Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Nov 2007

Vol. 642 No. 2

Priority Questions.

Food Safety.

Michael Creed

Question:

1 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if, in view of the contents of the recently published report by the EU Food and Veterinary Office on animal health controls and public health controls in Brazil, she will support the call for an immediate ban on Brazilian beef imports to the EU. [30261/07]

Conditions for trade in animal products with third countries follow the principles laid down under agreements of the World Trade Organisation and the international organisation for animal health. The European Commission is mandated to negotiate these conditions on behalf of the European Union and, through its Food and Veterinary Office, FVO, monitor the compliance of third countries it has approved for trade with the Union. Where there are risks to public or animal health in the Community, arising from disease outbreaks in approved third countries, safeguard measures are invoked banning or restricting imports from the affected country or regions.

I publicly welcomed the publication of the latest FVO report by the European Commission. The report should be very helpful in the overall process of ensuring equivalence. My Department has requested the EU authorities to arrange for a discussion of this report at the EU Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. A further mission to Brazil is being arranged for this month by the FVO. It is vital that the FVO report on its findings at the earliest possible date and that the European Commission take whatever action is necessary to protect the interests of EU consumers and producers.

I have consistently pointed out to the Commissioner and my colleagues in the Council of Ministers that produce imported from third countries must meet standards equivalent to those required of Community producers. In this context, I have been in regular contact with the Commissioner who has assured me that the Commission will not hesitate to take action if a product imported from a third country represents a risk for EU consumers, livestock or plants.

I invite the Minister to prize herself from the fence on this matter. It is as simple as this — if she is not with us, she is against us, meaning Irish beef producers and consumers. Those with responsibility at European level must be informed and the debate must be led at a political level. Does the Minister find the report worrying, particularly that the Brazilian state veterinary service had no systematic audit system in place for animal health and that no criteria for such an audit had been established? I ask this in respect of the need to ensure a level playing pitch for Irish food producers and the beef sector and to ensure safety for consumers. This is the case, notwithstanding that the issue had been flagged in a previous Food and Veterinary Office report. Is it not worrying for consumers that cold stores in ports dealing with beef destined for Europe were not audited and that there was a lack of adequately trained staff in the state veterinary service? The list of findings against the state authorities in respect of requirements clearly outlined in previous reports is startling. Will the Minister become an advocate for change in order that we can speak to DG SANCO and Commissioner Kyprianou, with whom the Minister deals regularly? Must we put up with a situation where the Brazilians are continually given another chance to get their house in order?

Since my appointment as Minister a number of years ago I, alone, gave credibility to the IFA report which I forwarded to the Commissioner.

What is the Minister's position?

The Deputy may not want to listen but it is time the truth was told in the House. I sent additional unpublished information, made available to me by the Irish Farmers Journal, to the Commissioner. I followed up the matter on a number of occasions. I met the Commissioner officially at every meeting of the Council, where I have expressed reservations and asked that 25 recommendations made in the FVO report issued in March be implemented. A further mission has been undertaken, while the Commissioner met the Brazilian authorities and the Minister. I gave an undertaking to speak to the Commissioner again once he had received the report on the outcome of the mission. I was the only Minister in the European Union to express concerns on this issue and will continue to do so until I am satisfied with the outcome and the message is given by the Commissioner.

Is the Minister in favour of a ban on Brazilian beef on foot of the report?

That is not a matter for me, but for the European Commission. The Commissioner is charged with responsibility for the health of people in the European Union. He is the competent authority.

The Minister can run but she cannot hide on this matter. Is she with us or against us?

On the basis of the risk assessment carried out by the FVO on behalf of the Commissioner and the Commission, a ban has not been recommended.

It is not the purpose of the report to make a recommendation, but to outline the facts clearly. There is a list as long as my arm of the shortcomings of the Brazilian authorities. The Minister can run but she cannot hide on this matter. Is she with us or against us in leading a campaign for a ban? While she may clamour to get onside with the IFA, she stated this was a trade issue, not a public health issue. The FVO finds that it is a public health issue.

