Vol. 824 No. 3
7. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he has taken to ensure that live exports of cattle continue in view of the demise of TLT; the steps taken by him in the past two months to open the British market to Irish live exports of cattle; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53073/13]
As the Minister will be aware, there is considerable concern about the lack of competition in the cattle and sheep sectors, the effect that the absence of a sufficient quantity of live exports is having on trade, and the grip that factories seem to have on prices. I ask him what he is doing about it.
Deputy Ó Cuív's question pertained to TLT in particular. While TLT has been a significant player in the export of live cattle to the Continent, accounting for 20% of total exports, the export of live cattle from Ireland to Italy had declined significantly in recent years prior to TLT going into receivership. The decrease in live exports was mainly due to higher cattle prices in Ireland, which meant our cattle were less price competitive on the live export markets, including in Italy. The economic recession in Italy also impacted negatively on consumer demand for beef in that market and led to reduced demand for imports of live cattle into Italy.
Live cattle exports from Ireland amounted to 160,000 head in 2012 and were worth €143 million. To date this year, shipments have reached 202,000 head, which represents a very substantial increase on 2012 levels despite that cattle prices increased this year. Factors affecting volume from year to year include the number of calf births, stock carryover from previous years, the price competitiveness of domestic cattle, the euro-sterling exchange rate and transport costs.
In case those who are listening to Question Time think my question solely concerned TLT, the question asked what steps the Minister had taken in the past two months to open the British market to live exports of cattle. I will ask him my specific questions again. What is he doing to retain the Italian market for weanlings? As he knows, we had approximately 50% of that lucrative market. There is a considerable differential between prices here and in Britain. What is the Minister doing, particularly at the intergovernmental and EU level, to ensure free trade for our live animals with our nearest neighbours?
On the Deputy's first question, part of the problem in Italy is the level of demand and the price purchasers are willing to pay compared with the prices prevailing in the domestic market in Ireland. In terms of the UK, it is important that people examine the reasons behind the problems in live cattle exports to the UK. Roll on-roll off ferry services do not want to take live cattle.
They take them through Larne.
They do not take them because of previous experiences of protests against live cattle exports on roll on-roll off ferries. A technical labelling issue also arises in respect of country of origin labelling of Irish originating and UK finished beef, which I will address in more detail in the context of Deputy Naughten's question on this topic. Factories do not want live cattle coming from Ireland. They want Irish produced and processed beef. That is a huge and successful market for us but it give rise to issues with the labelling of British beef which has been produced in Ireland but finished in the UK. I respectfully suggest that the Deputy should study the details of that issue because it is a genuine problem and will not be easy to overcome from an Irish domestic policy perspective.
I am glad the Minister raised the issue of country of origin because I understand it is now being discussed at EU level. Will the Minister be ensuring that all cattle raised and slaughtered on this island will, under European law, be allowed to be labelled with Ireland as the country of origin, thus facilitating competition between all of the meat factors north and south of the Border? Can he confirm that if we do not achieve that status, cattle raised and bred here but slaughtered in factories in the North of Ireland would effectively have no country of origin?
That is a valid question and is an issue we are working on currently. I have spoken to my Northern Ireland counterpart, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Michelle O'Neill, who is also anxious to progress this issue. A technical discussion has commenced at a very senior level in both Departments to determine how we can facilitate this. However, it is not as simple as one might think. There are potential problems with us supporting Northern Ireland in putting an Irish label on the food it produces because I, as an Irish Minister, must stand over Irish food in terms of its integrity, safety and so forth. If we have a food safety problem that emanates in Northern Ireland, over which I have absolutely no control in terms of supervision, veterinary standards and so on, the Irish food industry could be significantly damaged. This is a genuine problem but we are working to solve it so that food produced in Northern Ireland can be labelled as Irish. Currently such food can be labelled as coming from the island of Ireland, but producers in Northern Ireland want to be able to label it as Irish. They also want to be able to label it as British, depending on the market they are supplying. It is a bit of a having-one's-cake-and-eating-it situation but having said that-----
That stems from the Good Friday Agreement.
