Denis Naughten
Question:94 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the status of the EU sugar negotiations; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34272/05]
Priority Questions.
EU Negotiations.
The Commission's proposals for reform of the EU sugar regime are the subject of intensive discussions in Brussels, both at ministerial and high-level official levels. The proposals will be the main item on the agenda for the three-day Council of Ministers meeting next week at which the UK Presidency will aim to achieve a political agreement on the issue, ahead of the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong.
My views on the proposals are well known and I have made the Commission fully aware of my serious concerns. In June, within days of the publication of the proposals, I met Commissioner Fischer Boel in Ireland. In July, I set out the position again at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. I have emphasised that the price cuts proposed are too severe, the reforms should be based on a longer lead-in time for the Everything But Arms agreement and 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 remained in contact with like-minded Ministers from other member states who are opposed to the reform proposals.
In this context, a group of 11 member states, including Ireland, submitted a joint ministerial letter to the Commission in advance of the formal discussion at last month's Council meeting, setting out its objections to the proposals. I maintained my firm opposition to the Commission's proposals when I addressed last month's meeting of the Council of Ministers in Luxembourg. At next week's meeting in Brussels, I will be equally resolute in pursuing my overall objective of achieving a more balanced agreement that takes Irish interests into account.
Why is it proposed that compensation for the relinquishment of the Irish sugar quota will go to Greencore? It seems clear that the control and ownership of the sugar quota is in the hands of that company because it will be for it to decide whether to relinquish it. In this context, will the Minister use her infamous golden share to ensure the Irish beet quota remains within the property of Irish beet growers? Beet farmers have made significant investments in buying beet contracts, machinery and equipment but now seem to have no rights in this regard.
In regard to the forthcoming WTO discussions in Hong Kong, does the Minister agree that the proposals put forward by the Commissioner for Trade, Mr. Peter Mandelson, will wipe out the sugar industry here and throughout the Union irrespective of the discussions about to take place at EU level on the future sugar quota?
Both the Commission and my legal advice indicate that ownership of the quota is such that it is not an asset but a methodology used to regulate the market.
Greencore will be paid.
That is the answer to the first of the Deputy's questions. The golden share has nothing to do with this issue, save in the event that permission is sought by the company from me for the sale of an asset.
The Commission had the same concerns as the Government about the ownership of the quota. On that basis, the Commission's formula is based on the restructuring fund, which is paid by those who remain in the industry. The money would be used to quench the quota. I have indicated that Ireland does not want a situation whereby we have negotiations on the basis of these proposals. If we were to accept what the Deputy spoke of, we would see the complete diminution of the sugar industry, which is not my political stance.
The Deputy is correct that we have grave concerns about the WTO negotiations taking place. The Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs and I have been forthcoming in our views on this. We feel we have gone as far as we should go. The future of the sugar industry will be one item on the European agenda and sugar will be considered a sensitive product.
Has the Minister met her Polish counterpart? It is critically important that Poland is and remains on our side on this issue. Some 3.8 million tonnes of the sugar quota must be reduced by May 2006. Are there proposals to phase this in over a longer period? Has the Minister discussed at European level allowing Ireland the right to produce sugar? The key question is that we are only producing enough sugar for our domestic market. We must have the right to produce sugar in Ireland. If the Commission's proposals go ahead, we will never have that right again.
I have met my Polish counterpart. Poland is one of the 11 member states on the blocking minority that is presently——
Presently.
We have met on several occasions and the Poles have joined the blocking minority. The Poles have different concerns from ours. Ireland is in a unique position in that there is only one processing factory. Ireland has a special case on the right to produce sugar. However, if the proposals to reduce the price of sugar by 39% and sugar beet by 42% go ahead, I have been advised by farmers that they could not possibly produce sugar beet at those prices. Price is the issue at the moment, not quota. This is a grave concern and it will predetermine whether Ireland can continue to produce sugar.
Animal and Plant Diseases.
Mary Upton
Question:95 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if the Government will consider the establishment of a national biosecurity unit, similar to the one operating in New Zealand, to take overall responsibility for the exclusion, eradication and control of risks posed by pests or diseases to the economy, the environment or human health; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34275/05]
Ireland's high animal and plant health status underpins food safety and is central to the viability of our agriculture industry and our ability to trade. To this end, the Department of Agriculture and Food applies comprehensive control systems to the threats posed by pests and disease to both animal and plant health and, as a consequence, to human health. Sustained programmes are operated, aimed at the continued reduction and eventual eradication of diseases such as TB, brucellosis, BSE and scrapie in the national herd and flock. In a further step to the maintenance of high standards of food production, the Department has introduced a system of identification and traceability for bovine, ovine, porcine and caprine animals.
