Skip to main content
Normal View

SELECT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD debate -
Tuesday, 11 Dec 2007

Vote 31 — Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Supplementary).

I remind members and witnesses to ensure their mobile phones are switched off for the duration of the meeting. Apologies have been received from Deputy P.J. Sheehan who cannot attend the meeting today. The select committee will today consider a Supplementary Estimate referred to it by Dáil Eireann. As this is the first meeting of the new select committee I remind members that this is a Supplementary Estimate rather than the totality of the Estimates and our task is purely to consider the Supplementary Estimate and report back to the Dáil.

On behalf of the committee I welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, who will speak on the Supplementary Estimate. I also welcome the officials from her Department to the meeting. I call on the Minister to make her opening statement.

Go raibh maith agat agus comhghairdeas ar bheith tofa mar Chathaoirleach ar an choiste seo. Go n-éirí ant-ádh leat agus le bhaill an choiste fosta.

I am delighted to be before the committee and I wish members well in their deliberations. I am pleased to introduce this technical Supplementary Estimate.

I am seeking approval for an additional allocation of €1.2 million to be included in the annual grant-in-aid for Bord Bia. The additional funding will be met from savings in subhead F of my Vote, which funds the rural environment protection scheme. This is a demand-led scheme and the savings have arisen as a result of lower than anticipated demand, in part attributable to the late approval of the rural development programme. The Supplementary Estimate will bring the grant-in-aid for Bord Bia for this year to €27.705 million.

The additional funding sought will be used to augment Bord Bia's promotion budget. It will fund targeted campaigns to address particular difficulties that exist in the beef and pigmeat sectors at present. The additional funding for beef of €650,000 will be used to extend the current European beef campaign, while the funding for pigmeat of €550,000 will be used to raise further awareness of quality assured bacon and ham products on the home market.

I would like to discuss the beef issue initially. The members of the committee will be aware of the importance of the beef sector to Ireland. We produce over 500,000 tonnes of beef annually, over 90% of which is exported. The majority of these exports are destined for the high-value EU marketplace. Our largest single export destination remains the UK, which takes almost 50% of all trade. There has been a significant destination shift in Irish beef exports over recent years from international to EU markets, with trade to continental Europe reaching record levels in 2006. This shift has come about as a result of effective marketing and promotion by the industry and Bord Bia, together with the delivery of high quality, competitively-priced product.

While slaughtering has declined slightly this year, production is expected to remain stable due to an increase in average carcase weights. Although prices have stabilised in recent months they are 3% down year-on-year. Beef exports to both the UK and continental Europe are relatively unchanged from last year's record levels, while third country trade has fallen, albeit from a low base. Live exports are not expected to reach the levels of recent years, due mainly to higher feed and milk replacer costs in our largest continental markets.

The recent significant rise in feed prices has, however, placed a burden on beef finishers. Typical feed prices to farmers have increased by over 50% since the start of this year. The rise in feed prices can be attributed to a number of factors, including heavy demand for cereals in Asia, the increased demand for feed materials from the bio-fuel industry and unfavourable weather conditions, which affected many of the major cereal growing countries. Little can be done about the price of feed in the short term, although the EU Council of Agriculture Ministers has, in response to the pressures on the international cereal and feed markets, agreed to suspend the obligation to set 10% of arable land aside. This will ensure that more arable land is available for cereal cultivation in 2008.

Over the past five years the industry has made very significant strides in securing access to the best customers in Europe. The number of retail accounts purchasing Irish beef has risen from 27 to 62. These are the customers who pay the highest prices. Increasing the level of promotion will encourage increased sales and higher overall prices to Ireland. Against this background, Bord Bia will use €650,000 of the additional funding to extend its promotion of quality assurance scheme beef in European markets. Specifically, Bord Bia will intensify its European beef promotion campaign, which reaches 38 supermarket groups in 13 countries and involves the provision of point of sale promotional materials at 10,000 outlets. The current promotion will run for longer than intended and Bord Bia intends to get Irish beef into new retail outlets through its promotional efforts. The aim is to increase demand for prime Irish beef among the best paying customers, resulting in improved returns from the marketplace. This will help underpin the price paid to Irish producers over the coming months.

