Skip to main content
Normal View

JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 16 Jul 2003

Vol. 1 No. 18

CAP Reform: Ministerial Presentation.

I welcome the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, and his officials to the meeting. He has been invited to discuss the recent CAP reforms and I now invite him to make his opening remarks.

Thank you Chairman and members. I am pleased to have an opportunity to meet with the joint committee to discuss the outcome of the negotiations on the mid-term review.

As members will be aware, Commissioner Fischler made his detailed proposals in January 2003. These were reasonably well debated over the last six months. The negotiations culminated on 26 June and the outcome is reasonably well known to people. It consists of a number of options, the main one being full decoupling of payments from production - in other words, the link with production is broken. What I intend to do over the next couple of months is to consult widely. I was asked in the Dáil would the consultations be confined to the social partners and I gave a commitment that they would not. I will accept submissions from individuals or organisations and give them full weight. I had a public notice in the national media in the last week inviting such submissions. I expect in the coming months to have wide consultations with industry, individuals and organisations because what we are embarking on is a road map for the future development of Irish and European agriculture.

In entering into the negotiations we had a number of objectives, the main one was to protect the support for agriculture. Support for agriculture is very substantial. There is €1.3 billion in direct payments to farmers - cheques in the post - under the various headings of suckler cow, special beef and so on. There is also substantial support for schemes such as the REPS and the early retirement scheme. I am pleased that we have protected these payments in the negotiations.

A second main objective was to ensure in the upcoming world trade talks that a sufficient amount of support for farming would go into the green box so that it would be free from challenge in the next world trade round. I am confident this will be the case.

On the dairying sector, about which there was a fair amount of criticism, there is a reduction in support for intervention. The support reduction is confined to intervention. In other words, if any co-op or plc goes to the marketplace, the market returns will not be affected. In preparation for this I had a prospectus study carried out last year. This was completed a few months ago and a lot of discussion has taken place since. I have met virtually with all the co-ops. I am meeting the final one next week and I intend to have a forum in September to seek to drive forward the streamlining of the Irish dairy industry so that it will be able to compete in Europe and internationally and get a better return for Irish farmers. I hope they will be able to put additional resources into research and development and modernise their operation and structure.

In effect, the outcome of the mid-term review means that there will be an additional 4% cut in support for intervention which will come into play in 2007. There will be 81% compensation for that 4% cut. The rest of the reduction in support came in as a result of Agenda 2000 in 1999. Since 1999, our industry has had to prepare for a more competitive international marketplace.

There was concern about digressivity, which essentially meant siphoning off direct payments to farmers which will be gobbled up by the EU. This proposal has been taken off the table. The third element related to modulation. This has been substantially reduced and we will be able to retain the bulk of it in Ireland for on-farm schemes and quality schemes.

On the question of what is the sequence from now on since the initial agreement workshops and special committees have been meeting. My officials have been in Brussels every week dealing with the fine print of the text. It was hoped that the text would be complete by the end of this month but it now appears that will not be the case. I will be happy to come back here around mid-September when the text will be available. If there are facilities for power point we can do a presentation in detail on how individuals will be affected, particularly those who are worried about entitlements such as farm retirement schemes and so on. The fact is that until the legal text is available we cannot answer these questions. However, we will be able to do so in mid-September. If the facilities for a Powerpoint presentation are not available here, members of the committee will be very welcome to such a presentation in the Department of Agriculture and Food.

As the details of the mid-term review are well known to members, I will not take up any more time. Members will make their own submissions and express their own concerns. If there are any questions which need to be answered we will be pleased to do so.

Thank you, Minister. The clerk has informed me that we will arrange to have aPowerpoint system in place in September. We will facilitate the Minister in that regard.

We will keep in contact with the committee and as soon as we have the text we will arrange an early meeting.

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming here. I am aware the advice was in the context of the full legal text being available with a view to teasing out the detail in the proposals. As we are all aware, there is a lot of uncertainty as people wonder whether they are in our out, so to speak.