The Department plays a vital role in regulating the plant health sector to prevent the import of harmful pests and diseases, the prevention of contaminants and the overall maintenance of high standards of quality which contribute to safer food. The range of biosecurity controls applied by the Department are underpinned by EU regulations and are subject to regular audit by the European Commission's food and veterinary office. It is essential that we are, at all times, vigilant and continue to reassess and, where necessary, improve our capability of dealing effectively with threats posed by pests or disease. In this regard, it is worth pointing to the recent updating and reissuing of biosecurity advice to poultry flock owners in an effort to minimise the risk of the introduction of avian flu.
The retention of high biosecurity standards is vital for the maintenance of high standards of public health and animal health as well as ensuring we continue to have an effective base from which to further develop a successful agrifood sector. The production of safe food and the maintenance of public confidence must be underpinned by effective control systems. Maintaining a high standard of animal health and welfare is an important issue and is a critical requirement for the development of trade.
Ireland enjoys a high plant health status, supported through a programme of controls and inspections. Before any plant protection product can be sold to a grower, it must conform to rigid standards which meet EU and Irish legislation. Furthermore, the Department's annual pesticide residue monitoring involves the analysis of fruit, vegetables, cereals and other food, including meat, milk and other dairy products.
In our approach to this issue, we must take full account of evolving EU legislation and work closely with the European Commission and our EU partners in responding to any crisis.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
I am conscious that the threat posed by pests or diseases could result in substantial economic damage, not alone in agriculture but across a number of sectors, with attendant social consequences throughout the country and for the environment. The New Zealand model involved the establishment, by its Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, of a biosecurity strategic unit, with people drawn from four existing biosecurity agencies and reports directly to the ministry's director general. I am satisfied that the arrangements within the Department of Agriculture and Food for the development and implementation of biosecurity policies are sufficiently comprehensive and robust to deal with the threats posed by pests or disease.
The Department has detailed contingency plans in place for the handling of outbreaks of class A OIE diseases. The plans are the product of indepth review by the Department, with the involvement of other relevant agencies. These plans have stood us well in the past, most recently in regard to the outbreak of FMD but also with previous outbreaks of Newcastle disease in 1997 and the last outbreak of low pathogenic avian influenza in 1998.
While my Department will always play the lead role, we, of course, welcome the constructive and significant contributions that other Departments and agencies have to make. We are, all the time, ready to reassess the adequacy of our existing biosecurity advice and, based on any new and emerging information, to revise any biosecurity arrangements, as appropriate.
I thank the Minister for her answer but it referred to agriculture only. My question relates to a more comprehensive plan for biosecurity. While I understand the role of the Department of Agriculture and Food in this area, my question relates to the need for an overall co-ordinating biosecurity unit. This was prompted by the concerns surrounding avian flu and its implications for public health, trade, foreign travel and agriculture.
Who will take the lead in setting up a co-ordinating biosecurity unit? If someone has a broad question, to which Department or unit do they focus it? There is a need for a co-ordinating unit rather than each individual Department having responsibility for its own area. Does the Minister see the Department of Agriculture and Food taking a lead role in establishing such a unit?
Unfortunately, the answer to the question was long. The Deputy spoke of the New Zealand model where a biosecurity unit in its agriculture ministry reports to the ministry's director general. However, I do not believe there is a need to have such a unit in Ireland. The New Zealand model is different because it is an island——
Ireland is too.
It does not have the supports of the EU, the Commission's food and veterinary office or the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. We have EU and Irish legislation while the New Zealand model is based on what it must do on its own.
The Department of Agriculture and Food is the lead Department in dealing with animal and plant disease outbreaks. It provides a specific co-ordinating role and contingency plans are in place to work with the Department of Health and Children. The Department had a co-ordinating role in combating the foot and mouth disease outbreak. I do not see the need to establish a specific biosecurity unit. That could only be done in a developmental way if issues arise. Contingency plans within the Department of Agriculture and Food are such that they encompass many Departments that would be equally concerned.
I appreciate legislation is in place, but legislation alone will not be adequate when it is widely known the facility exists for micro-organisms to jump the species barrier. Avian flu is a classic example of where it affects not only poultry but also pigs and it is a risk to human health. We can have as much legislation as we want, but much of what exists is not enforced the way it should be, particularly with imports and people travelling in and out of the State. There is a need for a co-ordinating body to incorporate human and animal health.