We also have a number of other related and complementary measures in place involving non-price strategies, which are fundamental to meeting evolving market challenges. To this end, and in line with the Agri Vision 2015 Action Plan, a number of policy initiatives have been developed and enhanced. These include the capital investment aid scheme for the beef and sheepmeat processing sectors, ongoing Bord Bia Irish beef promotion strategies, the animal welfare recording and breeding scheme for suckler herds, the Bord Bia quality assurance schemes and breed improvement programmes currently being developed by ICBF.

The animal welfare, recording and breeding scheme for suckler herds was formally approved by the EU Commission on 23 October last. An annual payment will be made to suckler cow farmers who undertake to comply with certain specific welfare measures from 1 January 2008. Detailed arrangements for the administration of the scheme are currently being finalised and I will launch it shortly.

We are continuing our efforts to open new markets for Irish beef. Determined efforts by the Department, together with Bord Bia and the Department of Foreign Affairs, led to the recent re-opening of the Saudi Arabian and South African markets for Irish beef. This is a significant achievement and will impact on similar markets elsewhere. Russia, Egypt and Algeria are also open and there has been a partial opening of the United Arab Emirates market. Discussions are well advanced with a number of countries including Indonesia, the Philippines and Japan. A market access group has also been established to facilitate, through all means possible, trade in Irish meat to non-EU markets.

I now wish to turn to Bord Bia's pigmeat campaign, for which €550,000 of the €1.2 million Supplementary Estimate is sought. By far the main difficulty facing the pig sector is the very high cost of feed. This has significantly eroded the profitability of Irish pig enterprises. In addition to high input costs, the price producers are getting for their pigs is quite low, at around 7% less than 2006 levels. This is a global phenomenon and is not confined to Ireland. As part of the strategy to deal with this phenomenon, and as a result of lobbying by like-minded member states, including Ireland, the EU Commission has re-introduced export refunds for pigmeat, and has introduced a scheme of aids to private storage for pigmeat.

On the domestic front, while there is no immediate prospect of significantly increased producer prices, there is evidence of consumer preference for quality assured product. Some cuts of bacon, such as loins for rasher production, can achieve premiums of 10-15% in the home market, due to consumer preference for quality assurance scheme produce. Consequently, further increasing demand for these products will pull increased volumes into these channels, and return that additional premium to the supply chain.

The Bord Bia quality assurance schemes are also a good tool in maintaining consumer confidence and, in this context the pigmeat scheme is well established and managed. Bord Bia is intensifying its promotion campaign on the Irish market through an intensive campaign, in both the both print and television media, emphasising the elements of the quality assured product and encouraging consumers to look for quality assured bacon when shopping.

The focus of the pigmeat promotion is on increasing consumer understanding of the Bord Bia quality mark on bacon and cooked ham and encouraging purchase of quality assured products in-store. The campaign includes television, radio and press advertising, outdoor posters on bus shelters, bus sides and sites in shopping centres, distribution of 50,000 information-recipe leaflets and in-store promotions and tastings.

The pressures now facing the beef and pig sectors are symptomatic of a fundamental shift in the dynamics of agriculture globally. Rapid economic development in India and China, drought in Australia and elsewhere, increasing oil prices, the growing political impact of climate change and the shift from feed and food to bio- fuel production have led to dramatic increases in the price of cereals and dairy products world wide. This has also led to increases in the price of inputs which, in the case of beef and pigmeat, have not to date been matched by returns in the marketplace.

Against this background, and taking into account the prospect of increasing competition in the beef sector, particularly from non-EU operators, the work of Bord Bia in promoting Irish produce, in increasing the focus on quality and exploiting the strong animal health status of Ireland in the marketplace, is more important than ever. I am happy to propose this Supplementary Estimate to assist it in its efforts in this regard. I will be more than happy to answer any questions members of the committee might have.

I thank the Minister for her presentation.

I thank the Minister and her officials. This is a relatively minor Supplementary Estimate but it is nonetheless welcome given the difficulties being encountered at present by the beef and pigmeat sectors. The issues involved are perhaps more significant than can be addressed in the context of a Supplementary Estimate or any promotional campaign by Bord Bia.

