Vol. 851 No. 2
7. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he, along with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the North, met representatives of the British multiples to address issues related to Irish beef; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35159/14]
Much of this issue was addressed in the response to Deputy Ó Cuív's priority question. Will the Minister provide an update on his meetings with his counterpart in the North, the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development, Ms Michelle O'Neill, as well as the representatives of supermarkets? What was the outcome?
Ireland's trade with Britain accounts for 53% of our beef export volumes, worth €1.1 billion per year, at approximately 250,000 tonnes in 2013. It is equivalent to approximately 750,000 cattle, so there is much trade between Ireland and Britain. The British retailers’ long-standing policy is to market British and Irish beef separately so as to avoid any perceived confusion for consumers. This means beef must be sourced from animals originating in one country or the other; they are labelled as born, reared and slaughtered in the same EU state. Therefore, animals which originate in the Republic and are sent North for rearing or slaughter fall out of the retailers specifications, as they will have to be labelled as coming from two separate states. I suspect the Deputy would like - as I would - this island to be one country but it is not at the moment, so there is a requirement for a country of origin label that is accurate. That is the issue with which UK retailers have an issue.
The number of such animals is relatively small in overall terms at 50,000 per year and there has been an impact on some of the trade in live cattle into Northern Ireland, which traditionally has been an important outlet for the Irish beef sector. Nevertheless, I am pleased to note that mart sales in the last fortnight are reported as strong both in terms of price and volumes being traded. As a result of the difficulties earlier in the year, I have engaged with my counterpart in Northern Ireland, the Minister, Ms Michelle O’Neill, in order to try to alleviate some of the pressures being felt by farmers involved in the cross-Border trade. We agreed to make a joint approach to the three British retailers who stock Irish beef, accepting that these were commercial matters, but also seeking some flexibility, given that this beef is produced to the exacting standards required by British consumers. I have also met separately with representatives of Tesco recently and we had a useful and frank discussion on this and other issues regarding the beef market generally. I have also convened a meeting with the Minister, Ms O'Neill, and those involved with the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, which will take place in Dublin in the coming weeks. This will provide a useful forum to further explore the retailer concerns and identify possible solutions. I will also meet the Minister at the next North-South Ministerial Council, when we will also have an opportunity to discuss the matter.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
While exploring these issues, I must also be mindful of the significant brand of Irish beef built up over many years and amounting to €2.1 billion of exports in the last year. Irish beef trades on its reputation and this must be guiding principle where changes to the labelling rules are under discussion nonetheless. I am of course fully aware of the temporary difficulties in the cross-Border trade this year and I am exploring practical solutions to alleviate this.
I thank the Minister for his reply. At what stage is the issue of an agreed label to meet the requirements of at least one player in the multiples sector? My understanding is that both the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development had agreed a label, with one of the multiples seeking a letter of comfort regarding that. I understand it was sent.
Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that, although I wish it were. I cannot agree a label for a product in Northern Ireland.
It is outside my jurisdiction. The Irish Food Safety Authority has no jurisdiction there. Following conversations with the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Northern Ireland Assembly, Michelle O'Neill, I have made clear to her in writing that I have no problem with this. Many people in Ireland have a big problem with this, mainly processors. I have no problem with this as a way of trying to create a normal trade, North and South, for beef on its way to the UK market.
I have met Tesco and have asked if it will show some flexibility because beef produced on the island of Ireland for consumers in Britain is perceived as Irish beef coming from the island of Ireland. We should market it as such but the country of origin labels will need to be accurate. We cannot ignore the fact that technically two jurisdictions would be involved. The overall branding could and should be Irish beef. Ultimately it is up to a processor selling beef from Northern Ireland into the UK to come up with that label. Politicians cannot put a label on product. Somebody who is selling it needs to do that. I have made clear that we certainly will not object if and when that happens. In fact, we have encouraged them to do that and to meet retailers who have shown a willingness to be flexible about its sale.
Has the Minister received any reply to his request for flexibility?
Absolutely.
Was it positive or negative?
