Vol. 606 No. 3
114 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the status of the review of the draft animal remedies regulation; the steps she is taking to ensure effective competition within the market place; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26536/05]
The draft regulations on veterinary medicines, which were circulated by my Department in August for consultation, are designed to give effect to EU Directive No. 2004/28 and to reform aspects of the existing national regime for consultation. The Department received written submissions from most of the main stakeholders and subsequently met many of them as part of the consultative process. In addition, as required by the relevant legislation, the animal remedies consultative committee will meet shortly to consider the draft regulations, following which I will make final decisions on the issues involved so the regulations can be brought into force by the transposition deadline.
I am aware of views that have been expressed about the possible impact of the draft regulations on competition in the supply of veterinary medicines, in particular from the requirement in the EU directive that all veterinary medicines for food-producing animals be subject to prescriptions. However, the directive also includes a provision for exemption criteria to be adopted at EU level. These will provide a mechanism for certain categories of medicines to be exempted from the prescription requirement. The European Union has not yet adopted a decision on the exemption criteria but must do so before 1 January 2007. Pending this decision, existing national prescription and distribution arrangements will remain in place under the directive.
It is my intention to avail of the exemption clause to the maximum extent possible and the Department has made a submission to the European Commission seeking to retain off prescription, so to speak, in Ireland all products, other than intramammaries, which currently enjoy this status. The draft regulations published by the Department provide that veterinary medicines, such as wormers and certain vaccines, will continue to be available off-prescription for the time being. In practice, this means we are retaining the essence of our existing national prescription and distribution regime except in the case of intramammaries. Accordingly, it is not necessary at this stage, for competition reasons, to extend the range of persons who may be permitted to prescribe.
While the regulations in this area must, of necessity, give primacy to the protection of public health and animal health and welfare, I am acutely aware of the need to minimise costs to the farming sector and to ensure effective competition in the area of veterinary medicines. With this in mind, the Department has included a number of important changes in the draft legislation to achieve this objective. Among these are the removal of inflexibilities in the existing prescribing regime which will reduce the need for mandatory farm visits by practitioners. This will also anticipate needs, particularly for management-type products, by extending the life of a prescription from the current 31 days up to six months. This will facilitate the farmer and his or her veterinary practitioner, where appropriate. Another change is the new requirement for veterinary practitioners to issue written prescriptions in all cases to ensure that farmers are made aware of the cost of medicines as distinct from the professional service given, and to facilitate the purchase of medicines at premises other than that of the veterinary practitioner. Another change is the permitting of licensed retailers to supply prescription-only medicines for the first time.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
It is evident from the foregoing that my Department is doing everything possible, in so far as it has the flexibility to do so, to create an environment in which in can ensure that there continue to be competition in the supply of veterinary medicines. When the exemption criteria issue is resolved in the course of next year, I will review the regulations and, in particular and in light of the outcome, the provisions relating to the categories of persons who would be permitted to prescribe the current range of so-called off prescription veterinary medicines with a view to ensuring competition in the marketplace and to avoid imposing unnecessary costs on farmers. Full consultations will be held with all stakeholders on the matter at that stage before final decisions are taken.
The proposed regulation, as currently drafted, would dramatically increase the cost of medicines and significantly reduce access thereto. Will the Minister consider the provisions that have been put in place in the United Kingdom, including across the Border in Northern Ireland, regarding the same directive where competent persons, not only veterinary practitioners, can issue prescriptions?
What would happen if no veterinary practitioner were available in north Mayo, for example? This problem is becoming more frequent throughout the country. Is it not the case that the Competition Authority has already criticised these proposals in the belief that they will reduce competition? What will be the cost of these prescriptions to farmers?
A number of issues arise. The United Kingdom proceeded much faster than expected——
Than the Minister would have liked.
I do not really care because I have taken the opportunity for consultation on this matter. As I indicated previously all the organisations and individuals involved put their views and I am awaiting the consultative committee who will advise me on this matter. I will make further announcements over the next two to three weeks. I agree that cost is an issue and on that basis and because I am not happy with the regulation I may introduce other aspects into it. One of the issues presenting difficulties for all of us is that the exemption list is not being dealt with prior to the full implementation of the directive. There will be no changes up to 1 January 2007. In the interim I will examine the issues of competent authorities and of education and I will take the cost factor into consideration. I will also take the black market into consideration. This is a situation of which those of us living in the Border counties are acutely aware. To make a practical and balanced decision, I will take into consideration many of the views expressed by Members on both sides of the House and by all those involved.
