Vol. 619 No. 6
1 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps which are being taken to protect this country from foot and mouth disease in view of the prevalence of foot and mouth disease in Brazil and the grossly inadequate tagging and traceability in that country; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18945/06]
As a member of the EU and the World Trade Organisation, 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. All imports must come from third countries or areas of third countries that have been approved by the EU authorities for export to the EU. In the current WTO discussions in the Council of Ministers, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, has always pressed very strongly the non-trade aspect of market access, which I regard as a crucial element in the overall negotiations. The Minister will do so again on Monday next when WTO will be discussed in the Council and will remind the Commission once again of the importance of equivalence in standards, particularly in regard to all exporting countries, including Brazil.
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 contacted the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr. Markos Kyprianou, concerning the sanitary rules applying to the import of livestock products, especially beef, into the European Union.
The Commissioner pointed out 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. Adoption of safeguard measures over imports, for example in the matter of dealing with the risk to the EU of the spread of high pathogenic avian influenza, in the finding of residues of unauthorised substances in poultry meat and in the quick and proportionate protective measures applied to imports of beef as a result of the recent outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, demonstrates the Commission's primary objective of maintaining the high sanitary status of the Community and respecting the EU's commitment under the WTO agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measures.
The Commission has assured us that it 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 EU consumers, livestock or plants.
An EU food and veterinary office, FVO, inspection to evaluate animal health and public health control systems, traceability and certification procedures in place in Brazil was carried out in September of last year. The FVO recently published its findings following a period of consultation with the Brazilian competent authorities and a review of action plans that have been submitted by the Brazilian authorities to the Commission. This report, as well as all previous FVO reports on inspection of third countries' controls for export, may be accessed from the European Commission's website.
While the report comments on a general improvement in the structure, organisation and tasks of the Brazilian competent authorities it has listed a number of recommendations to the authorities to address deficiencies that were recorded in the course of its audit. The Brazilian authorities have undertaken to submit an action plan in response to these recommendations and the Department of Agriculture and Food will continue to monitor the position.
The Department is seeking assurances from the Commission that the FVO will undertake further missions to Brazil to evaluate the implementation of its action plan. At a recent meeting of the standing committee on the food chain and animal health, where the matter was again raised by Ireland, the Commission indicated that a FVO mission is being planned to take place some time before the end of the summer.
In the meantime additional health certification requirements have been introduced for imported beef from Brazil under Commission decision 2006/259/EC, requiring guarantees concerning animal contacts, vaccination programmes and surveillance. These certification provisions took effect from 31 March 2006 and they are checked by the EU approved border inspection posts, through which all third country imports must first be submitted.
It is obvious from the Minister of State's reply that he did not have the opportunity to read today's Irish Farmers Journal, which highlights deplorable standards and intolerable practices in Brazilian farming. A leading world expert on foot-and-mouth disease control, who works with the Brazilian authorities, writes that the current foot-and-mouth eradication scheme is doing more to spread the disease than eradicate it in Brazil. He adds that the current testing procedures in Brazil are wholly inadequate and unable to differentiate between animals that have been infected with foot-and-mouth disease and those which have been vaccinated. Is it not the case that, as this and the EU food and veterinary office report make clear, traceability is non-existent and the vast majority of cattle in Brazil do not have tags? The EU food and veterinary office seem to go to Brazil for a holiday rather than to produce a report that can be taken seriously by the European Commission. The last report was a damning indictment of what has been happening in Brazil and nothing has been done about it. Today’s report is a damning indictment of what has been happening in Brazil and nothing has been done about it.
The McDonalds hamburger chain will not take beef from Brazil because it believes it is an accident waiting to happen. McDonalds is not prepared to take Brazilian beef but the European consumer must accept it, and with it the risk of the importation of foot-and-mouth disease.
This issue has been raised by Deputy Naughten, Deputy Upton and Members on all sides of the House and I did not need to read a report in any publication——
So he did not read it.
——to have concerns on the matter.
It is time for Deputy Naughten to listen to the Minister of State.
I have been listening to him for the past five minutes.
He obviously was not listening.
He spent the whole time reading the paper.
I heard him.