I have some specific questions on the lower than anticipated demand in respect of REPS. The Minister stated this was in part attributable to its late approval. Has the Department done any evaluation of the low take-up and, if so, what are the other reasons? Will there be implications for REPS 4? Is this the entire saving available under the lower than anticipated take-up or is it more significant than that? The Minister may not be in a position to tell us the overall budget expenditure for 2007 relative to the moneys approved, but the trend over several years in the Department has been an average underspend of €100 million per annum. Did the trend continue into 2007 and are we discussing an aspect of that in terms of reallocating funds to Bord Bia? REPS 4 is an attractive package but the Department may need to be more aggressive about selling it. I am aware that a roadshow of Department officials has travelled the country to promote the scheme.

On the general issue of beef and bacon promotion, I welcome the funding for Bord Bia but ask the Minister to comment on the prevalence of brand names as opposed to Bord Bia assurances. Reference has been made in these Houses to the issue of consumers who purchase bacon in the belief that it is Irish. To call a spade a spade, not all the contents of Galtee's products, for example, are necessarily Irish bacon. How does the Minister propose to address that issue and can anything be done by the Department on labelling?

The Minister will be aware that the IFA gave a very effective presentation last week on Brazilian beef. Notwithstanding all Bord Bia's efforts, there would be no greater fillip for the Irish beef industry than a decision by the Commission before Christmas to ban Brazilian beef. This committee spoke with one voice on the issue and we would like the Minister to assist us by ensuring equivalence. That would do more for the Irish beef sector and primary producers than anything Bord Bia does, welcome though its activities are.

I welcome the additional allocation for Bord Bia. On a technical level, does the Minister have complete discretion on allocating funding in this manner? Could the funding have been allocated elsewhere if she so decided?

Is there a danger that the funding allocated could be used to market pigmeat that is not of Irish origin?

To elaborate on Deputy Creed's contribution, it is all well and good to have quality-assured bacon, but if the labelling regime is not backed up adequately by legislation to ensure it is known what meat is of Irish origin, there is a danger that non-Irish produce will be marketed. Is there scope to define clearly what is of Irish origin?

There is no doubt about the merit of the work done by Bord Bia when one considers the amount of food Ireland exports annually. However, the pigmeat industry would probably like greater supports or increased funding from the Department to ensure the labelling regime is strengthened legislatively to guarantee that brands cannot be passed off as Irish if they do not contain Irish produce. If this were achieved, consumers would be fully aware of what they were buying.

The beef industry is growing but must cope with the cost of feed and the increase in grain prices worldwide. Is it within the Minister's remit to reduce the cost of feedstuffs in addition to implementing measures to ensure the competitiveness of the Irish beef industry? The cost is having an impact on the market.

I would be happy to approve the allocation of €1.2 million. Any moneys put towards the promotion of our meat produce, be it beef or pigmeat, is welcome and will benefit the farm organisations and suppliers.

Why are more people not joining REPS 4, which represents the way forward environmentally? Will the €1.2 million have any effect on next year's budget for the roll-out of REPS 4?

I am a beef producer and farmer and, considering the cost of feed, I note the price of beef is very low at present. I have been told that at the re-commencement of the killing season in spring, the price received will be €1.25 per pound – I still do not refer to kilograms. For a beef producer or fattener to have a profitable margin, the price of beef would need to be €1.35 at a minimum. How can we achieve this, bearing in mind the pressures of the market? Can we do anything to help pig producers in particular to cope with the scarcity of feed?

What is the Department's position on genetically modified organisms? They have been allowed into the country. What will the future policy be in this regard?

There appears to be a decrease in the amount of beef exported on the hoof. Is there no demand for it? Calf exports to Italy in particular seem to have stopped this year. Why is there not a demand for calves and beef on the hoof?

I welcome the Minister to the meeting. I am a partner in a beef farm, a REPS participant and my son-in-law's brother worked for a number of years for Bord Bia in London and as such I am familiar with most of the issues dealt with in this Supplementary Estimate.

It is entirely sensible that a Minister should towards the end of a year reallocate funds not used. There are nearly always other pressing causes which require a top-up. I believe Bord Bia does excellent work. Its message in respect of the quality assurance scheme is beginning to get through thanks also to the efforts of some of the farm organisations. Deputy Sherlock spoke about growth in the beef industry. I would have thought the danger is that it may contract because of the very narrow margins. The average beef farmer is a little like Mr. Micawber hoping something will turn up. We have been hoping for many years.