There will be no change up to 1 January 2007 except for intramammaries with which I will deal in the next two to three weeks following the receipt of recommendations from the consultative committee. I will also reflect on a number of practical and pragmatic issues that I hope will address the balance between supporting the cost factor for the farmer and the health, safety and welfare of the animal and of the consumer.
Are not the current proposals for animal remedies the exact opposite to the Department of Health and Children's proposals for the deregulation of human medicines because of the significant costs involved? Is it not the case that all 25 member states must agree to the contents of the exemption list? The Minister's officials have stated that if she fails to achieve a decent and expanded exemption list, she will go back to Brussels and propose licensed merchants and pharmacists be permitted to issue prescriptions. What is the feasibility of going back to Brussels and looking for a downward revision once the regulation has been implemented?
I as Minister will make that decision and not the Department.
I will hold the Minister to that.
I know the Deputy will ensure I am held politically responsible.
As I indicated in my initial response, the exemption list has been forwarded to the Commission. The Deputy is correct in saying the exemption list must be agreed by the 25 member states. If this agreement is not forthcoming between now and 1 January 2007, I will in the interim reflect on the implications and make a balanced decision on what is required to address the concerns expressed. I will await the publication of the exemption list and listen to my advisory committee. I will consider alternative arrangements if the outcome is not to our satisfaction.
115 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she intends to take to protect against the spread of avian flu here, having regard not just to the threat to the avian population but also the dangers to humans; if any assessment has been done of the dangers of the flu spreading from migratory birds; if she will improve the monitoring of foodstuffs coming here, especially food that may be carried by individual passengers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26534/05]
I hope the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to finish the extensive reply to this important question.
The Minister has two minutes.
I ask for a bit more than that.
A particularly virulent high pathogenic strain of avian influenza has been affecting countries in south-east Asia since December 2003. Both Russia and Kazakhstan confirmed the presence of the highly pathogenic H5N1 strain in poultry in August. The high pathogenic strain has not been reported anywhere in the European Union since 2003, when there was an outbreak in the Netherlands.
It is important to realise that avian influenza is a disease of birds and while people can become infected, they rarely do. There is no evidence that the virus can be transmitted from poultry to humans other than by direct contact with infected birds. Notwithstanding the approximately 60 deaths in Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia, the World Health Organisation takes the view that the experience in south-east Asia, "indicates that human cases of infection are rare". The majority of deaths have occurred in rural areas and most have been linked to direct exposure to dead or diseased poultry, particularly during slaughtering, defeathering and food preparation. According to the WHO, no cases have been confirmed in poultry workers nor have any cases been linked to the consumption of properly cooked poultry meat or eggs.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are concerns that a possible mutation or a genetic change in the virus circulating in Asia could lead to the virus transforming into a new strain of influenza capable of human-to-human transmission. Responsibility for preparing for such an eventuality rests with the Department of Health and Children and its agencies. My Department is a very active participant in that Department's influenza pandemic expert group and is contributing to update its influenza pandemic plan.
As regards the disease in poultry, I share the conclusion of the standing committee on the food chain and animal health working group on avian influenza that the confirmation of the high pathogenic outbreaks in Russia and Kazakhstan is a cause for serious concern and I acknowledge that the key to limiting the extent of any outbreak is early detection and rapid action.
Since the confirmation of the outbreaks in Russia and Kazakhstan, my Department has been very active in reviewing all aspects of our contingency arrangements and several measures have been taken to improve our preparedness to deal with any suspect or confirmed outbreak. Given the critical importance of early detection, my Department has, with the assistance of the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the National Association of Regional Game Councils andBirdWatch Ireland, introduced an early warning system where increased or unusual patterns of wild bird mortality are observed. This early warning system is just part of a more intensified approach to surveillance, including surveillance of wild birds and poultry. The 2005-06 poultry surveillance programme is already under way and my Department has made arrangements for increasing levels of wild bird surveillance at a number of locations throughout the country. In addition, officials from my Department have recently met their colleagues from the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs and have agreed to continue to work closely together and to exchange the results of their respective wild bird surveillance programmes. The two Departments will review progress at a further scheduled meeting this month.