The Minister stated that the legal text will probably be available in mid-September. It appears that there will not be a definitive agreement on the proposals until at least October. Does the Minister feel this will hinder the EU position at the talks in Cancun in September. Commissioner Fishchler stated that the proposals are the bottom line as far as the EU is concerned. Will the Minister confirm if that is the case and what happens if the Commissioner makes a movement to the detriment of Irish farming?

My former colleague and good friend, Austin Deasy, when Minister for Agriculture during the discussions on the milk quota in 1984 invoked a veto and established a unique position for Irish dairying. It was unique in that member states had to base their production rights on the year 1981. However, Ireland owing to the uniqueness of agriculture in the economy and the importance of dairying within that sector was permitted to adopt the position based on 1983 production plus somewhere in the region of 4.6% of that production. Did the Minister use this when batting on behalf of the dairy sector? Did he refer to Ireland's unique position? We have now, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong, lost the unique position we had in regard to milk production. It is regrettable if we have. All indications are that that is the case.

The Minister in the Dáil asked what model of decoupling we would prefer. Fine Gael was against the principle of decoupling but now that it has been established as a fundamental principle and we have looked at the various schemes on offer we are in favour of full decoupling. We have considered the issue of decoupling tied to slaughter and quality but feel the national take may be impacted upon or it may be too difficult to administer. The Minister asked us, while pointing out we were quick to criticise and point out shortcomings, to nail our colours to the mast and we are now doing so on that issue.

It is my understanding that modulated funding will be in the region of €34 million per annum. The Minister can correct me on that if I am wrong but I have come up with that figure based on the fact that, as mentioned in the document, we will lose €6 million. I asked the general secretary if that money would come back into the Department of Agriculture and Food. Perhaps the Minister might confirm that for me as I am concerned it may go another area such as rural development, etc.

I thank the Minister and his officials for attending today to bring us up to speed on this issue. What is the Minister's view on the administrative and bureaucratic burden if there is anything other than full decoupling? Partial decoupling would surely mean much more significant administration and bureaucracy particularly with regard to beef production and the dairy industry. While I agree with the limitations of intervention - I have always taken the view that intervention is not good for developing countries, it is very difficult to support morally from the point of view of under-developed countries - the dairy industry nevertheless will now have an excess of raw material. The Minister has spoken about this before but perhaps it would be appropriate now to put in place a specific task force to address that issue in relation to new product development? Ireland, because of its seasonal nature of production, will not find it easy to develop fresh products on a year round basis. Are there are any plans to examine that issue?

We need to look at niche areas of farming that are worthy of further development, in particular the promotion of organic farming. Does the Minister have a view on what level of support that might gain and how it might be done? On intervention products, what impact will the review have on developing countries and does he foresee a positive outcome or will we go back to the status quo as a significant level of subsidy will continue to accrue to producers in this country?

I, too, welcome the Minister and thank him for coming here today. I look forward to addressing the legal text at a later date.

Long before the negotiations took place, Sinn Féin favoured the decoupling strategy as we believed it would simplify much of the bureaucracy within the farming community and would offer the best possible opportunity to retain the budget for farming within the EU. I believe that will be the case. I welcome the Minister's announcement that there is to be widespread consultation and that such consultations will not be confined to the farming organisations alone. That is very important from a rural perspective. We, as elected representatives, should encourage all groups who make submissions on the negotiations.

Will the Minister confirm that discussions will take place face to face with all the farming organisations, in particular, the smaller ones which are feeling isolated in terms of their contributions, etc? It is important that all farming groups have an input in the discussions. What happened to the original Commission proposal to stop direct payments over €300,000? Has that been retained or has it been set at a lower threshold? In a speech to the European Parliament Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development on 9 July Franz Fischler set a €5,000 franchise at which direct payments become subject to modulation. Is that directed at larger farmers? Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter.

I commend the Minister for coming here today and acknowledge the collective efforts made in the negotiations.