In 1988, the good old days, under the export credit insurance scheme one could get £1,200 for an animal that weighed more than 600 kgs whereas today one would get only €800 or a little more for such an animal. Admittedly, in those days we did not have single farm payments, REPS or the suckler cow subsidy which I welcome. Much of the time we are running to stand still. I applaud the efforts made by the Minister and her predecessors to keep farm incomes high by way of various measures. I hope the rising tide which is benefiting the dairying and grain sectors will lift all boats, in particular the beef and pigmeat sectors. I believe that unless something changes there will be a serious decline in production.

Given that the whole climate is changing, as the Minister explained, does she believe that prices will rise in areas that have not so far experienced increases? I accept it is difficult for the Minister to turn herself into a prophet of the market but I would be interested to hear her comments in this regard.

I welcome the allocation of funding which will increase the market exposure of Irish food. It is a pity that REPS is under-funded. However, that is a matter for another day.

Are we working with one hand behind our back in view of the fact that issues such as country of origin labelling and substantial transformation remain to be addressed? We are trying to market Irish produce and, as Deputy Sherlock stated, in doing so we run the risk of marketing a product that is not Irish. The quality assurance aspect of Bord Bia's campaign is crucial.

I draw the analogy with the Kerrygold butter label. We export 90% of all beef produced here, almost half a million tonnes. Would it be possible to market beef abroad under a similar label to that used by Bord Bia for Kerrygold butter? Kerrygold butter is recognised worldwide as being of Irish origin. This may be an over-simplification of the issue but it should be explored. Bord Bia's Féile Bia mark should be displayed on all exported Irish products. We hear about single farm payment modulation going towards rural development. Surely there has to be a role for the marketing of local food products in this context, which is rural development in another guise.

I ask the Minister to clarify an unrelated point. There seems to be a misunderstanding in some sections of the media as to whether the extra €35 million allocated in the budget has gone to the farm waste management scheme or the farm improvement scheme. There are differing articles on the subject. There is a welfare aspect to the issue as the suckler cow scheme has definitely addressed some of the problems with the suckler cow industry and the farm improvement scheme has a role to play in sheepmeat, although that is not relevant to today's discussion. In a market where we export 90% of what we produce, we must ensure what we market is Irish and nothing else.

I welcome the Minister and her officials and thank her for her presentation. There is no doubt from the information in the presentation that Bord Bia is doing a very good job in increasing its customer base in Europe, with the number of accounts of good customers rising from 27 to 62 in recent years. It intends to intensify its beef promotion campaign. Reaching 38 supermarket groups in 13 countries takes a lot of money and effort. The opening of new markets such as Saudi Arabia and South Africa and the new market in the United Arab Emirates does great credit to the Minister.

There is no doubt that the margins for beef producers in Ireland are getting tighter all the time. I remember buying heifers in 1980 for £1.25 per pound and that was partly because we had competition in the marketplace. I know the Minister is trying to do something about it but we should try to support local markets because there are many customers who do not always buy what is slaughtered in factories. The heifer beef market has virtually closed because of tight controls and regulation. In County Sligo, where once we had 18 abattoirs, we now have one. That is because of regulation after regulation, leaving people unable to meet their costs. We should try to support that industry because it will open up the market and factories will have to pay more, particularly for lamb, where there is no competition at present. If a farmer does not sell a lamb at a mart a factory person will buy it because there is no other place to slaughter the animal. The same applies to light heifers. There is no competition in the marketplace and if we did something to help the people in that market it would create competition.

I will group together a couple of the themes raised by members. I am making an assumption members will support the Supplementary Estimate, on the basis that it is the right thing to do. It needs to be signed off by the Department of Finance and the Oireachtas. I cannot decide unilaterally what to do with savings that arise within my Department. My view, however, is that the expenditure on marketing is an absolute priority.