I said, as I did when Deputy Upton asked a similar question, that the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Coughlan, had consistently raised this issue at meetings of the EU Council of Ministers. It will arise again in the context of the WTO negotiations and deliberations at the EU Council of Ministers next Monday. There will be a further European audit and a further FVO inspection before the end of this summer. It is unfair of Deputy Naughten to suggest that eminent professionals who have the confidence of the FVO would treat their work as a holiday and I do not believe that, on reflection, he would consider it true. They are people of the utmost competence and professional ability.
We have raised the issues of concern over equivalence in the standards that apply. At present, EU legislation only authorises imports from Brazil of de-boned and maturated bovine meat, without offals, from certain parts of Brazil. Other organisations, as well as public representatives and Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas, have quite rightly raised their concerns over standards that apply in South America and elsewhere and the Minister has been active in raising it at all Council of Ministers meetings. She wrote a comprehensive letter to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. The Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, in response to a question from Deputy Naughten a week ago, said the issue had been referred to the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection on numerous occasions. This is an issue we will continue to keep on the agenda because it demands the utmost diligence and attention.
2 Dr. Upton asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her views on appointing an independent expert, agreed upon by her Department and a person (details supplied), to investigate the possible cause of high mortality of cattle and the low productivity of other animals on a person’s farm; if she will ensure that all reports, test results and analyses carried out by or on behalf of her Department are made available to the owner of the farm; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18938/06]
My Department, with other agencies and the private veterinary practitioners of the person named, has been carrying out investigations to try to establish the source of the problems on the farm in question. The problems relate mainly to ill thrift and stunted growth of a number of cattle on the farm as well as severe milk yield loss in the dairy herd.
It had been suggested that one of the possible causes of the problems might relate to possible exposure of the cattle to fluorine being emitted from a nearby factory. My Department has examined this aspect and carried out elective and general post mortem examinations on some animals from the farm. The findings of the post mortems, coupled with results from live animals, have not provided any evidence to date that the problems reported on the farm are related to fluoride exposure.
It was also been agreed that a herd health programme would be developed by private veterinary practitioners of the person concerned supported by my Department to deal with endemic diseases in calves and mastitis in cows. This programme is ongoing. In addition, it was decided that further environmental, ecological and epidemiological work would be undertaken to seek to determine whether other factors might be uncovered to identify the source of the problem. This work involves experts from a number of academic institutions as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and my Department. The person named and his veterinary practitioners have also been involved.
In view of the expertise already engaged in this investigation and its ongoing nature, the appointment of an independent expert would not necessarily contribute in bringing the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. The person named has been kept fully informed of the Department's investigations and test results have been made available to his private veterinary practitioners. The Department will continue to keep them informed and provide access to results related to work carried out by or on behalf of the Department on the farm. I appreciate the difficult position of the person named in this ongoing matter and my Department will continue to give priority and assistance to the investigations in conjunction with other agencies.
The Minister of State will agree that this is an unusual case in that Teagasc, local veterinary practitioners and a UCD professor of forestry, Professor Gardiner, all agree that the problems on the farm in question are not related to farm management or nutritional factors. Professor Gardiner, for instance, indicated in his report that the problems are consistent with pollution damage.
One of the factors missing from this scenario is the information gathered by the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA, in its commentary, states that while the company has exceeded the emissions levels specified in the licence, the level is within the specified margin of error. It is unacceptable that the company should exceed the specified emissions levels. Furthermore, the details on emissions levels and the EPA report have not been made available to the farmer in question. This information is crucial to enable him to make a decision on how to address the issue. For this reason, an independent inspector should be appointed, with the agreement of the Department and the farmer, to investigate the matter.
It has not yet been proven that pollution damage is the cause of the problems on the farm. It is clear from the reports available to the Department that no evidence of a fluorine problem has been found thus far. Investigations into this issue are ongoing and while results from EPA monitoring of emissions from the factory in question are becoming available, they have not yet been analysed. Preliminary indications suggest, however, that there has been little deposition on the farm and levels of fluorine have been barely detectable.
The Department hopes to arrange for 2 June another meeting attended by all the parties involved. It is also hoped the EPA will make available further information on its findings at this meeting and that the farmer, veterinary practitioners and officials from the Department and various agencies involved will be present. Several meetings have taken place since last August when the herd health programme, an important aspect of this case, was put in place.
The Department has great sympathy for the farmer concerned given all that he has experienced. We advise him to continue to take expert advice on the segregation of animals, feed trials and management of the farm while tests are ongoing. I hope the meeting on 2 June will provide further information on the environmental position.