This is an easier subject with which to deal than the last one. I join other members in welcoming the Minister. I wish to put on the record my appreciation and congratulations for what the Minister and his officials have achieved. They undertook a huge task and achieved the impossible in retaining existing payments. By and large, that is appreciated by all concerned.

There was a great deal of whinging in the early hours which upset many people. Such whinging was done without knowledge of what was actually included. It is a pity that happened because it has put the whole deal askew. I urge the Minister to continue with his consultations which should not be restricted to what are now termed as the main farming organisations. He should widen the process because vested interests run deep. Discussion here this evening has focused on the dairy industry. There are other industries and elements of farming outside the dairy sector. While dairying is important the beef industry is equally important; it is possibly the biggest single entity we have and we should seek to protect it.

I note the processing industry in the beef sector are against decoupling. We can all readily understand why. They have succeeded in extracting good quality cattle at marginal prices and wish to continue doing so. Why not? This situation presents a challenge to the dairying and beef sectors. While I accept the comments made about the dairy industry, I wish to make some points relative to the beef industry. There is no doubt in my mind that due to the attitude of the processing industry we almost lost the beef industry, the breeding of beef cattle. There is a role for the Minister and his Department to ensure that there is a high quality beef animal bred, reared and produced so that we can meet the high quality market demands and put a high quality product on the shelves for the consumer. The third countries as we know them, such as the Middle East and everywhere else outside the EU, were a marketplace but the real marketplace is in Europe. We should focus our attention on that market. The processing industry and those of us who are producing a product must focus on that market. There is a role for the Minister because he is very good at encouraging people to do the right thing and, by and large, they listen to him. I urge the Minister to use the public arena.

The Minister protected the cereal industry when it needed protection because of what happened to it in the Agenda 2000 agreement which was a bit unfair. We all need one another in the farming industry; none of us can survive without the other. It is important to continue to have a good cereal industry in the country and I welcome the Minister's success. I congratulate him.

He was correct when he mentioned early retirement. There are farmers who have a difficulty and those people on the margins do not receive the attention they deserve. People are married into schemes where income is suppressed and it is like it was ten years ago. I ask the Minister to engage carefully and to ensure that fair play survives. There will be people in our industry, such as the farming organisations, who want to get as much of the cake as possible for themselves. They are the stronger at the trough. The weaker animal must be taken care of.

I commend the Minister on his efforts in the recent negotiations. I represent a constituency which is predominately a small farming society which produces beef. The Minister is the first in many years to do his utmost for the small farmer.

I also compliment the Minister for his good work for Irish agriculture. On the issue of decoupling, I am in favour of complete decoupling because I am a suckler cow farmer and if I had to hold on to 30%, it would be better to have complete decoupling than all the bureaucracy for the 30%.

I compliment the Minister for ensuring that most of the money was held within the country from which it was taken. This is a golden opportunity to ensure that small farmers will receive the vast bulk of this money, either through REPS or whatever the Minister decides. It should go back to the less favoured smaller farmers in the west of Ireland or wherever.

I thank the Minister. I was led to believe that the full effects of decoupling, whether partial or full, will come into effect in 2005. I am led to believe that if a farmer, through ill health, has to retire from farming now and sell his farm or his land he will not be entitled to payments in 2005 because of his land set. The Department should take a sympathetic view of a farmer with a big family who, through no fault of his own, has to retire from farming and sell his land. In 2005 I hope the Minister will ensure that that farmer will get his full entitlements.

I congratulate the Minister on a job well done. The three farming organisations which should be leading from the front are pulling in three different directions. This does not make it any easier. I welcome decoupling because it is beneficial to the small farmers. With reference to what Senator Callanan said, I believe decoupling will create an opportunity where the quality of cattle will improve because farmers will not be forced to keep the numbers they had to keep in the past in order to survive and get the grants.

