Vol. 633 No. 3
6 Mr. McEntee asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the plans her Department has to evaluate the economic implications of the use of genetically modified organisms; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8801/07]
As the Deputy may be aware, an interdepartmental-inter-agency working group was established within the Department in 2003 to develop proposals for a national strategy and best practices to ensure the co-existence of GM crops with conventional and organic farming. That group presented us with its final report and recommendations in December 2005 which, inter alia, recommended that a combination of mandatory and voluntary measures are best to meet the objective of implementing the co-existence of GM crops alongside non-GM crops in Irish agriculture.
In order to capture the widest range of views on the issue, we arranged to have the report and its recommendations placed on the Department's website and invited observations from the general public. We are currently engaged in the process of considering the submissions received in light of the recommendations made and the ongoing international developments in this area, particularly relating to thresholds for organic produce. Draft legislation is currently being prepared in the Department to give effect to the mandatory measures proposed. We hope to be in a position to bring forward such measures to Government in the near future.
On the issue of economic evaluation, part of the group's work programme was to examine the economic implications of co-existence. Based on work carried out by Teagasc, as part of its ongoing programme of research investigating the potential risks and benefits associated with the growing of GM crops in Ireland, including, inter alia, the economic implications, indications were that the cultivation of certain crops with certain modifications may provide a financial incentive to the individual Irish farmer. While strands of this research paralleled completed work in other countries, it did not specifically address the costs associated with the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops.
The general conclusion of Danish and UK research on the economic impact of co-existence on farm profitability was that the costs of complying with the required thresholds for crops of maize, potatoes, cereals, oilseed rape and sugar beet vary from 0% to 9% above the costs of growing conventional crops.
However, we wanted to establish greater clarity in the matter as far as Irish conditions were concerned. Consequently, the Minister requested Teagasc to carry out a study to evaluate the possible national economic implications for the agrifood industry in Ireland from the use of GMOs in crop and livestock production. Teagasc based its study on the following scenarios: the economic implications of only allowing the importation into Ireland of certified GM-free soyabean and maize livestock feed ingredients; and the economic implications of GM-free crop cultivation in Ireland.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In the first scenario, the study showed that substantial additional costs would be placed on the livestock sector, particularly on specialist dairy and beef farmers, if they were to use only certified GM-free soya and maize in feedingstuffs.
In the second scenario, the study examined five hypothetical GM crops which could be grown here — herbicide tolerant sugar beet, Septoria resistant winter wheat, Fusarium resistant winter wheat, Rhyncosporium resistant spring barley and blight resistant potatoes. This study showed that increased profits could be generated for growers of these crops compared to their conventional equivalent. However, the study showed that there is a significant cost in regard to identity preservation for conventional growers in a co-existence arrangement.
Is it not the case that the study showed there were significant cost implications in regard to conventional growers? Why was an evaluation of the economic impact on the marketing of Irish food abroad on the basis of being GM-free or of going down the route of importing and using GM crops or import feed not considered? Is this not the fundamental issue that must be answered in respect of GM crops in Ireland from an economic perspective?
In respect of GM feed, I must clarify that the exclusion from the Irish market of GM maize and soya beans would result in a significant cost to the animal production sector. I understand 95% of our imports of soya and maize are GM feedstuffs.
The figure is 97%.
Yes. Undoubtedly, the price of feed would increase costs for livestock producers.
As for the issue of a possible ban, we must be careful in this regard because once a GM crop has been approved for growing within the Community, EU law prevents us from banning it. We cannot legislate or prevent the growing of approved GM crops.
Hungary did.
It is in the dock for so doing.
We are obliged to introduce coexisting arrangements to protect existing non-GM arrangements. The Irish position on GMOs is positive but precautionary.
May I have an answer?
The Deputy should allow Deputy Upton to speak.
My question is essentially the same as Deputy Naughten's. The study from Teagasc did not consider a scenario in which 100% of crop and livestock producers were not engaged in GMO production.
What is the Deputy's question?
Why was this not considered as a positive advantage for Ireland as a marketing tool? Were we in a position to state that if crops were produced without reference to GMO, there would be opportunities and improved market conditions.
Deputy Sargent may ask a brief question, to be followed by the Minister of State's final reply.
Does the Minister of State accept that a mandate was given to the Government for Ireland to be GM-free in the 1997 election manifesto on which it stood before the people? Is there any basis for this now? Does the Government respect the local authorities which have decided democratically that their areas should be GM-free? Does it respect the Hungarian decision that I mentioned? It is a GM-free decision that the Council of Ministers decided to uphold. Moreover, Austria, Italy and Greece——
Brevity, please.