Having said that, I am supportive of-----
It is based on the concept of dual identity.
I am supportive of trying to facilitate a situation whereby food producers in Northern Ireland, who are Irish people and are producing Irish produce, can label it as Irish. However, protocols must be in place to allow my Department and its inspection teams to be part of the rigours of the necessary inspection process in Northern Ireland, with all of the checks and balances that we insist upon for Irish-produced goods, so that we can stand over produce from Northern Ireland which is labelled as Irish.
8. Deputy Denis Naughten asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the steps he is taking to develop the live export trade to the UK; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [52931/13]
I tabled this question on the issue of labelling in the context of the fallout from the TLT collapse. The key issue is that a chicken fillet can be imported from Thailand, breadcrumbs put on it in the European Union and then marketed it as a product of the particular EU country. At the same time, Irish cattle cannot be processed in the United Kingdom and sold in that market.
The Deputy makes a fair point but both pork and poultry products on sale in Ireland and across the EU will have a country of origin label requirement in future, in the same way as beef products do at the moment, which will be a very welcome development when it happens. The ground is moving on this issue.
On the issue of Irish-grown, British-finished beef and the labelling system around that, there is a genuine problem with the labelling, marketing and selling of that product in the UK. That is why beef that is being sold in the UK is generally either British beef which is grown, slaughtered and processed in the UK or Irish beef, grown, slaughtered and processed here. Moving live cattle from Ireland to finish them in the UK would be welcome from a competition point of view and would also be very beneficial to live cattle exporters from a cost perspective, given the proximity of the market. This issue has been under the spotlight this year in particular because British beef prices have been higher than Irish prices, particularly for steer beef but less so for heifers. That is because of a very strong demand for British beef in Britain. However, it is also true that the prices of Irish beef have been above the EU average for most of this year. They are now slightly below the average for the first time in approximately two years.
There is a particular labelling issue in play here. Harmonised EU rules require mandatory traceability and origin labelling for beef from slaughterhouse to point of sale to consumers with the objective of providing maximum transparency for the marketing of beef. Compulsory beef labelling requires food business operators to label fresh, frozen or minced beef with specific information to enable the product to be traced back to the animals from which it was derived and must include details of the slaughterhouse and de-boning hall in which the animal was processed as well as the country in which it was born and reared.
The problem is confusion for the consumer around cattle born and raised here but finished and processed in the United Kingdom. That is why a lot of those involved in the beef industry in Britain do not want live cattle from Ireland
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
The mandatory labelling rules prevent final retailers from describing any beef products derived from animals born in Ireland but exported live for finishing and processing in Britain as either British or Irish. Labelling of such product has to state the country of birth as Ireland, the country of rearing as Ireland and the country of slaughter as the United Kingdom. As the Irish-born but UK-finished proposition is regarded as difficult to communicate to consumers and likely to cause unnecessary labelling complications, retailers prefer to market British and Irish beef separately as part of their product mix. This effectively means, as a matter of policy, they prefer beef to be sourced from animals originating in one country only. Furthermore, meat from such animals would not be eligible for the UK’s Red Tractor scheme which guarantees the UK prevalence of the meat to consumers. In addition, logistical difficulties arise when a small number of Irish-born animals are slaughtered in a UK meat plant. These carcasses have to be deboned in a separate batch, packaged and labelled accordingly, thereby incurring additional costs for the processor.
Bord Bia actively supports the development of the live export trade through the provision of market information, developing market access and promotional activity. Although Bord Bia has repeatedly raised the labelling issue in discussions with the British retail sector, the multiples are unlikely to change their stance as they seek to shorten their supply chains in the wake of the equine DNA issue. Nevertheless, Bord Bia will continue to pursue all opportunities to maximise the value and volume of our beef and livestock exports to the UK.
I would point out that the labelling law in the UK is the same as that in every other EU member state. We are shipping live cattle to other EU states with no difficulty whatsoever.