Migratory birds can carry the viruses for long distances and have, in the past, been implicated in the spread of high pathogenic avian influenza.
The Minister's time has concluded.
It is an extensive answer.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In August the Commission expert group considered the possibility that the disease could be imported into the EU via migratory birds, particularly water birds and concluded, based on the existing knowledge of migratory routes of the species of birds proceeding from central and western Asia and that might pose a threat of spreading the H5N1 virus, that ‘the immediate risk of introduction of avian influenza through these birds is probably remote or low.' According to BirdWatch Ireland, most of the birds breeding in the affected areas of Siberia will migrate for the winter to the south and east of Europe and to Asia and will not visit Ireland.
The EU Commission recently extended until September 2006 safeguard measures that have been in place since 23 January 2004. Furthermore, these measures, which originally applied only to affected countries in south-east Asia, have now been extended to Russia and Kazakhstan. These measures include a ban on live poultry, birds other than poultry and poultry products, other than heat-treated poultry meat and treated feathers.
Poultry meat that is properly cooked does not present a risk of infection as the virus is destroyed at temperatures at or above 70 degrees Celsius. My Department has increased its checks on commercial products and products in personal luggage from all affected countries. There is no evidence to indicate that untreated poultry meat is being imported illegally. In addition, my Department is currently reviewing the information we make available to flock owners on biosecurity and clinical signs of the disease, as well as to travellers, particularly to those countries which are infected.
While we take all reasonable steps to avoid an outbreak of avian influenza, particularly because of the potential threat posed by migrating wild birds we cannot dismiss the possibility of an outbreak. Our resources are focused on ensuring early detection and speedy eradication and minimising any risk to public health. The measures already put in place are designed to ensure that any suspect outbreak is investigated quickly and the existence of the virus confirmed or otherwise. My Department has been ensuring that the appropriate technical and veterinary staff is properly equipped to deal with any suspect/confirmed outbreak and we have examined all aspects associated with the destruction of inflected flocks and the subsequent disposal of the carcases. Officials from my Department recently participated in a successful trial slaughter of poultry in Northern Ireland. This is further evidence of the level of cooperation between the two Departments.
I fully acknowledge the risks associated with an outbreak of avian influenza and accept that there is no room for complacency. Notwithstanding the low probability of an outbreak of the high pathogenic strain that might pose a risk to human health, my Department is maintaining a vigilant approach to the threat posed and constantly reviewing the adequacy of our contingency arrangements in the light of any new information that emerges.
The recent warning from the World Health Organisation contained a staggering statistic of the probability of between 5 million and 150 million projected deaths from a 'flu pandemic and this warning should be heeded by all.
I appreciate the important role to be played by the Minister's Department and the perhaps more significant role to be played by the Department of Health and Children. However, some of the issues refer specifically to agriculture. What controls are in place at airports and other ports to oversee the import of any foodstuffs, particularly in light of the risk from avian influenza?
I reiterate that vigilance is uppermost in our minds. The Department and its counterpart in the North work in co-ordination with each other as does the Department and the Department of Health and Children and other agencies. I reassure the Deputy that the evolving scientific evidence as provided by the EU will be reflected in our contingency plans. Vigilance is being maintained in the airports and ports. I assure the House that live poultry imports from the countries referred to in my reply are banned. Cooked poultry products are not banned. The Department is maintaining vigilance in this matter and will not be complacent. I applaud the co-operation between North and South. Ireland will work with its EU partners in supporting those countries that do not have the capability to deal with the outbreaks.
What specific advice on this matter has been given to the poultry industry? If there was an outbreak of avian flu, it would have economic consequences for that industry and a subsequent impact on human health.
All those involved in the sector have been informed about this matter and information leaflets have been made available. In the event of an outbreak of this disease, those at the frontline would include not only those involved in the poultry sector but Department officials who are fully au fait with the implications. My Department has ensured that those officials have the necessary equipment in the unlikely event of this matter arising.