——all have regions that have been declared to be GM-free. Will the Minister of State explain how such countries are able to have a GM-free standing, while the Government does not appear to be able to pursue such an option in Ireland?
To be clear, the Commission has taken a stance against this. It is contrary to EU law. We must be mindful that we operate within such law in this regard. As to whether we could decide to take the voluntary route, perhaps we could.
We should.
However, this would necessitate everyone moving forward voluntarily rather than the imposition of a ban. We cannot impose a ban because we operate under EU law. Moreover, regardless of whether one wants to, one must bear in mind the increased costs to the Irish animal production sector that would arise following the imposition of a ban on the importation of GM foods. In addition to the expense of such a measure, difficulties would arise in accessing non-GM crops. It has become increasingly difficult to source non-GM maize and, in particular, non-GM soya. The proportion of these crops grown from GM varieties will continue to increase. Non-GM maize and soya will become more expensive.
GM will become more expensive.
I received no answer.
7 Mr. G. Murphy asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps she is taking to increase the amount of milk quota available in the second phase of the milk trading scheme; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [8804/07]
The first milk quota trading scheme ran successfully in January and resulted in 120 million litres of quota being offered for sale, with 73 million litres traded. The second stage of the scheme has a closing date of 9 March and the exchange will be run in April.
The trading scheme which has replaced the restructuring scheme from the 2007 to 2008 quota year allows milk producers the opportunity to bid for the volume of quota required to meet the development needs of their farm enterprise at a price that will generate a commercial rate of return.
May Members take the reply as read?
That is fine, as Members already know the answer.
Yes. They will take it as read.
I thank the Minister for her brief reply. Will it not be difficult to retain ring-fencing when farmers in some locations only receive 11 cent a litre, while elsewhere farmers receive 24 cent a litre for the sale of milk quota? Farmers in the northern part of the country enjoy a highly positive inbuilt position. Is it possible that it will be dismantled because of this discrepancy?
There is much uncertainty about the trading of milk quota in respect of its value and whether farmers will be able access it. Is it not the case that this is leading to a significant degree of confusion and concern within the industry, especially given the massive investment farmers must now make in respect of the nitrates directive?
Has the Minister met the milk quota rights group? She stated she would do so. She may use this opportunity to respond to one item it raised. I refer to its suggestion pertaining to the clawback, namely, that it could be reconsidered in hardship cases arising from circumstances similar to force majeure. Is this a runner?
Before this, the price of milk was 12c a litre. I am trying to introduce market orientation to the trading of milk. I consider that ring-fencing is still a good policy initiative. I have reviewed the milk quota system in its entirety and believe ring-fencing should remain. However, I have often stated publically that in preparing for the 2008 review of quotas people's opinions must be heard. What is the best option for Ireland Incorporated and what should be considered? Is it time to get rid of quotas in Ireland and the European Union? If we so decide, how should it be done? Alternatively, should it not be done?
There are many issues that will require time to be discussed and reflected on to ascertain the best option for Ireland in the coming years in preparation for what will happen in 2014. The Commission's view is known in this regard and we must now decide where we want to be. Ireland has always been highly pragmatic in the manner in which we have dealt with trade and quotas. While we are at a price of 12 cent a litre, many of my colleagues are at a price of €2.50, which simply is not economically viable, is competitively difficult and is causing enormous problems.
The new scheme which will be closed tomorrow will be highly beneficial. It has attracted great interest and the review by all the farming organisations has been positive. Equally, I hope and expect it will be highly positive on this occasion. As for the previous scheme that operated in the winter, I decided to run two schemes within this quota year because this constitutes a new regime, a new option and a new opportunity.
Quota is available in the part of the world from which the Deputy and I come; that was not necessarily always the problem. The problem has always been availability in the south. Consequently, with the availability of quota and tabulation, I expect people will make some very good decisions on this occasion.
What will I tell my fellow farmers in County Monaghan who opted out of milk and sold their cows on the understanding they would be able to sell their quotas this year? So far they have not been able to do so. Will the Minister sort it out once and for all so a farmer has a right to sell and buy? In my case, a small co-op has sellers and buyers and with common sense it could be sorted. A six page document relevant to the scheme ties them into a situation where if they do not obtain a sale, they automatically lose 30%. If their cows are sold, they cannot lease next year because they have no milk.
The Deputy must ask a question.
Will the Minister ensure these situations can be addressed?
I do not disagree with the Minister's wish to retain ring fencing, but I am worried it will not be possible in a legal situation. A long number of years have passed since a major quota left the north of the Minister's county of Donegal and went to the very south under a technicality. I am sure people are dreaming of technicalities at present.