The FVO made 25 recommendations. I am the only Minister who has given political credence to the report and will continue to do so. The Commissioner will make a determination on the basis of the risk assessment. Although he has stated there are shortcomings, he has not taken that decision. Until such time as the risk assessment advises otherwise, he will not make it. However, I will be pursuing the matter vigorously with all concerned.

I call Question No. 2.

Shameful. The Minister is not with us, she is against us.

The Deputy may make this his political forte but I am charged with responsibility and I have delivered.

I have called Question No. 2.

The Minister is selling the beef producer and the consumer down the Swanee.

The Deputy can raise that issue with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

The Minister should not point her finger at me.

Neither a Minister nor a Deputy can ignore the Chair. If there is constant abuse of the Chair, I will adjourn the House.

Food Industry.

Sean Sherlock

Question:

2 Deputy Seán Sherlock asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the steps she will take to combat rising inflation in food prices; if her attention has been drawn to the latest FAO food facts report, which expects that many countries will pay more for importing cereals from world markets than they did previously; and if she will implement measures to ensure growth in the cereals sector of the economy to meet growing demand into the future. [30263/07]

On Tuesday night I returned from the 34th international conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, FAO. I am aware of the issues raised in the FAO's food outlook November 2007. The FAO forecasts high international prices for all major foods and feedstuff this year. Of particular note are the conditions on world cereal markets. Supplies are much tighter than they have been for years, as unfavourable weather conditions in some of the main cereal producing countries, reflecting the latest UN climate change report, hampered production and the low levels of stocks worldwide have not been sufficient to meet demand.

There is increasing competition for cereals to meet demand from China and other parts of Asia, as well as demand for grains used for feedstuffs and the emerging liquid biofuels industry. Other factors making an impact on international cereal prices are increased input costs due to rising petroleum and freight rates, reflecting a pending peak in oil production.

Rising output prices are a double-edged sword. Depending on the combination of factors, higher output prices could give rise to higher farm incomes in this part of the world but some of the increase will be offset by rising input costs, especially feed costs, and unfavourable exchange rate movements.

Given current market conditions, some level of food price inflation is inevitable. While consumer food price inflation in Ireland has increased, particularly in the past month, it remains below the overall rate of inflation of 4.8%. This trend of rising food prices is common across EU member states, where food price inflation has increased in recent months. Retail prices are also affected by a variety of other factors, including the cost of wages, services and other materials.

In order to help alleviate some of the market difficulties, the Council of Ministers decided in September to set the obligatory set-aside rate at zero for autumn 2007 and spring 2008 sowings. This is expected to lead to an expansion of EU grain production by at least 10 million tonnes next year.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

Irish cereal farmers, following the decoupling of direct payments from production, are now in a position to respond to market signals. With the cushion of the single payment, they can focus on supplying markets, concentrating on minimising production costs and maximising their incomes.

My Department continues to operate a range of services aimed at improving the efficiency, quality and viability of cereal production. These services include seed certification, seed testing, recommended lists of varieties etc. In addition, Teagasc provides comprehensive research, training and advisory services for cereal producers. The value of all these support services is reflected in the fact that Irish cereal producers have consistently achieved some of the highest yields in the world. I am satisfied that the outlook for cereal growing in Ireland is positive and that cereal producers here are well positioned to respond to the challenges ahead.

I thank the Minister of State for his reply. I was motivated to table my question on the basis of the growing concern that food price inflation is increasing. Christmas is approaching and expenditure on food is quite extensive. There have been increases in the range of 16% to 17% in respect of staples such as milk and, in particular, flour. There is major potential for growth in the cereal sector to meet this demand. I accept there are global permutations that will affect how matters pan out for the industry here. Grain farmers want to see an increase in production to meet domestic demand. This is particularly the case if one considers the rise in bio-fuel production.

My question inquired about the practical solutions the Government will be putting in place to facilitate the increasing trend towards the cultivation of grains. I have not received an answer in that regard.