One of the issues that arose as a result of TLT going into receivership was how one retains title of ownership across EU member states. The Department has washed its hands of the issue as it relates to TLT, as has the Italian Government. In the context of the question I tabled, we can ship cattle to Benghazi but cannot ship cattle to Birmingham. It is far easier to collect outstanding money from Manchester than Milan. That is the context for my question. What can we do to retain ownership of shipped cattle and how can we deal with the labelling issue?
This is about supplying what the market wants. It is not about what we want. We must provide product that the market will pay for. In Italy there has been a demand for a certain age and quality of animal because that is what Italians want. The beef industry in Italy had a shortage of such animals. In the United Kingdom, the market wants something different. Regardless of what we want or what suits Ireland, the British beef industry has made a judgment call that British consumers want clarity in terms of labelling. Consumers want to know they are buying either British beef or Irish beef. They do not want the confusion of having both countries on the label. That is my understanding of the issue.
We must respond to the market. We export between 85% and 90% of all of the food produced on this island. We target markets where we can make a profit on the basis of what those markets want. The Libyans wanted Irish produce and so we worked hard with live cattle exporters to facilitate that in the earlier part of last year. That was welcomed strongly by the farming community because it happened at the right time and set the trend in terms of beef pricing as the year went on.
There are genuine issues in terms of what the market wants in the United Kingdom, which is the biggest market for Irish beef by a long mile. It is not, however, the biggest market for live Irish cattle. That is because of decisions being made in the UK, not decisions being made here.
The Minister is missing the point. I am seeking answers to two separate questions. First, how do we retain ownership of live animals across EU borders? The Department is washing its hands of this issue and the Italian authorities are doing likewise.
I do not understand what the Deputy means when he says my Department is washing its hands of it.
The Department has said that these animals are not its problem. Once animals leave the island of Ireland, their ownership is not a problem for the Department to solve. Representatives of the Italian Government are saying exactly the same. Who actually owns those animals? They have not been paid for. It is legally possible to put movement restrictions in place until they are paid for but no one is prepared to invoke that power.
I fully accept the ethos and motivation behind the UK's Red Tractor labelling scheme. If we had a big domestic market, we would do the same thing.
The fundamental problem with the UK red tractor label is that it is restricting the Common Market. That has EU implications. The issue that needs to be addressed is the restriction of the Common Market because of the label.
Obviously, the export of live cattle is driven by the current price difference of approximately €1 per kilo. The average price is approximately €3.80 here and approximately €4.80 over there. Rather than promoting live cattle exports, maybe the State should do something about the probable existence of a cartel in the factory beef industry. Surely live cattle exports are a quick fix rather than a long-term solution. The collapse of TLT should serve as a warning rather than a way forward. I put it to the Minister that we need to focus on finding markets for finished products.
I agree.
That would keep jobs in Ireland. It can be done by challenging the cartel.
I want cattle to be slaughtered and processed in Ireland. There are jobs in these value-adding activities. The same thing applies in the case of seafood. It is important for farmers who do not feel the factories are giving them value for money for their cattle to have an alternative outlet - to keep the factories honest, as many people describe it. That is why we welcomed the opening of the Libyan market to cattle and sheep available earlier this year. I would like the option of a live cattle trade to the UK to exist, but the market has to be given what it is looking for. I remind those who think our access to the UK market has been damaged that we will export €4 billion worth of food and drink, significantly more than we have ever done in the past, to the UK this year. Beef is a major part of that. The value of beef exports to the UK has increased in percentage terms by a double-digit figure in the last 12 months. This issue must be considered in the appropriate context. The UK is by far our biggest export market for food and drink. It accounts for 42% of our food and drink exports, which will be worth almost €10 billion this year. We are building that market. In response to the point that was made about the retention of ownership of animals being transported, I remind Deputy Naughten that we are in a receivership situation. Is he suggesting that the Department should step into the middle of a receivership situation deliberately to frustrate the process? Is he suggesting that an effort should be made to get people to hand over money to certain people who are owed money while others are ignored?
No. That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that the Department should assist the receiver's efforts to get as much money as possible from Italy. The Department is not prepared to facilitate that. The Italian authorities are not prepared to facilitate that.
