Denis Naughten
Question:1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking to protect sugar beet growers; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [37739/05]
Priority Questions.
Sugar Beet Industry.
The recent agreement reached by EU Ministers at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council about the reform of the EU sugar regime was the culmination of a protracted and difficult negotiating process. The outcome represents the best deal that could have been achieved for Irish beet growers in the circumstances. It represents a considerable improvement on the Commission's initial proposals, which were made last June. The main features of the agreement are a lower reduction — 36% rather than 39% — than originally proposed in the support price of sugar; a phased introduction of the corresponding reduction in the minimum sugar beet price over four years, rather than the two-step reduction that was originally proposed; an increased rate of compensation for beet growers of up to 64% of the price reduction, to be paid in the form of direct payments worth approximately €121 million to Irish beet growers over the next seven years; a one-off payment of almost €44 million exclusively for beet growers if sugar beet production ceases in Ireland; and an aid package of up to €145 million to meet the economic, social and environmental costs of restructuring of the Irish sugar industry in the event of factory closure and the renunciation of quota. The entire compensation package for Ireland has an estimated value of more than €300 million.
Beet growers and Irish Sugar Limited will be responsible for making decisions about sugar beet growing in light of the reformed sugar regime. A one-off payment of almost €44 million will be available for growers, as I have said, if sugar production in Ireland ceases. In such circumstances, a restructuring fund of up to €145 million will be made available to provide compensation for the economic, social and environmental costs of factory closure. The agreement provides that at least 10% of that fund will be reserved for sugar beet growers and machinery contractors, to compensate them for losses arising from their investment in specialised machinery. The fund may be increased by member states after they consult interested parties, as long as the financial breakdown of the elements of the restructuring plan is balanced in line with a sound economic proposal.
Formal legal texts giving effect to the agreement will be adopted by the Council of Ministers early next year, after the opinion of the European Parliament has been received. The Commission will then come forward with proposals for detailed implementing rules. It is not possible to give further definitive information in advance of the adoption of the relevant regulations. The Department of Agriculture and Food will make timely arrangements for implementing the new regime in due course, as it did during the earlier phases of Common Agricultural Policy reform.
Based on the current proposals, 70% of the income of beet growers will have disappeared by 2008. Does the Minister see a future for sugar production in Ireland? What steps can be taken to ensure that the sugar production industry has a viable future? At least 10% of the funds allocated under the proposed compensation package will be given to sugar beet growers and machinery contractors, but I understand that the Minister rejected a proposal to increase the relevant percentage to 25%. Why did she reject the proposal to assign 25% of moneys to such people?
I would like to ask about the restructuring budget of €145 million. We accept that those funds will not be used to restructure Greencore but to close the remaining sugar plant. Sugar beet growers have invested in quota, land and machinery, but it seems that 90% of the funds which will be made available will be focused on Greencore rather than on the growers. I understand that member states have the flexibility to top up that level of payment. Does the Minister plan to consider such an approach?
The reform of the EU sugar regime is still in its early stages, as I have said. We are awaiting the final official legal text from the European Union. Growers will be able to participate in the sugar regime over the next two years. That will be a matter for growers and for Irish Sugar Limited. I would like to respond to Deputy Naughten's suggestion that I rejected a proposal to allow growers to be given 25% of the available funds. At approximately 3.30 a.m. or 4 a.m. on the night of the negotiations, the Irish delegation decided to renegotiate after the blocking minority of 11 member states decreased in size when a number of member states withdrew from it. I decided at that stage to support the proposal to offer compensation. A number of permutations were suggested for consideration and I expressed my views on the need to afford maximum flexibility to member states. The decision to provide that a minimum of 10% of the funds should be given to growers and contractors was taken on foot of that discussion.
It is important to say two things about the restructuring fund. It will be made available only on the renunciation of quota. It will be possible to use up to 75% of the fund if the sugar factory gets involved in alternative forms of production, such as the production of bioethanol or other biofuels. All such matters are being considered at present, but no definitive decisions have been made. The Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and I met farmers, the people of Mallow, the representative association and some of the retired workers, and we will take part in further discussions with all those involved in the sugar industry. I appreciate that this is a difficult matter. The sugar regime will continue in 2006 and 2007, at least. I hope those who wish to continue their involvement in the sugar industry will have an opportunity to do so over the next two years despite the price reductions, which have not been as bad as we had anticipated.
Agriculture Industry.
Mary Upton
Question:2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on the recent Foresight Rural Ireland 2025 document; what she intends to do to ensure its predictions as to the number of full-time farmers there will be in 2025 do not come true; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38487/05]
A report that was launched recently, Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives, was compiled by a working group from NUI Maynooth, UCD and Teagasc. The report outlines the group's perspective on rural Ireland in 2025 and gives its view on "alterative outcomes for the Irish rural economy in the next 20 years". According to the report, it is unlikely that Ireland will have appreciably more than 10,000 full-time commercial farmers and 30,000 part-time farmers in 2025. The report does not contain a detailed analysis that gives the rationale for such figures.
A more detailed analysis of farm numbers was published in Report of the Agri Vision 2015 Committee, an independent report that was compiled by a committee chaired by Mr. Alan Dukes. Appendix 4 of the report consists of a 15-page in-depth analysis of projected farm numbers. The appendix suggests that there will be 105,000 farms in Ireland in 2015, which will be a reduction from 136,000 farms in 2002, and that 40,000 of the farms will be classified as viable, which will be an increase from 38,700 farms in that category in 2002.
One section of Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives appears to accept the analysis contained in Report of the Agri Vision 2015 Committee. The latter report gives a detailed breakdown of the numbers and explains why the agri vision committee predicts there will be a reduction in the number of farms to 105,000 in 2015. It cites the increase in the popularity of part-time farming, the stabilising effects of the single farm payment and the availability of off-farm employment as factors which will underpin the continuing importance of farming, particularly part-time farming.