I welcome the Minister and his team. We had hoped to discuss various aspects of the CAP reform and I accept that it cannot be done now until mid-September. I find his comments on the dairy industry interesting, to say the least. What can the Minister do for the dairy industry now? He has stated that he wishes to streamline the Irish dairy industry and modernise its structure. One would have thought that was happening in advance of this agreement and that restructuring would be well under way at this stage. Will the Minister elaborate on that point?

In relation to decoupling, can he give the committee an assurance or, more important, can he give farmers an assurance that he and his friends in the Department will ensure that bureaucracy is minimised? The Department certainly seems to be addicted to bureaucracy or the enforcement of it. The elimination of the paperwork and bureaucracy attached to these schemes is a major issue for farmers.

Various experts have said that these proposals will lead to a significant decrease in the number of dairy farmers in the country. It can be argued that it will happen whether these proposals go ahead. When that happens, there will be a knock-on effect of the loss of jobs in the processing and service sectors. As other speakers observed, these proposals affect all in the farming community. Has the Minister or the Government any plans for a task force to deal with those workers or to minimise the effect or to seek alternative employment and enterprises for them?

I know all agricultural people are consumers but the broad definition of the people outside the sector is as consumers. Will the Minister assure the committee that these proposals will lead to a decrease in prices for the consumer? At the moment, there is a rip-off in that sector. The difference between what the farmer gets for a pound of beef and what the consumer pays for a steak is absolutely staggering. The problem that invariably affects Irish farming every year from September on to October and November, is the beef factory cartel. Suddenly the prices will decrease and, amazingly, on a Monday morning, every factory in the country will be able to offer the same price for the same category of beef and yet we do not call that a cartel. Can the Minister assure the committee that it will not happen this year?

I welcome the Minister and congratulate him on his work in the past months. In my part of the country, there is full support for full decoupling and cutting out bureaucracy. I ask the Minister to refer to the breeding of beef cattle, in particular. It is time to examine thepolicy, which I believe was introduced in the 1980s, of passing bulls at marts, etc., by departmental staff. It is time to leave that policy behind and to work with full pedigree animals. This is something that should be examined.

I apologise for arriving at the last moment. As one of my colleagues said some minutes ago, it is important that information is distributed as quickly as possible. It is important that young farmers are informed about their future possibilities. It is all right to say that grants are available, but there is no future for young farmers if they do not have an income from which they can finance their schemes. We do not have any choice in relation to decoupling at this stage. There has to be full decoupling. I would like to declare an interest as I am a dairy farmer. There is a frightening level of anxiety among small and medium sized dairy farmers. They do not know what future they will have, if any.

I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Walsh, and his officials for the extraordinary job they have done in delivering major concessions in relation to Mr. Fischler's proposals. I am not surprised by this success, which is important for Ireland, particularly the farming community. I have said privately and publicly that the Minister's behaviour during the foot and mouth disease crisis was a model of good leadership. The Minister would be a major success in any business.

(Interruptions).

It is time for the Minister to move on.

I would like to say, on a personal level, that the Minister goes about his business in a quiet manner. He is not interested in megaphone politics. I know that one can only have success when dealing with EU bureaucracy by engaging in alliances, by networking and by getting other countries to work with one and to believe in one. The Minister has done all of these things in his quiet way. I was unable to be present in the Seanad the day he was there, but I wish to put my feelings on the record at this forum today. I believe in the Minister's integrity, as well as that of his officials. I congratulate him once more.

I thank the members of the committee for their contributions. I reiterate my offer of a full and detailed presentation when details of the CAP reforms become available. I appreciate that people need information and there will be a full information campaign. Some people have said to me that the proposals will not be implemented before 2005, but others, not least Deputy Callanan on my way to this meeting, have pointed out that calves that are being born at present will be two years old by then. We need to start to prepare to disseminate the necessary information. Full information will be made available to members of this committee, as well as the general public.

