Denis Naughten
Question:23 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans for cross-compliance under the single farm payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17441/05]
Priority Questions.
Grant Payments.
Farmers receiving direct aid are required under the single payment scheme to respect the various statutory management requirements set down in EU legislation on the environment, food safety, animal health and welfare, and plant health, and to maintain the farm in good agricultural and environmental condition. Member states are obliged to ensure that there is no significant reduction in the amount of land under permanent pasture by reference to the total area under permanent pasture in 2003. These requirements are termed "cross-compliance".
In addition to cross-compliance checks, it is a requirement to carry out standard eligibility checks to verify that the actual area claimed in the single payment application form corresponds with the area held by the farmer and to ensure that there are no overlapping or duplication of parcels claimed.
In general the rate of on-farm inspection required for cross-compliance under the single payment scheme is 1% of those farmers to whom the relevant statutory management requirement or good agricultural and environmental conditions apply. However, at least 5% of producers must be inspected under the animal identification and registration requirements as this level is prescribed under the relevant regulations.
In October 2004 the Department prepared a consultative document on cross-compliance and invited views from interested organisations. Department officials met the main farming organisations in December to discuss their submissions and these discussions have continued more recently in the context of the review of the protocol on direct payments.
An information booklet on cross-compliance has been issued to all farmers. It sets out the principal features of cross-compliance in terms of the standards that must be met by farmers and the control arrangements that will be necessary. To coincide with the issue of the booklet, a series of countrywide farmer information meetings organised by my Department in conjunction with Teagasc took place in early April. These meetings focused not only on cross-compliance but addressed the various other issues associated with the introduction of the single payment scheme.
The EU directives and regulations referred to in cross-compliance have been in place for many years. Producers are generally familiar with them and are complying with the standards set in implementing them in Ireland.
In implementing the single payment scheme, I am aiming to minimise the number of inspection visits and to move towards a position where, in most cases, all eligibility and cross-compliance checks will be carried out during a single farm visit. It is envisaged that the 22,000 or so inspections, which were carried out under the old regime, will be significantly reduced to 10,000 under the single payment scheme. This approach should minimise the level of inconvenience to farmers. However, in certain instances more than one inspection of a holding may be unavoidable.
Will there be two separate sets of inspections? Will the total number amount to 5% or 6%? Will farmers know in advance under which category the inspection is being carried out or, depending on what the officials find on the farm, will they be slotted into either the cross-compliance category or the animal identification and registration category? In her response last month, the Minister stated that in some circumstances more than one inspection may be unavoidable. Will the Minister give an example of what she has in mind?
The information booklet published and circulated sets out the principal features of cross-compliance but the difficulty is in regard to the detail — many farmers are concerned that the devil is in the detail. In light of that and the suggested tolerance range in regard to tagging cattle, is it not discriminatory from the point of view that the less stock one has the higher the tolerance rate in respect of having stock not tagged? What are the implications for the sheep sector?
Under cross-compliance the rate of inspections is 1% but overall the inspection rate on animal identification and registration is 5%. We are trying to reduce the number of on-farm inspections to ensure there is only one farm visit and reduce the many difficulties that have arisen.
With my officials I have had talks with the farming organisations for a considerable period on cross-compliance. Perhaps there is a little skulduggery taking place — I am not pointing to the Deputy this time——
That makes a change.
——given the headlines people speak about in regard to dreaded inspections and so on. The bottom line is that the farming fraternity has been accustomed to inspections all its life and the majority of farmers have no problem with inspections. That will continue to be the case because they are working under the good farming practice which is almost equivalent to the new requirements.
The tolerances were introduced on the basis of the penalties imposed at the time. Penalties have been reduced but the tolerances will remain. If one has a smaller herd it should be easier to look after the number of cattle and the number of tags. There has been much consultation on that issue and it has not been signed off completely. I hope to have it signed off in a final discussion with the farming organisations next week and a decision by me after that. What we are looking at is consultation, practical application and inspections. People forget that we are reducing the number of inspections considerably. Many of the reasons penalties were imposed on people were not related to inspections but the way in which they filled in their application form. There were minor errors, for example, with the wrong number on a tag.
They do not have to do that now and retention periods are gone. I hope this will reduce the bureaucracy and some of the small things that happened.