I understand the farmer has fully co-operated with the Department and agencies on the feed trials and experiments taking place on his farm. The evidence suggests that all his farm practices are entirely in line with normal practice and should not have any impact on the problems experienced on his farm for several years. I am particularly concerned that the EPA has not provided scientific data it must have accumulated through its routine monitoring of fluorine, a substance proposed as one of the possible causes of the problems on the farm.
Professor Gardiner from UCD states that the die-back in relation to foliage does not appear to have been caused by any fungal, bacterial or insect pest and is consistent with pollution damage. This gives a clear indication of the professor's views on where the problem lies. I ask that the Department and EPA make every effort to monitor all aspects of pollution at the farm, including historical matters.
I assure the Deputy that the Department and all the players at the table, including the EPA, Teagasc and the veterinary faculty of UCD, will continue to make an important input into this issue and make every effort to resolve it. I stress, however, that no specific source of the problems on the farm in question has been identified to date, despite the commitment of considerable expert and financial resources by the Department and other agencies.
As regards management changes on the farm, hutches were provided to facilitate segregation of calves and funding was provided for the treatment of mastitis and a vaccination programme. A great deal of work has already been carried out and a new crop of calves is being monitored to assess the impact of segregation.
To clarify the position, while results from the EPA's monitoring of emissions are becoming available, they are still being analysed. The Department hopes more information will be made available at the next meeting on 2 June. Decisions were taken at the previous meeting on 9 February on other matters which could be assessed at that point and further work that could be undertaken on epidemiology, the ecology and the environment. The results of work carried out since that date should be available to the farmer at the 2 June meeting. Although there are difficulties in providing the farmer concerned with the results of tests as they become available, the EPA is still analysing data on emissions.
While the decision to hold a meeting on 2 June is welcome, I ask that these matters be expedited because the farmer in question has suffered for a long time for reasons which appear to be outside his control. This has cost him and his family an enormous amount of money, which is a matter of great concern.
Surely EPA results from continuous monitoring should have been made available. I am concerned that no results have been made available. I hope all the relevant data will be provided to the farmer at the meeting of 2 June.
I hope we emerge from the meeting on 2 June knowing much more than we do today. The Department's veterinary department is preparing a detailed report on all the work carried out on specific animals on the farm and other matters. A large number of people have carried out a considerable amount of work on this issue. More will be done, however, and there will be no difficulty in making available to the farmer information as it arises.
3 Mr. Sargent asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans in relation to the opposition from most farmers, especially those in the horticultural sector, to an introduction of genetically modified seed, crops or animals to Ireland and of the genetically modified organism trial planned for a farm (details supplied) in County Meath; if her attention has been drawn to the unanimous vote by Meath County Council that the county be declared a GMO free zone; and if she will request within the EU the right of self-determination for a region or a country to be declared free of GM seed, crops or animals as the Austrian Government has demanded. [18993/06]
I am well aware of the degree of opposition by some members of the public to the cultivation and use of GM crops here and of concerns about those crops from both a health and an environmental perspective. It has been for these very reasons that the European Union has adopted a series of legislative measures in recent years that ensure the most stringent conditions are in place in the regulation and control of GM crops and their products within the European Community.
The Deputy will be aware that in the adoption of this GMO legislation protracted debates and readings took place before the texts were finally agreed by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers under the co-decision procedure. This legislation is binding on all member states and must be compatible with our international commitments. In this regard, we are awaiting the final report of the WTO disputes panel on the claims by the US, Argentina and Canada that the de facto moratorium on the approval of new GM products within the EU constituted an economic barrier to trade.
To take stock of the current situation on the cultivation of GM crops, the Austrian Presidency organised an informative conference in Vienna last month, which I attended along with officials from the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. In addressing the conference, Commissioner Fischer Boel strongly restated EU policy as meaning that European farmers should be able to choose between conventional, organic and GM production. EU legislation facilitates this freedom of choice. However, enshrined in this freedom is the understanding that farmers who would like to continue with their current farming practices should be able to do so.
In recognising the diversity of farm patterns across Europe, the European Commission has placed the responsibility on each member state to draw up its own national strategy to ensure effective co-existence. Ireland, like the majority of member states, is in the process of deciding on what strategies should be employed if the farming community decides to commence the cultivation of GM crops in this country.