Deputy Timmins raised the forthcoming important WTO negotiations at Cancun inMexico. He asked if I am concerned that we may not be sufficiently prepared for the talks, which take place in September, if the legal text is not sufficiently examined. A political agreement has been reached on decoupling and the various options in that regard. People have the option of choosing partial decoupling, but if they choose 25%, for example, in any area of activity they will have to retain all aspects of their farming, including all the sucklers and all the sheep. I get a strong impression from this committee and from farmers in general that their preferred option is full decoupling. I will know more about this following more consultation.

I can give an undertaking that bureaucracy - what is called red tape - will be reduced under full decoupling. One will have the worst of all worlds, however, if one retains partial decoupling as one would encounter a real mish-mash of partial decoupling and the new scheme. The change from headage payments to area based payments about two years ago simplified matters greatly. The upgrading of the Department's computer and IT systems means that it is easy to put a software programme in place for a single farm payment. The improved full decoupling system will obviate the need for multiple applications, retention periods, etc. Full decoupling will have this big advantage.

The former Minister for Agriculture, Austin Deasy, ensured that the Irish dairy industry has a special position in relation to milk quota rights. The special position has been used as a bargaining tool ever since, particularly during the Agenda 2000 discussions in 1999, when we used it ad nauseam. We eventually succeeded in acquiring an extra 32 million gallons of milk. Ireland was unique in getting the additional milk. I sought to get an improvement in our butter fat reference level as well but there is great hostility at EU level to increasing butter fat as it is believed that such a move would lead to butter mountains. We already have 200,000 tonnes of butter in intervention storage. The acquisition of additional milk has been extremely helpful in increasing the allocation of milk to a range of people who have felt aggrieved since the early 1980s. Many of those who felt they were not getting a fair deal have been able to get allocations from the additional milk.

Ireland will retain about 85% of modulated funding, which will amount to approximately €34 million per annum. Deputy Timmins wanted an assurance that the moneys will be allocated to the Department of Agriculture and Food and I can confirm that will be the case. Funds will be allocated for direct support for farmers, for example, especially in quality industry. The case for quality has been made by a number of speakers. Deputy Carty spoke of pedigree quality production, for example. There is bound to be a scarcity if Ireland, France, the UK and other European markets decouple. I do not doubt that good prices will be available for good quality products in niche markets, which have been mentioned.

Consumers were mentioned by Senator Coonan and others. I would also like to mention the need to consult workers - who have been discussed. Some people think we should consult the main farming organisations. The FAPRI study has shown that if there is full decoupling, there will be a major reduction in our suckler cow and sheepmeat output. Workers in plants, dairies and hardware shops in many towns that supply farmers will be affected. If farmers are no longer producing at the same rate, the situation for those I have mentioned will change. I hope and expect to receive submissions about the future of rural Ireland and the agriculture industry from farming bodies, individuals, representatives of workers and representatives of consumers.

Deputy Upton asked about the bureaucratic burden. If we choose the option of full decoupling, it is certain that the burden will be reduced considerably, if not eliminated. The bureaucratic conditions that apply to the various payments will be put to one side and farmers will receive a single farm payment. They will be free to farm in an environment without quotas. A farmer will be able to farm to his heart's content, but he will have to depend on the marketplace for a return.

A number of members asked about the future of the dairy industry. I have met with virtually all sectors of the industry including An Bord Bainne which constitutes a very large part of it. An Bord Bainne has plants in a number of EU member states as well as in the United States of America and should be part of the future streamlining and modernisation of the Irish dairy industry. The board has a long record of success, has done extremely well with the Kerrygold label and will be involved in finding solutions to our problems. There is no doubt that can happen without closing down plants and dairies.

Dairygold has already held a number of very tough meetings and the outcome of one will be known to committee members. While the vote of no confidence will lead to new structures at board level, I would like to see the introduction of new processing structures. There are a number of plants making butter, powder and casein and there is no reason co-operatives should not share processing facilities. They should do it to a far greater extent than they do at present. Co-operatives in Deputy Crawford's constituency are talking to each other about sharing facilities. If a co-operative finds a market for casein or a particular powder for incorporation into another food product, there is no reason some other plant should not make it. Committee members will know that tankers from different co-operatives criss-cross the country to collect milk. It is well established that it is uneconomical to collect milk after 50 miles. There is no reason co-operatives should not be able to co-operate in this regard to take 2 cent or 3 cent from the cost of each gallon rather than criss-cross one another's regions.