I will give a resumé of the savings in the 2007 budget and why they arose. My estimated saving this year will amount to €128 million in agriculture and €18 million in fishing. This arises from the fact that market support and operational costs of €9.7 million were not needed, though they are always available as contingencies. In addition, REPS accounted for €51 million of the figure, early retirement €18 million, installation aid €2 million, marketing and processing €29 million and food safety, animal health and welfare and suckler cow schemes €33 million. There are various reasons for these. They were included in the 2007 budget in anticipation of an earlier sign-off of the rural development programme by the European Commission. This, unfortunately, did not happen. Money that is not spent will have no impact on REPS 4 next year, but €309 million was paid in respect of REPS in 2007 and I have a budget of €370 million for 2008. Members are aware that the anniversary dates did not arise this year either, and there was a consequential disincentive to participate. I expect that in respect of REPS 4 next year farmers will be more than enthusiastic about participating on the basis of the changes being introduced.

Other schemes were also delayed as they were not signed off by the European Commission. The saving of €15 million related to decommissioning in regard to fish, which did not happen. Other factors include, for example, completion of some of the capital investment programmes, research where there would be a carry-over, and market and economic factors. In other words, there are market mechanisms that are not necessarily used. I also have a fairly substantial contingency fund in respect of animal disease which it was not necessary to use this year. Those are the reasons for the savings. I assure members that this will have no impact in regard to REPS next year. My anticipated expenditure on REPS next year is €370 million. We have a contingency fund of €250 million in respect of the suckler cow scheme which I will be launching soon with a starting date of 1 January 2008 for eligibility.

I raised the issue of branding and the assumption by the consumer that if a product is branded it is consequently Irish. Only the quality assurance schemes are being promoted within this budget, not the brands. This is all about participation in the quality assurance scheme. I agree with that and that is how it must be.

The issue of substantial transformation is an issue I have pursued vigorously at Council, as did Deputy Brendan Smith when he was a Minister of State at the Department. I expressed grave concerns about it and was ploughing a lone furrow until avian influenza broke out within the European Union. Once that happened a number of member states realised the necessity of again examining the issue of substantial transformation. The Commission has put together a document on labelling for consideration which it is hoped will be available before the end of this year. I have vigorously pursued that issue of EU labelling in the context of our own products, as have the farming organisations. The FSAI and the Department have been working on the issue of Irish labelling of other meat products and our views are currently with the Commission.

The branding of Irish beef in a similar way to what the Irish Dairy Board has done in regard to Kerrygold has been suggested because Kerrygold is seen as Irish. That happened because the Irish Dairy Board was on the marketing side and there were inputs from all the creameries. I do not know whether we will ever be in a position where all the meat producers would come together to allow that to happen.

We give the beef industry a lot of taxpayers' money in support of a monopoly.

Most of the members are farmers. I am not sure whether there could be an outcome from that. Bord Bia does a considerable amount of work on the branding of Irish beef. The branding of Irish beef, particularly within the European Union, has been superb. We have seen a return for investment on the money that has been spent by Bord Bia.

I answered questions on the issue of modulation and rural development in the Dáil. Members will be aware this is under consideration in the context of the Common Agricultural Policy health check. In my view, there should be no compulsory modulation. We gave a political assurance to farmers under the 2003 reform package that there would be policy stability to allow them to adjust to the new measures and markets. However, many members states are not of this view. I do not take issue with their opting to take a section 69 on this but we do not want to use this option. The single farm payment has been accrued by countries such as Ireland which decided to decouple and we need time to adjust. Any transfer from module 1 to another sector would, in my view, be problematic. In doing so, we would be only taking money from those currently under the most pressure, namely, beef farmers and moving it into other programmes that do not need it.

We have had many discussions on the use of generic promotions within the European Union and have worked this out with a number of member states under European Commission rules. In other words, organisations like Bord Bia and others throughout Europe can engage in their own promotions even though per se it is within the European Union. This can be done with financial input from farmers thus allowing us to circumvent the situation.

The issue of small abattoirs was also raised. It is my intention to shortly introduce a new marketing and processing grants scheme. Members will be aware that the issue of local abattoirs comes within the remit of the programme for Government. I agree there are difficulties in respect of competition. However, the number of people who took up the cudgel in respect of a scheme introduced a number of years ago to deal with this issue was disappointing. There is greater movement now within the local food sector and there is considerable investment available under this scheme.

The issue of farm waste management was raised. The additional €35 million is being made available for farm waste management only. I will face enormous exposure if I have to pay all farmers this money by the end of next year. I will need to have the requisite resources to do this.