116 Mr. Connolly asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the rationale behind her recently stated intention to abolish the early retirement scheme after 11 years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26539/05]
I have not taken a decision on the future of the early retirement scheme. The EU Council regulation covering the current scheme will expire in December 2006. The Council regulation on rural development for the period 2007 to 2013 again includes provision for member states to operate early retirement measures. No decisions have yet been taken regarding the schemes to be operated in Ireland under this regulation.
The early retirement scheme was introduced as one of a number of instruments to improve the age structure of Irish farming and improve the viability of farm holdings. From this point of view, the first scheme from 1994 to 1999 was successful. However, take-up has fallen short of expectations, and an expenditure review carried out in my Department in 2004 raised a number of questions about the effectiveness of the scheme in achieving its objectives. Structural reform is still a priority both at home and at European level, and we still need to provide opportunities for young farmers. In framing proposals for the next rural development round we need to consider how best to achieve those results in light of the funding and the options that are available.
I thank the Minister for her reply. I note she said that she has not yet taken a decision on the future of the scheme. I also note she was quoted as saying she was putting forward the idea that the scheme had run its course and that she would listen to what people have to say about this. I hope that was not a case of her stirring the pot and that she will listen to what farmers have to say about this scheme.
The message I have got from farmers is that scheme was innovative when introduced and that it was a good scheme. Over the 11 years it hasbeen in place, approximately 12,000 farmers availed of it. In 2001, 836 people applied for the scheme but the number who applied for it in 2004 decreased to 321. The main question is why was that the case and we must get to the bottom of that.
We need a root and branch review, rather than a scrapping, of the early retirement scheme, including increasing the income limit which is set at €25,500. That income limit was fair when the scheme was introduced 11 years ago but in today's terms a farmer would not gain any of the benefits applying in this area by participating in this scheme as one of the transferees. Such a farmer would lose stamp duty benefits etc. I ask that this aspect be reviewed.
We must respect the right of a farmer to decide when he or she wants to retire. We must also respect the Lisbon competitiveness agreement. These are elements we cannot ignore. We must balance those with having in place a fair early retirement scheme which will provide retired farmers with an income on which they can live. I am sure the Minister would agree it is not correct not to index link pensions. An income of €13,500 was probably in order 11 years ago but one need only reflect on a farmer retiring on a salary of €13,500 and what that income would buy in five or six years' time. That aspect must be examined.
There are key barriers to farmers taking up this scheme, including that the pension is not index-linked and the need to increase the income limits. We must also encourage young people to participate in farming — 12% of farmers are under the age of 35 and that is not a good basis for going forward.
The Deputy has nearly answered the argument he put forward. That is the reason I put out this idea, although I would not say I am stirring the pot.
The Minister is definitely stirring the pot.
Foresight is 20/20. Therefore, we must evaluate the scheme. I agree that its usefulness when introduced was tremendous. However, the decrease from 10,000 to 2,599 farmers to date participating in the scheme represents a major gap. It poses the question why are farmers not interested in participating in the scheme. There are a number of reasons, including that the pension is not index-linked. That feature is part of the scheme. Furthermore, the fact that the Government has introduced a good social welfare pension — I had to get my spoke in there — means that the scheme is not as attractive as it was initially for farmers.
I want to introduce a proper balance between two elements. I want to encourage young people to go into farming. Is the early retirement scheme the best mechanism for achieving that? Is there a better mechanism we need to introduce to support young farmers? I have put forward that idea and I welcome hearing what farmers have to say on it. Given that there is also the notion that we should not encourage people to retire at 55 years of age, but encourage them to remain in work until they reach the age of 65, and that we want to achieve a balance between younger and older people engaged in farming, is there an alternative view to the current scheme? Many people aged 55 still have major responsibilities at home, including providing for children at college, and they cannot afford to retire. Therefore, we need to strike a balance. I am not proposing a scrapping of the scheme but perhaps aspects of it need to be modified and other aspects should be maintained, and new initiatives should be considered. I have put forward this idea to establish what people have to say about it and whether the current scheme is the right way forward.