It was positive. I had a two hour meeting with Tesco when we discussed a series of issues, mainly around beef. This was one of the key requests. Until a few weeks ago, the trade for live beef animals was significantly down. Ironically, live cattle exports to Northern Ireland are significantly up this year. The kind of animals we are looking for in the beef trade has been down somewhat. We need Northern buyers in marts, providing competition to get the best prices for animals, and so on, and that has picked up significantly in recent weeks. To be fair to Tesco, it said it was willing to consider this. It is very strict about label accuracy, to make sure that it looks after its consumers, but it recognised that its customers would not have a problem with an Irish label on beef produced to more or less the same standards, North and South on the island of Ireland, as long as there was proper label clarity underneath that. It is up to processors in the North to deliver on that and negotiate with Tesco, which has shown a willingness to be flexible.
Animals aged over 30 months cannot be used for T-bone steak. This is a significant cut-off point for factories. Does the Minister think it is possible to increase that to 36 months? The specific risk material regulation had been at 24 months, but in years gone by it was 36 months until the problems arose.
There is a very good completed database for all beef animals in Ireland, which is controlled by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and provides all details of herd profile. Do the factories have access to that database? If so, it explains how easy it is for them to manipulate the market price. Sometimes that gives them too much information and they are able to take advantage of the farmers, knowing when the heifers were born and how many are coming to the 30 month point.
That is if they get the information; they are not supposed to.
It gives the factories the opportunity to cut the price at that time.
None of that should happen because factories do not have access to the database. If they get access to it they are doing so in ways that they should not, whether from a vet in the factory, or whatever. Factories should not have access to a database that gives them information about the numbers of animals that farmers in their region have to sell, and so on.
We have put systems in place to make sure they do not get access to that information. I have heard that accusation on a number of occasions over the past six months. We have checked it out in some detail. We are ensuring the broader database to which the Department must have access, relating to animal movements and numbers, etc., is not handed over. Factories are not entitled to this commercially sensitive information.
We sell into a number of premium markets that have age restrictions as part of their specifications. Other markets do not have such restrictions. Some markets have weight restrictions as well. British retailers, which comprise the highest paying market for beef in the world at the moment, want beef steaks that are smaller than those being sold by some Irish producers that are producing really good animals. When there is a lot of beef around the market, as there has been this year, the premium markets that are paying the most for that beef can choose to demand certain specifications. That has been one of the most significant problems over the past 12 months, particularly for producers of large continental animals of a certain age. They got very good money for animals of that age last year, but they are being penalised for animals of the same age this year. That is why there needs to be a much better line of communication between factories and primary producers. I hope the producer organisations will help to facilitate that.
8. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine his proposals to resolve the difficulties faced by farmers with commonage land due to his proposals in relation to eligibility for the basic payment, the payment for areas of natural constraint and the GLAS scheme for farmers with commonage; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35172/14]
As the Minister knows, there has been substantial disquiet in all the counties that have significant numbers of farmers with commonage. I recognise that there has been some movement in that regard. I welcome the meetings on this issue that will take place around the country in the next week. Can the Minister outline the present state of play with regard to commonage farmers and collective agreements? Will all farmers be required to put stock up on the hill? Public meetings do not always get down to the nitty-gritty. Other than those meetings, what process is in place to resolve what needs to be resolved?
I hope the public meetings will involve workshop-type sessions, rather than a group of people lecturing from the stage. The idea underpinning the commonage areas implementation group is that a group of experienced people, who are farmer-friendly, speak a language everybody understands and have an appreciation of commonage farming, will sit down and work out with farmers what they need to do to qualify for basic payments. It is very straightforward. The only thing a farmer will be required to do to get a single farm payment is have a minimum stocking rate of one ewe per 1.5 hectares. Essentially, he or she will need to have one sheep for each area of between three and a half and four acres. Obviously, we discussed this very low stocking rate with the farming organisations before we settled on it. We have to be credible with the Commission. There needs to be some level of proof that there is farming activity going on in the hills. The obvious way to do that is to focus on stocking levels. The only thing a farmer has to do to qualify for a single farm payment is have a stocking rate of one ewe per 1.5 hectares by the end of next year. If one has not been doing much farming over recent years, or if one has a very low stocking rate, one should be fine as long as one builds up a basic stocking rate before the end of next year. If one is farming in an area where a lower stocking rate is required because of environmental restrictions, that is fine. One automatically qualifies as long as one has some level of stocking. There seems to have been a great deal of confusion about how farmers with commonage can qualify for a single farm payment. I want to clarify that it is very easy for them to qualify. They just need to have some level of activity in the commonage land. We are measuring that by providing for a very low stocking rate threshold.