A great deal of work has been done on inspections. I have had discussions with the Department on training for the inspectors. I do not see the devil in the detail. We are aiming at single inspections per farm but more may be required if difficulties are apparent. There will not be a significant change in the methodology of inspection. People will be supported. I will review the matter on an ongoing basis.
Food Labelling.
Mary Upton
Question:24 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the progress made to date in the implementation of the report of the food labelling group of 2002; the number of the 21 recommendations made by the group which have still to be implemented; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17443/05]
The food labelling group, which was established in July 2002, presented its report in December 2002. Notwithstanding that food labelling is a particularly complicated and broadly based area, substantial progress has been made to date in the implementation of the recommendations of the report. Nineteen of the 21 recommendations, many of which were beyond the remit of the Department and some of which were to be activated only after others had been completed, have been addressed. I hope the remaining two recommendations, which relate to aspects of origin labelling, can be implemented shortly.
The two main issues that emerged from the recommendations of the labelling group related to the need to centralise enforcement in one agency and the definition of origin. In December 2002 the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment had policy responsibility for the main legislation for the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs, the Department of Health and Children was responsible for policy on other food labelling legislation, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources was responsible for the policy on the labelling of fish and fish products, the Department of Agriculture and Food was responsible for policy on legislation covering the labelling of specific products ranging from beef, poultry and sugar to spirit drinks, coffee and fruit juices, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland was responsible for the enforcement of the beef labelling regulations and the health boards operated the controls on the other products under the general aegis of the Department.
The position now, following implementation of the food labelling group recommendation, is that enforcement of all food labelling regulations has been centralised in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI. This will not only streamline the enforcement measures but will also provide a one-stop-shop for any complaints on the mislabelling of food. As part of the centralisation of enforcement, the centralisation of food labelling policy, with the exception of fish, in both the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Agriculture and Food was undertaken in accordance with another recommendation of the food labelling group.
There was full agreement within the food labelling group that consumers have a right to information on the origin of the meat they cook in their homes or eat out. While the group could not agree on how origin should be defined, there was unanimous agreement that further research was necessary to establish consumers' wishes in this area. The consumer liaison panel has carried out this research, the results of which were presented in December 2003.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I am determined, in so far as it is within the powers available to me, to meet the wishes of consumers as identified in the research. Early in 2004, two regulations were introduced on the labelling of poultry meat. The first of these requires poultry meat, loose and prepackaged, originating in a country outside the EU to bear an indication of the country of origin when offered for sale in a retail premises. The second requires information regarding class, price per unit weight, condition and slaughterhouse details in respect of loose poultry meat, non-prepackaged, to be provided to the consumer. In addition to the above-mentioned action, each sector is being reviewed on a commodity by commodity basis to identify any deficiencies from a consumer viewpoint in the labelling regulations for those commodities.
In the beef sector, EU beef labelling regulations, which are extremely comprehensive, do not require beef sold in the food service outlets to have country of origin displayed. The European Commission published a review of these regulations at the end of April 2004. The report does not favour the extension of these regulations to the catering sector. However, I believe that consumers, whether they purchase beef in butchers' shops or supermarkets or opt for beef in restaurants and catering establishments, have the right to know the origin of the product and the labelling regulation should provide for this. It is my intention to proceed with a national legal requirement that country of origin must be displayed in respect of beef sold in such premises and outlets. The legal mechanisms to bring this into effect are under examination.
On the food labelling issue in general, my primary aim is to protect consumer interests and to ensure that consumers are properly informed. Ireland is a major exporter of food and food products and there are also considerable imports, so it is imperative that the same standards are applied to the labelling of foods in every sector and that there is a level playing field for the food industry at all levels. In this context my Department has pursued assiduously the implementation in as full a manner as possible of the recommendations of the food labelling group. At a meeting of the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers on 28 February this year the Minister indicated her views on labelling of foodstuffs and along with a number of member states, asked the Commission to examine how best food labelling should be handled at EU level to best protect the interests of the consumer.
I thank the Minister of State. I am not sure how many of these regulations have been implemented. The Minister of State said 19 had been addressed but that might be slightly different to implementing them.
It is welcome that food labelling is broadly co-ordinated within one organisation because it was all over the shop prior to this. However, many issues remain outstanding such as a full listing of allergy-causing ingredients, foods purchased loose and misleading or ambiguous nutritional claims. What progress has been made on these issues?