Deputy Upton raised the issues of research and development. There is a great opportunity to increase the protein and nutritional level of milk. Though there is no quota on such a process, we continue to try to increase butter fat. Proteinlevels can be increased through feeding and breeding which are areas we should be concentrating on to a greater extent to improve the return to farmers. There are also opportunities in niche product areas and organic farming. We have made a fair amount of effort in the area of organic farming, but we have found it difficult to make progress over the years. Not the least of the reasons for this is the number of organic farming bodies. To get them to agree is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, we continue to work in this area as we have virtual organic production in many areas. A little more effort would put us in a unique position. For example, there is an increased REPS payment for those who move to organic production of up to €10,000 as an incentive and an encouragement. We continue to encourage production which is why I love to see the organic sections of food outlets. I love to stroll through the country markets in our towns to see lovely, fresh produce on sale. With a little more effort we can improve matters in this area.

Developing countries were referred to several times, particularly by Deputy Upton. Our breaking of the link with production should be helpful to developing countries. Up to now, to get a special beef premium, payment or ewe premium, one had to produce animals which had the effect of encouraging surplus production. I was asked to meet Commissioner Fischler to increase export subsidies to get rid of this surplus which was sometimes dumped in developing countries. The EU has now decided to give preferential treatment to developing countries and will accept without quotas or tariffs all production from the least developed states. As an economic bloc, the EU is the largest importer of food from developing countries, importing €60 billion worth of food annually. This is more than the USA and the Cairns group combined and constitutes a fine record. Decoupling, or breaking the link with production, will be of great help in reducing surpluses and avoiding the dumping of products on developing and least developed countries. In the "anything but arms" arrangements to date, we are being extremely helpful and we would like the USA and the Cairns group to follow suit.

Deputy Ferris favours full decoupling and I detect that to be the general feeling. Farming bodies, consumers and workers will be consulted which should allay the Deputy's concerns. The 300,000 cap has been removed, though we would like to have seen it retained. We do not have anyone operating according to that scale. Surprisingly, the strongest lobbying to remove the cap came from Britain which has a substantial number of landowners with large holdings. Senator Callanan asked about the widening of consultations and ensuring widespread dissemination of the information. We will hold countrywide information meetings to provide people with details on all of this.

We will be as helpful as possible to people who have problems with retirement and entitlements under various conditions. Given the Mulder case in respect of milk quotas which went all the way to the European Court, we wish to avoid litigation. We have already achieved flexibility in terms of a reserve for hardship cases which initially stood at 1% but can now be extended to 3%. This means that up to 3% of the ceilings of the various premium payments can be put aside to provide a reserve to address difficult cases. Committee members will realise that those who have a certain level of payments will not like to lose 3% and will therefore wish to keep the level as close to 1% as possible. However, we must attempt to be fair and helpful which is why we have the flexibility to establish a national reserve for difficult cases.

Deputies Callanan and Breen referred to full decoupling and the modulation which will come back to the Department. Deputy Breen asked about the position of a farmer forced to cease production due to ill health. If a farmer stops farming due to ill health or some other factor outside his or her control, his or her entitlements will be available again if production is restarted at a later date. One needs land to draw down entitlements, but if a farmer enters a retirement scheme a condition will be that he or she ceases to farm. A family member may take over the farm, but the retired farmer must be just that.

What happens where a farmer is too young and he has no option but to let the land?

In such a case there will not be any difficulty in getting entitlements if a farmer's health improves or a younger member of the family takes over. They will have no difficulty whatsoever.

In that case, can the farmer lease his entitlements as well as the land?