GLAS is a bit different. Commonage farmers will get priority access and acceptance into GLAS. As I said in response to an earlier question, if GLAS is to be credible, farmers have to do something else, other than qualifying for a single farm payment, to get €5,000. Essentially, they have to agree to farm in accordance with a GLAS commonage plan.
At least 50% of the active farmers in that commonage area or the farmers who own 50% of the area of the commonage have to be doing that. If, for whatever reason, farmers who want to apply to GLAS cannot get 50% of the active farmers in the commonage area to be part of it, they can work through the implementation group which will help them to do it. This is a practical response to the concerns that have been expressed in recent months.
One of the big questions for anyone familiar with commonage farming and hills would be what the "something extra" referred to by the Minister involves. What is the nature of the "something extra" that the 50% will have to agree to? As I understand it, the Department has said that farmers can join individually as long as there is a common plan for the commonage part of the farm. Is the Minister saying that the commonage plan will have to be agreed by 50% of the farmers or 50% of the area owners? Will 50% of those in ownership who have submitted an area aid form have to sign up to the commonage plan before anybody can get into the scheme?
On the first question, I suspect that a GLAS commonage plan would be required to include management of scrub, some limitations on burning, maintaining land in reasonable agricultural condition and so forth. These are the kinds of things that ensure that a commonage is protected in terms of its biodiversity and natural condition.
What about bird habitats?
I will leave that to the planners. I do not want to exactly prescribe a GLAS commonage plan but these are the kinds of things that could be included.
In order for farmers to draw down their payment of up to €5,000 under the terms of GLAS - based on €120 per hectare - or more than €5,000 under the GLAS plus scheme, at least half of the active farmers on that commonage will have to buy into it. Otherwise the scheme would not have any credibility in the eyes of the European Commission in the context of collective farming. We are not asking for a collective agreement. We are not even saying that every farmer has to use the same planner. All we are saying is that there must be a plan in place. The implementation group will help to ensure that such a plan is put in place and farmers can then sign up to it either through their own planner or by working with the planner who has put the plan in place. They must then farm in a way that is consistent with the commonage plan. If there is a problem with numbers the implementation group can help by speaking to other farmers who, for whatever reason, may not want to be part of it.
I submitted a written parliamentary question last week but I am still confused by the answer I received. I ask the Minister to clarify the issue on the floor of the House. In terms of the basic payment, the rural development plan stipulates that a farmer on marginal land must keep the equivalent of one ewe to 1.5 hectares, with exceptions for designated land. That is a very low stocking rate and in fact, most farmers would keep the equivalent of one ewe to 1 hectare. Will the farmers all be obliged to put some of their stock on the marginal land or the commonage? For reasons of viability, some older farmers do not bother using the hills and only use the lowland; other farmers benefit from that because they can then put more stock up on the hills. Between Jack Sprat and the wife, they get the job done.
I understand the question.
I would like the Minister to clarify the situation in such circumstances.
I am well aware that commonage farming does not operate in such a way that everybody contributes the exact same level of stocking rate. That would be a nonsense. There are some very active farmers in commonage areas and some less active farmers. However, in order for farmers to qualify for a single farm payment, they will have to have some stock in the commonage area for which they are applying for the payment. That said, they do not have to have the same level of stock as, for example, their neighbour who may be much more active.
One of the reasons we have an implementation group is to explain that there are flexibilities here. There must be flexibilities because this is collective farming. Some farmers in the commonage will contribute less, some more but the average overall stocking rate numbers need to be appropriate to the commonage and the way in which it is farmed needs to be consistent if they are to draw down a GLAS payment with a GLAS commonage plan. There will be the flexibility between farmers. No one expects all farmers to have the exact same percentage.