The issue of health claims attributed to foods must be dealt with. What is considered to be a healthy food? How does one interpret terms such as low fat, less than 1% fat and so on? What exactly do these terms mean and what progress has been made?
Twelve of the recommendations have been implemented in full. Four are specific matters for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has raised the question of the origin and labelling of food, particularly in regard to food service outlets, with her colleagues at European level in the Council of Ministers. The Minister has consistently done this to best protect the interests of the consumer. Substantial work is ongoing in respect of the remaining recommendations. The Minister outlined yesterday the legal advice available to the Department on the further development of labelling of beef products. Legislation will be required, including an amendment to the Health Act 1970. Should there be any undue delay in bringing forward that proposed amendment, the Department of Agriculture and Food will consider if it is possible to bring forward primary legislation.
This issue is the subject of ongoing discussions between the Tánaiste and the Minister and officials in both Departments. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has raised this issue in different fora available within the European Union. Our determination is to ensure the consumer has the widest available knowledge and information because we want to protect the consumer.
The question of country of origin and origin of a product has been surrounded by fudge for a long time. It is important to remove the fudge factor so that the origin of products is clear and unambiguous. What is important for consumers is to be able to trace the origin of the food.
I refer to a recent incident where an illegal dye was used in foodstuffs and which is virtually impossible to trace. The knowledge of the country of origin might not necessarily resolve that problem but if the origins of the foodstuff cannot be traced, this raises questions about the value of traceability.
Another issue raised within the European Union is that of substantial transformation. This should be clearly defined and harmonised across all member states. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has raised this issue continually at meetings of the European Council of Ministers. It is an issue we are determined to address to ensure the widest possible information is available to the consumer in a simple manner, that labels are easy to identify and it is easy to interpret the relevant information.
Farm Retirement Scheme.
Martin Ferris
Question:25 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will make a statement on the report on the early retirement scheme of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food. [17445/05]
I received the committee's report on 7 April and my officials are examining it. This report arises from an investigation by the committee of a complaint by a group representing retired farmers. My Department provided the committee with a comprehensive formal written response to the complaint and also attended a meeting of the committee in July 2003 to answer questions from members. The report covers a range of issues, including taxation issues, which are outside my remit. I will address the issues shortly in a formal response to the committee.
I am naturally anxious that the early retirement scheme delivers maximum benefits to retired farmers. However this is an EU-funded scheme and I am constrained by the regulations under which it was introduced. The same group of retired farmers made an identical complaint to the European Commission which the Commission did not uphold. The Commission concluded, in other words, that the Department is administering the scheme correctly and in accordance with the governing EU regulations.
The Department has recently conducted an expenditure review of the current early retirement scheme and copies were laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 13 April. The expenditure review process was established by the Department of Finance in 1997 in the context of the strategic management initiative. The purpose of the review of the early retirement scheme is to analyse systematically whether the scheme is meeting its objectives and to inform future decisions regarding priorities on expenditure programmes. The Department's review includes a number of conclusions and recommendations that will help to inform my response to the report of the joint committee.
Does the Minister of State agree the proposals of the joint committee are reasonable, if implemented would satisfy the issues raised by the people involved and that this could be done without going outside the relevant EU regulation? Does he agree those who entered the scheme did so in good faith and those who were not covered by the criteria governing the single farm payment should be given consideration for entitlements, either under force majeure or by some other means? Does he concur with the views expressed by the committee that it would be appropriate to address the fact that pensions awarded under the 2000 scheme are not index-linked and that this could be altered to ensure participants are given better security of income? Does the Minister of State intend to implement the proposal from the joint committee in full and, if not, does he concur with many of its recommendations?
On the Deputy's last point, we could not concur with all the report's recommendations. However, the Department is formalising a response to the joint committee. A number of issues raised in the report simply cannot be addressed. The Deputy quite rightly raised the possibility of the indexation of payments which has been a source of concern to a large number of farmers. That issue has been raised repeatedly with the European Commission by the previous Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and myself. The European Commission has consistently rejected this approach on legal grounds.
