who is responsible?
Nothing can be done because it is a diagnostic problem.
That is why the Department is undertaking the pilot scheme.
The farmer involved has been in touch with the Department on a number of occasions. While there is an issue, the diagnostic procedure is the difficulty. The Department does not buy cattle.
Teagasc is good at selling them in Leitrim.
It is a major research centre.
The Deputy should wake up.
Grant Payments.
Tom Hayes
Question:71 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans for the modulation fund; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6776/05]
The modulated funds become available for use in 2006. I will decide on their use and seek the necessary EU approval in the coming months. My Department is finalising its examination of the relevant options. As part of that examination there has been a widespread public consultation and discussions with stakeholders. The use of modulated funds in 2006 is limited to certain measures. The eligible measures are contained in the Common Agricultural Policy rural development plan, including agri-environment, early retirement, compensatory allowances and forestry, and the new initiatives introduced as part of the CAP mid-term review are food quality, animal welfare, farm advisory services and meeting standards. My decision on the use of the funds will be informed by the terms and conditions of those measures.
Will the Minister comment on last week's rumour that these funds will come under the disadvantaged areas scheme for the current year? If not, are there plans to include the funds under the scheme at a future date if Ireland is still entitled to them following the Minister's negotiations in June?
Does the Minister plan to focus on issues such as food quality, animal health and meeting standards, which are critically important for the agricultural sector, or will the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs get his hands on the modulated funds?
I am delighted that the discussion with the IFA made the front page of the Irish Farmers’ Journal. Perhaps if that discussion had been on the record, the story would not have been published.
There has been significant consultation and I received more than 60 submissions. One of the difficulties is the funds are available only for one year, 2006, before they become part of the rural development programme. The modulated funds amount to €18.3 million this year and will increase to €33 million next year. A number of initiatives relating to food quality, husbandry, calf rearing and sheep have been undertaken. However, the problem is the animal health issue is so broad that it may be difficult to tie down what we want.
Options are available, the easiest of which is to provide a top up. I have not decided whether to do that and then re-evaluate the position under the rural development regime, but a number of good initiatives have been proposed. Discussions are taking place with the farming organisations. I met them and my officials are following up while the internal working group is considering the proposals. It is a small sum but I would like it to be used in the most efficient way. The decision must be made by April or May and the modulated funds will not be accessible by the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. The access decision on rural development has not been made and further discussion at the Agriculture Council is required. I hope a decision will be made in June but it may take time on the basis of the tour de table that took place last Monday.
Food Industry.
Pat Carey
Question:72 Mr. Carey asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will report on the measures taken to assist the marketing and processing of agricultural products. [6869/05]
The National Development Plan 2000-2006 contains an indicative funding allocation of €358 million to the food industry for a range of measures covering capital investment, research, technology and innovation, marketing and promotion and human resources. A total of more than €72 million has been awarded to date in respect of the capital investment scheme administered jointly by my Department and the development agencies.
The element of the capital investment scheme administered by my Department assists capital projects which are intended to improve marketing and processing in the horticulture, potato, eggs, grain and livestock sectors which do not fall within the remit of the industrial development agencies or are not covered by my Department's on-farm schemes. In general, investments must exceed €100,000 and up to 40% grant aid is available. Following calls for applications in 2002 and 2004, my Department has allocated €30.31 million in respect of 112 projects across the various sectors as follows: grain sector — 31 projects, €12.60 million awarded; potato sector — 21 projects, €7.23 million awarded; livestock sector — 35 projects, €4.08 million awarded; horticulture sector — 18 projects, €3.64 million awarded; and egg packing sector — seven projects, €2.76 million awarded.
The client companies supported by Enterprise Ireland are primarily Irish manufacturing and internationally traded services companies employing ten or more people, Firms located in the mid-west are supported by Shannon Development, while firms in the Gaeltacht areas are supported by Údarás na Gaeltachta. The support mechanisms available from these development agencies to food companies engaged in marketing and processing of agricultural products include non-repayable grants, preference shares and ordinary share capital. The development agencies have also awarded a total of €42 million to client companies towards capital investment activities under the national development plan.