It is important that a Department takes the lead on this issue. The Department of Agriculture and Food will deal specifically with the issue in question. Without a shadow of a doubt, constructive and significant contributions from other Departments and agencies are welcome. The Department is always ready to reassess the adequacy of our biosecurity measures. Our biosecurity arrangements will be revised if new information becomes available, which we are afforded through EU channels and early warning systems. In one way we have the luxury of having a European-wide opportunity, from the veterinary point of view, to listen, learn and evaluate what comes from the European Community and experts. I am hoping to have emerging information on which to act.
Food Imports.
Trevor Sargent
Question:96 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans to help producers here compete against the deluge of imported foods that do not have to meet the same high quality standards that Irish food has to reach and is therefore available at much cheaper prices; and when she intends to introduce the country of origin labelling that was promised, upon which the livelihood of many of our food producers depend. [34378/05]
There are EU harmonised rules in place that govern the importation of animal products to minimise any risks that might be associated with trade with third countries. It is a general requirement that animal products imported in the European Union from third countries meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in and trade between EU member states. All meat imports must therefore come from third countries or areas of third countries approved for export to the EU. The Food and Veterinary Office of the EU carries out audits of the controls in place in third countries.
The FVO carries out inspections to ensure that only establishments that meet hygiene and health standards equivalent to those operating within the EU are approved. Exporting establishments must have standards equivalent to the requirements for EU export establishments, effective control systems and supervision by the competent authorities and traceability and labelling in accordance with systems approved by the FVO.
Where there are concerns with regard to the effectiveness of controls being operated in an approved third country, the EU Commission, in consultation with the standing committee on animal health and the food chain, may introduce specific controls by means of a safeguard measure to ensure the protection of human and animal health. I fully support the policy that animal products imported into the EU from third countries meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in and trade between EU member states.
In this context the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, wrote last month to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection on the issue of sanitary rules applying to the import of livestock products, especially beef, into the EU. In the letter, the Minister raised the matter of equivalence on the specific and important issues of animal traceability, controls on veterinary medicines, prohibited substances and residue monitoring programmes in these countries and in particular with regard to Brazilian beef in view of its increasing presence on the European market. The Minister requested the Commission to consider the matter and invited it to put forward appropriate proposals before the EU standing committee on the food chain and animal health.
Irish farmers are required to ensure their production systems and farm practices fully comply with a wide range of EU directives on important matters including traceability, animal health and welfare and consumer protection. These all have significant in-built cost factors, and bearing in mind that our beef farmers are in competition on European and international markets with beef from low cost producers such as Brazil, we will continue to seek real equivalence in these areas, both in discussions within the EU and in the context of the WTO talks on market access.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
With regard to labelling we have indicated an intention to extend the country of origin labelling for beef to the restaurant and catering sector and the necessary provisions will be included in the Irish Medicines Board (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2005, which is currently before this session of the Oireachtas. Beef labelling is currently governed by comprehensive EU regulations which were introduced in 2000 and are underpinned by a full national animal identification and traceability system. These compulsory labelling regulations require all operators and organisations marketing beef within the EU to provide information on the label to enable the beef to be traced back to the animals from which it was derived and must include details on the slaughterhouse, de-boning hall and the country in which the animal was born and reared.
These requirements apply to all beef sold at retail level regardless of whether that beef was produced within the EU or in a third country. Where beef is imported into the EU from a third country and all the above details are not available, that beef must, at a minimum, be labelled as "Origin: non-EC" along with an indication of the third country in which slaughter took place. This information must accompany the beef at retail level, including up to the point of delivery into hotels, restaurants and catering establishments. These regulations are enforced by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The various representative bodies including the Irish Hotels Federation, the Restaurants Association of Ireland and the two vintners groups, following discussions with my Department, have all agreed to recommend to their members to provide this information to their customers on a voluntary basis in advance of the mandatory legal requirement. It is expected that the voluntary code will be in place in the near future.
Regarding the labelling of poultry meat, there are EU regulations which provide for the labelling of unprocessed poultry meat at retail level. The regulations require such meat to be labelled with the information regarding class, price, condition, registered number of slaughterhouse or cutting plant and, where imported from a third country, an indication of country of origin. There are no specific EU regulations governing the labelling of pigmeat or sheepmeat beyond the general food labelling regulations which do not require country of origin information. However, we intend to pursue further the question of labelling of other meats at EU level.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. The question concerned in part the date for the introduction of country of origin labelling, which has been promised. If it was part of the reply not read on the floor of the House it may perhaps be given as a supplementary answer.
