Vol. 622 No. 3
33 Mr. Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she is satisfied that the same regulations are applied on the import of lamb direct from the UK or via Northern Ireland from the UK; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [24199/06]
EU legislation governing intra-Community trade in sheep prescribes the conditions for trade, which vary by reference to the category of sheep involved. For all categories it is a requirement that a veterinary inspector must certify, inter alia, that the sheep were resident on the holding of origin for 30 days, or 21 days for slaughter sheep, and that no sheep were moved on to the holding during the previous 21 days. However, as part of the development of an all-island animal health strategy, a derogation is applied from these requirements in the case of trade in sheep to and from Northern Ireland which are for immediate slaughter. In addition, certification of the residency and standstill requirements may be given in all cases on the basis of farmer declarations.
All sheep involved in intra-Community trade must be properly identified and accompanied by the necessary intra-Community health certification. While movement of lambs between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not regarded as intra-Community trade, I understand specific measures are operated by the Northern Ireland authorities to control and monitor the movement of sheep into Northern Ireland from other parts of the United Kingdom. Under EU rules, sheep from Great Britain may be imported legitimately into this State provided they are accompanied by the necessary intra-Community health certification. Identification and other checks are carried out on all sheep presented for slaughter at meat plants here.
The reason I raise this issue is that in the past ten years one quarter of sheep farmers — four farmers per day — have abandoned sheep production. Is the Minister aware that Irish farmers receive €7 less per head of lamb than farmers in the United Kingdom and €16 less per head than farmers in France?
The movement of lambs from the UK to the Republic via Northern Ireland is a cause of genuine concern and frustration, particularly given the red tape and bureaucracy with which farmers here must contend. One of the specific concerns raised with me is that a farmer may legitimately travel to the UK, buy and store lambs there, import them into Northern Ireland for feeding and then send them across the Border into the Republic for slaughter. The difficulty lies in how one defines the term "further feeding". How is it defined in current regulations? Is it the case that if one gives one bag of lamb crunch or nuts to sheep arriving from the United Kingdom, they qualify as meeting the criteria laid down under the definition and may, therefore, be transported into the Republic for slaughter?
Last week, while visiting Raphoe mart, farmers raised with me the issue of exporting sheep to slaughter to Northern Ireland via the mart. Is the Minister satisfied that current regulations facilitate this movement?
The Deputy hit close to home with that question.
Let us call a spade a spade. The Deputy's last question runs contrary to his earlier argument. The importation from the United Kingdom of sheep, lambs and hoggets for slaughter is a legitimate activity which can be done through Northern Ireland. The importation of sheep from Northern Ireland is also legal and legitimate, as is the export of sheep from South to North, provided it takes place within set parameters and the relevant documentation is in order.
Between 1 January 2005 and 24 December 2005, 94,554 lambs from the South were slaughtered in the North and, as Deputies will be aware, a cull is under way in Britain. Returns received from export plants show that 281,314 sheep were imported from Northern Ireland for slaughter in 2005, a decrease on the 2004 figure. This clearly indicates a change in the balance of trade between North and South.
New regulations introduced by the European Union in response to the foot-and-mouth disease crisis gave Northern Ireland and the Republic a special derogation on the basis they would pursue an all-island policy. I am aware of the inconvenience faced by those exporting sheep from County Donegal and other Border counties to Northern Ireland created by the requirement that animals must be unloaded and checked. These procedures form part of the current safety framework but do not apply to animals exported from South to North which are moved directly from a farm to a slaughterhouse The regulations were introduced on the grounds of animal health and while they create inconvenience, it is appropriate that we monitor the issues arising from the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. This area must be dealt with on the basis of intra-Community trade and the derogation in place for the North and South. I am satisfied the regulations are being adhered to and the necessary paperwork is done for imports from Great Britain via Northern Ireland. I am not au fait with what constitutes “further feeding” but I will contact the Deputy on the matter.
I am aware it is difficult to address this issue in the context of the current political vacuum in the North. We would all welcome a true all-Ireland animal health regime as it would address the concerns arising in this area. While I accept that the paperwork may be in order, it is critically important that checks and balances are introduced to ensure proper procedures operate for lambs being imported from the United Kingdom via the North, as opposed to animals originating in the North. I also acknowledge that the balance in cross-Border trade is changing.
I hope the parties in the North will resolve their current differences and an all-Ireland animal health regime will be introduced as a result because farmers on both sides of the Border would benefit. In the interim, is the Minister satisfied that all procedures are being implemented as envisaged?
I assure the Deputy that the Department and Northern Ireland authorities co-operate closely, particularly on animal health and welfare. I agree that the re-establishment of an Executive would be beneficial in terms of developing an all-island animal health policy. In itself, however, such a development would not address the issues the Deputy raises because the British authorities would have to accept that trade between Britain and Northern Ireland in this area would be designated "intra-Community". This issue and the designation of Larne as a port of import and export would have to be addressed in the context of any discussions that may take place.