The Department has not been asked by the receiver-----
The powers are there within the EU to ensure those animals are not slaughtered until the money is paid.
9. Deputy Seán Kyne asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if the mapping and digitisation of uplands takes account of the fact that hill areas contain inclines and slopes that cannot be correctly measured by a mapping system which has regard only for the base area of the mapped area; if he will describe the procedure for mapping elevated lands; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53141/13]
I am asking the Minister whether the procedure within the mapping system for measuring gross area is different in the case of mountain or elevated land, as opposed to flat land.
One of the challenges faced by those involved with the mapping system is that they have to rely on an image from space. The move from getting images from high-flying aircraft to getting images from satellites has allowed us to be much more precise. The imagery now available to us allows us to see the animals in the fields. I understand some challenges are encountered when photographs are taken from above. There can be some uncertainty regarding contours, etc. That is why some of the imagery has to be backed up with physical inspections. I encourage farmers who feel the new mapping system has in some way treated them unfairly, in terms of land eligibility or anything else, to submit appeals. If there are any question marks in that regard, we will send inspectors out to make judgment calls. There may be genuine problems in cases of lands with significant contours etc. We are aware of this issue. We are open to checking satellite imagery. Images that are crystal clear might not take account of significant contours in mountainous areas. I am sure Deputy Kyne is familiar with cases that may require individual inspections at farm level.
I am not talking about any particular case. I often drive past large mountainous commonage areas that are sloped. Penalties are being imposed on many farmers who are thought to have over-claimed. They are losing money because of this. I think it is a genuine issue. Farmers could be losing a certain number of hectares on the basis of assessments involving the mapping system that is used at present. If the lands in question were assessed by an engineer, it might be found that the gross area is actually higher in some cases.
The measurement of land area within the land parcel identification system respects all national surveying conventions with regard to slopes or hill land. The area quoted on Ordnance Survey Ireland maps, on which much of the land parcel identification system database is built, is based on the principle of measuring the horizontal or two-dimensional area. In cases of sloped land, this is the area of land measured on the flat or plain area. This convention extends to the purchase of agricultural land as well, whereby a purchaser would only pay for the horizontal area within the holding and not the sloped area. This procedure is the same as the method used during the single farm payment reference period. We are doing everything we can, in light of all the information available to us, to try to take account of contours and slopes. Farmers who feel they are being hard done by as a result of the use of this system should seek appeals to ensure their land holdings are accurately measured.
I compliment Deputy Kyne on tabling this very good question. I presume the same thing applies in drumlin areas. The fact that the slope is not continuous probably makes it far more difficult to measure the land area. The Department's systems have become far more accurate. It is able to remove narrow tracks from its calculations. Are there any plans to improve the software system in recognition of the problem that has been raised by Deputy Kyne?
We are changing our software systems all the time. We have practically designed a new system.
I know.
It is working, by the way.
We are receiving the brunt of it in our offices.
That may be so, but it is because we are in the middle of a correction period. Other countries in the EU that are far bigger than Ireland are unable to do what we are doing. Since the middle of the summer, we have reassessed practically every one of the hundreds of thousands of land parcels in this country. I regard the judgment that has been made of the amount of land that is potentially ineligible as pretty accurate. We have put systems in place to allow farmers to submit appeals if they feel the measurements are inaccurate. I would say the accuracy of our system is pretty good, by and large. The current reform process, which essentially involves a correction of the inaccuracies of the last system, is difficult for farmers who are seeing some of their lands deemed ineligible. By the time the process has been fully corrected, within the next six months or so, Ireland will be one of a few countries in the EU to have done that. Significant disallowances and fines, which would be multiples of the value of the correction figure we are now going to deliver, will be avoided as a result.
10. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the amount of staff time and the estimated cost, including staff time, associated with the production of ministerial newsletters since he became Minister; the grounds on which he believes this expenditure of taxpayers’ money is justified; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [53072/13]
They say that time is money. No doubt it takes time to prepare the newsletters issued by the Department. This is taxpayers' money. I ask the Minister not to tell me it is impossible to quantify the precise cost of this exercise because the officials involved are also doing other related work. The Minister will appreciate that the private sector is able to value things like this every day of the week.
