Vol. 619 No. 6
6 Ms Lynch asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps her Department has taken in 2006 to raise awareness of animal health conditions regarding personal imports of meat and milk; the methods she is considering to overcome the problem of targeting non-EU originating passengers who arrive here via hub airports from high risk countries such as Nigeria, China, Malaysia, Thailand and Russia; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18878/06]
Harmonized EU regulations have been introduced to control the import and trade in meat and milk products. Imports of these products, including the imports for personal use, are banned, other than where products are presented at approved border inspection posts.
My Department has a number of measures in place to raise awareness of these regulations. Transport operators who bring passengers from third countries into the EU are required to bring the regulations, including the ban, to the attention of passengers. Announcements are made on airlines and posters are on display at arrivals halls in airports and at disembarkation points for sea passengers. Amnesty bins have been provided in the main airports for surrender of any animal product that has been inadvertently carried. My Department has posted information on its website and transport operators, foreign embassies accredited to this country and Irish embassies abroad have been requested to inform travellers to this country of the position regarding personal imports of these products and invited to include a link to my Department's web page.
My Department also liaises with Customs and Excise in respect of personal and commercial import controls of animal and food products. Officials from my Department are deployed at border inspection posts and other disembarkation points to carry out passenger interviews and bag searches on a random basis. This approach is particularly useful in the identification of passengers coming here from third countries, most of whom arrive here through hub airports in other EU member states. Customs and Excise and departmental officials co-operate locally at these points. Customs and Excise also operates controls in respect of the worldwide ban on import of animal and animal products of endangered species. The countries listed by the Deputy are those where my Department's officers intercepted the highest level of personal import of these products during 2005. I assure the Deputy that our controls continue to operate in 2006 and that satisfactory measures are in place to prevent illegal personal imports. My Department will continue to review its controls in this area.
The Commission also monitors operation of personal import controls by the member states through its food and veterinary office. It is considering proposals including the introduction of a requirement for a written declaration to be made by each third country originating passenger concerning meat and milk products in their personal possession.
I have been looking at some information given recently to my colleague, Deputy O'Shea, and I notice that quite a substantial amount of meat and milk products has been detected, but there is no specific targeting. My understanding is that it is only where searches are carried out by Customs and Excise for excisable goods that any food or food products have been detected. If that is so, I would have some concerns, given our concerns about foot and mouth disease, for example, which we debated earlier. Other exotic diseases may now be imported into the country.
I would not expect the Minister for Agriculture and Food to provide exact figures, but has anyone ever voluntarily presented at the border posts to admit possession in luggage of exotic meat, for example, which the person would like to hand over? I am curious if any volunteers have ever come forward. In all the times I have passed through Dublin Airport, I have yet to see anyone but myself declaring for example that he or she has been on a farm while abroad. I wonder if anyone has ever presented carrying a food product.
Our understanding is that there is very active vigilance and great co-operation between our Department and the Customs and Excise personnel searching for excisable goods. Searches are carried out in conjunction with both. One of the key ways we have of identifying people coming from third countries is to interview them. We find the interviews are a success in that respect, and they are followed by the searching of bags.
With regard to voluntary disclosures in the airports, bins are provided and the hope is that with extensive advertising, announcements on aircraft and the substantial number of posters provided by our Department in several languages, somebody who inadvertently carries a product might realise they should dispose of the product in the bin provided.
We also encourage the embassies to be actively involved, as well as the transport operators, whom we ask to suggest that passengers check our website. Between all of that, and the postering, we feel the message should get across.
To clarify my earlier comments with regard to the food and veterinary office, I was trying to say the officials might as well be on holidays in Brazil in terms of the impact the reports are having when they return.
That is not our office. It is the European office to which the Deputy refers.
Yes, the European office, sorry. The Minister of State noted the posters. We all have experience of going through Dublin Airport and the reality is that it is a fair achievement to see the monitors in baggage control, never mind look at posters, when people are coming through the airport.
Has the Minister looked at reviewing the fines in place, or providing multi-language information on flights, on the website and on the monitors in Dublin Airport in particular, as well as in the other airports? Has the Minister considered enhancing the presence of the Department of Agriculture and Food there? I have never seen an official from the Department at Dublin Airport.
The next time the Deputy travels, we will have him arrested.