I would like to speak about the reduction in farm numbers. Ireland is not alone, as there is a global trend, in this regard. Overall farm numbers are decreasing in all developed countries, including Ireland. The rate of decrease in this country is far lower than in several of our European neighbours. The Government is focused on ensuring that the best possible options are available to farming families to allow them to stay on the land. People may be able to continue in the agriculture industry as full-time farmers, if their farm sizes and resources are sufficient and if they choose that option, or they may do so by means of a combination of on-farm and off-farm income, which many smaller farmers consider to be the best way to maintain a viable life on the land.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The Government is committed to supporting and encouraging farm families in whatever option they choose. The Department of Agriculture and Food will consult shortly with stakeholders on a new rural development strategy, to run from 2007 to 2013. The strategy and its complementary support measures will be based on the EU framework that was agreed in September, which places an emphasis on competitiveness, environment, quality of life and diversification of the rural economy. I am confident that the new strategy will contribute significantly to the economic and social well-being of rural areas.
I thank the Minister of State for his reply. When one examines the total numbers of farmers outlined in Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives and in Report of the Agri Vision 2015 Committee, one will accept that they are not a million miles apart. The latter report states there will be 12,500 viable dairy farmers and the former report states there will be 10,000 such farmers. It is not a huge gap.
Some 1,500 non-viable part-time dairy farmers and 1,500 transitional dairy farms are identified in the report of the agri-vision 2015 committee. Both those sets of figures are negative in the sense of maintaining a rural farming economy rather than just an entire rural environment, which is what we should be considering. Three key enabling measures are set out in Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives, and I would like to know the discussions the Minister of State plans to have with the other stakeholders in rural Ireland to ensure farming remains viable.
The 2015 programme will be progressed in 2006. We all want a prosperous rural economy. Ireland must also adopt the Rural Development Regulation 2007-2013. This will be followed by detailed support measures. The consultative process with stakeholders will commence in coming weeks and I hope we will have that with the Commission in March or April. The programmes setting out support measures will be sent in the following three months or so. The range of support measures is very wide and covers the three broad objectives of competitiveness, environment, quality of life and diversification of the rural economy. While we regard the report of the agri-vision 2015 committee as being more detailed as it outlines how farming numbers could decrease by 2015, both reports are helpful. We will consider both reports and take on board the good points from both.
One key point in Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives relates to the development of regional innovation and research systems to support the development of a knowledge-based rural economy. Given that this is such a key factor in sustaining growth and development in rural Ireland while also maintaining what exists, what action can be taken to ensure we have a knowledge-based rural economy to include farming?
This is one of the areas of the report we would be willing to take on board. The Minister has managed to secure increased funding for research in 2006.
Alternative Energy Projects.
Martin Ferris
Question:3 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will make a statement on the future of the sugar beet industry here; and the possible use of sugar beet as an energy crop. [38593/05]
Political agreement on reform of the EU sugar regime was reached at the meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council on 24 November 2005. It will be a matter for beet growers and Irish Sugar Limited to make decisions about sugar beet growing in light of the reformed sugar regime. The reform agreement, as the Minister has already outlined, includes a compensation package with a potential value of more than €300 million for Ireland, including measures that will apply in the event that sugar production ceases in Ireland.
While the production of ethanol from sugar beet is a possible alternative outlet for farmers, as matters stand, Irish Sugar Limited has arrangements in place to process the full Irish sugar quota at its Mallow plant which has been upgraded for that purpose. The question of establishing a bioethanol plant based on sugar beet would be a matter for commercial decision.
In future, under the decoupled system of support payments, farmers will only grow crops which provide an economic return. The announcement in yesterday's budget of the excise duty relief scheme to cover 163 million litres of biofuels per year when the relief is fully operational should stimulate the production of crops for the manufacture of liquid biofuels. This is a very welcome development.
To encourage the growing of sugar beet as an energy crop, the European Commission intends during 2006 to amend the relevant regulations to allow sugar beet to qualify for set-aside payments when cultivated as a non-food crop, and also to be made eligible for the energy crop aid of €45 per hectare. The sugar reform agreement also permits the partial dismantling of a sugar factory and the continued use of the production site for the production of non-food products such as bioethanol. In these circumstances, the final agreement provided that 75% of the restructuring aid be payable. This represented an increase on what the Commission originally proposed.
Yesterday the Minister for Finance, Deputy Cowen, announced significant increases in the excise duty relief for the production of biofuels which is intended to boost the biofuel industry in the State. He also stated that this measure would require EU approval as a state aid. Does the Minister of State agree that the State should also request that the range of energy crops covered by production grants should include beet? The two areas most affected in two years' time will be Mallow and Carlow. Jobs have already been lost in Carlow and among those growing beet in the south east. Getting beet nominated as a source of biofuel would be a way to make a transition into biofuel production. I had other questions which were already asked by Deputy Naughten and answered by the Minister.
As I come from the south east, I have had numerous meetings with farmers' organisations in recent weeks about possible alternatives for the beet industry, one of which relates to ethanol. Other areas in the beet industry need to be resolved first. Yesterday's announcement by the Minister for Finance of excise duty relief for biofuels of €20 million in 2006, €35 million in 2007 and €50 million in each year from 2008 to 2010, inclusive, is a welcome boost for the biofuel industry. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources and I have pursued this matter with the Minister for Finance for a number of months. We will consider the possibility of exploring opportunities to use sugar beet, oilseed rape, wheat and other crops to develop biofuels. The Deputy can take it that beet will be included and will be very high on the agenda in our discussions with farmers' organisations.
I welcome the response of the Minister of State that he will try to get sugar beet included. I stress its importance as it is a rotation crop grown by 3,700 farmers. Usually beet, barley and potatoes are used as rotation crops. Including it for biofuel production would assist all those involved in such rotation crops.