I reassure the Deputy that ring fencing will remain. Those who sell expect a relatively good price and those who purchase do not want to spend an independent fortune on quota to expand. This is where the balance and permutations lie. If people wish to sell or buy quota at too little or high a price, they will be out of the system. Now they have the information available to them and regardless of what they do, they can be within the percentile of between 11 cent and 24 cent and 20% up and above and be within the system.
People should not sell for an exorbitant amount of money and realise that those who wish to purchase will not do so for exorbitant amounts of money on the basis of the policy framework in place. On this occasion, I am happy with what the outcomes will be.
8 Ms O’Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food when she expects to provide this Deputy with a report on the on-farm slaughter at fur farms; and if she will make a statement on the question of banning fur farming here. [9103/07]
I assume the report referred to by the Deputy is that which my Department undertook to provide in response to issues raised at the Farm Animal Welfare Advisory Council, FAWAC. FAWAC includes representatives from farm organisations, animal welfare groups, the veterinary profession, animal transporters and others with an interest in animal welfare. The council provides a forum in which interests with diverse views have the opportunity to meet, discuss each other's positions and reach consensus on animal welfare issues which can inform public policy.
I am pleased to inform the Deputy that veterinary officials from my Department assessed the on-farm slaughter of mink during the recent slaughter season. The resultant report is not yet complete. It is my expectation that this report will be made available to FAWAC by the end of April and I will make it available to the Deputy when it is made available to me.
Fur farming is a legitimate farming activity in this country. Under the Musk Rats Act 1933 (Application to Mink) Order 1965, the keeping of mink is prohibited except under licence obtained from my Department. Licences are issued under this legislation only if the applicant, following an inspection, is found to be compliant with a number of key conditions.
Licensed fur farms are also inspected to assess compliance with the Council of Europe recommendations concerning fur animals and Council Directive 98/58/EC concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes. These farms may only utilise slaughter methods permitted under the Sixth Schedule of the European Communities (Protection of Animals at Time of Slaughter) Regulations 1995.
The Deputy should note the Irish fur industry is fully aware of animal welfare requirements and it has displayed a willingness to comply with the requirements of the Department. Given that the licensed fur farms operating in this country meet current national and EU requirements, no reason exists to ban what is, after all, a legitimate farming activity which is permitted in the greater majority of EU member states. It is my belief that a ban on fur farming would mean that Ireland's market share would be taken up by another fur producing country. Therefore, a ban would not serve any practical purpose.
I thank the Minister and look forward to receiving that report from the veterinary experts working on it. Very little reason exists to justify fur farming in this country. Economically, it is of extremely small significance. It raises animal welfare issues and if we examine it we see it is only a fashion statement in terms of the provision of animal fur rather than of any significant financial value.
I do not see the necessity for a ban. We have a market share and it would only lead to a direct replacement of that market share. The Deputy knows my views on animal welfare. I am strict and stringent on such issues. I was assured welfare legislation is adhered to, inspections take place and licensing is in place. It accounts for only a small number of farms. On the basis that people work within the welfare requirements which evolved during the past number of years, I am more than happy with how things stand. Naturally, we will take into consideration the outcome of the work done by the veterinarians and the Deputy can rest assured FAWAC will be in touch with me.
Fur farming is already banned in the UK, Austria and Luxembourg and precedents exist within the European Union. It appears other countries do not have a significant uptake. Consequently, I put it to the Minister that banning it in Ireland will not have a knock-on effect whereby other countries take it up by virtue of our non-production of mink fur.
Deputy Upton is correct. However, it is important that if a ban is introduced it is on a phased basis because of the impact of the release of captive animals. Difficulties arose in the past when those animals got out for one reason or another. The UK had a number of reports in this regard. What steps are being taken to ensure this does not happen and wildfowl or other flora and fauna are not damaged?
Many of my European colleagues who are vociferous on matters such as live exports have a great deal of fur farming in their countries. Sometimes we should ask the right question to see what comparative analysis exists. On the basis of the statutory requirements set down and any reviews which must take place, it is not my intention to ban fur farming. Other member states can make up their own minds on what they want to do. As it stands, no necessity exists to ban fur farming here.
Regarding animals which get out, issues arose in my part of the world particularly regarding that fences were of the highest standard. Equally, it is important to state criminal activity can occur where people interfere with fences just for the fun of it. Standards are set on fencing and access to these types of farms. I am not aware of concerns in the past year or two of animals escaping from particular farms. Where particular issues arose, they were addressed.