The Deputy mentioned force majeure and the national reserve. From an early stage in the negotiations leading up to introduction of the single payment scheme, the Department was conscious of the possible implication for retired farmers who had leased their holdings. The Department set out to ameliorate some of those difficulties. Participants in the 1994 scheme of early retirement from farming who had retired before the reference period in 2000 are not in a position to claim entitlements under the single payment scheme. One concession that was negotiated by the Department with the European Commission will allow family members who take over a holding that was leased to third parties during the reference period to have access to entitlements from the national reserve. This will be of substantial benefit to family members of retired farmers who decide to take up farming.
The Deputy also referred to the social welfare issues mentioned in the report. When the farm retirement scheme first became operative, the social welfare old age contributory and non-contributory pensions were not as attractive as they are today. That issue could not be addressed by the Department of Agriculture and Food. However, ongoing contact is taking place between officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food and officials from the Department of Social and Family Affairs. We are conscious of difficulties that have arisen for some people participating in the early retirement scheme. As the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, mentioned at yesterday's meeting of the Select Committee on Agriculture and Food, a broader analysis of the future of the early retirement scheme will be needed. She invited comments from committee members on the future operation of the scheme.
Grocery Industry.
Denis Naughten
Question:26 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the assessment carried out by her Department on the impact of the removal of the ban on below cost selling on the viability of family farms; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [17446/05]
The Deputy will be aware that the consumer strategy group in its report, Make Consumers Count, which was published last week, has recommended that the groceries order be revoked in its entirety. Arguments for and against retaining the order are dealt with in detail in the report. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment has announced a public consultation process and interested parties have been invited to make submissions on the future of the order over the next two months. My Department is giving careful consideration to the recommendation that the order be revoked in the light of any potential adverse impact on consumers or producers or suppliers of food and drinks products.
The Minister is saying that her Department has not carried out an assessment. Does the Minister not believe her Department should have carried out an assessment that could have formed part of the consideration of the group prior to publication of the report? Does the Minister not feel this has major implications for agriculture? Many farmers talk about the large discrepancies between farm-gate prices and what retailers charge. Significant margins are involved. Does the Minister not agree that the area needs to be reviewed and that the Department must take a decisive position on the matter and lead the debate rather than following the coat tails of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment?
Hear, hear.
I am glad to see the spirit on the other side of the House. The Department of Agriculture and Food is acutely aware of the issues surrounding the groceries order and, as I am sure the Deputy knows, many of the complaints of those involved in agriculture relate to products outside the ambit of the groceries order, fresh meat, fruit and vegetables in particular. Those involved in horticulture are anxious to see those form part of the groceries order. The order was introduced at the time the H Williams supermarket chain went into liquidation. The problem is that there is a significant diversity of views as to whether this order is doing what it should be doing.
The Competition Authority maintains this is the only way to ensure competition. Given that the market share of many of the large retailers does not allow competition, we have a problem with the argument over the groceries order. The arrival of discount stores such as Aldi and Lidl provides competition and questions the necessity of the order. IBEC along with the IFA and other farming organisations have recommended to me that the groceries order should remain and have made good points in support of this. It is incumbent on us all to make a decision between the positions of the Competition Authority and the consumer strategy group as to whether there will be a change in consumer price and choice as well as in the existing farm gate prices. A complex and difficult decision must be made because of the diverse views on both sides.
We have evaluated advertisements on a number of occasions within the Department on the basis of price structure, which is one of the major issues. I provided funding this year to the consumer group, which is part of the Department, to carry out a true, open and transparent assessment of costs of food in particular which is a major issue for people. We have evaluated it. IBEC, representatives of the agrifood industry and producers have concerns over the removal of the groceries order. In addition, others, most particularly those on the horticultural side, want their products within the scope of the order. Ultimately it will be a question of what is the right thing to do and we are asking people for their views as to which is the right way to go. Other issues outside the groceries order cause greater angst and concern, mostly regarding the market share of a number of very large supermarkets in the United Kingdom and here.
I accept the point the Minister made earlier on fresh fruit, vegetables and meat. However, is it not the case that more of our produce is going into processed food and novel foods, which the Minister is promoting, and the demand for convenience foods is growing? Many of these areas are included in the scope of the groceries order. Given that many of the farmers' margins on carcases are based on the sale of the more marginal or poorer quality cuts which go into many processed foods, is it not critical that the Department of Agriculture and Food should have a decisive position on the groceries order?