The measure relating to marketing and promotion is implemented by Bord Bia. The objective of this measure is to support the marketing and promotion of food and drinks products by facilitating the development of new markets and the expansion of current markets. Assistance is provided in the form of individual company support and support for the development of the industry as a whole. Under the NDP to date, almost €30 million has been committed by Bord Bia on these marketing and promotional activities.
The Minister of State has made a great case for some type of co-ordination in this regard which is not currently in place. In light of that, would he agree we need a single food industry development agency and a comprehensive marketing programme for our indigenous food companies, as set out in the enterprise strategy plan now abandoned by the Government? In that context, why were those two proposals not included in the action plan the Government approved last week? Why has the Department of Agriculture and Food been left out of the loop regarding the implementation plan, in which six other Departments are involved?
I reject every comment and submission the Deputy has made. He is making allegations that are totally without foundation. Obviously, Fine Gael has changed policy in recent years in that, when Bord Glas was amalgamated with Bord Bia, the party vehemently opposed the proposal. Now it is advocating a greater rationalisation of organisations. In recent years, Bord Bia has undertaken excellent work and it is being carried out both directly by the Department in funding product development, research and innovation and by the development agencies. More than €300 million has been allocated in the national development plan towards food-related initiatives. A very substantial portion of that allocation has already been drawn down.
We talked earlier in reply to Deputy Sargent's questions on the potato sector. The Department has provided very substantial funding towards research, innovation, provision of new facilities and marketing of products. The programmes in place are successful and are bringing about real improvements and generating additional employment.
The Deputy is misrepresenting the report on enterprise strategy too, which did not make recommendations that were food-specific. It made recommendations regarding the general competitiveness and workings of the economy. In my constituency last week, I spoke to several people involved in the artisan and speciality food sector. One thing they mentioned to me was that recently the decrease in insurance costs had been an extremely positive development for such projects, really making them competitive and helping them achieve the scale of costs they desire.
Before Deputy Crawford speaks, I remind him that we have not yet required the desirable aspiration that Members restrict their supplementary questions to four minutes. The Deputy may be breaching that now, and I ask him for a very short supplementary question.
That is the second time in the House today that I have been told the minute I have got up to speak that there is no time available. I wish to ask the Minister of State only one question. Is he satisfied that there should be a minimum limit of €100,000? There are small, family-owned food industry units. I am thinking of some butchers that act as wholesalers and are under tremendous pressure to meet all sorts of unique standards without grant-aid being available.
There are some projects calling for assistance that have lower-scale costs, and that is among the issues being addressed in the Department.
Is any special consideration being given to marketing of food arising from EU expansion, regarding both threats from imports and opportunities for us? There is particular concern about the mushroom industry.
The Deputy will be aware that a mushroom task force met some years ago. It reported last year, and departmental officials and I have met it and stakeholders in the industry. They have been under particular pressures regarding products coming from eastern Europe, particularly to the British market, to which we predominantly exported. Those issues are being addressed, and very substantial progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the mushroom task force. We are conscious of the challenges and opportunities that have arisen as a result of the expansion of the European Union to 25 states. It is not all challenges, since there are opportunities too.
The mushroom industry is going out of business.
It is not.
Have there been any discussions recently with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, regarding not simply retail planning guidelines, which are probably most on his mind in this regard, but the casual trading possibilities of farmers' markets, something he has mentioned previously? What progress has been made in bringing us up to the standard that operates in France, for example, which seems to have market advantage and, accordingly, a very positive image internationally as a food country?
On the last occasion the Deputy tabled questions, I believe that he was due to visit Ranelagh on the following Sunday, so I hope he had a good afternoon there.
Yes, and I have had many more since.
Good for him that he can get away from his constituency on a Sunday; most of us do not get that opportunity. We might get to a football match within the county, or outside if our team is playing away from home. The Deputy may have read that recently there was a seminar or conference in Cork regarding farmers' markets.
I was at it.