It is critically important simply to have a physical presence and highly visible staff in the airport.
Is the bin full?
This is quite a serious issue. Looking at the figures, there are almost 1,000 kg of identified meat products alone carried. There seems to be nothing proactive in targeting any of that, and finding it is coincidental when people are stopped for other reasons. There seems to be no process in place for identifying food products being brought in. It happens only coincidentally through the activities of the Customs and Excise staff. Against the background of our concerns about importing other animal diseases, there is a need for a more proactive role for the Department in this area.
When I hear the Garda talk for example of estimating that only some 10% of cocaine brought in is intercepted, I wonder if there is a similar estimate in this area. Can the Minister give a percentage? What training is provided by the Department of Agriculture and Food for Customs and Excise officers and gardaí who are also at points of entry? I am sure the officials in the Department are not the only ones asked to carry out this duty.
What comparison is made with other countries which have the white status as a clean food country, in terms of their mechanisms? Are we comparing notes with other countries which have a lot to lose, as we do, if we were to lose that status?
With regard to a multi-language campaign, I was in the Department today to see the number of posters available in 52 different languages, so that shows the effort in that area.
Yet it does not do much good.
With regard to departmental staff at Dublin Airport, the Minister of State, Deputy Smith, is whispering in my ear to complain that a person from his office was recently transferred to the airport. The airport staff has been enhanced recently.
Is it the case that people do not get transferred to the islands now, but to Dublin Airport?
The Minister of State is complaining he has lost a good member of staff, so the best of staff are being transferred to Dublin Airport.
Deputy Upton asked about identifying food. One area currently under consideration is the deployment of sniffer dogs specially trained to detect food. Anything else that can be done with regard to this issue will be done, but our current experience indicates that interviewing and bag searching produces the high quantities, so to speak, and the success we have in finding illegal consignments.
With regard to Deputy Sargent's question on statistics, in 2005 there were approximately 565 illegal consignments in personal luggage and of those almost 3,000 kg of meat products and 237 kg of milk products were involved.
With regard to staff, there has to be Department staff on duty at the three main airports at all times. As for Deputy Sargent's question about other countries, we are obliged to send annual reports to the European Commission, which monitors the situation very closely in Ireland and the other EU countries. The Commission is continually reviewing the situation and is considering a written declaration for passengers originating from third countries. We already fill in such declarations when we travel to the United States.
The situation is constantly under review both in the Department and in the EU. We have provided the necessary staff at the ports.
7 Mr. Gogarty asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the number of cases and the respective charges made under the Noxious Weeds Act 1936; and if a review of the legislation is being planned to include, for example, the dangerous giant hogweed which at present is an impediment to the development of farm tourism. [18756/06]
The Noxious Weeds Act 1936 provides for the control of the spread of the following six noxious weeds: thistle, ragwort, dock, common barbery, male wild hop plant and wild oat. Under the Act, it is an offence not to prevent the spread of these noxious weeds. The owner, occupier, user or manager of lands on which these weeds are growing is liable, upon conviction, to be fined. In the case of fences and margins of public roads, the local authority charged with the maintenance of such roads is the responsible body.
While the last prosecution under the Act was in June 1988, the Department continues to enforce the Act by issuing a notice to destroy when it is aware of the presence of noxious weeds. In 2005, 12 notices to destroy were issued and these were followed up by a visit from an officer to ensure the notice was complied with. Under the EU single farm payment scheme farmers are obliged to keep their land free from noxious weeds under the cross-compliance measures of the scheme. Failure to do so may result in a reduction of their payment entitlements.
The need to raise public awareness of the importance of controlling these weeds has been an ongoing activity in my Department. This year two publicity campaigns were launched. The first campaign in February consisted of posters which were forwarded to public bodies, including Garda stations, local authorities, Department of Agriculture and Food regional offices, Teagasc offices and agricultural merchants, for display in public places and press notices in the national and regional newspapers.
The second campaign this month has been launched to remind landowners and users that ragwort can still be controlled on farmed grasslands by spraying, cutting or pulling, followed by removal and destruction of the weed. The reason for removal is that following spraying, cutting or pulling, ragwort is still poisonous and becomes more palliative to animals. In addition, all local authorities will again be reminded of their responsibilities under the Act.