For the sake of clarity, I remind the House that the control and legislation of GMOs and GM products in Ireland cuts across three different Departments. The Minister for Health and Children, in conjunction with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, deals with issues relating to GM foods. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is responsible, in conjunction with the EPA, for matters relating to the authorisation of new GM crops for their deliberate release into the environment. The EPA also deals with applications to carry out trials for GM crops in this country similar to the recent GM potato application made by BASF for a trial in County Meath, to which the EPA has given its approval.
The responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food relates to the growing of authorised GM crops alongside non-GM crops in a way that is harmonious to all crop production types and is in compliance with the legal obligations for labelling and purity criteria. This is generally referred to as GM co-existence. In 2003, we established an interdepartmental-interagency working group to identify the issues and implications for Ireland of the cultivation of GM crops and to develop proposals for a national strategy and best practices. The working group completed its work in December last and a public consultation process has just been completed. I am in the process of considering the observations received in conjunction with the recommendations made in the report and I hope to be in a position to bring forward some strategies and procedures to facilitate co-existence of GM and non-GM crops by the end of the year.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
In addition, my Department has taken over responsibility for future applications for approval of GM feeds and will deal with the issue of threshold for GM seeds when agreed by the Council of Environment Ministers.
I am aware of the vote taken by Meath County Council to have that county declared as a GM-free zone but, as I have indicated to the House on previous occasions, EU legislation on the cultivation of GM crops, which was adopted by the European Parliament and the Council and which is binding on all member states, does not provide for the unilateral declaration of a GM-free country. There are, however, options available to restrict the growing of GM crops within regions of a country such as voluntary measures or in cases where, on the basis of sound scientific evidence, individual GM crops cannot be cultivated in certain areas of the country.
On the final issue raised by the Deputy regarding my intervention within the EU to seek the right of self-determination for a region or a country to be declared GM free, I am of the view that a considerable amount of work has been invested by both the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers over the past decade to have in place a suite of GM legislation which provides for one of the most effective and stringent GM authorisation procedures in the world. While it is prudent to review the operation of this legislation regularly, I do not believe that there are logical grounds at this time to initiate any radical changes to the regime.
I expected that answer from the Minister of State and I thank him for it. However, I have to ask whether he would be so sanguine about co-existence if we were discussing foot-and-mouth disease.
We are not talking about that.
I know we are not but if we were talking about co-existence in one area where there was foot-and-mouth disease and another area where we wanted to keep it out, I do not think the Minister of State would be so sanguine about the issue. I know the Minister of State's reply is probably as up to date as possible but I have a leak of information from the World Trade Organisation ruling which follows the complaint by the US, Canada and Argentina. It states that the World Trade Organisation has ruled that the EU has violated international rules. However, a Commission spokesperson with more integrity than some, said that Europe will continue to set its own rules on the import and sale of GMO foods. It is a matter of making a stand and not just going along with what seems to be the most powerful corporate interests that are not operating in the interests of Irish farmers. Neither do they operate in the interests of the EU's population, 79% of whom are consistently opposed to GM products. We depend on those people for our markets.
More than 3,400 local authorities throughout the EU, including Meath County Council, Clare County Council and Bray Town Council, have declared themselves as GMO-free areas. Does the Minister of State consider it important to stand with the democratically declared decisions of those local authorities and ensure that their rights to self-determination are protected? Will he also take on board the failure of co-existence? It is clear from a report in the Irish Examiner that co-existence is not working in Spain, for example. Two Spanish farming organisations tested 40 farms and found unwanted GM material on seven of them. In one case, the contamination was 12.6%. The Minister of State may consider that co-existence is the bee’s knees but he will get a rude awakening when people come banging on his door saying he said it would work but it did not.
We should apply the rigours of scientific evidence to date. We should also apply the precautionary principle we were supposed to be signing up to in the EU and ensure we do not find ourselves closing the stable door when the horse has bolted. If we effectively become a GM country it will be serious in terms of our future status as a clean, green food island. The Minister of State should encourage farmers who have already taken the initiative of having GM-free farms.
Is this a question or a display of information?
I am asking whether the Minister will encourage farmers to put those GM-free notices on their farm gates so they will be able to ensure their wishes are upheld.
No bother.