Good. Judging by the reports that I have had from Bord Bia and departmental officials, it was a very successful conference. Local authorities are facilitating the development of farmers' markets throughout the country, and the Office of Public Works, following correspondence between the Minister of State and me, is also anxious to facilitate such development where feasible. Bord Bia, working in conjunction with the various Leader programmes, is eager to develop the farmers' markets, which are proving very successful. There are several areas where we would like to see their further growth and development.
Will the Minister of State discuss the matter with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche?
It is a matter for the local authorities to implement planning regulations on the ground. As the Deputy knows, it need not go the Customs House.
Common Agricultural Policy.
Olwyn Enright
Question:73 Ms Enright asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans to review the force majeure procedure for the single farm payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6804/05]
Gay Mitchell
Question:83 Mr. G. Mitchell asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she has satisfied herself with the force majeure procedure for the single farm payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [6800/05]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 73 and 83 together.
My Department implemented The force majeure procedure for the single farm payment scheme in accordance with the provisions of Article 40 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 1782/2003. Eligible applicants under this measure can have their entitlements based on an average of one or two years during the reference period — 2000, 2001 and 2002 — or the alternative reference period — 1997, 1998 and 1999. If the revised average for applicants eligible on the grounds of force majeure or exceptional circumstances is less than the average for the three years of the reference period, as happens in some cases, the applicant in question retains the higher three-year average. In such cases, it would be detrimental to the applicant to benefit from the provisions of Article 40.
To give farmers ample opportunity to avail themselves of this measure, my Department introduced a scheme in December 2003 for the submission of applications regarding force majeure or exceptional circumstances. The scheme was extensively advertised in the national and local press, with an initial closing date of 23 January 2004. Owing to the high level of interest in the measure and difficulties being experienced by certain applicants in obtaining documentary evidence, my Department extended the closing date to 6 February 2004 to give farmers every opportunity to submit an application. We received in excess of 15,000 applications, of which 98% have been processed to finality.
Provision was made whereby any farmers dissatisfied with the decision of my Department in respect of their application under force majeure or exceptional circumstances had the right to appeal. In that regard, the single payment appeals committee, comprising an independent chairman, Mr. John Duggan, and four appeals officers from the Agriculture Appeals Office, was established. I am satisfied that this appeals mechanism provides farmers with an effective means to have their applications reviewed in an independent, fair, comprehensive and efficient manner if they are not satisfied with my Department’s decision in their case.
Following the issue of statements of provisional entitlements in September 2004, my Department granted farmers who had not already done so a further opportunity to submit applications regarding force majeure or exceptional circumstances. We have received in excess of 3,000 such applications. The deadline for submission of applications under this phase of the scheme was 29 October 2004. All unsuccessful applicants will continue to have a right of appeal to the independent single payment appeals committee.
I am satisfied that the timescale provided for submission of applications and the procedures introduced for processing applications under force majeure or exceptional circumstances regarding the establishment of entitlements under the single payment scheme are comprehensive, effective and fair.
I presume the substantial number of farmers who have not yet received notification of the single farm payment can still apply for the force majeure payment when they eventually get the single farm payment notification. Despite that such a process is in place, there appears to be a huge variation throughout the country in terms of success rates. For example, the lowest success rates are in the Minister’s county, Kerry and Laois——
No political interference there, Deputy.
——compared with a success rate in my own county of almost 26%, 25% in Sligo and 32% in Meath. Those were the figures available to me at the time; I am sure they have changed since. In general, the majority of cases have been unsuccessful. Is it not the case also that almost 99% of the cases that were appealed were unsuccessful, yet we still have this variation throughout the country, which gives rise to questions about the fairness of the system? Will the Minister comment on that?
I evaluated that because it is something I heard from my own back bench colleagues. The Deputy is talking about a 22% success rate overall. The number of cases received at the time was 15,288, nearly all of which have been processed. The number of successful applicants was 3,331. When independent appeals took place, 10% were found in favour of the applicant.