There is confusion in the press about this matter.

The Deputy will have time to ask a supplementary question later.

There is confusion also about the supplementaries.

I am not seeking to confuse anybody; I like people to know what is happening. The bottom line is that additional funding was made available specifically for the farm waste management scheme. This is where the pressures will arise and farmers must sort themselves out by the end of next year.

Deputy Bobby Aylward asked about feedstuffs. He is correct that particular issues have arisen in this regard. For this reason, setaside has been removed. This will hopefully allow farmers to cultivate their own cereals and thus support themselves. Another issue raised is that of USDA and EFSA working more closely so as to ensure that when produce is planted in the ground in the United States or South America the requisite requirements will be put in place by the European Union as quickly as possible. This is going ahead. The only issue that arises in this context is that the bureaucracy attached to the European Union is such that it can take a long time to move matters through the system from EFSA to the Council and Commission. However, Commissioner Kyprianou is trying to expedite matters in this regard. This does not mean matters will not be resolved quickly. Members will be aware there are products in the ground at this moment which have not been agreed by EFSA, particularly soya, which is the main prerequisite of the feed requirement for the pig sector.

It takes a long time to deal with these matters. The USDA can deal with them much more quickly than the European Food Safety Authority because it is a conglomerate. However, we are putting pressure on to ensure the matter moves on very quickly.

At this moment live exports from the EU are almost non-existent because we do not have export refunds, although the Egyptian market has been opened recently. Previously a considerable number of animals left the country for such markets and export refunds were the only financial way that could happen, but they are now gone.

The main issue surrounding calves and the movement of young animals to the European Union is the fact that the Italians and the Dutch, among others, find milk and milk supplements for veal production so expensive that they have reduced the number of animals they are purchasing. This leads to the problem whereby our dairy farmers are very happy because the price of dairy products has gone up but the Italians are not as happy because their input costs, like ours for cereals, have gone up.

I received the Chairman's correspondence on equivalence and will respond in due course. I will take this opportunity, however, to say I have been vociferous on this issue for a considerable period. I have met and been engaged in correspondence with the Commission and Commissioner Kyprianou since October 2005. I personally followed up on the issue in June 2006 and in June and July 2007 and I met the Commissioner at the last Council meeting. I propose to meet him again on Monday to discuss the FAO report.

Is that next Monday?

Yes, I demanded that the FAO report be brought before SCOFCAH and that happened on 4 December. We pressed the issue very strongly, as did the UK, Italy and Denmark, for information on what action would be taken by the Commission on the basis of the FAO report. As members know, I have always said it is very important that the Commission addresses the shortcomings and the Commissioner, Mr. Kyprianou, said he would not hesitate to take appropriate action.

Following on from my meetings in July and September this year I have an appointment to meet him in Brussels at the beginning of next week. I have heard what the committee has had to say on the matter and have taken on board issues the IFA, ICMSA and ICSA have raised with me. Unpublished research carried out by the Irish Farmers’ Journal has been made available to me and that has been forwarded to the Commission and the Commissioner. I will continue to raise the issues of equivalence and standards until the Commissioner assures me the shortcomings in question have been addressed. I will advise the Commissioner of the discussions which took place among members of this committee last week and the views to emerge from their meeting.

On that issue, what support has the Minister received from her counterparts across Europe?

Until last Tuesday, none.

Yes, though the Danes, the UK and the Italians did press for action on the basis of the SCOFCAH discussions which took place at my request.

What is SCOFCAH?

The Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health. As members know, the FAO report was made available and I asked that it be put on the agenda for discussion by the Commission. The countries I mentioned supported our concerns and pressed the issue.

I thank the Minister for her response. On the latter issue, the Minister's response is as close as she has gone during this debate to coming out in support of a ban. I welcome that. It is a move from her original position of considering this to be a trade issue. I still consider it to be a public health and consumer issue. I hope this is a signal of favourable consideration of the issue at European level.

The Minister referred to savings in her Department of €128 million in agriculture and €18 million in fisheries. Could she give a breakdown of those figures? I believe there was a saving of €51 million in REPS.

Will the Minister accept some supplementary questions?

Yes, of course.