When the sugar company and the farmers' organisations sort out the difficulties, I hope that beet will be grown in 2006 and 2007. Later we can consider the production of ethanol and other alternatives. We are also considering the area of willows. Next year we will introduce a pilot scheme to produce a certain number of hectares. That would also be an important rotation crop. We are also considering all the ideas the Deputy is proposing.
EU Directives.
Denis Naughten
Question:4 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the status of the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [37740/05]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland's national action programme was formally submitted to the European Commission in July, and regulations giving legal effect to it are being finalised following a consultation process. Ireland is also proceeding with the case for a derogation designed to allow certain farmers to operate, under appropriate conditions and controls, up to a level of 250 kg of organic nitrogen per hectare per annum. The derogation proposes to cater for grassland farms. Discussions with the Commission on the derogation are under way.
While the implementation of the action programme will certainly have implications for farmers, I have taken important measures to alleviate the impact on the sector. I have announced proposals for a revised farm waste management scheme for which EU approval is now being sought. The improved scheme will increase the grant rate for both animal housing and slurry storage from the current rate of 40% to 60%, with 70% being available in some counties.
Other elements of the scheme will include significantly higher investment ceilings, the extension of the scheme to sectors such as pigs and poultry and the removal of any minimum income requirement from farming from the scheme. I hope early approval of the scheme will be forthcoming from the European Commission so that it can be introduced quickly. I also intend to introduce a scheme to support the demonstration of new technologies to help the agriculture sector meet the requirements of the nitrates directive.
Some concerns have been expressed about the impact of the directive on the pig and poultry sectors where many of the larger producers do not have enough land of their own to use the manure they produce. I am acutely conscious of the need for pig farmers to continue to have adequate spreadlands for pig slurry. I have therefore asked Teagasc to undertake a very active promotion campaign to demonstrate the nutrient value of slurry and the savings that farmers can achieve by substituting it for chemical fertiliser. I will urge REPS planners to encourage their clients to use pig manure on their farms. I will also seek to ensure that the necessary record keeping and inspection regimes are kept to what is strictly necessary.
The Minister's officials and officials from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government admitted at a committee meeting that they accept there are transitional difficulties for pig and poultry producers, yet none is prepared to put a structure in place to facilitate transition to the new scheme. Will the Minister direct them to do so? In regard to the information being provided by Teagasc to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government via the Department of Agriculture and Food for the P index, why is it that the Teagasc rules and guidelines for REPS are being thrown out the window? Teagasc has stated that the information furnished to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is not legally binding as there is no scientific evidence to back it and yet it is used by that Department as being legally binding under the nitrates directive. Will the Minister ask the director of Teagasc to clarify the position as he appears to have a different story from that of Dr. Cross and the scientific experts within Teagasc?
There has been confusion in regard to the precedent of the Netherlands' rules and regulations on fertiliser standards, for which the purposes of the nitrates directive and the standards operating in that country have a proper legal basis in the Netherlands. They are not merely recommendations or guidelines. I understand from my colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, that he has spoken to the director of Teagasc today. The director confirmed to the Minister that the information Teagasc had in regard to the non-binding nature of the application limits of the Netherlands was based on a non-file draft of the regulations. Teagasc has since confirmed that the fertiliser limits in the finalised Dutch regulation are mandatory and Teagasc is writing to the Minister to confirm that it has the same understanding in this regard. On the issue of the regulations being changed particularly to look at the soil sampling index, the position is that the nutrient value will only be reflective of the crop requirement and, therefore, any call for the regulation to be changed in the absence of soil sampling for the use of phosphorus index 2 will not be accepted by the Commission. I accept, in consultation with my colleague the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, there has been clarification on the issue from Teagasc. The position is as stated. Teagasc has confirmed to the Minister the issue regarding the non-factual position in the Netherlands. The confusion has been clarified.
Is it not the case that Dr. Cross wrote to the Department of Agriculture and Food stating that the information given by Teagasc to the Departments of Agriculture and Food and the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in regard to a P index of 2 could not be substantiated legally? Will the Minister confirm if that is the position? REPS plans are considered good farming practice throughout the European Union. The REPS plans in Ireland are restrictive in comparison with those in many other countries. Given that only 12 months remain in the REPS scheme the current P index of 3 could remain in place on those REPS plans until revised, as the Minister's officials have said they will not amend the documentation in the meantime but yet they want to change the rules.
With regard to the letter from Teagasc to the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government it recommended the nutrient application standards should be used as guidance tables only and not included in legislation. It is not an option. The Minister has spoken to the director of Teagasc on this matter and clarification has been sought and received. On the issue of REPS, it is appropriate that we take some of the stress being experienced by people on this issue. That is the reason I have asked Teagasc to be proactive. I have also asked that the REPS planners be brought in and that the issue of fertiliser substitution to organic will be the process of the day. I am also considering the issue of soil sampling. Therefore, if a farmer is in a position to say to me on a soil sample that it is a different index, he or she will be free to do so but at the end of the day crop requirement will be the prerequisite as opposed to the soil sample. On that basis, all support that is necessary to deal with this issue will be forthcoming. My officials meet in the Department and the officials of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to consider a response to the Commission with a view to bringing this matter to finality fairly quickly.
Beef Exports.
Mary Upton
Question:5 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she is satisfied with the traceability systems that are applied to Brazilian beef; the way in which she is satisfied that beef producers here are not compromised due to the extensive traceability systems demanded of beef produced here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38645/05]
As a member of the EU and the World Trade Organisation, WTO, Ireland is in a position to avail of opportunities for trade that are essential for the development of our open economy. Membership of these organisations also brings reciprocal trade obligations. The principle is that imported animal products meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in, and trade between, member states. All such imports must come from third countries or areas of third countries that have been approved for export to the EU.