9 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if she is satisfied that all beef, lamb or pig meat imported into Ireland is compliant with the standards of hygiene, husbandry and traceability applicable here; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [9133/07]
Meat imported from an EU source must come from an approved establishment and be accompanied to its destination with a commercial document or a health certificate signed by an official veterinarian of the competent authority of the member state of origin. In the case of importation from third countries, meat or meat products must originate in a country approved by the EU for trade in such products, have been produced in an approved establishment and be accompanied by a health certificate in accordance with the provisions of Community legislation and must be presented for inspection at an EU approved border inspection post.
Checks are carried out by the EU food and veterinary office to ensure that EU requirements are complied with and I am satisfied the Department of Agriculture and Food and other State agencies have a system in place to ensure that all food imported into this country complies with national and EU regulations. The Minister has been in regular contact with Commissioner Kyprianou on the issue of meat imports and he has assured her 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 to the health of EC consumers or livestock. At a visit to the Oireachtas in September 2006, a representative of the Commission gave the same assurance to the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture and Food.
In the matter of beef imports from Brazil, which have been subject to much public comment, the EU food and veterinary office has over the past four years carried out inspections in that country and published its findings with regard to its evaluation of certain matters. These include the animal health and public health control systems and traceability and certification procedures in place, in particular relating to foot and mouth disease; and control of residues and contaminants in live animals and animal products, including controls on veterinary medical products.
These reports have commented on the structure, organisation and tasks of the Brazilian competent authorities to guarantee that food exported from that country is safe. The food and veterinary office has listed recommendations to these authorities to address deficiencies found in the course of the audits. The Commission has also undertaken follow-up visits and, in regard to beef, these show that the Brazilian authorities are continuing to make improvements.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
Alongside safeguard measures introduced by the Commission to control imports because of the outbreak of foot and mouth in certain regions, actions have been taken against Brazil because of poor performance on residue levels in eggs and egg products, milk and milk products, pig meat, ovine and caprine meat and honey.
The Commission has confirmed to my Department that corrective action plans to implement the various recommendations have been received. Following its assessment, the Commission has deemed the residue measures relating to beef, horse meat and aquaculture to be acceptable and that there is no risk from legally imported beef from Brazil. It has been confirmed that a further FVO inspection on residues in Brazil is being planned for the first quarter of 2007 to verify the implementation of the corrective measures. The FVO have also scheduled another animal and public health mission to Brazil for the early part of next year.
I have taken every opportunity to remind the Commission of the importance of having the same standards, particularly relating to all exporting countries, including Brazil, and my Department will continue to closely monitor the position.
I have two points.
I ask the Deputy to be brief because his colleagues are offering.
In light of the concerns raised regarding third country imports, does this not leave Ireland and any other member states reprocessing and repackaging product as coming from their own country in a vulnerable position regarding potential disease outbreaks?
An amount of this third country product goes into the catering trade. In light of the poor compliance currently evident, with less than a quarter having labelling in place, will the Minister of State ensure that environmental health officers will be given sufficient resources? Will the Department of Health and Children ensure that training and resources are provided to environmental health officers to enforce the regulations signed by the Minister? Law without enforcement is pointless.
We discussed Deputy Naughten's latter point in detail earlier in reply to Deputy Upton's question. The Minister for Health and Children outlined to the House in a reply to Deputies Naughten and Pattison that she was satisfied adequate resources are being provided to ensure environmental health officers can carry out the necessary inspection process. As we noted earlier, two thirds of the 29,000 catering establishments in this country are visited and inspected on an annual basis.
Labelling is not checked.
We want to ensure enforcement of regulations that were supported by all sides in this House, and into which there was much work put by the Department of Agriculture and Food, the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. We want to see the best positive results from those regulations. We will ensure they will be complied with when implemented.
In my initial reply I stated there is detailed European Union legislation laying down conditions for the import of food from third countries. I mentioned earlier approved establishments, health certificates and border inspection posts, all of which are in place to ensure food imported from outside the European Union meets the standard set by the food and veterinary office.
Is the Minister happy with the standards?
Yes.
The European Union has developed its own systems of traceability and animal welfare. The International Office for Animal Diseases sets the veterinary standards for international trade, usually the standards adopted by the World Trade Organisation.
The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, at every forum available to her, has outlined clearly and in particular in the context of the WTO talks that we have additional costs in production because of the very high standards we set. She has indicated we should not be disadvantaged in international trade by having in place a very strong regulatory framework which ensures the food produced in this country is of the utmost and highest standard, of which we can be very proud.
That concludes Question Time.
There is a minute left.
We were late starting.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