I thank the Minister for a fairly comprehensive response. With regard to the Food and Veterinary Office report, one Dane, one Briton, one Italian and one Irish do not make a ban. Is this a realistic proposition? Will the ban take place? No matter how much lobbying one does, a Minister negotiating at the Council of Ministers will always have a view, whether on or off the record, as to whether or not the ban will be enforced. The Minister's reply seems to indicate that there is no appetite for a ban. Irish beef farmers want to hear if the ban will be imposed. Since the enlargement of the European Union, our influence on issues such as this has waned, as have traditional alliances. I would like to hear the Minister give a more definitive answer. Does she think a ban will be put in place?

I thank the Minister for her response. With regard to the common agricultural policy health check, is it not true that we accepted a 5% reduction in 2003 as part of the common agricultural policy and decoupling? I believe we were given a guarantee at that time that there would be no further reduction for the following six years, although there was talk of a mid-term review. I was in Brussels recently with a delegation from Ireland. It is my understanding that a 2% reduction over four years is proposed in the CAP health check. This would bring the figure to 8% plus the original 5%, making a total of 13%. This figure is not index linked and farmers will lose money on the decoupling proposals between 2003 and 2014.

Will the FVO report be available to the general public in Ireland, to farmers' organisations and to members of this committee?

The farm waste management scheme was closed on 20 October because of the large number of applications received in October. The original closing date was 31 October. As a surplus of €128 million is available, could the Minister re-examine applications made in the ten days between 20 and 31 October?

Deputy Aylward must have read my mind. I had intended asking the Minister about the €128 million surplus in the farm improvement scheme.

The Minister said there was no modulation. I received my cheque last week and considered ringing the Department to ask for my 5% back. I do not know if this has any relevance for marketing and rural development. The money is deducted from farmers' cheques but I do not know what it is used for.

The Minister referred to the Government programme for the development of small local abattoirs. I understand that local authorities are involved in this scheme. Could some of the grant aid for the development of slaughter houses be ring-fenced for small local abattoirs that process fewer than 1,000 units per year? Regulations should be examined in this context. Many small abattoirs, although they may have export licences for the EU, provide 90% of their production to their local market. The overheads involved in having Department and other veterinary officers carry out inspections are great. Every effort is made to reduce the number of kill days and these small facilities do not have the critical mass of kill. This sector must be looked at. The problem is greater for pigmeat and sheepmeat than for beef because a higher percentage of those meats are marketed locally.

I refer to the €128 million underspend in the farm improvement scheme. Is it not possible to allow enough money to be processed and added to the €79 million to allow for the last ten days of the application period?

In the expert intelligence available to the Minister and her Department, is there any sign of beef, pigmeat and sheepmeat following the upward trend of milk and grain?

I welcome the re-allocation to Bord Bia, but it is a mere 1% of an underspend of €140 million. The Minister must be the favourite of the Minister for Finance as she is handing back funding at a time when a legitimate case is being made for the farm improvement scheme. Could some of that money not be re-allocated to deal with applications made in the last ten days of October? People who wish to carry out farmyard improvements and are operating a combination of farm waste management and farm improvement schemes have been left in a very difficult situation. Those people will feel very aggrieved to hear that the Department is handing back €146 million while we are discussing a Supplementary Estimate to deal with 1% of that. A relatively small amount of money would have solved the problem. This would not open the scheme to run for the full seven years of the farm investment scheme but would simply deal with the problem of the ten days. The Minister had the funds at her disposal but has decided not to resolve the problem but to return the money to the central Exchequer. That must be described as a poor performance by the Minister. A single issue could have been resolved by a specific financial remedy if the political will had been there. The Minister has the political will to re-allocate 1% of the money but not to deal with a specific issue. It may be that the cost of dealing with the applications of those ten days cannot be quantified, but I am sure it could have been met from a percentage of the €146 million underspend.