Irish farmers are required to ensure that 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.
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 I wrote to the Commissioner Kyprianou concerning the sanitary rules applying to the import of livestock products, especially beef, into the European Union. In his reply the Commissioner outlined that, with respect to traceability and controls of residues of veterinary medicines, the purpose of EU legislation is not to impose on exporting third countries a system of guarantees that is equal to the EU system, but that the exporting country provides guarantees that are equivalent to the standards applied in the EU.
The Commissioner indicated his service is committed to protect the health of European consumers and European livestock. It has regularly carried out inspections in Brazil also with respect to the points of concern raised in my letter and has taken appropriate measures whenever necessary. He indicates the Commission's adoption of restrictive measures in relation to the finding of residues of unauthorised substances in poultry meat and the quick and proportionate protective measures applied to imports of beef, as a result of the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, FMD, in Brazil, demonstrate the Commission's primary objective of maintaining the high sanitary status of the Community and respecting the EU commitment under the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
In regard to the operation of EU controls on exports in Brazil the Commissioner indicated that an FVO inspection to evaluate animal health and public health control systems, traceability and certification procedures in place in that country has recently been carried out. Following consultation with the Brazilian competent authorities on its findings, which is not yet complete, the FVO will issue a report. The Commissioner has assured me that the Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate protection measures if a product, imported from a third country or produced in the domestic market represents a risk for the health of EC consumers, livestock or plants.
As the Minister is aware, there is concern in the beef industry in regard to the amount of imports from Brazil specifically. Questions have been highlighted in regard to the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease which have alerted us to the fact that there may be underlying problems in countries such as Brazil of which we are unaware. Given that the Minister said regular inspections are carried out by the FVO, what is the frequency of those inspections? What percentage of the factories from which we purchase beef are tested and how regularly are those tests carried out? On the issue of labelling we can no longer have a choice. That is the key issue from a consumer point of view. There is a beef industry problem but there is a consumer perception that the consumer is disadvantaged and has no idea of the origin of that product at catering level.
I wholeheartedly agree on the issue of labelling. Our colleagues in the Seanad are involved in drafting legislation that will hopefully be introduced in this House at the beginning of the next term so we can introduce law on the issue of labelling. We all agree on the necessity of labelling.
The FVO carried out a number of audits and inspections between 2001 and 2004 on production and export controls and on residue controls operated by the Brazilian competent authorities. The audits were taken in compliance with the provisions of EU legislation on food hygiene and health conditions for the productions and placing on the market of certain products intended for human consumption and in accordance with the conditions under which Brazil has been approved by the EU to trade in certain animal products.
As I indicated, a recent investigation was carried out by the FVO. I instigated a letter to the Commissioner on the basis of the concerns expressed. Many recommendations were made to the Commission from the FVO arising from those. Reviews were carried out on action plans submitted by the Brazilians and consideration of further control measures in light of assurances received. I await the outcome of the FVO report. Hopefully it will be available soon so we can see if our concerns have been addressed.
Beef Imports.
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:6 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the reason an estimated 16,000 to 20,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef is imported here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38451/05]
While imports of beef into Ireland in 2004 amounted to 22,881 tonnes, beef exports of almost 500,000 tonnes were made from Ireland to worldwide destinations. Accordingly, Ireland supports a system that facilitates orderly trade while taking account of animal health.
The operation of harmonised EU legislation governing animal health, production and trade in animal products such as meat, takes account of the EU negotiated position within the WTO. The principle is that imported animal products meet standards at least equivalent to those required for production in, and trade between, member states. Imports of animal products must come from third countries or areas of third countries that are members of the International Organisation for Animal Health, OIE, and that have been approved for each particular animal product to export to the EU.
Where an animal disease outbreak occurs in an approved third country it must be notified to the OIE. Where there are risks for the Community in terms of public health or economic production, the Commission will immediately deal with the issue at the standing committee on the food chain and animal health, SCoFCAH, and table proposals appropriate to remove any risks arising from trade.
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. 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.
As I indicated in my previous reply, I wrote to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr. Markos Kyprianou, on these issues and he indicated that his service is committed to protect the health of European consumers and livestock. He also assured me that the Commission will not hesitate to take appropriate protection measures if a product imported from a third country or produced in the domestic market represents a risk for the health of EC consumers, livestock or plants.
I wish to ask the Minister questions on three aspects of this. Does the Minister agree the price of Irish beef has been adversely affected by the flood, in comparative terms to other beef imports, of imports from Brazil? The IFA estimates the impact was a price reduction of the order of €130 per head in June, July, August and September. Since the partial ban was imposed in early October, prices recovered by approximately €60 or €70 per head. Does the Minister agree with that estimation?
Closer to the heart of what we are dealing with is traceability. I heard the Minister state that Irish farmers are expected to comply with the highest of standards and Irish farmers agree with and support that. Is there any impediment to ensuring traceability in the catering sector to the same extent as the retail sector, so people in the catering sector are forced to declare they are selling Brazilian beef? Why is that not done? It seems it needs to be done.
Champions of free trade such as the US and Japan have a total ban on Brazilian beef. From a health point of view, should we have a total ban while there is foot and mouth disease in Brazil?
The questions cover a number of issues. These are the concerns expressed regarding the WTO negotiations. Labelling is extremely important. It was available and is available in the retail sector. It is not available and has not been available in the catering or food production sector. That will change through legislative measures that hopefully come before the House soon. I agree——
That is a broken record. The Minister stated that last January.
The broken record is sitting in the Seanad. If Deputy Naughten has a problem with the Seanad he should take it up with his Senators. They all agreed that this Bill should be implemented as quickly as possible. We are all in agreement. It will happen and I will take a strict approach to the labelling of beef and this will continue to other products.