Time constraints only permitted me to provide part of the reply. However, the Deputy will have noted my reference to the zero rate for set-aside. It was difficult to justify how land could be set aside when there are shortfalls in grain production. In many ways it is bizarre that grain production rates fell between 2002 and 2006, while there was an increase in total value. I hope that next year we will be able to look back at what happened this year and see an increase in both value and acreage. The 2006 figure for output is 1.355%, while that for 2007 is 1.53%. There will be quite a significant rise. The latter is reflected in the value of the grain produced.

Market forces, which can be a problem at times, will, in this instance, provide the boost we need. The Department is encouraging — our efforts in this regard are bearing fruit — people who have not used the plough for many years to get back behind it and increase their tillage production rates.

Did the Minister of State refer to a figure of €10 million?

I referred to the EU figure of 10 million tonnes in respect of set-aside.

The Minister of State also referred to figures of 1.355% and 1.53% in respect of output. These represent minuscule rates of increase and the rate of inflation in respect of food will far outstrip them. I suggest that those rates should be increased considerably to meet demand.

My Department, my ministerial colleagues and I will be doing everything possible to encourage more people to increase their tillage and cereal production rates. There is also a need to think laterally in respect of this matter. A considerable amount of cereal produced is required for both human and animal consumption. The development of animal breeds that are able to thrive on a diet which is more grass-based, thereby reducing feed inputs, is another route we must take in order to insulate ourselves from the wider global reality of increasing grain prices. There is a need to increase grain production and also to deal with other issues.

Animal Diseases.

Michael Creed

Question:

3 Deputy Michael Creed asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the opinion of the NDCC regarding biosecurity threats to Ireland in the future and its view regarding the probability of an outbreak of avian flu, foot and mouth disease or bluetongue disease; the contingency measures in place to deal with such eventualities; and the necessary administrative, legislative, financial and communication initiatives to deal with these matters. [30262/07]

I will not have time to read the entire reply but I presume it will be included in the Official Report.

The national disease control centre, NDCC, of my Department brings together a range of veterinary, scientific, administrative and legal expertise available throughout the Department. Meetings of the NDCC's management committee are frequently chaired by me or, in my absence, by the Secretary General. The management committee has been particularly effective in planning and managing my Department's response to various disease threats, whether in respect of to avian influenza, foot and mouth disease or bluetongue. The committee's essential role is to assess the threat posed by developments on any disease front and to make recommendations to me regarding the adequacy of my Department's contingency arrangements.

In addition to the range of expertise available within Department, the NDCC also has ready access to expert advice from the national parks and wildlife service of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and BirdWatch Ireland, as well as expert meteorological advice from Met Éireann and epidemiological expertise from the centre for veterinary epidemiology and risk analysis at UCD. With regard to avian influenza and foot and mouth, I can also draw, as required, on the advice provided by an expert advisory group chaired by Professor Michael Monaghan of UCD.

The implementation of effective biosecurity measures, both nationally and at farm level, is a critical component of our contingency plans. My Department has frequently provided biosecurity advice and has continually encouraged farmers to apply the highest standards of biosecurity at farm level.

Based on the advice available, from various sources, the immediate risk of an outbreak of avian flu, foot and mouth disease or bluetongue is regarded as relatively low at present. In respect of avian flu, we are close to the end of the current migration season and there is very little migration between Ireland and Germany, France and the Czech Republic, with which the strain of the virus found in England has been associated. While the most recent case of foot and mouth disease in England was confirmed on 30 September, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs issued a statement this morning in which he said that, following an incident involving live foot and mouth virus at the Merial laboratory plant at Pirbright, an inspection team, of which the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DEFRA, was part, had concluded that "while it was possible that live virus had entered the contained drainage system — they are assured that the live virus had not been released to the environment".

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

A full report is to be provided to the chief veterinary officer in the UK, after which DEFRA will consider what further action needs to be taken. Given the link between the original outbreak and the Pirbright site, we are obviously maintaining close contact with DEFRA and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland in respect of this situation and we await the outcome of the inspection report and any further actions considered appropriate by DEFRA.