Having said that, a system of checks and balances is in place and all sheep arriving at slaughter plants are checked to ensure the paperwork is in order and the animals are tagged and traceable. We will continue to review legislation in this area in the context of the satisfactory position prevailing here in the area of animal disease. We have already done this in the area of breeding sheep and have received sanction to change the procedures governing the movement of animals from one farm to another. The Department will keep the matter raised by the Deputy under review.
34 Mr. Coveney asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the average rise in the cost of steel over the past five years; if her attention has been drawn to the impact which same is having on the cost of construction of farm buildings; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23602/06]
I have recently forwarded to the Deputy detailed figures in regard to the increase in the cost of steel over the past five years, during which it has risen significantly. I am fully aware of the impact of increases in the costs of labour and materials on the cost of construction of farm buildings. In launching the new farm waste management scheme in March this year I indicated that the standard costs on which the grant payments were to be based were under review. Payment for work under the scheme will be based on the new standard cost levels when they have been approved. The standard costs review involves checking up to 120 items of expenditure to ensure reasonable and sustainable increases in those costs are reflected in the amount of grant paid.
Developments in the cost of materials used in on farm development have not in any way hampered or dampened the enthusiasm for what is a very extensive and generous farm waste scheme which has been widely publicised. Already, approximately 4,300 applications from all parts of the country have been received and some 1,800 approvals have been issued. While work is progressing on the installation of the structures needed to store farm waste, to enable us to comply with EU regulations it is important that applications under the scheme are received before the end of December this year. I urge all farmers contemplating availing of the scheme and its companion scheme relating to demonstration of on-farm waste processing facilities to make sure this deadline is respected. No applications after 31 December can be accepted.
More than €43 million has been provided in the Department's Estimates for the scheme for this year and I am pleased with the high level of take-up so far for this grant aid. The scheme offers grants of up to 75% of the eligible investment costs and recognises the special issues arising for the four zone C counties and younger farmers.
I accept the Minister's acknowledgement that the price of steel has increased by more than 30% in the past two years, not including the significant rises since the start of this year, and the rise in the price of concrete. Will the revised costings take into account the significant rise in concrete prices since January and the rises in the costs of steel and labour? Will the new costings take into account the dramatic changes in the specifications? The amount of steel that must be used has been significantly increased by the new specifications. Clearance between the slurry and the slats has increased from four inches to six inches, and this is more than the Environmental Protection Agency's previous specifications for pig slurry. Will that be taken into account in the costings? An issue was raised with me last week in the Finn Valley and last night in County Roscommon. A farmer I spoke to last night expects to have his approval from the Department on 17 July. He has a contractor in place and the work will cost €100,000. What will he do if this issue is still under review on 17 July? Will he receive a grant of 60% of €100,000, 60% of €60,000 or some other figure the Department comes up with? That is a genuine question that farmers have. They cannot make decisions until the Minister decides on that review. That it will be back-dated to 1 January does not make a difference to many farmers who are looking at putting in significant investment to comply with the nitrates directive and which will not benefit their production and efficiency.
I suggest the significant increase in the grant will make a difference and it was this Government and my party that pursued it. Let the Opposition not forget that. Sometimes they do not like to hear the good news about the amount of money that will be invested in the programme.
The Minister should answer the question.
In the context of the standard costings, these will revert to the beginning of the scheme. The last costing I have is 154.9 in March 2006, an increase of 0.2 from the February level of 154.7. Some 120 mechanisms in the standard costings will also be reviewed. My difficulty is that we have not brought the partnership talks to finality. If these could be concluded quickly we could resolve the costings issue and, I hope, support the Deputy's constituent who wants to make a decision. The decision will be based on the standard costings and will be put back to 1 January, the date by which the new farm waste management scheme, as presented, begins. The Deputy's constituent will deal with the standard costings from the previous time. As he or she will be part of the review, if there is an increase that will be reflected and the grant made available to that person. Good as they are in Roscommon, I assume that person will not have the contract completed within a two to three-week framework whereby we can deal with the payment once it has been inspected. It will be included in the payment.
It is pointless to explain to any constituent that if the farming organisations do not sign up to the partnership agreement, farmers will not know what the grant scheme will be. That is unacceptable. The Minister should not hold a gun to the farming organisations' heads to try to get the issue on partnership resolved before she signs off on this. It is critically important to farmers. The Minister, as part of the derogation negotiations will argue that farmers are implementing the nitrates directive and are putting the storage in place, but she is delaying that happening by not implementing whatever review has taken place. Surely that review is completed. It is time to start implementing it and indicating to farmers the grant that will be available to them.
I refute the Deputy's statement. I intend that we move on standard costings as quickly as possible. It is therefore incumbent on other parties to come forward. I must sign off a large investment programme with the Minister for Finance, who has been more than forthcoming in his support of agriculture since his appointment. It is my hope and aspiration that we will conclude these talks quickly and that we will be able to deal with the issues Deputy Naughten outlined vociferously. Whether or not it is acceptable to the Deputy, I have the €43 million and I will spend it——
We want to know when.
I intend that this will take place very soon. If we do not have an outcome I will have to reconsider my position.
35 Mr. Kenny asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the discussions she has had with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland on the enforcement of the food labelling laws; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [23647/06]
The enforcement of food labelling regulations is centralised in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, which ensures that the appropriate controls are carried out by the relevant official agencies. The official agencies include the Health Service Executive, my Department, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs and the local authorities.