The Minister of State mentioned Brazilian beef, but does the Department have information on the statement of IFA president John Dillon regarding three cases of foot and mouth disease in Brazil last month? Following the banning of Brazilian beef in the United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and South Korea, is there a case to be made in the EU, and particularly in Ireland given the country's dependence on the beef industry, for a similar measure to be taken? Will the Department have any influence on the EU Commissioner for Trade, Peter Mandelson, and his efforts in the opposite direction, which would cut 60% of tariffs and open up a flood of untraceable food into Europe?
Is the Department able to intervene when a type of cattle not sold in Ireland, humpback cattle from Brazil, are marketed after being processed as Gaelic steak? Is the issue of labelling not so important that it is time for the Department to give the matter urgent attention? A woman from the midlands told me she got half a leg of lamb, with the outer packaging stating it was an Irish product and the inner wrapping stating another country of origin. Is the Department not able to do anything about this or is it going to stand by as the meat industry is effectively destroyed by cheaper meat that lacks traceability and is not subject to the regulations in this country? This is fact rather than innuendo or anecdote. Will the Department bring about traceability in restaurants, the retail trade and in every other aspect?
Most of the issues raised by Deputy Sargent have already been dealt with. One of the words used by the Deputy in his question was "deluge" when referring to beef imports. In 2004 Ireland exported approximately 411,000 tonnes of beef and imported 22,000. The traffic was in the right direction from our point of view.
Both the Minister and I have indicated to this House and other fora that we intend to extend country of origin labelling of beef to the restaurant and catering sector. The necessary provisions are included in the Irish Medicines Board (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2004, which is currently before the Seanad. Current beef labelling is governed by comprehensive EU regulations introduced in 2002. We have a voluntary code agreed between the restaurant sector, the two vintners organisations and the hotels sector.
Of course the Minister of State knows the code is really working.
The voluntary code is operational in advance of compulsory requirement.
There are three regions of Brazil from which exports of beef are banned by the European Union. That was on the basis of the country being regionalised as we experienced ourselves some years ago when Ireland had an incidence of foot and mouth disease. The matter of Gaelic labelling was referred to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which has central responsibility for food labelling.
Does the Minister of State realise that more should be done? Does he, for example, believe it acceptable for chickens from Thailand to be imported into Ireland, coated with breadcrumbs and then sold as Irish produce?
I refute that contention.
It is a fundamental matter and I put the question to the Minister of State. Will he respond to the criticism that the Department has not done enough to ensure traceability and control over regulations?
I refute the Deputy's contention. We are determined to ensure that country of origin labelling is advanced as quickly as possible, and the appropriate legislation is currently before the Oireachtas. With regard to general standards, the food and veterinary office of the European Union carries out regular audits in third countries from which exports are allowed into the European Union.
Those audits can be postponed if requested.
The European Commission has a presence in South America and Asia. As I indicated earlier, the Minister wrote to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection to ensure that equivalence is acted upon and guarantee adequate consumer protection, as well as protection for the industry. The industry in the European Union works to the highest standards. We will ensure that requirements are applicable at all stages to ensure that products imported from third countries to the European Union are up to standards demanded by the Food and Veterinary Office. In any aspect of food there should be absolute diligence. Animal health should be managed on an ongoing basis, and this was the content of the Minister's submission to the Commissioner.
I asked about the labelling of chicken.
The practice referred to by the Deputy is banned.
We must move on to Question No. 97.
I mentioned at the outset of my reply that I refuted entirely Deputy Sargent's contention about the Thailand product.
It is sold as Irish.
I call Question No. 97.
Perhaps the Deputy should read the European document regarding substantial transformation. I was the only Member who put this issue forward without the support I am now receiving.
The Minister should address Question No. 97.
EU Funding.
Denis Naughten
Question:97 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions she has had with the EU Commission on the rural development budget; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34273/05]
The proposed EU rural development funding for 2007 to 2013 will form part of the overall EU budget or financial perspective for the same period. Decisions on the overall amount and its allocations will be taken in that context.
The rural development regulation No. 1698/2005 adopted in September confirms this situation and provides that the distribution of funding between member states will be on the basis of the convergence objective, past performance and particular situations and needs. I have emphasised in discussions at the Agriculture Council that particular importance must be attached to the past performance criterion. This will allow due account to be taken of current successful programmes and the need to build on them.