A number of issues arise. The regulation is quite strict and there are only a number of categories in which one can be considered — death of a farmer, long-term professional incapacity, a natural disaster, accidental destruction of livestock, buildings and holdings or an episodic disease affecting all or part of a farmer's livestock. The regulation is fairly restrictive. People who have a genuine need have the opportunity to appeal. I appreciate that not everyone will get through the scheme. People who have not been dealt with so far still have an opportunity to go through the system. There would be those also, as the Deputy is aware, who would not have a hope in hell of getting through the system. They have as much attachment to the land as the man on the moon but they will still try to get their single farm payment. That is to the detriment of genuine applicants because a considerable amount of resources were required to evaluate those applications. My Department officials are doing their utmost to be as fair as possible in the confines of the articles and terms and conditions to which they have to adhere.
A part-time farmer who has applied for installation aid cannot get time off from his employer to go through the processes involved. Could that farmer apply under the force majeure procedure to have his installation aid restored without doing the examination or will the Department consider putting a mechanism in place to help people like that gentleman and several others who cannot get time off from their employers? Perhaps they could do the course on an evening or weekend.
That is a different issue because it is does not concern entitlement. The Deputy is talking about access to a specific installation aid which supports young farmers who want to get into farming. It is like the case of somebody who took up the farm retirement scheme but now wants to go back to farming. There may be issues with regard to having the opportunity to participate in education.
The larger farming organisations would be of the view that only those who participate in full-time education should have that entitlement of progressing to installation aid. We are evaluating the educational requirements from a young farmer's perspective but, as the Deputy knows, the pull is between farming organisations that only wish to support those in full-time farming and the many part-time farmers who we want to support. With regard to installation aid, it would not be a force majeure case because such cases are mainly based on illness and death.
The Minister said that some people would not have a hope in hell of getting aid because they have no attachment to the land but does she agree that a small number of people never claimed any type of payment and now, through no fault of theirs in terms of the farming practices they adopted, their land has devalued dramatically as a result of this new policy? Has the Minister considered that small group of people and, if not, will she consider assisting them in some manner? Many widows have lost out dramatically and, when the land comes up for rent, its value will be reduced dramatically in the year ahead.
I was being facetious when I spoke earlier, although some people will chance their arm like anybody else. There are people who have particular reasons for not applying, including widows and so on, and it may be considered within the force majeure process, perhaps under the national reserve. I am trying not to go beyond the 3% threshold because that means that whoever gets their entitlements will have to give back to the national reserve a certain amount of entitlements, and none of us would like to face the farming fraternity if that were the case. Having said that, there are particular hardship cases and we try to do our utmost, on an individual basis, to determine if something can be done for them. There are those who just never bothered to apply. They may have had their own reasons for that. We may have a situation where some people will not take up their entitlements. They will revert back in that case.
We are restricted by the article and the terms and conditions but if the Deputy is aware of a particular case involving hardship, we will try to support those people if it is at all possible. I cannot guarantee anything because the person had to be in the scheme at the time of the reference years. We went back to the 1980s on the basis of destocking, particularly on the sheep side of which the Deputy will be aware. We have looked at permutations and the division by one, two and three as to what can be done, but if the Deputy wants a particular case examined or if he has further information, we will try to facilitate those who are suffering hardship.
Is the Minister satisfied that all those cases applied for under health reasons have got a fair hearing? I have come across some cases I understood would have come under the force majeure process for genuine health reasons but were told they did not have a hope. They are appealing but it is depressing for somebody who suffers from depression not to have their situation taken into account.
We must move on to Question No. 74.
Does the Minister not want to reply?
I do not recollect a question being asked but the Minister may reply if she wishes.
Hardship issues are not considered within the European Commission or the Union. We try to facilitate hardship issues as best we can. As much medical information as possible must be put forward and it must be such that the person is not physically in a position to carry out a farming enterprise within the reference year. That is the problem. Someone could break a leg but still be able to farm.
All of us in the farming fraternity must address the issue of depression. Unfortunately, depression is very difficult to deal with from a clinical point of view but if additional information from a psychiatrist were part of the appeals process, I would hope that would support the applicant. I appreciate that from a clinical viewpoint it is very difficult to determine whether depression would restrict a person, within the reference years, in their farming practice.
Written answers follow Adjournment Debate.