Must one have some stock?
One must have some stock. Otherwise one is effectively getting a payment for not farming.
We must go on to the next question. This question is going on all day.
The point at issue is that some farmers farm the lowland but not the commonage. The Minister states that now those farmers must put sheep on the commonage.
Some stock.
If they do, can the Minister imagine trying to find ten ewes on 200 acres or 500 acres? In reality, that is what he is imposing on farmers. I will show him the figures in the folders to prove it.
Can I get this right? Is Deputy Ó Cuív suggesting that farmers who are not farming on land would draw down payments on that land?
That is what he seems to be suggesting. They are putting stock onto a piece of land somewhere else but they are drawing down payments on a commonage area in which they are not involved in farming.
It is the practicalities.
If we were to take that approach, when it was audited by the Commission we would have another LIPIS-type issue on our hands whereby farmers would be drawing down payments on land in which they are not involved in farming. We must have a minimum level of agricultural activity in the commonage areas where farmers are drawing down payments and we should be able to manage that in a way that allows farmers to do that. If farmers decide to not do that and to focus on other land, they should not draw down payments on the land on which they are not farming.
9. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide a list of all the contracts between Coillte and other State agencies and the total amount of funding from all State agencies transferred to Coillte since 1989; if he will provide any cost-benefit analysis or reviews related to this State funding of Coillte; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35165/14]
As the question spells out, it is about supports and funding to Coillte since it was set up in 1989. The context for this question is that I favour public support and investment for a semi-State company engaged in forestry. After the meeting which the Minister kindly set up with Coillte for me last week, what came across clearly was Coillte's fairly bald statement that it is precluded, primarily by the EU, from contributing to meeting our afforestation targets. Coillte cannot contribute to one of its core activities. I asked for what are we giving Coillte funding and support if it cannot do what should be its primary activity and whether it is, in fact, that funding is going to push Coillte towards more commercialised activities which have little to do with its core activity.
Coillte Teoranta was established as a private commercial company under the Forestry Act 1988 and day-to-day operational matters, such as contractual arrangements and sources of funding, are the responsibility of the company.
As a commercial company, Coillte is required to publish annual accounts, copies of which are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas, in accordance with the Forestry Act 1988. Coillte's annual report 2013 was accordingly laid before the Houses on 30 June last. I wish to advise that note 28 to those financial statements outline the sales and purchases of goods, property and services to entities controlled by the Government.
While such contracts are operational matters for the company, a list was, however, also sought from the company. Coillte has advised that it was not possible in the time available to provide a list of all the contracts between Coillte and other State agencies as this would need to be clearly defined.
The company further advised that the Coillte Group sold goods, property and services to RTE and the ESB in 2013 in the normal course of business but that a range of contracts would exist, some of which involve consideration being paid to Coillte for goods and services and some of which involve Coillte making payments.
As for the total amount of funding from all State agencies transferred to Coillte since 1989, Coillte advises it has received some €12.4 million, mostly in its provision of forest recreational facilities. Up to €1.4 million was from the Irish Sports Council in respect of the trail managers programme. Another €1.4 million was received and managed by Coillte on behalf of the Dublin Mountain Partnership while some €9.6 million has been received from Fáilte Ireland. This latter amount encompassed funding for its development of Lough Key forest park in conjunction with Roscommon County Council and capital funding towards forest recreation infrastructure.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House
With reference to the undertaking of cost-benefit analyses relating to such funding, Coillte and the Heritage Council have conducted research to evaluate the public goods value of three important services, namely, biodiversity-nature, landscape and cultural heritage. These were found to have a cumulative value of over €500 million, with biodiversity-nature estimated to be €322 million, landscape to be €96 million and cultural heritage to be €92 million. Information on the valuation of such public goods, and case studies so illustrating, is available on the publications page of the Coillte website. The final report, from 2005, of a study on the economic value of trails and forest recreation jointly commissioned by Coillte and the Irish Sports Council is also available on the website.