This is a small scheme and some people are disgruntled about it because it is not index-linked. My two colleagues opposite are smiling as if this aspect of this scheme will make me uncomfortable but it will not. The bottom line is that this is not an index-linked scheme, nor are many other schemes introduced between the European Union and ourselves. If people have novel ideas or consider that the scheme could be improved, now, rather than later, is the time to review it.
I take it from what the Minister said that she will examine revamping the scheme. The fact that it has not been revamped is the reason farmers are not taking up the scheme. It is important for agriculture in the next five to ten years that we review this scheme. It provides a method of encouraging young farmers to remain in farming.
117 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her position regarding the proposed EU sugar reforms; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26537/05]
I have already made it clear that the Commission's proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime, which were published on 22 June, are unacceptable in their present form. The key elements of the proposals are a 39% price cut in the institutional price for sugar, a corresponding reduction in the minimum price for sugar beet and 60% compensation to farmers for the price cut. A voluntary restructuring scheme is proposed to encourage factory closures and the renunciation of quota.
While the need for reform of the EU sugar regime is acknowledged, I consider that the Commission's proposals are unbalanced, go beyond the principles of previous CAP reforms and could lead to drastic consequences for the sugar beet industry in a number of member states, including Ireland. This is an unprecedented situation in terms of CAP reform proposals presented by the Commission for any sector.
I expressed my serious concerns about the proposals when I met with Commissioner Fischer Boel on her visit to Ireland in June, and again at the Council of Agriculture Ministers in July. I emphasised that the price cuts proposed are too severe, that the reforms should be based on a longer lead-in time for the Everything But Arms agreement and that it would be preferable to await the outcome of the WTO meeting in Hong Kong in December before seeking to conclude an agreement on sugar reform. I have also continued to remain in contact with like-minded colleague Ministers from other member states who are opposed to the reform proposals.
My overall objective is to ensure a more balanced agreement, which will take Irish interests into account. The proposals will be considered by the Council again on 24-25 October and given their severity, it is clear that the negotiations will continue to be difficult.
I thank the Minister for her reply. We would all acknowledge that the proposals, as framed, are unacceptable. While the Minister has expressed to the Commission that these proposals are unacceptable and that she wants steps taken to change them, has she put forward formal proposals in this regard? Has she discussed formal proposals with her fellow colleagues who would form a blocking minority in order that we can get unanimous support across those ten member states for putting forward a case? The Minister might elaborate on that.
Who owns the sugar quota? Legal advice on this matter is being considered for the past 18 months. Surely at this stage the Minister has an answer on this matter.
In regard to the proposed compensation, will the State will hand over such compensation to a company such as Greencore, given that the vast majority of its operations are now based in the UK, or what mechanism will the Minister use to hand over any such compensation that may come down the line from the Commission?
I have continued to speak to my colleagues over the summer. I will shortly meet my colleague from Italy where the implications for sugar are equally severe. We have not had a bilateral meeting yet with either the Commission or the Presidency. I hope to do that on the Monday night of the Council meeting. The high level group of officials will meet the Commission to discuss this matter on Thursday. I will not submit a negotiating proposal until such time as I have evaluated the outcome of that. However, the Group of Ten will also meet on the Monday night prior to the Council, where we will discuss the methodology for dealing with this issue. A strategic balanced approach and the timeframe will be very important.
On the issue of ownership, the Commission has confirmed that the quota is not an asset. Accordingly, it is not owned by anybody. It is simply a mechanism for regulating the market and this is confirmed by our legal advice from the Attorney General. One of the proposals is that if a sugar factory closes, the quota will be quenched. That means there would be no production in the country in question and this is a matter for EU compensation. Such EU compensation would come from a levy on the other sugar factories that remain in production. It has nothing to do with the Irish State. However, I hope I do not find myself in such a situation. The negotiations on this will be very difficult.
I have taken the opportunity to meet a number of stakeholders and national and local representatives in the affected counties in the region. I will take every opportunity at diplomatic level among my ministerial colleagues to put together what I believe will be a more balanced approach. To bring this to finality prior to Hong Kong would be the wrong decision. The matter would be pocketed, in effect, and we would get no credit for any work done. That is my major concern prior to the World Trade Organisation talks.