I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her articulation of this point at European level. Is there any indication of what type of budget the EU will have in the Irish context? Will the Minister elaborate on the modulation funding and whether it will be included in the rural development budget or used to provide breeding programmes, and so on, here? A number of Deputies and I were in Spain last week where Spanish authorities are proposing the establishment of a grant scheme for the reconstruction or refurbishment of farm cottages in areas where there has been much dilapidation. Has the Minister given consideration to a similar scheme for Ireland?
That does not form part of my portfolio. It is a matter for the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs, Deputy Ó Cuív. Two Ministers and their Departments are working on this rural development regulation. The Deputy should put his suggestion to the other Minister.
The two Ministers are obviously not working together.
We are.
If they are, the Minister for Agriculture and Food should put the suggestion to her colleague.
People have read about the consultation process currently taking place with the Department of Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs. Concerning funding, as we did not have a decision on financial perspectives, it is unfortunate that I do not know exactly how much money we have but we have political agreement on the scheme and are proceeding on that basis. The Deputy is correct in that there is a proposal. The Commission is proposing an extra 1% of modulation from 2009, which will generate approximately €3.2 billion for the next programme. It is not clear whether this is additional or a replacement. There will have to be further discussion on that.
The Commission has also proposed that 30% of the funds be used on competitiveness and the wider rural economic objectives. This will be by political agreement. It is unfortunate that we will not know how much money there is exactly until such time as we have the relevant financial perspectives. If we proceeded on the Luxembourg Agreement, we would be successful and happy. We must await the outcome of the discussions. I would not be enamoured of a forced modulation. If it is voluntary, fair enough, but I would have concerns were it compulsory. It may cause some difficulties for Ireland in the first pillar, which neither the Deputy nor I would like to see happen.
What are the plans for the present modulation fund? Will some of it go into the rural development area? Will the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs get his hands on it?
A specific problem has arisen with previous rural development budgets. Leader groups and other agencies have been very involved in developing small indigenous food companies but once those companies reach a certain threshold they no longer fall within the Leader category and, as they do not export, do not fall within the Enterprise Ireland category. They are literally left high and dry by this country's development agencies. Will the Minister assure the House that structures will be put in place to allow us to establish food companies, get them off the ground and support them in the long term? For example, Ireland has 320 artisan food companies whereas New Zealand has 2,000, which has a different structure of supporting and developing them.
A rule on minimum expenditure has been agreed, which is 10% for competitiveness, 25% for the environment and 10% for the wider rural economy. Leader, part of Deputy Ó Cuív's portfolio, will address these issues. We have witnessed a significant increase in the number of artisans. On the basis of decoupling, we will see future investment in the food industry, which I would like to happen in the small and medium sectors. They have been supported by Leader groups, city and county development boards and county enterprise boards.
The Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, has been vociferous in forcing the case that when companies grow past the ten employee threshold, Enterprise Ireland should be forthcoming in supporting them. I initiated a food forum two weeks ago, which is examining the implications and changes currently taking place in these enterprises. Having all of the agencies together has been informative and we can hopefully build on it.
Will the Minister for Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs get some of the money?
He must.
How much of it?
A total of 10%. Deputy Naughten is obviously not enamoured.
Bovine Diseases.
Mary Upton
Question:98 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of cases of BSE in cattle discovered in 2004 and to date in 2005; the number of those cattle that were born after 1996 when a ban on meat and bonemeal was imposed; the counties in which these cattle came from; the reason cases of such animals are still being discovered; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [34276/05]
A total of 126 cases of BSE were confirmed in 2004 compared to 182 in 2003 and 333 in 2002. To date in 2005 there have been 61 cases, which represents a decrease of 46% on the number of cases discovered in the same period in 2004. The majority of all confirmed cases were animals born prior to the introduction of the additional controls in 1996 and 1997. The age profile of BSE cases as well as the significant reduction in case numbers indicates that these additional controls have been effective in reducing the exposure to the infectious agent of animals born after 1997. It is anticipated that the incidence of disease will continue to decline as cows born prior to 1998 leave the system.
Where BSE is confirmed, a detailed epidemiological investigation is undertaken, in which the feeding regime used is an essential element, particularly in cases where the animals were born after the feed controls were reinforced. However, the specific causes of the post-1997 cases have not been definitively established as the events of interest took place several years earlier.