Coillte has also advised that it is happy to engage directly with the Deputy to discuss the issues raised.
I would appreciate if we could get the list of all contracts between Coillte and other State agencies going back to 1989 as soon as it becomes available.
The initial loan facility for Coillte, when it was established and as provided for in legislation, was €30 million. In 2009, this was increased to €400 million. Around that time there was a large deficit in Coillte’s pension fund. The National Pensions Reserve Fund bought harvesting rights through the Irish Forestry Unit Trust for some of Coillte’s forests. When I met the company last week, it explained to me it sells the harvesting rights of its forests to entities of various sorts to get cash which it then invests elsewhere. Are we giving indirect supports and subsidies, as well as direct supports, to Coillte but not knowing where this money is going? It is certainly not going into afforestation programmes because Coillte is not allowed do such programmes and cannot contribute to what should be its core objective. Where is the money going then?
Coillte is a large operation with SmartPly, Medite and other forestry product projects. The whole forestry industry is growing, including the private forestry sector. Coillte has been responsible over many years for the development of our forest business. The potential for exporting timber is now significant.
As the Deputy said, he visited Coillte last week and engaged with the company. It is happy to engage further to give him the specific details he may require. After all, it is a public company and it must outline to this House the moneys it spends. I assure the Deputy the company will engage with him in providing the detailed information he requires.
Coillte was helpful and informative. My questions are more directed at the Government’s policy and, as it is the main shareholder, to where it is driving Coillte. If Coillte cannot contribute to afforestation and increasing our forest cover, then it seems to me that it is being driven in the direction of providing industrialised wind turbines, for example. In 2009, when the loan facility was extended from €30 million to €400 million, it was said in this House that some of that might be used to move into the area of providing nursing homes. Coillte is moving into controversial areas such as providing industrialised wind turbines which is arguably nothing to do with what it really should be doing. It is being pushed into a more commercialised, for-profit, privatised direction by government policy.
We have no control over it even though we are owners of 100% of it. It is in a type of limbo where there is no transparency over its investment decisions, strategic direction or whether it is applying itself to its core activities, namely, growing trees and managing the forest estate.
I assure Deputy Boyd Barrett that Coillte must publish its accounts each year. We want the company to be profitable. When the Government took office it carried out a root and branch assessment of many public bodies and companies, including Coillte. It was the Government's view that the company should be more focused, on afforestation in particular. We want Coillte to be progressive, profitable and to get a dividend for the State. Coillte is now more focused than might have been the case in the past. It is important that its current line of actions be continued.
10. Deputy Maureen O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the reason he is pursuing a badger cull when guarantees have been given about rolling out a vaccination programme for badgers infected with TB; the reason his Department is tendering for the provision of 25,000 units of biological material, which are essentially body bags for badgers; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [35173/14]
My question relates to the reason a badger cull is being pursued and why the Department has tendered for 25,000 units of biological material, essentially body bags for badgers, when it has given a commitment to roll out a vaccination programme to control bovine TB.
I thank Deputy O'Sullivan for asking the question. I know it is an issue of concern to her and I wish to give her a detailed answer to it. The wildlife policy, which is a component of my Department’s TB eradication programme, has been developed in response to research which has demonstrated that the eradication of the disease is not a practicable proposition until the reservoir of infection in badgers is addressed. Capturing of badgers takes place in areas where serious outbreaks of TB have been identified in cattle herds and where Department veterinarians have found, following an epidemiological examination, that badgers are the likely source of infections. Approximately 6,000 badgers are culled annually by trained contractors under licence and the process is monitored and supervised by Department staff. In tandem with the badger removal programme, my Department continues to sponsor research and trials into developing a vaccination programme to control tuberculosis in badgers, thus improving the overall health status of that species, and to break the infection link to cattle. The research to date has demonstrated that oral vaccination of badgers in a captive environment with BCG vaccine generates high levels of protective immunity against bovine TB. Current research is aimed at confirming that such a protective effect holds true in the wild population.