My Department is currently examining the provisions of the Act with a view to updating and strengthening them in accordance with good agricultural and environmental practice. The Noxious Weeds Act 1936 was introduced to deal with specific weeds that posed a threat to farm productivity. Giant hogweed has not been classified as a noxious weed under the Noxious Weeds Act 1936 on the basis that it has no agricultural significance as it is not generally found in productive agricultural areas. Accordingly, I have no plans to list giant hogweed under the Noxious Weeds Act.
Giant hogweed is an invasive species and is the responsibility of the national parks and wildlife service under the aegis of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.
That was a fascinating reply from the Minister. I can imagine him pulling thistles.
Please do not draw the picture.
Given that the last prosecution was in 1988, there is probably a need for a review, whether that is of the fines or of the context in which the legislation was framed. The threat to farm productivity condition should also be reviewed. Farming has changed significantly and farm tourism is now a large part of diversification. Will the Minister acknowledge that the giant hogweed appears in productive areas, whether it be in grassland or in areas close to watercourses? It spreads rampantly along watercourses. Will the Minister consider that in the context of the criterion of the weed being a threat to farm productivity? Just because it is not harmful to cattle does not mean it is not a threat to farm productivity. Perhaps he will review the legislation on that basis.
We will review the legislation and we will take the current issues into account from both a farming and environmental point of view.
The Minister mentioned the last prosecution and said that 12 notices were issued in 2005. How many of those notices were issued to local authorities? When was the last occasion a local authority was prosecuted? The Minister of State might not have those figures to hand but perhaps he will forward them to us. While the enforcement takes place with regard to farmers, and there is a threat to the single farm payment, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the local authorities are not enforcing their part of the legislation. Are there any plans to enhance enforcement of this legislation now that additional staff are available in the Department?
There is an ongoing review with regard to coexistence with GM crops. As I travelled throughout the country in recent weeks I noticed a substantial amount of rapeseed growing on roadsides. If at some future date a GM rapeseed crop is introduced in this country, it will be critical to address the issue of wild rapeseed. It is important that such plants and crops are also considered in the context of the review of this legislation.
The notices that were issued were followed up by officials calling with the relevant people to ensure the necessary conditions had been complied with. We are writing to all local authorities again to remind them of their obligations. I do not know if the prosecutions involved individuals, local authorities or statutory bodies. However, I will take account of what Deputy Sargent and Deputy Naughten have said when we review this issue.
I have had unfortunate experience with hogweed. It grows readily along roadsides. While it is not regarded as a dangerous weed, I consider it extremely dangerous, particularly for people who have allergies. Will the Minister convey to his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the need to have that weed dealt with either by spraying or cutting it on a regular basis?
We are communicating with the national parks and wildlife service through the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government about this issue.
What was the Deputy doing on the side of the road?
On a motorbike.
8 Mr. Hayes asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her plans to implement the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food report on the ERS; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18806/06]
The report of the joint committee covered a range of issues and I responded to it in detail. A number of the committee's recommendations are precluded by the EU regulations under which the current scheme and its predecessor operate. I saw some merit in certain other aspects of the committee's report, specifically those relating to income limits and the maximum age of transferees in the current scheme. However, this scheme will close to new applications in December and the practical effect of any such changes would now be very small.
The committee paid particular attention to two issues. One was the implications of decoupling for retired farmers who had leased out quota as well as land to transferees during the single payment reference period. We have secured the best deal we could for people in this situation, in spite of the fact that the Commission was unsympathetic at the outset. In family cases, where a farm reverted to the retired farmer at the end of a lease without any entitlements, a family member taking it over will have access to the national reserve. Retired farmers in the current scheme who farmed during the reference period can activate entitlements and lease them to their transferees. At the end of the lease they can either sell the entitlements with or without land or lease the entitlements with land.
The other issue the joint committee focused on was the levels of payment under the two schemes. The European Commission has repeatedly ruled out the idea of indexation in the current scheme and has pointed out that the rate in the earlier scheme was set at the maximum amount for co-funding that the regulation allowed.
The huge frustration that exists is mainly due to the fact that it has not been index linked. It has not kept pace with inflation or with the social welfare increases in recent years. The differential at present is quite marginal. Is it possible to ensure any future scheme will be linked to social welfare payment increases? Is there a mechanism that can increase the rate of pension available to people under the farm retirement scheme?