With regard to bluetongue, the risk is principally associated with the introduction of an infected animal or through infected midges. While animals may now be imported from bluetongue-affected areas, the conditions under which this may happen are very restrictive and are intended to significantly reduce the risk of an infected animal being imported. Meanwhile the Department's vector surveillance programme shows that the level of vector activity has declined very significantly in recent few weeks. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the respective disease situations will continue to be monitored closely and I will apply any revisions to our contingency arrangements made, where appropriate.

Central also to our contingency arrangements has been the excellent level of co-operation between my Department and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in Northern Ireland. Both Departments have a shared commitment to the maintenance of an all-island approach to the disease threats posed and have collaborated very closely in the adoption of identical control measures. I am satisfied my Department has in place the necessary contingency arrangements, including sufficient legislative powers, based on our expert assessment of the current level of risk of a disease outbreak.

I welcome the Minister's assurances in respect of avian flu, foot and mouth disease and bluetongue. We have just concluded a debate on climate change. I am sure the Minister is aware that the World Organisation for Animal Health has concluded that many of the threats we face in the context of animal disease have arisen as a result of climate change. The equine industry in this country is currently under threat from swamp fever. The latter was largely unheard of here before 28 cases arose in 2006. West Nile fever has been found in Italy and France, rabies has been discovered in Finland, anthrax has appeared in Azerbaijan and there have been cases of glanders disease — by which humans can be affected — in Iran.

There is a need for increased vigilance. While I appreciate the expertise that is available within the Department, it is our contention on this side of the House that there is a need not merely to react to threats but also to maintain constant vigilance in respect of this issue. The latter would be best facilitated by establishing, on a statutory basis, a biosecurity unit to monitor all threats. Will the Minister consider establishing such a unit? It could, similar to the way in which the Food Safety Authority of Ireland works in tandem with the European Food Safety Authority, act in conjunction with international experts. This is a growing threat.

Although I agree it is a growing threat, my view is that we are adequately resourced within the Department. We use the expert advice that is available and we can meet within 30 minutes. The latter is the most important aspect of our reaction to issues such as those under discussion. Expert advice and opinion has always been available in respect of any matters that might arise. We also have tremendous contingency plans to deal with many of the diseases to which the Deputy refers, as well as those which are currently a threat to the European Union.

In addition, we have at our disposal diagnostic capabilities and we have invested over €200 million in a new laboratory at Backweston. At present, we have the necessary resources and requirements. I am not persuaded that we need a new stand-alone facility with statutory powers. Immediate expertise is available to me within the Department.

It is a false sense of security to state we are in a position to meet within half an hour as this is a reaction to an event. Does the Minister agree that rather than constantly reacting to events such as bluetongue, foot and mouth disease and avian flu, we need a standing committee, preferably on a statutory basis, of people who constantly evaluate threats with which those of us in this House are entirely unfamiliar? People with expertise would monitor trends, take steps and advise the Minister on what must be done.

This is carried out and we have risk analysis and forward planning for new diseases which may arise. This is not a reactionary policy. We have a contingency plan in the event of many diseases coming through. Regrettably, we have had experience with some of these.

We cannot be complacent. This is an evolving policy area and risk analysis will advise me accordingly. The level of preparedness of the Department is more than adequate to deal with the outbreak of a disease. This is not to state we are not preparing for new diseases. Surveillance work is carried out at academic, laboratory and veterinary level.

Food Industry.

Andrew Doyle

Question:

4 Deputy Andrew Doyle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the revised regulations she will introduce to facilitate the operation of local abattoirs in view of her stated position on local food production promotion. [29499/07]

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be interested to hear that I will be in Wexford tomorrow to visit an abattoir with the owner and staff. The regulation of local abattoirs is the responsibility of local authorities, who report to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland on this matter. Under new EU regulations, collectively known as the hygiene package and which came into operation on 1 January 2006, 189 local abattoirs are approved by local authorities. Under the hygiene package no distinction is made between local abattoirs and other slaughter plants. Product from all approved establishments, regardless of size, may now be exported provided it is accompanied by appropriate certification.

Local food production is an interest of mine and is becoming increasingly important to the diversity and strength of our food industry. The growth in recent years in the number of farmers' markets, which now amount to more than 130, new interest in farm shops and more publicising of the region from where food and food ingredients come all demonstrate that as our globalised world becomes smaller, people are taking an interest in local produce.