If we get a chance. I want to emphasise that we will continue to adopt our precautionary approach in this area. Decisions have not yet been made on co-existence. GM co-existence is the one area where subsidiarity is permitted within the GMO regulatory framework. Co-existence refers to the ability of farmers to make a practical choice between conventional, organic and GM crop production. EU legislation provides that all three types of agriculture are permitted within the EU.
Deputy Sargent referred to GM-free zones. Under EU legislation it is not possible unilaterally to declare a GM-free area. The only two possibilities are where there is a voluntary agreement among all growers in a region not to grow a GM crop or crops, or where the safeguard clause is enacted. That clause concerns a member state which has detailed grounds, on the basis of scientific evidence, that a GMO constitutes a risk to human health or the environment. In that case, the member state may provisionally restrict or prohibit the growing of that GM crop on its territory or in a region within its territory. The Commission must then be immediately informed and will decide within 60 days if the ban is scientifically based and will give its decision.
Following questions from Deputy Sargent on a previous occasion, I stated that our Department has been involved in a widespread consultative process. That consultation process has now been completed. Individuals and organisations were invited to put forward views, all of which will be considered, analysed and dealt with before co-existing measures are finalised.
As regards co-existence, I would argue that the Irish Sea is the only satisfactory buffer one can stand over scientifically when it comes to the pollen we are talking about.
4 Mr. Crawford asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking at EU level to protect the income of dairy farmers; the action she will take at Government level to relieve the cost burden that farmers can no longer afford; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [19000/06]
Following a number of successful years for the Irish dairy industry on international and EU markets, 2006 is proving to be more challenging for the industry. The butter market, in particular, is under severe pressure on both the EU and international markets. Exports of dairy products, except cheese, are considerably lower than in 2005, with EU butter exports 35% less than the volumes exported during the previous GATT year.
The euro-dollar exchange rate has a significant impact on our competitiveness and the current weakness of the dollar is adding to the difficulties of EU traders. The internal butter market is also weak and butter prices in most member states are at or below intervention level. The intervention limit of 50,000 tonnes is likely to be reached within the next month after which a tendering system for intervention purchases will be introduced.
As this situation developed over recent months, I have urged the Commissioner on several occasions to use the market management tools in a more effective manner to ensure the overall stability of the milk sector. In particular, my key concern was to see the export refund regime used to maximum effect to dispose of product onto international markets outside the EU. I am pleased the Commission responded by increasing export refunds for butter and whole milk powder at the end of April and again at the last milk management committee when the tender refunds were accepted at a higher level for butter and butter oil. I have again asked the Commissioner to keep the focus for 2006 on the need to maintain the competitiveness of EU dairy exports, with particular reference to butter and to manage the introduction of the new tender arrangements for butter intervention in a manner that avoids causing further instability in the market.
I would of course emphasise that dairy farmers' incomes are not alone dependent on EU market supports although I fully appreciate the importance of internal aids and export subsidies for competitive trading conditions. Other elements impacting on farmers' incomes include direct payments, scale, efficiency and returns from the market. This year's milk price, taken together with the single payment entitlement of 3.6 cent per litre, is similar to recent years although clearly there is greater pressure on producer prices than heretofore.
Since the Luxembourg agreement of 2003 the dairy sector is operating in a new policy framework where market forces have an even greater influence on the price paid for milk. It is critical that we continue to manage the market so we maintain relative competitiveness. I will continue to focus on managing the transition to the next stage of intervention price reductions in July with the aim of maintaining and enhancing industry competitiveness and, ultimately, farm incomes.
At national level I have already announced my intention to move to a more open market system of transferring milk quotas between producers with the ultimate aim of increasing the scale and long-term efficiency of dairy production in Ireland. My Department also has a number of support schemes providing grant assistance to dairy farmers with the aim of facilitating dairy farmers to increase efficiencies and improve their facilities, thereby safeguarding their long-term farm income. These include the dairy hygiene scheme, whereby grant aid is available to assist dairy farmers in the upgrading of their dairying facilities. In addition, dairy farmers are eligible for grants under the new farm waste management scheme, while young dairy farmers are also eligible for a grant under the installation aid scheme. Collectively, these grant schemes are designed to assist farmers who wish to upgrade, modernise and increase the efficiencies of their operations.
I am confident as we complete the final phases of the 2003 Luxembourg agreement and make the necessary market adjustments intended by that agreement, instability in the dairy market will recede. In the meantime I will continue to impress upon the Commissioner the importance of maintaining a competitive market for EU dairy products.