Equivalence and equality are the issues. I have raised the concerns we all have on traceability, identification and residues with the Commissioner. As I indicated in my response, the FVO is dealing with it.
The overall problem is that within the European Union we have a beef deficit. Banning the importation of beef would be problematic from a food availability point of view. That said, I feel if we introduce measures to ensure people are aware and consumers are informed, they will make choices. The issue of the price of beef is equally important to us. I have a problem with other countries, particularly the United States, telling us we must import Brazilian beef while they are not prepared to do so, nor are they prepared to allow us to export our beef to the United States, Japan or North Korea. This is the main issue with which we need to deal at WTO level.
I am not in a position to fully ban beef from Brazil on the basis that it is regionalised. During the foot and mouth disease crisis here, we used regionalisation to ensure we had a continuity of production available to the market.
I wish the Minister well in the WTO negotiations. If they do not go well we will not have an industry. I am extremely frightened to hear the Minister state that traceability is not important if beef is scarce.
I never said that.
The Minister indicated that if we have a deficit——
The Deputy must ask a question. We are running out of time.
The bottom line is that 28 known cases of foot and mouth disease occurred in Brazil. The US, Japan, Australia and other countries have blocked imports of Brazilian beef. Will we continue to allow it into our country?
The time has concluded.
Is there any control on slaughterhouses? When we sell beef to Egypt we must allow Egyptian vets into our slaughterhouses.
We are over time on this question.
My final question is——
Sorry, Deputy——
Do we rely on the food and veterinary officers of the EU based in Grange? They stated no traceability existed in Brazil during the past 12 months. Is this acceptable?
I want to make a point before the Minister answers. If Deputies go over time and continue to ask questions, it is only fair that the Minister should be given time to answer the questions. There will be no time for supplementary questions if we allow one Deputy to monopolise.
Not even the questioner.
I am sorry I asked a question at all. I apologise.
We are all getting tetchy today. A feed of Irish beef will do us all the world of good. We must not have had lunch today.
On the basis of the concerns expressed by my parliamentary party, Members of the House and members of farming organisations, I raised this issue with the Commissioner. As I stated, the FVO is investigating it and will report shortly to the Commissioner, who has given his indications to me in writing.
I did not state that traceability, food safety and food security are not important. If we are to have a balanced outcome in the WTO negotiations, it must be reflected in equal access to the markets. This is why I am concerned about the current unbalanced proposal.
We must deal with a matter about which many people do not want to hear. I recently met my Italian colleague, who is interested in the support of Irish beef in the retail sector, and we are doing well at that level. He told me he wishes to import a considerable amount of Brazilian beef for the catering and manufacturing sectors on the basis of price. That is a major difficulty for us.
On the basis of regionalisation it is a policy we used and it would be erroneous for me to suggest we should not pursue that.
All our cattle are tagged. That is the major difference.
I have expressed our concerns to the highest level and I will continue to do so while awaiting a report from the Commissioner.
We have spent ten minutes on that question so I cannot allow Deputy Sargent to contribute further.
It is a vital question.
Some weeks ago Members who sat in this House for more than one and a quarter hours did not have their questions answered. The Chair has an obligation to move the questions forward and this is the reason the Chair is particular about time.
Waste Management.
Catherine Murphy
Question:7 Ms C. Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on whether the presence of dioxins as a result of the development of two new incinerators here will have an adverse effect on foods grown; her further views on whether this will become a disincentive for importers to purchase Irish food exports; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38457/05]
The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, recently granted the Republic's first two licences for commercial waste incinerators subject to stringent conditions. A priority task for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, since it was established in 1999 has been to monitor the food supply for contamination by dioxins. Concerning the introduction of waste incineration in Ireland as part of a national waste management strategy, the FSAI considers that such incineration facilities, if properly managed, will not contribute to dioxin levels in the food supply to any significant extent and will not affect food quality or safety. In order to maximise consumer protection, it is vital that rigorous monitoring programmes be maintained and that consideration be given to expanding environmental monitoring around any established incineration facilities.
Emissions from the plants will be actively monitored by the EPA to ensure that the limit values in place are not exceeded. The EPA has held discussions with the FSAI with a view to putting in place a monitoring strategy to ensure that food produced in the areas surrounding the incinerators does not pose any danger to consumers.
I understand the FSAI is satisfied that Irish foodstuffs will not be adversely affected by the introduction of the two new incineration facilities announced by the EPA, provided these facilities maintain the rigorous controls on emissions which will be part of the EPA licensing controls and provided the monitoring programme on foodstuffs currently under discussion between the FSAI and the EPA is put in place. The FSAI will continue to maintain a surveillance programme for levels of environmental contaminants including dioxins in Irish food, independent of this monitoring programme.
Provided these measures are put in place, the FSAI considers the current low levels of these contaminants in Irish food will continue, and will provide a positive incentive for consumers and importers in other countries to purchase Irish food exports.
The Minister values the clean environment in which food is grown. Does she regret the decision to grant licences to these facilities?
Belgium had a problem with dioxins that affected the poultry industry some years ago and this contaminated the reputation of poultry there. What measures will the Minister put in place if such a problem occurs here? The EPA will provide spot checks rather than having someone on site. What inputs will the Minister have to rigorous assessments? If the FSAI discovers a problem, it will be too late.
Mr. Aidan O'Brien undertook research and complained when a similar facility was proposed near his farm in Tipperary. The facility was withdrawn because of the proximity of racehorses. Are racehorses affected by dioxins in a different way to people?
Racehorses are treated differently in the tax system.
I cannot make a personal comment because it is outside my jurisdiction. This is a matter for the EPA and it has gone through due process. In granting the licence, the EPA was satisfied that, subject to conditions, the incinerators would not endanger human health or harm the environment. The conditions require the operator to carry out monitoring programmes 20 times per year, ten times more than what is requested by the EU. The Office of Environmental Enforcement will monitor and enforce conditions through environmental audits, site visits and checks of emissions.