The clawback is causing much frustration for farmers. Those in receipt of the early retirement scheme pension were subsequently deemed eligible for a State pension. However, in some cases the farmer did not inform the Department of Agriculture and Food and the payments had to be clawbacked. In one instance in the Cavan-Monaghan constituency, an individual has received a bill for €35,000. Will the Minister address the issue?
There are several tax-related anomalies in the system regarding the long-term lease of stamp duty, the agricultural relief for the retired person, once the ten years are over, tax affairs and forestry grants. Will some of the anomalies be addressed to encourage participation in the scheme or any future scheme?
As I indicated, the issue of indexation is a principle that is not accepted by the Commission. However, a new scheme will be introduced. The decision on the scheme's emphasis will be based on the outcome of the partnership negotiations and overall funding for the rural development package. There are concerns about the issue of the clawback. There were cases where some farmers may not have advised the Department that they had an entitlement to a State pension. That is now being dealt with in that the two Departments communicate with each other on the matter. There was an issue with the data protection officer who indicated that direct access between the two Departments' computer systems was not allowed. On the basis of the application, we are in a position to ensure the administrative difficulty is addressed.
Several years ago when the scheme was introduced, the State pension was much lower. Now, thanks to this good Government, the State pension is at a high level. The difference between the two pensions has been reduced and there is no enticement to enter the scheme.
Should there not be a mechanism to increase it incrementally?
Under the EU regulation, there is a ceiling at which a payment is allowed to be made. That ceiling will be considered for the new rural development package. The Commission does not believe in indexation. I agree the anomaly can cause some serious issues.
The other issue of concern is that once the Commission's auditors and the Comptroller and Auditor General examine the schemes, they put pressure on the Departments to ensure the clawback is paid. There are people who are old and vulnerable and through no fault of their own find themselves in these difficulties. We try to consider each case individually to see what can be done. Unfortunately, often we are so precluded by these regulations that we do not have the flexibility that we would have ourselves. It is an ongoing issue and we will continue to evaluate the recommendations of the report from the Oireachtas committee.
9 Mr. McCormack asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food her Department’s position regarding the abolition of export credit refunds by the EU; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [18813/06]
The framework agreement for the current WTO round which was concluded in Geneva in August 2004 commits member countries, including the EU, to negotiate detailed rules, including an end-date for the parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidies and for the introduction of disciplines on export measures with equivalent effect. The framework agreement covers export refunds, export credits, the trade-distorting practices of state trading enterprises and food aid practices which are not in conformity with disciplines to be introduced.
At the WTO Hong Kong ministerial conference in December 2005 agreement was reached on an end date of 2013 for all forms of export subsidy. The EU's acceptance of this end date was conditional on the application of equivalent disciplines on all forms of export subsidy. The parallel elimination of all export subsidies should ensure equal competition on the world market for all exporters.
Negotiations on the new WTO round are continuing and I am committed to ensuring full parallel elimination of all forms of export subsidy is delivered by our negotiating partners and that, in so far as EU export refunds are concerned, the most flexible phasing-out arrangements are achieved.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The elimination of export subsidies is only one element of the current negotiations. Market access is another key element of the negotiations and, in that regard, in addition to tariff reductions and sensitive products issues, I will be seeking to ensure non-trade concerns are fully taken on board. 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. I have concerns that there is not real equivalence regarding animal traceability, controls on veterinary medicines, prohibited substances and residue monitoring programmes in respect of imports from certain third countries. I have already been in contact with the Commissioner on this matter on several occasions and I will continue to use every opportunity to voice my concerns. Indeed, I will be raising this matter again at next Monday's Council of Ministers meeting in Brussels.
Was the Minister alarmed at the commitment by the EU Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, to agree to whatever changes were necessary on the agriculture negotiations to get agreement on the WTO round? Does this not spell further handouts by Mr. Mandelson against the interests of the Irish agri-food sector?
I will be raising this matter at Monday's Council of Ministers meeting. An agreement has been made by the Council on the parameters in which our negotiators can work. I believe we cannot go beyond what is on the table. When I was recently in the United States, I stressed that what is on offer by the Irish and EU negotiators will have to be paralleled by the other negotiating partners. I want a balanced and reciprocal agreement.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