The entitlements will be attached to the land and he will be able to lease them. A problem will arise when he retires and gets the retirement pension.

Senator Coonan asked what could be done for streamlining and modernising the dairy industry. I referred to sharing facilities which is being done to some extent, as in the example I gave of west Cork where there are four co-ops which do not process any milk; it is all processed centrally in Ballineen by Carbery Milk Products Limited, which does an excellent job.

A question was also raised about a task force and I will look at that. Perhaps I am becoming cynical because when task forces are mooted I wonder what will come out of them.

Perhaps we should have a summit, like a beef or a dairy summit. Paddy Rose, a rose by any name——

Now and again some gems emerge from debates and discussions like that. Following my meetings with individual co-ops, I do not want to let things hang in mid-air. I will either set up a task force or a summit as suggested by Deputy Timmins, or perhaps a forum. I will think up a nice name for it anyway. We are serious about driving it forward.

It is not surprising that the beef industry would complain about decoupling. That sector will also have to streamline and be competitive internationally. For as long as I can remember, even before I got into the Dáil, there was a problem every autumn because of our seasonality of production. This year, things are looking a bit brighter; at least Bahrain has opened up its market. It is a relatively small market of 16,000 tonnes but somebody has to give the lead in the Middle East and Arab countries and it might be the catalyst to get Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Egypt back into business again. I am hopeful, at the very least, that Bahrain has shown a bit of confidence by taking our beef again.

The issue of animal transport has not been raised much here but it is critically important for the future of the beef industry. The west of Ireland, in particular, does a big trade in calves and younger cattle which go on boats and ferries to Italy, Spain and France. That trade is currently increasing and we want to keep it going and ensure good prices for younger store and weanling cattle. The Commission wants to reduce the density of cattle on boats by 30% or almost one third, which will make it less economic. We will debate that in the Council of Ministers. I do not expect that there will any decision on the matter until next year. Ireland will hold the Presidency from 1 January next year and I hope we will be able to use that to good effect to ensure a sensible arrangement regarding animal transport as it is so important to us.

Deputy Carty raised the issue of pedigree and quality. I completely agree with him. I do not see any reason we cannot do a better job in that regard. I occasionally go to restaurants in different parts of the world and I see how Angus beef from Scotland is being promoted, as to how good it is and that it is even better when washed down with some kind of libation. We could also be doing that.

Deputy Crawford asked about an information campaign. There will be one. An initial information campaign will begin next week. We will not have all the details but people are crying out for information. My colleagues, Andy McGarrigle and Tony Burke, and other departmental experts will have meetings in Mayo, Donegal and Kildare next week. Meetings will soon be held around the country and they will be well advertised. When we have the text in September a full series of meetings will take place.

Senator White made a tremendous contribution.

I was telling the truth.

I have an endless capacity for adulation. Another lap of honour in regard to foot and mouth is no bother to me. Anyway, the general public are the ones who should be thanked in relation to that campaign.

They responded to the Minister.

They were absolutely outstanding. I thank Senator White. I am aware of her concern, which is well founded, in regard to consumers and giving them what they want. We will seek to do that.

I look forward to meeting you, Chairman, and the members in September. I thank everyone for their contributions.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and his officials for coming in this afternoon. A great deal of negotiation has still to take place and there is much tidying up, as the Minister said, to be done in different areas. I hope he will come back to us in September with new information.

I remind members that we have requested Commissioner Byrne to attend a meeting. Unfortunately, he has been too busy to attend over the past couple of months. He has given a commitment to attend on Monday, 8 September, at 2.30 p.m. That is the only day on which he will be available. Is that agreed? Agreed.

At our next meeting we will discuss the scrutiny of EU documents and reports. It has not been possible to arrange a meeting with the chairman and chief executive of Teagasc. Arrangements are in train for the next meeting to take place on Wednesday, 10 September.

The joint committee adjourned at 5 p.m. until 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 23 July 2003.
Top
Share