Last week, as part of a renewed focus on local food production, my Department hosted the first national conference on local food in conjunction with Bord Bia. The conference was attended by approximately 300 delegates. It built on a series of regional food fora and was an opportunity to present new research on what consumers understand by local, to explore national and international case studies on successful development of local foods and to look at retailer interest. A guide developed by Bord Bia on selling through farmers' markets, farm shops and box schemes was also launched at the event.

Following on from this initiative I will meet with local authorities in January to discuss the scope within their remit for developing the food economy in their areas. A central part of this will be the scope to support abattoirs with regard to specific activities under the marketing and processing scheme operated by my Department.

On his way to Wexford, the Minister for State will pass a number of Wicklow abattoirs which have been closed.

I am conscious of that.

Will he open them again?

It is hoped a couple of them will be re-opened.

The number of licensed abattoirs ten years ago was 426 as opposed to the figure of 189 mentioned by the Minister of State. The hygiene package has done nothing to aid small abattoirs to re-establish. Grant aid is available for those who want export certification. Will grant aid and revised regulations be provided for people who do not want or need export certification? The regulations governing the supply of local food by a list of quality assured and quality monitored suppliers to local abattoirs should be different to those for large multinational processors who take their raw material from a range of sources throughout the country.

Local authorities will not have the wherewithal to hone in on this. We need specific revised regulations whether this means amending the hygiene package or introducing new regulations specifically governing non-export abattoirs. I hope the experience of the Minister of State in Wexford tomorrow will highlight this and he will learn something on his visit.

There is a lot to be learned there.

I make this point with respect to the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

And my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Browne.

Do not forget him.

I identify with the frustration on this matter. Small abattoirs have particular difficulties which are different to those of large factories. We must deal with the hygiene package, which is an EU package and aims to establish hygiene requirements for EU citizens which everybody will agree should be of the highest standard. Regardless of whether exportation is involved, every EU citizen is entitled to a level of hygiene and safe food. This is the bottom line of the hygiene package. The health check will simplify regulations but I do not want to wait for it as it will not be in place for a couple of years.

The Leader programme, county enterprise boards and the Department's marketing and processing scheme have a role to play. Unfortunately, the amount of money is not as much as I would like it to be and Deputy Doyle will have a similar view on this. The craft butchers' association made a submission to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which takes account of many of the points made by Deputy Doyle with regard to small abattoirs and this is being considered.

A logical way to deal with this is to ring-fence a certain amount of grant aid for small abattoirs without export certificate requirements. The validity of grant-aiding large processing plants already making money and which are moving towards creating a cartel is questionable. We discussed climate change earlier and this raises the matter of food miles. This is part of a bigger picture.

The marketing and processing scheme is designed specifically for small abattoirs and they will be favoured. The issue should not be confused with regard to exporting. We are discussing the standard and whether an abattoir exports is a matter for its marketing strategy. This concerns a standard which allows them to export if they are in a position to do so. It neither requires an abattoir to export nor distinguishes between exporting and non-exporting plants.

The craft butchers' association will be important in formulating the policy. I hope my visit to Wexford will bring the same level of reality which Deputy Doyle brought to the debate.

Legislative Programme.

P. J. Sheehan

Question:

5 Deputy P. J. Sheehan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the main aspects of the proposed new forestry Bill; the groups and bodies that have been consulted in the drafting of the heads of this bill; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [30235/07]

My Department has completed a comprehensive review of the Forestry Act 1946 and the draft heads of a new forestry Bill have been prepared which will update and consolidate the 1946 Act. The draft scheme of the new forestry Bill will be submitted to the Government shortly for approval to be sent to the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel for drafting.

The proposed legislation will address many of the issues raised during the extensive consultation process undertaken by the Department. The new forestry Bill will introduce a regulatory framework to support the development of a modern, multi-functional, sustainable and high quality forestry sector which enshrines the principles of sustainable forest management and protection of the environment. The proposed Bill will, among other provisions, introduce a simpler and more streamlined felling licence system, allow for change of land use from forestry to other sustainable uses and provide a statutory basis for forestry guidelines and forest management plans.