To date, BSE has been confirmed in 16 animals born after 1997. In addition, ten cases were confirmed in 1997-born animals of which a number were born before all of the reinforced measures were put fully in place that year. My Department had foreseen the likelihood that cases such as these would arise from time to time that would relate to circumstances specific to the farms in question and would not conform with the general trend as the incidence of the disease in the national herd recedes. Similar cases have occurred elsewhere, particularly in the United Kingdom and Canada. However, there is no basis for suspecting that these cases are indicative of either a systemic failure in controls or a reversal of or deviation from the overall positive trend in relation to BSE in Ireland.
The 16 cases born after 1997 were detected in counties Monaghan, four cases, Cavan, three cases, Cork and Kerry, two cases each, and one case each in counties Leitrim, Limerick, Mayo, Meath and Sligo. The Deputy will be aware that stringent controls are operated in Ireland in the context of protecting consumers and eradicating BSE. These controls are operated by my Department in the export plants and in the case of small local abattoirs by the local authorities under the supervision of the FSAI.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The controls have been and remain subject to ongoing external audit and examination by a range of bodies, including the FSAI and the EU Commission Food and Veterinary Office. Based on extensive examination in 1998, the EU categorised Ireland's position in respect of BSE controls as being optimally stable, which is the highest category of control effectiveness. The Irish BSE control system is also subject to examination by the veterinary and public health authorities in certain non-EU beef importing countries.
I am curious about the numbers. The Minister said 61 cases have been identified to date in 2005.
Yes.
Examining the numbers on a percentage basis, I calculate that nine were born either in 1997 or later, which is approximately 15%.
Not in 2005.
I calculate that there were nine cases in 2005. I can give the Minister the dates if she wishes me to work my way through each of them. On 2 September there was a five year old, on 26 August there was a five year old, on 29 July there was a four year old and on 3 June there were two aged five and eight. Of the 61, I counted nine on the Department of Agriculture and Food's website, which is approximately 15%.
Apart from the specifics of the issue, is 15% not a substantial percentage? I accept that the numbers are dwindling year on year from 2003, as indicated by the data the Minister has given the House. However, it is of some considerable concern that so many animals have been burned after the ban was introduced. It would appear that no identifiable reasons have been provided yet. It is quite a substantial percentage.
Investigations have been completed into eight of the cases involving post-1997 births. They are both dairy and suckler farms and I have stated the counties which are affected. It has not been possible to establish definitively the source of the disease in individual cases as they occurred several years ago. In two of the cases, the positive animals may have been exposed to infection through environmental contamination with bovine carcass parts associated with the illegal knackeries. The Department took a prosecution on 7 September 2005 on my behalf on that basis.
It is difficult to give definitive answers but the only assurances I can give the House is that they will be fully investigated and that the checks and balances within the food system are such that these animals do not move into the food chain. This is a very important matter. The Department has very strict controls and methodology. All the herd must be slaughtered when there is an incidence of BSE and I am aware many farmers have concerns about this policy. Independent supervision is provided by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.
The other assurance I can give the House is that the Department has been informed by the scientific advisers that there is no definitive way of deciding on a total eradication over a certain period. We should all welcome the significant reduction in the numbers of BSE found and for this I thank all those Members and everyone in the sector who was involved. I do not have an answer, nor does anyone else, in my view, as to the reason there are still animals born before 1997 who have BSE. The advice is there can be sporadic instances, for example, one in a million. This may not give a full and definitive answer but I assure the House it is fully investigated and all information is made available to the Department.
Will the Minister confirm there is an investigation ongoing for each and every one of these cases? It is clear there will be difficultiesin establishing a specific reason but it is necessary that as thorough an investigation as possible be concluded and the House informed of the outcome, if there is one, in each of those cases born after 1997.
There has been one very public case which was the prosecution taken in Tralee on 7 September. Another similar case involves an illegal knackery. Of the other cases, some have not been in a position to give us any information. The Department is very strict regarding the feed industry. This time last year, there was a debacle involving three loads of bone speckle which caused consternation. The consternation was necessary because these are the issues which are brought forward and which are a cause of grave concern to the Department. The Department is reminding those involved in the feed industry. Farmers are acutely aware of this issue.
On the question of storage, a number of years ago the ban was for ruminants and not necessarily for other animals and there may have been cross-contamination at the time which was many years ago. A calf may have gone into a place where it should not have been. The Deputy can rest assured that these cases will be fully investigated. When any new scientific information becomes available, it is used in these investigations. Like the Deputy, the Department also wants to achieve an end result.
That completes Priority Questions. We now come to the other questions. I remind the House that supplementary questions will be answered but are subject to a limit of one minute.
I remind the Minister that the clock is ticking.