My Department is in touch with officials of the FSAI on an ongoing basis and regular meetings are held to discuss a wide range of issues. Any issues that arise in the enforcement of food legislation, including enforcement of labelling legislation, are discussed where necessary, in this context. For instance, during the drafting of the recently made country of origin labelling regulations extending requirements in this area to the catering sector, my Department had extensive consultations with the FSAI including a number of meetings on the specific issues arising and in particular regarding the enforcement provisions in the legislation.
I have raised this issue with the Minister of State before regarding the 92 food businesses surveyed by the FSAI in 2004. During that survey it was found that consumers were regularly being misled on the country of origin of beef, chicken and salmon. Salmon is not relevant to this debate. South American beef was being labelled and marketed as Irish. Belgian chicken was being labelled as produced in Ireland. In one fifth of shops and supermarkets the information on loose and packaged beef was inadequate to meet the beef labelling regulations. That issue was brought to the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Food almost 18 months ago. What steps have been taken to ensure that type of abuse no longer happens and that when the FSAI completes the subsequent study it was supposed to complete last year and which will be done this year, these anomalies will not arise again?
As Deputy Naughten knows, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 contains the enforcement provisions the FSAI can implement, including enforcement orders and improvement notices and orders. The FSAI was established under that legislation and is a statutory, independent body whose job is to protect food hygiene and safety for consumers. It does that well. The specific issues the Deputy raised are matters for the FSAI and do not come under the Department of Agriculture and Food. I thought the Deputy's question would relate to the welcome measure introduced on 3 July on the country of origin of beef. Deputies Naughten and Upton and many Members on this side of the House consistently raise the need for these measures to be implemented. We are glad that the necessary primary legislation was put through by the Department of Health and Children.
We welcome it. It is better late than never.
We appreciate the work and interest of the Tánaiste in that regard. People in general are concerned about labelling, as surveys have shown. The Minister has raised at European level the need for further advances in this area. We have made advances on beef and the regulations will be in place from 3 July. The Minister has also raised with the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection the need to make progress on labelling, particularly of poultry, and on substantial transformation which has been regularly raised here.
In recent weeks the Commission has been reviewing food labelling. We told the public, different organisations and individual Members of the Oireachtas that they should contribute their views to this consultative process. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, also issued an invitation to groups or individuals to submit their views.
It is significant that the Commission has accepted the need to review this legislation. We would like to achieve substantive progress at European level on more safeguard mechanisms for food labelling and transparency etc. Legislation passed by these Houses earlier this year included the provision that we can extend our labelling from beef to the other meats, such as sheep and pig meat, and to poultry. We have been extremely active in the area of labelling.
The labelling group report published at the end of December 2002 contained 21 major recommendations, 19 of which have been implemented before the new regulations on labelling of beef are introduced. The remaining ones relate to the country of origin of other meats too. There has been substantial progress in this area. We continue to push hard at European level for further advances, particularly in respect of substantial transformation and the inclusion of poultry and other meats in the context of labelling.
I welcome the agreement on beef labelling but the meat that most seriously needs labelling is poultry. When will that be brought into force? The information given to the Joint Committee on Agriculture and Food suggested that very little progress was being made. Poultry producers and consumers are anxious about this because they have no idea where poultry meat comes from, what label it wears and what changes of label are being made on boxes brought in here.
The Minister consistently raises substantial transformation at the Council of Ministers meeting and at meetings with the Agriculture Commissioner and with Commissioner Kyprianou as well. Yesterday a week ago she raised it at the most recent meeting of the Council of Ministers. It is of interest to the producer, the processor and the consumer.
We have put forward our concerns on this issue very strongly and identified the areas where we believe it needs to be addressed. We hope progress will also be made on the basis of the recent consultative document produced by the Commission. We will keep this issue at the top of the agenda.
While I welcome the progress being made for 3 July, it is long overdue. Scarcely a week goes by without some issue arising about labelling, lack of it, or mis-labelling on foods. For example, a couple of weeks ago it was found that Irish honey contained honey from China. The best way to establish the origin of a carton of eggs is to take a peek at the underside of the carton and if one can interpret the code number one will know whether it comes from Ireland, the Czech Republic, Germany, or wherever.
The Food Safety Authority lacks resources to ensure that all Irish products can be guaranteed to be what they should be and that the labelling is adequate. I urge the Minister of State to ensure those facilities are provided to the Food Safety Authority, in so far as he is involved in that decision.
I accept the Minister of State's point about labelling but the Food Safety Authority has highlighted the Department's failure to police and licence the legislation. What is the Minister of State doing to ensure the current legislation is enforced?
The enforcement of food labelling regulations is centralised in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland which ensures that the appropriate controls are carried out by the relevant official agencies.
In response to Deputy Upton, the FSAI stated that in a survey of 20 randomly selected Irish honeys sourced from various manufacturers four were found not to be Irish. The FSAI is working with the various people involved with the retailers to ensure the affected products are removed from sale. It will apply the sanctions appropriate to this issue.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