My Department has engaged in an extensive consultation process as part of its review of existing forestry legislation. The consultation process commenced in May 1998 with the establishment of a legislative review group with responsibility for, inter alia, evaluating the operation of the Forestry Acts, identifying and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of existing forestry legislation and making recommendations regarding the legislative framework. During the course of its work, the group engaged in widespread consultation and sought the views of the general public, along with various public and private sector organisations.

In December 2005 a consultative group was established by my Department during the final stages of the review of the Forestry Acts. This group comprised representatives from the Irish Forest Industry Chain, the Tree Council of Ireland, the Irish Farmers Association, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the National Council for Forest Research and Development and the City and County Managers Association. Specifically, the consultative group was asked to consider what operational issues needed to be included in any new Act and assess and evaluate submissions and make decisions on their content vis-à-vis inclusion in primary legislation.

Additional information not given on floor of the House.

The establishment of the consultative group coincided with advertisements in the national newspapers seeking final submissions from interested parties.

During the overall consultation period between 1998 and 2006, 26 separate written submissions were received. A dedicated website, upon which regular updates were posted detailing the deliberations of the consultative group, was also established to keep those interested in the process up to date with developments.

In May 2006 a special public seminar was held to allow all those organisations, groups and individuals who had participated in the consultation process between 1998 and 2005 a chance to present and clarify their submissions in person directly to the consultative group. The group examined all the submissions received during the consultation phases and considered all the comments raised at the public seminar. The proposed general scheme of the Bill reflects the results of the deliberations of the consultative group and represents a broad consensus on the issues involved.

I thank the Minister of State for his lengthy reply but he did not provide me with many details. I will set out three objectives.

I would prefer the Deputy to ask a question, it being Question Time.

What will the proposed Bill do to increase the total area classified as woodland or to achieve the Government target of 17% cover by 2030? Will it change the obligation on replanting, which is perceived as one of the biggest obstacles to increasing forest cover in the private sector? Will it have any implications for COFORD?

The principal features will be simpler and streamlined felling licensing, formal structures for forest management, a statutory basis for forestry guidelines and changes in land use from forestry to other sustainable uses. An appeals mechanism will be put in place for the first time and forest owners will be protected. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle and I had issues in that respect in the past where adjacent developments took place and forests were felled without any contact from the Department. Forests will be protected through measures on disease-free status and land acquisition. The Minister will have an opportunity to grant compensation if she so wishes.

In my former role as Minister of State with responsibility for forestry, I established the wide-ranging industrial liaison group. It was a difficult task to persuade the group to convene initially. The Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, has continued this dialogue and she has reached the stage at which the heads of the Bill have been prepared and are ready to go before the Government early in the new year. The Bill will reflect the views of all the stakeholders.

The Minister of State is not grasping the nettle. Yesterday, the Minister of State, Deputy Wallace, launched a study on forest planting levels. I am shocked that the Government has proposed yet another delaying tactic in terms of a consultancy report. I will quote from the press release she issued seeking this consultancy report.

The Deputy should not quote from statements during Question Time.

The press release stated, "Mary Wallace T.D., Minister of State with responsibility for forestry matters at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food today announced the appointment of Mr. John Malone to undertake a study on the factors affecting the rate of afforestation in Ireland". What bearing will that have on the forthcoming Bill? It is time to tell the Minister of State to get off the fence because every squirrel in the forest knows the biggest obstacle to reforestation is the planting obligation.

The lady in red knows that too. She made a promise during the election.

I do not know about the squirrels in the forest.

The squirrels in the forest know when this Bill will be finished.

This issue has been with us since 1998 and in fairness to the Minister and the Minister of State, they have fast tracked the Bill in order that it can shortly go before the Government.

They have been dragging their feet for ten years.

The consultancy report announced yesterday is intended to find out why the farming community and land owners will not plant or avail of the grants currently available.

Does the Minister of State need an expert to tell her that?

We want to increase planting levels and the Minister of State has initiated proposals in that regard.

Will any action be taken before the report is completed?

Top
Share