What about small farmers?
I thank the Minister for an intensive and long answer. Unfortunately, it does not change the situation with regard to the income of dairy farmers. The Minister suggested that scale will solve the problem.
No, I did not.
Can she explain why the biggest single dairy farmer in County Monaghan has opted to sell out? It is simply because there is no income. Does the Minister acknowledge there is absolute panic in this regard? Currently, for whatever reason, farm leaders are bringing that panic to bear on co-ops but co-ops are only passing on the result of the Minister's predecessors' negotiations at WTO and European level, namely, a collapse in milk prices. When the Commissioner was in the Chamber last week, it was clear she had no knowledge whatsoever of the seriousness of the situation. I ask the Minister to treble her efforts at EU level to make sure that instead of the pittance handed back to us at the last management committee meeting, the next meeting delivers real help to the industry so prices can be maintained.
Has the Minister considered increasing funding for research and development? I understand that only 4% of the overall national funding towards research and development goes to the food industry whereas the industry accounts for one fifth of net exports. Has she considered removing the disease and dairy inspection levies? The co-op to which I send my milk — I have a personal interest in this regard — takes most of its supply from Northern Ireland. Farmers in Northern Ireland do not have to pay a dairy inspection levy or a disease levy. These issues are within the control of the Minister. Will she consider giving the €500 to €800 cost of the levies back to farmers at a time when the country is awash with money?
Farmers are under extreme pressure, the like of which I have never seen. One need only consider the results of the Lakeland Dairies meeting in Cavan or any other dairy meeting throughout the country to understand the frustration. If it had not been for the change in the milk quota regime for this year, there is no doubt many more farmers would have opted out. We will see that happen next year.
The accusation that the changes I am promoting in the policy framework in any way had a detrimental effect on the price of milk is totally erroneous. Moreover, the Commissioner did not say that she had no knowledge of the implications of the 2003 Luxembourg agreement on dairy prices. That is factually incorrect.
She made it clear she was not aware of it.
To be exact, she stated the product mix in Ireland was causing us difficulties, which is true. This concerns the issue of butter, a fact the Deputy, as a dairy farmer, understands.
The price of milk is not an issue for me as Minister. It is an issue between the farmers, who are professionals, and the co-ops to which they send their milk. I am acutely aware of the issues that arise and the concerns expressed by the two groups, the dairy farmers and the co-ops, most particularly with regard to competitiveness. I will continue to support the necessity of the export refund mechanism in order to address some of those issues. However, in the medium to long term we will have to examine the product mix. This will not be done instantly but we will have to consider the issue. It is a big decision and one we will all have to work towards in the context of the future of the dairy sector.
With regard to the issue of scale, I did not say scale is the only way forward. It is one part of the issue, but there are other factors such as access to quota, efficiencies, issues with the co-op movement, access to new markets and new product development. The Deputy was correct to suggest the issue of research and development in the dairy sector will be vital to its future development. I have greatly supported the research and development movement in many aspects, including with regard to the university sector, the institutes of technology, Teagasc and working with the dairy sector. I agree with the Deputy it is very important for the future development of the sector.
I thank the Minister.
A number of initiatives have been made available through my Department and Enterprise Ireland. We will continue to work with the sector to enhance and increase the research and development capability. That will be an absolute priority for me.
I must repeat my questions because they are very serious. Will the Minister redouble her efforts in Brussels? I did not blame the Minister personally for what happened in Brussels under the regime of her predecessor and the Taoiseach. They led the negotiations and the results are there in black and white. The Irish Dairy Board can spell out day by day and week by week how the results happened. The Minister's comments are erroneous.
Will she make decisions at ministerial level that will increase the income of dairy farmers, not by much but by enough to act as a gesture of goodwill? If she has not already examined the disease and dairy inspection levies, will she please do so to make some gesture of goodwill towards a good industry, which was the best industry in the country but which is now under severe pressure?
It is vital that certain issues in the dairy sector are dealt with. The issue of cost and how it is to be removed from the sector is one on which I have worked continuously and will continue to work. We will achieve delivery on that. Other issues arise such as that of the world trade talks and their impact on the dairy sector, which is serious. I will work to the best of my ability to ensure we get the best outcome, that we achieve safeguard clauses and that we have as much protection for the sector as possible.