Is it not the case that any compensation that may come at some future date will be funded through the Government? In the context of what we now know, was it not a major mistake to close the Carlow plant prematurely, as happened earlier this year? When did the Minister meet the Spanish authorities on this issue?
As I said, this will be paid for through a levy on existing sugar producing factories from throughout the European Community. National funding will not be involved.
The Deputy asked about the Spanish authorities. I met the Spanish Minister for Agriculture, Ms Elena Espinosa, the last time I attended a Council meeting, which was three weeks ago. As regards meetings with officials, unfortunately the Spaniards have changed their secretary general. However, there will be a further meeting of officials at that level when the new appointment is made.
As regards the closure of Carlow, I am not in a position to put forward the view of Greencore. As the Deputy knows, it is a publicly quoted company listed on the Stock Exchange. In my view Greencore made its decision on the basis of the initial publication from the European Commission of its view on reform of the sugar regime. Ultimately we are all agreed there needs to be reform of the regime. It will impact not only on Ireland and the European Community but also on developing countries who have put forward their case vociferously to the Council. Their viewpoints must be taken on board as well. We are not reviewing just one aspect of agriculture but are taking into consideration quite a number of pieces which are part of the puzzle. It will not be easy to put it together.
118 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when full labelling of beef will be implemented, as promised in November 2004; the nature and scope of the voluntary agreement she recently concluded with hotels, restaurants and pubs, regarding a scheme of voluntary labelling; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26535/05]
The Deputy will be aware that we already have in place a full identification, traceability and labelling system for beef under comprehensive EU regulations. The labelling requirements under those regulations extend up to and including retail level and to the point of delivery into hotels, restaurants and catering establishments.
My priority in this area is to extend the existing beef labelling laws to require information on the country of origin of beef to be provided to all consumers in the restaurant and catering sectors. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, put specific proposals to Government at the end of June for a legislative framework to facilitate this, by way of an amendment to the Health Act 1947. This will be introduced under the Irish Medicines Board (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2005 which is before the Oireachtas this session. The appropriate regulations are being worked on concurrently and I intend to have these cleared at EU level as soon as possible. When the Act is amended and the regulations made, country of origin information will be available to consumers in respect of all beef served in restaurants, hotels and the whole catering sector in Ireland on a mandatory basis.
In the meantime the various representative bodies including the Irish Hotels Federation, the Restaurants Association of Ireland and both of the vintners' groups, following discussions with my Department, have all agreed to recommend to their members the introduction on a voluntary basis and in advance of the mandatory legal requirement of a mechanism for providing consumers in their premises with information on the country of origin of the beef served there. This agreement was finalised last week and these organisations are at various stages in the process. I expect the voluntary system will be in place soon.
During the discussions with the industry representatives, it was stressed that the information on the origin of the beef served or supplied on their premises must be clearly displayed at the point of consumption, either on the menu or on a poster, chalk board or similar display so that it can be easily read and clearly understood by all consumers. The information must include all countries from which the premises is sourcing its beef and all statements of origin must be verifiable and be capable of linkage with the delivery records to the establishment. When the legislation is enacted, the necessary enforcement provisions will be through the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.
I welcome the progress proposed in the forthcoming legislation. It is long overdue. There have been serious concerns as regards imported beef and these continue. We hope that this will be the final initiative in terms of identification, labelling and traceability for the beef industry at least. It is necessary for consumer confidence and as a support for the industry.
I appreciate that it is voluntary for the moment. While I welcome its introduction, will there by any monitoring to ensure that what the restaurants are telling us will be put in place on a voluntary basis will be put in place?
I record our appreciation for the positive approach of the various representative groups to the voluntary code. Bord Bia will work with the relevant representative associations to ensure the scheme works as well as possible. It will be proposed in the legislation that all meats will be included so that meat from sheep, pigs and poultry will be covered as well. The immediate priority is to extend the existing beef labelling system, which is the most comprehensive. We are determined to have that legislation brought to the Houses of the Oireachtas during this term with the co-operation of the Dáil and the Seanad.