My Department’s ultimate objective is to incorporate badger vaccination into the TB eradication programme when data are available to ensure that it can be incorporated in an optimally effective and sustainable manner. A number of field trials are ongoing with this objective in mind, but it is anticipated that it will be a number of years before a viable oral delivery method can be put in place and, therefore, targeted badger removals will continue in the medium term in the interests of ensuring that the progress achieved in recent years in combating TB in cattle is maintained.
That is a most unfortunate answer because in the context of a badger cull we are talking about a most inhumane, cruel and barbaric way of dealing with bovine TB, when first, it has not been fully proven that the badger is totally responsible for the disease, and there are doubts over some of the experiments that initially proved that was the case. Second, a reduction in TB in cattle can also be linked to improved husbandry and other factors, not especially through the badger cull. Could the Minister explain the urgency to kill thousands of an ecologically important species, namely, the badger?
I refer to an IT glitch that occurred in the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs in England which meant it overstated the number of cattle herds infected by TB in Britain to such an extent that the decline in TB was shown to have been in the year preceding the badger cull. A badger cull is a particularly cruel way to deal with the problem. Illegal ways are in use to kill badgers. Such horrible practices, include putting slurry in badger setts, and throwing badger carcases onto the road to give the impression they have been killed in road accidents. That is what is happening to a badger population that we do not know is 100% responsible for bovine TB.
I do not condone or in any way support the illegal killing of badgers in a way that is not licensed, controlled and monitored by my Department. I share Deputy O'Sullivan's views on the matter.
It is important to note that culling badgers is only a part of a TB programme that has been extraordinarily successful in Ireland. We have less TB in Ireland now than at any time since 1953 when records began. The UK cannot say the same. If anything, depending on the region, the jurisdiction has an increasing problem with TB in herds. The system we have in place at the moment is working. We are targeting areas where there are significant TB outbreaks where we have a reason to believe there is a link with wildlife infection by badgers. It is not an indiscriminate culling of badgers throughout the country. It is a targeted effort to try to catch and put down badgers we believe might have TB themselves and are spreading TB to cattle. Culling has been a part of a very effective TB programme that is reducing TB dramatically in Ireland and is saving the taxpayer a lot of money. As soon as we can introduce a vaccination programme to target TB in badgers that is credible and that can take the place of the targeted culling programme, we will do it. I will enthusiastically introduce such a programme if and when that is the case, but I will not do something to undermine the efforts we have put in place in recent decades.
Recent reports have shown that injecting badgers significantly reduces the progress and severity of TB. Unlike culling, vaccination does not disrupt the badger's social group and it provides immunity indirectly to unvaccinated badger cubs. An experiment was conducted where one third of the badger population was injected and immunity immediately spread to the rest of the badger population. A more recent experiment in England showed that more rigorous testing and vaccination of cattle is also a way forward. There should be an urgency in terms of the vaccination programme rather than just having a cull, because it has been in place for so long. We must look seriously and urgently at a vaccination programme.
I reassure the Deputy that only last week I asked my Secretary General to examine the issue and to try to fast-track a vaccination programme for badgers if it could be done credibly. However, I will not undermine the efforts we have made over many years-----
Rentokil.
-----until we are sure we can do it in a way that keeps the positive momentum in the existing TB eradication programme, which has been extraordinarily successful. Ultimately, we want to eradicate TB from Ireland in badger populations and in cattle populations.
There is not a problem with badger numbers in Ireland. The cull will not compromise badger numbers. We have a healthy badger population throughout the country currently. I accept that the preference is to vaccinate rather than kill badgers if we can do that effectively.
How would one do that?
Tell that to the badger.
That is ridiculous.
Ultimately-----
Would the Minister like to catch a badger and try to inject it?
If Deputy Healy-Rae was listening earlier, which I doubt he was-----
I was listening to the debate in my office.
-----I explained the trials we are running at the moment, which are showing credible results in the area.
That concludes Question Time.
The Minister knows what to do with the badger and it is the same with the deer.
Deputy Healy-Rae should not make a joke of the matter.
I am not.
Order, please.