I do not accept the view that my predecessor or the Taoiseach in any way undermined the dairy sector in the 2003 Luxembourg agreement. I will explain why this is so. The then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, led the discussions on this issue in the 2003 agreement on the basis of the best way forward for farming, namely a decoupled reorientation of a policy framework that would allow us to develop. If not for the Taoiseach's negotiating skills, we would not have had the necessary support mechanisms and guarantees until 2013. He succeeded in that task despite the objections of many of his colleagues, for whom agriculture was less important than it is for this economy.
5 Mr. Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she will make a statement on the closure of the Irish Sugar plant at Mallow; and if she will agree to meet workers’ representatives from the plant to discuss issues arising from the closure and the future of the plant and Greencore. [18940/06]
The decision by Greencore to discontinue sugar production and close the Irish Sugar plant at Mallow was a commercial decision by the company, having regard to market forces and the agreement on reform of the EU sugar regime. Throughout the negotiations on reform of the EU sugar regime, my primary objective was to seek to modify the Commission's proposals to ensure the continuation of an efficient sugar processing sector in Ireland.
I held several meetings with the Commissioner in that regard and Ireland played an active role in a group of 11 member states with common cause in seeking to modify the proposals. The group remained steadfast in its opposition to the reform proposals from the time they were first mooted in July 2004 until the final Council meeting in November 2005. When it became evident at the Council meeting that there was not sufficient political support to adapt the proposals to the extent necessary, I focused my efforts on securing a compensation package worth €310 million to Irish stakeholders. I also succeeded in having the reform arrangements introduced in a manner that opened up the possibility of continuing sugar processing in Ireland for a further two campaigns. Unfortunately, the subsequent deterioration in the market was obviously a decisive factor for Greencore and on 15 March the company announced its decision to cease sugar production.
Since the announcement of the closure of the Mallow plant, I have met workers' representatives and arranged to meet the unions involved to provide whatever clarification is required on the sugar reform agreement and the emerging Commission implementing rules.
I am glad to learn the Minister met the workers, with whom I have also been in contact. They are alarmed, to say the least, about the severence package. In the context of the State's golden share in the company, has the Minister met any success in using her influence to ensure the payment of the agreed severance package?
I presume the Minister has met beet producers' representatives. The figure I have been quoted with regard to the compensation package to these producers is €106 million. Does the Minister support that figure and, if so, will she ensure Greencore lives up to its responsibilities? This company, which has benefitted from the public purse, presided over the loss of hundreds of jobs and the threat to the livelihood of several thousand others in ancillary businesses, not to mention 3,800 beet producers, yet it claims the final say on compensation. Will the Minister ensure the Government has the final say and that compensation for beet producers will be adequate?
The golden share only comes into play if a certain percentage of the company's sugar assets are sold. It does not allow me to interfere with the day-to-day management of the company or to influence decisions on severance pay. However, a number of my colleagues expressed their concerns to me about the Labour Court agreement. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Martin, and I have urged the company to adhere to the agreement and I believe it will do so. In light of the concerns of workers at the plant, it is important that the matter is addressed.
With regard to compensation to beet producers, the figure of €106 million was proposed prior to the finalisation of the Council regulation. A 45 day process has been put in place so that Greencore can hold discussions with all those involved in the fund, following which it will bring proposals to me. A decision has to be made within the following 30 days as to whether the proposal will be accepted. The Government has appointed someone to advise on the basis of the proposals, after which the decision will be made. The Commission, which has a limited timeframe to consider the proposal, hopes to finalise the matter by the end of September and the funds will then be distributed according to a programme that has already been established. I cannot now make a definite estimate on the amount of money that will be made available because the process has yet to be completed.
I am aware of the concerns of those in the sugar beet sector, including workers, hauliers, contractors and the company itself but these concerns will have to be addressed in the context of the process which began last Friday. My Department has placed advertisements to seek the views of people on the basis of the consultation period.
It is welcome that the Minister believes the company will agree to the Labour Court recommendations. I presume she made her views known to workers' representatives, who are concerned that Greencore is preparing to refute the agreement it reached some time ago.
The Minister, Deputy Martin, and I have publicly expressed the opinion that the company should agree to the Labour Court recommendations. The process will be completed shortly and I will meet union representatives again on this matter.