I respect the independence of the FSAI, its valued contribution to food safety, its assurances and its proactive manner of addressing concerns. Once the conditions have been finalised, the FSAI and the EPA will do the job well.
The Minister's reply was very conditional, stating there would be no impact to any significant extent if properly managed. Is the Minister concerned about the EPA carrying out monitoring, as it seems more interested in prosecuting pig farmers throughout the country than monitoring dioxins?
I share the same concerns as Deputy Naughten. The Minister's statement contained the phrase "if properly managed" and we need assurances on how this management will be monitored. Is continuous monitoring possible? If not, we will always be acting in a post hoc fashion and the damage will be done before we know about it.
I understand these are spot checks by definition. Will the Minister insist that dairy products and meat are measured, as well as airborne dioxins? This is the food we consume and this is where the dioxin is concentrated. Will she insist on such testing? I understand these tests will target airborne dioxins but this is of no help to preserving the good name of our food industry.
These matters are before the courts. The decisions were made on the prerequisite that certain measures would be taken and it is for this reason my answer was conditional. These arrangements will prove satisfactory if certain measures are implemented. The EPA and the FSAI must be satisfied that these matters are dealt with.
Deputy Sargent is correct in stating that these are spot checks. The monitoring is well beyond the EU standard and there is no reason this should not be so. The Office of Environmental Enforcement goes beyond the independence of the EPA and the FSAI. Discussions between the EPA and the FSAI regarding bio-monitoring, to which Deputy Sargent referred, and the production of milk, a sensitive indicator of foodstuffs, as well as tissue and animals likely to be exposed to any possible emissions. These concerns are being taken into consideration.
Live Exports.
John Perry
Question:8 Mr. Perry asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she will take to facilitate the live export of lambs to the UK and France; if she will address the holding period restriction; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [37710/05]
I am always prepared to facilitate trade in live sheep, which is subject to EU rules governing intra-community trade. Trade in sheep between member states of the European Union is subject to the provisions of Council Directive 91/68/EEC as amended, as regards reinforced controls on the movement of sheep and goats.
These controls provide as a minimum requirement that breeding and fattening sheep must be certified as having been continuously resident on a holding for at least 30 days prior to export and that no sheep or goats have been introduced on to the holding in the 21 days prior to export.
Slaughter sheep must also be certified as having been continuously resident on the holding of origin for at least 21 days prior to export and are also subject to a standstill period of 21 days prior to dispatch during which no sheep or goats have been introduced on to the holding of origin.
These controls were introduced in the aftermath of the foot and mouth outbreak in 2001 and came into effect on 1 July 2004. I was aware that there were certain difficulties with these certification requirements because the information in respect of which the official veterinarian was being required to certify could only be truly known to the farmer. Accordingly, my Department raised the matter with the European Commission in an effort to arrive at a certification procedure that best meets the concerns of farmers and exporters while, at the same time, protecting animal health. I am pleased that, in response to our approach, the European Commission submitted proposals to amend these certification requirements to allow the official veterinarian to issue certification based on a written declaration by the farmer or on an examination of the flock register and movement documents. The proposals providing for these new arrangements were agreed to unanimously by the standing committee on the food chain and animal health on 11 November 2005 and will apply from 15 February 2006. I am confident they will resolve most of the outstanding difficulties in relation to certification of exports of sheep to France and the United Kingdom.
While I am happy to facilitate live sheep exports in any way possible, securing outlets and the supply and availability of transport for the carriage of livestock is a commercial matter and does not come within the remit of my Department.
I do not know how I am going to work that one out, but I will take it as being a positive response. Perhaps, rather than reading the prepared response, the Minister of State would explain, in plain English, what that means from February of next year.
In the context of the import and export of sheep, a major issue that has arisen is that of having an all-Ireland animal health regime so that there would not be the possibility of sheep coming from the United Kingdom, via Northern Ireland, into the Republic. This is a genuine concern of farmers. I ask the Minister of State to clarify the situation in that regard and to give assurances that there are no sheep coming from Wales and Scotland, being re-branded as Northern Irish sheep and then making their way across the Border. There seems to be an enormous number of sheep north of the Border.
In simple language, the Minister and I had a number of meetings with the IFA, sheep exporters and others, who pointed out the difficulties in respect of the residency and standstill requirements, which the veterinarian had to sign off on. Now the veterinarian will not have to sign off and the declaration of the farmer involved will be acceptable. The Commission has accepted that, it has gone before the standing committee and will apply from 15 February 2006. The exporters and farm organisations seem to be reasonably happy with that.
In terms of figures, 35,000 sheep were exported in 2003, 58,000 in 2004 and to date this year, the figure is 88,000. Our officials are working on the issue of the all-Ireland agreement, which has proved reasonably difficult. However, we are continuing to try to bring about an arrangement where we will have an all-Ireland agreement in place.
Regarding the discussions on the all-Ireland agreement, does the Minister of State believe the animal remedies regime in this country will cause difficulties and prevent agreement?
No.
I will hold the Minister of State to that.
Food Industry.
Jan O'Sullivan
Question:9 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans to encourage the uptake of ICT in the agri-food business; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38380/05]
The strategic role of ICT in business development has been identified in the national e-business strategy launched by the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment in December 2004.
Within this overall framework, the development agencies charged with promoting the growth of industry in general, and the agri-food industry in particular, are committed to optimising the potential of ICT in working with companies and in assisting the growth of strong and sustainable business.