In the main those associated with my Department are vehemently opposed to the removal of the groceries order. The farming organisations have not come to a particular decision on the issue and I will be interested to hear their opinions in due course in consultation with the Minister. The Deputy is right in saying that much food goes to the processing industry and many of our food companies have done well in the production of novel consumer and health foods. It is difficult to ascertain whether this warrants the removal of the groceries order based on the fact that many of those involved in food manufacturing, who are represented by IBEC, vehemently support the groceries order. Therein lies the problem. Ultimately it will be a political issue. People want to see reduced prices and farmers want a good return on their investment. Sometimes it is very difficult to balance the two.
Bovine Disease Controls.
Mary Upton
Question:27 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of prosecutions that have taken place as a result of the feeding of meat and bonemeal to cattle since the introduction of the ban; the number of convictions secured in such cases; and if she is satisfied that the ban is being properly enforced in view of the continuing cases of BSE in animals born after the ban was imposed. [17444/05]
No prosecutions have taken place as a result of the feeding of meat and bonemeal to cattle since the introduction of the ban. No evidence has been uncovered which would support a prosecution in any case.
I am satisfied, however, that the ban is being enforced, given that the incidence of the disease in the national herd is rapidly declining and that the vast majority of cases have occurred in animals born before the introduction of the enhanced feed controls in 1996 and 1997. In 2004, 126 cases of BSE were confirmed, compared with 182 in 2003 and 333 in 2002. There have been 27 cases to date in 2005, which represents a decrease of 57% on the number of cases discovered in the same period last year. The occurrence of some cases in animals born after 1997 does not detract from the overall positive trend and mirrors the position elsewhere.
The introduction of the rapid testing programme for BSE in 2001 greatly improved the ability of countries to measure both the incidence of the disease in the national population and progress with regard to disease control. The results of that testing programme provide objective evidence that the enhanced feed controls introduced in Ireland in 1996 and 1997 have been very effective. Since 2001, well in excess of 1.5 million cattle born after 1997 have been tested for BSE, with just 12 cases of BSE identified in that category. The tiny fraction of positive tests which have occurred in animals born after 1997 shows that the risk for animals born after that time is very significantly reduced and that those cases are not associated with a systemic failure in the control programme.
The fact that there have been no prosecutions for breaking the law regarding animals born after 1996 that have been detected with BSE is of some concern. As recently as two weeks ago, the Minister will know, an animal born in 2001, five years after the ban was effectively meant to have been in place, was found to be infected — if we take 1997 as the relevant date, it is four years. That is a long time to allow people to become totally compliant. It is too much of a coincidence that we have even sporadic cases. I accept the positive trend in overall numbers, which is very welcome. However, there is a need for a very proactive stance regarding those people found to have animals in their herds with BSE born as recently as 2001.
I would like to know what further positive actions might be taken to ensure that there are no further cases. I am aware that in the UK a special committee has been set up to look into the incidence of BSE in animals born after 1997. We may have to consider some positive and structured measure of that sort here to ensure that there are no more cases and that, if there are, we can find out why and be assured that the proper penalties are applied.
The question referred to the feeding of meat and bonemeal. There has been no evidence of that being an issue in any of the BSE cases. Prosecutions have taken place and are pending regarding other issues relating to BSE, but not for the feeding of meat and bonemeal, since that has not happened.
Regarding the sporadic occurrences in animals born after the introduction of the ban, they are of concern to the Department. Extremely thorough investigations have taken place in the past few years. There have been eight cases of infected animals born after the 1997 ban. They have been thoroughly investigated and we have not been able to ascertain any definitive source of the disease in the individual cases. One or two issues were dealt with, but we prefer not to speak of them since court cases are pending in the near future. However, they were not connected with the use of meat and bonemeal.
In the UK there have been approximately 100 cases; there have been eight here. There has been a massive reduction in the number of BSE-infected animals. I have been advised by the professionals that there will be sporadic occurrences. The Deputy can rest assured that if there is anything untoward or illegal, or which undermines the control systems, it will be dealt with as harshly as the laws allow. We conduct ongoing reviews regarding the investigations that have taken place in the past few years. If we were alarmed by a great increase in numbers, for example, it would be necessary to put a task force in place in the Department, but we do not believe that is the case at present.