While this is a valid question, I think it is a strange one. The Department issues newsletters on a reasonably regular basis to update farmers who want to get that information. They are sent out in as cost-effective a way as possible. This is essentially an online service.
Nobody in my Department is being paid anything extra for this and we are not bringing in any extra staff for it. People are doing it as part of their function within the Department to inform farmers as best we can about the changes in agrifood which are positive and encouraging. If we were not to publish e-newsletters for farmers to access, we would be rightly criticised for not using technology to its maximum effect. At the National Ploughing Championships last year and this year we asked farmers to sign up to the database on a voluntary basis in order that they could get this information, and thousands of them did so. There is interest from my clients, the farmers, in getting this information. They are getting it at no extra cost to the taxpayer. It provides good value for money and interesting reading for many farmers who want to understand what is happening in the Department.
We all agree with the idea of informing the public. However, are these newsletters political propaganda or informing the public? I have a very simple, specific question. Two newsletters were put out in October. How many pictures of the Minister and the Minister of State appeared in the newsletters?
It must be upsetting the Deputy.
How many pictures in total were in the two newsletters?
We will go back and count them for the Deputy.
I have no idea. I trust my Department to put these newsletters together. It is my job to be the political face of Irish agriculture and I have no intention of shying away from that. It is my job to encourage, inspire and lead people in an ambitious new direction in terms of building an industry. That is working and it is working on the back of a plan that, to be fair, the previous Government prepared, namely, Food Harvest 2020, which we have built on and are implementing. It is nonsense to suggest I should shy away from that because it is somehow perceived as party political. I spend most weeks travelling the country talking farmers and encouraging them, and introducing new policy to help build the industry. We will continue to do that and I will continue to do that as long as I am in this position.
Part of any newsletter will give coverage to what we are doing. If the Deputy dismisses that as party politics, that is fine, but I do not see it as party politics. I see it as me doing my job as Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Similarly, it is the job of the Minister of State, Deputy Tom Hayes, to represent and advocate for the sectors for which he is responsible. If we can do it at no additional cost to the Department and make it interesting to the many farmers who want to get this newsletter, that is a positive thing.
I will give the Minister the information. There were 11 pictures in the two newsletters, seven of which featured the Minister and four of which featured the Minister of State. That means 11 out of 11 featured one of the two Ministers. It would appear that the Minister's opinion is that nothing happens in the Department of interest that does not have the Ministers in it.
Has the Minister or his Department consulted the Standards in Public Office Commission about the appropriateness of this newsletter in its present form? At what level is the draft signed off in the Department before it is presented to the Minister?
I trust the corporate affairs division in my Department to put together a newsletter that is non-party political but unapologetically advocates for our sector and informs people of what we are doing. I am involved in practically everything the Department does that is new and is newsworthy. Of course I am because I am the head of the Department. I do not see why I should shy away from that or be apologetic for it.
This year has been an extraordinary year for agriculture. We have had to deal with a horsemeat crisis and a fodder crisis. We have designed and delivered a new Common Agricultural Policy and a new Common Fisheries Policy. We have had a great summer for grass growth. We have had strong pricing, particularly on the dairy side. Many positive things are happening. As I said earlier, exports this year will be close to €10 billion. Two and a half years ago that was considerably below €8 billion. Farmers want to know about that and they want to see that their political advocate for this growth and expansion plan is out there advocating for them. That is all I am doing in this newsletter
Will the Minister answer the question?
I am confident there are no issues here.
I asked the Minister two very specific questions.
Let the Minister speak.
If the Deputy wants to challenge that with SIPO, he is more than welcome to do so.
I asked the Minister if he asked SIPO.
That concludes-----
My second question was the level in the Department the version the Minister signs off is at.
We are out of time now.
The Minister knows the procedure as well as I do.
That concludes Question Time.
By the way, I will pick up on the Minister's suggestion about SIPO.