Food companies were among those to benefit from earlier initiatives such as the e-business acceleration fund initiative launched by the Tánaiste and then Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, in May 2000 and the e-BIT initiative launched in May 2003. Enterprise Ireland is committed to mainstreaming e-business among its company base and this includes embedding ICT management skills in SMEs, building awareness of the impact of new technologies on businesses and promoting the use of ICT as a marketing and sales channel. In 2006 the e-business unit in Enterprise Ireland will organise a series of events on growing competitiveness through e-business and on-line marketing and e-marketplaces to raise awareness about e-marketplaces, provide advice on promoting companies' on-line presence internationally and guidance on electronic trading.
With regard to food and drinks companies specifically, Bord Bia has launched an electronic portal to provide market intelligence and advice. The portal already has 690 members, which is not far short of the total number of food and drinks companies manufacturing in Ireland, and is currently recording some 6,800 visits and 57,000 pages viewed per annum. Bord Bia's website includes, among other publications, a guide to farmers' markets which can be easily downloaded and updated to promote this growing alternative route to market.
My Department and Teagasc have also been to the fore in providing e-services and e-payments to food producers, processors and exporters and in extending the reach and quality of those services to encourage the sustainable growth of the very important indigenous food and drinks sector.
I thank the Minister for her reply and welcome the innovation indicated therein. However, once again I will dare to quote from the report, Rural Ireland 2025: Foresight Perspectives, whose eminent authors from the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, University College Dublin and Teagasc cannot be dismissed lightly.
There was a good Roscommon man involved in that publication.
The authors state, "Access to broadband connection to the ‘information highway' is more restricted in Ireland with only half of the country's telephone lines being capable of giving access". In summary, they state:
Ireland's place in the ‘knowledge economy' stakes indicates serious weaknesses. This is especially bad news for rural Ireland were the future actually turn out to be like this ‘business as usual' scenario.
It is absolutely critical that every effort is made by the Department of Agriculture and Food and other relevant Departments to ensure Ireland is a keen competitor. Clearly, we are now in a global economy and we will be left behind if we are not able to compete in this area.
I agree that in terms of infrastructure, it is not necessarily only what we can physically see that is important and in that context, the issue of broadband availability is relevant. This is particularly so with regard to the ability of small and artisan businesses to sell goods and services on-line.
I do not wholeheartedly agree with some of the forecasts in the report. I see them as depicting a doomsday scenario and I do not see the situation in that light at all. I agree that the roll-out of the broadband programme by my colleague, the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Noel Dempsey, will support small businesses and enterprises greatly. An enormous amount of money is being invested under that programme — I do not have the exact figures with me but they can be made available by way of other parliamentary questions — and I will be doing everything I can to drive and support the new technologies coming on stream within agriculture. Information technology and the knowledge economy do not only apply to particular types of education or industry, they are also very much a part of agriculture in terms of research, development and education within agriculture and support mechanisms for our food and drink industry.
Much work has been done on this initiative and work will continue on that, as well as on the support mechanisms and new methodologies of linking with our farmers.
In the context of the aforementioned report and given what has happened in the sugar, pig and poultry industries recently, we could reach the authors' prediction on the number of farmers in Ireland in 2025 very soon.
The Minister referred to the artisan food companies. The Internet certainly is a potential vehicle for them but there must be an overall structure provided by Bord Bia so that they are not scattered, willy-nilly, all over the Internet. We must develop a co-ordinated approach to Internet sales. Has the Minister taken any steps in that regard?
The level of flexibility in dealing with the Department of Agriculture and Food is great for those who have access to the Internet. The Department must be complimented in that regard. However, many people will never be able to avail of it. Has the Minister had discussions with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources about making that technology available via the local post office network for the many people who neither have Internet access nor the skills to access the facilities made available by the Department?
I refute the Deputy's political innuendo. The support for agriculture from the Government and, in particular, my team has been second to none. It is high time we took the scaremongering out of what are very serious issues arising from the nitrates directive. Instead of issuing press releases we need to work with the sector to ensure it is viable. I have demonstrated my commitment with huge investment in farm waste management and huge investment in alternatives, €4 million having been made available this year. Above all I, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brendan Smith, will pursue that vigorously.
The Minister should go outside and say that to them.
As it is coming up to Christmas I will, however, be magnanimous by saying that Internet access at post offices is not a bad idea. I will consider it. I am delighted at the interest of the farming community in Internet access to their schemes, such as the CMMS database, and the use of mobile telephones. It augurs well but we will still have to provide both schemes, as the Deputy will appreciate, given the part of the country from which he comes. There are some who, if a computer was sitting on the table, would be afraid of it.
They have nice coffee holders on them.
EU Directives.
Paul Nicholas Gogarty
Question:10 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the views raised that pig and poultry farmers will be put out of business by the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [38452/05]
The implementation of the nitrates directive is a matter in the first instance for the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Ireland's national action programme was formally submitted to the European Commission in July and regulations giving legal effect to it are being finalised following a consultation process.
Can we take that as read?
I am listening to the answer.
We cannot take it as read. I am aware of concerns that have been expressed about the impact on the future of the pig and poultry sectors. Many farmers will have to adapt to the requirements of the nitrates directive and there will certainly be implications for pig and poultry farmers in particular because most of them do not have enough land of their own to spread the manure they produce. I am satisfied, however, that the great majority of these operators will be able to adapt successfully. To the extent that they may need additional waste storage, I have put proposals to the European Commission under which pig and poultry farmers will be eligible for the first time for grants under the farm waste management scheme. Grants of up to 70% will be available. I am also proposing grant aid for specialised equipment with specific environmental advantages, such as decanter centrifuge systems and dry feeding systems for pigs.
As far as spreadlands are concerned, I am acutely conscious of the need for pig farmers in particular to continue to have access to enough land to spread slurry. I have asked Teagasc to undertake a very active promotion campaign to demonstrate to other farmers the nutrient value of pig slurry and the savings that farmers can achieve by substituting it for chemical fertiliser. I will be urging REPS planners to encourage their clients to use pig manure on their farms and I will be seeking to ensure that the record-keeping and inspection regimes are kept to what is strictly necessary. I want to get rid of the mistaken idea that farmers who take in pig or poultry manure are more likely to fall foul of various rules and regulations than those who use chemical fertiliser.
There is much that farmers can do to help one another, and I call on farm organisations to play their part by substituting imported organic fertilisers such as pig slurry. It is in the interests of other farming sectors that provide feed for pigs, such as the tillage sector, to assist the intensive pig producers by considering the use of manure on their crops. Pig producers also need to be proactive in identifying and encouraging suitable recipients to take and utilise their manure. By our combined efforts I believe we can all ensure the continuation of a viable pig and poultry sector.
The issue has been partly dealt with but I will ask further questions. The Minister says that a certain amount has already taken place, such as 30,000 farmers having invested heavily in pollution control and a number in slurry storage, which is good. I use pigeon manure in my garden so I know how good it is when used in the right amounts.
That will solve the problem.
In Kilkenny a number of farmers are working together in biogas production, which has led to a much reduced problem with the land-spreading of slurry. It is not just about storage or land-spread but innovating and creating a useful by-product at the same time. Does the Minister have anything more to offer, perhaps in conjunction with the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Dempsey, or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, so that an interdepartmental package can be put together to overcome the problem of complying with the nitrates directive, given that we are over 12 years behind the rest of Europe in that regard? I appreciate there is friction in the Minister's party on the implementation of the directive.
The Deputy is correct that we have studied innovative ways to deal with the issue. It should not necessarily be termed "Waste" but that is the official EU term.
It is fertiliser.
It is an organic fertiliser that can be used for other purposes. That is why three weeks I ago I sought ten projects for the Department, for which I have provided €4 million this year. It may be necessary to do something beyond that and I am actively working with both of my colleagues on that matter.
The seriousness of the matter is such that I have consulted many eminent people, for example, from the University of Limerick, and have accepted suggestions for the poultry sector and for cross-Border solutions to the issue. I intend to ensure there is no adverse effect on farmers from the nitrates directive, though alternatives must be used. In many other countries farming methods are different and that creates a difficulty for us. In the roll-out of the directive and in signing off statutory instruments I will continue to further evaluate the situation and examine further avenues available to me to support them.
I am certainly not one to indulge in scaremongering because I live in a community where reality is quickly dawning on the people concerned. Will the Minister assure us there will be a common-sense approach to managing the transitional period because switching to chemical fertiliser involves major changes for farmers? Many farmers say that after 1 February they will not take slurry or manure.
We have a serious cross-Border problem in that much poultry manure comes south to displace our poultry manure in mushroom units. The number of planning permissions granted has been increased for poultry production in Northern Ireland.
A senior official at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government told us on the record of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food that he was not aware of the problem of poultry and pig farmers. I cannot understand where he has been in recent years. For a man negotiating in Brussels on our behalf to make that statement on the record at the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food scares me. If the Minister thinks press releases from this side of the House are causing problems she need look no further than Department officials who still do not seem to understand how serious the position is for producers of pigs and poultry as well as extensive dairy production.
I reiterate that I am acutely aware of the issue and have been since the first day I was appointed.
I appreciate that.
I have met regularly with the poultry sector North and South and will travel tomorrow morning for a meeting with representatives of the poultry sector in Limerick. I met the Monaghan people first. The pig sector is involved in the farm waste management scheme for the first time.
We are also dealing with others I have mentioned, such as grant aid for decanters. That will run in tandem with the alternatives and research that will address this matter, the nutrient content of feed and possible reductions.
We have been dealing with this for some time and it is my intention to deal with it to the best of my ability. People are starting to lose their reason on this issue and are putting pressure on Deputies on all sides, saying this will be a doomsday scenario. That is not the case and we are working to address it.
The former Minister says it is a doomsday scenario.
I do not agree. The onus will not be just on the pig producer but on the people involved in manufacturing. If they wish to remain in the pig and poultry industry, there will have to be a symbiotic relationship between both. Working together we can deal with this issue to the best of our ability.
Grant Payments.
Denis Naughten
Question:11 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when she intends to introduce new grant rates provided to farmers under the control of farmyard pollution scheme in view of the increasing cost of steel and the demands that will be placed on farmers due to the nitrates directive; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [37688/05]
To assist farmers to meet the additional requirements of the nitrates action programme, I have announced details of a proposed revised farm waste management scheme for which EU state aid approval has been sought. I hope that early approval of the scheme will be forthcoming so that the revised scheme can be introduced next January. Negotiations are taking place with the European Commission on the clearance of the scheme and I hope it will be up and running in early January.
Can we get an assurance that those with fewer than 20 livestock units will be included in this and that will it be in force from 1 January? We have limited time to get this into place and the cost of steel is an issue. The Minister said she has made a large amount of money available. Comparing what is available now with what was available ten years ago——
If I recall, Fine Gael removed the scheme when it was in Government.
At that time €97 million was paid out but only €45 million will be paid out this year. Will the Minister guarantee that the funds needed will be provided so housing and storage can be erected this year?
Will those availing of the present scheme be able to avail of the new scheme if they have not begun construction?
Yes, but they will have to withdraw their original application if they have not begun work.
In answer to Deputy Crawford, the decision rests with the Commission. Following the discussions for the protocol on direct payment to farmers, the Department's standard costings will be revised at the beginning of each year so any increase in the cost of steel and other inputs will be taken into account in the introduction of the revised standard costings in January 2006. Steel costings will be taken into account.
Will the Department make extra funding available if there is a realistic uptake of this? It is a serious problem and when pigs and poultry are included, there should be major demand and we do not want it to fall short.
Under the capital programme there will be adequate funding for 2006. If extra money is required we will make that available.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.