Like Deputy Doyle, I support the idea of funding for local abattoirs. The case for them is undisputed in terms of rural development and quality assurance. I fail to understand why we provide significant grant aid to a limited number of players in the Irish beef processing industry. Many farmers feel they are being taken advantage of by these companies, which operate a cartel, fix prices, deliberately suppress the prices paid to farmers and make handsome annual profits. They obtain the lion's share of the available grant aid for investment in their slaughtering plants while the potential for local competition by allowing local abattoirs a reasonable slice of the cake is frozen out of the market. These are significant international players. They are global players in terms of beef production and they are very profitable. Some companies that process beef here are players in the Brazilian beef market. They produce beef and export it into the European Union. They buy cattle here on a weekly basis and slaughter them. Why do we feel we must grant aid those companies to invest in their slaughtering plants and at the same time, by virtue of regulation and red tape, freeze out and close down many legitimate small abattoirs? I fail to understand why we feel we should grant aid those players.

I remind members that I have been lenient, given that this is a new committee. Usually supplementary questions only are permitted. However, I allowed members to ramble today and I apologise to the Minister. The Minister referred to the animal welfare breeding scheme which was formally approved by the European Commission on 23 October. I compliment the Minister on that. It is a very important scheme. It is important that we keep good breeds and good quality and that suckler farmers have an incentive.

The Minister also said that detailed arrangements for the administration of the scheme are currently being finalised and it will be launched shortly. I presume there will be an application form. When will that be available? I hope that in the context of new application forms the issue of red tape will be carefully examined. There was too much red tape in the past. I hope that will not be the case in regard to the new application form.

I will clarify a number of issues that are standard practice in the financial management of any Department. My main savings are estimated to date and will be finalised on the last day. There was a saving of €33 million on food safety, animal health and welfare, mainly on the basis of the suckler cow scheme. There was a saving of €9.7 million on market support and operational costs on the basis that these market mechanisms were not needed. The saving on REPS was €51 million. I have alluded to the fact that this was the result of a late sign-off by the European Commission and transferred dates. The saving in regard to early retirement was €18 million. That was a consequence of a change in farming circumstances this year when a number of farmers who had decided to get out of farming, mainly dairy, decided to remain in the sector. There was a saving in respect of installation aid of €2 million. In marketing and processing there was a saving of €29 million owing to late sign-off by the European Commission. In respect of decommissioning of the whitefish fleet there was a saving of €18 million, and €15 million where the Commission has signed off in the last few days. The majority of the savings are on the basis of state-aid rules which take a considerable time in the context of discussions with the European Union.

I advise members that on the issue of the farm improvement scheme we currently have only commitments, not matured liabilities. We cannot take this money and pay for something that is not a matured liability. That will arise next year. Next year the greatest amount of money will be made available for capital expenditure on my side in respect of farm waste management and the farm improvement scheme. I discussed the issue of farm improvement in the House previously and indicated that over a very short period, approximately five to seven days, the Department received an inordinate number of applications. A finite amount of money was available so I made the decision to close the scheme. I will not rise to political banter on this occasion. I will say only that in managing the amount of money available to me for that programme, I had to close the scheme. However, as was the case during my review of the expenditure for next year, I was advised by many Members on both sides of the House that their main concern, which I share, was for those people who applied up to the last day of October and who feel entitled to be supported, provided they are eligible for the scheme. I am evaluating all the applications and will be able to appreciate what the liabilities are when I have completed that task. Only then will I be able to review the schemes or assess any savings. They may or may not become available to me within the budgetary framework that has been set down.

On the question of whether prices in other sectors would go up, I was in London last Thursday and met the main people in the food and beverage sector in the UK and Ireland. There appears to be a mood of buoyancy in the food sector. This is due to an increased world population, massive competition in the production of cereals for food versus bio-fuels, massive drought in places like Australia, huge fires and, finally, the fact that emerging populations will have the capacity to purchase high quality food. That does not mean everything will be simple or that there will be a love-in with supermarkets but there will have to be natural increases in the price of produce, a view shared by the Commissioner as she announced in her latest press conference, which followed the Council meeting. I am not a marketeer and cannot look into a crystal ball but that is my view.

My responsibility as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food within the meat sector solely concerns those involved in the export sector. Other sectors are the responsibility of the local authorities, in which many members are involved. Abattoirs are the responsibility of the local authority, exports are my responsibility. Under the national development plan, in consultation with farmers and other groups, it was decided that a number of special schemes would be put in place on the basis that the new state aid rules come in next year and primary processing cannot be grant-aided. I took the opportunity to invest €100 million in the milk processing sector, to ensure that sector was competitive, and €50 million in the beef and lamb sector with the same aim. Many members are familiar with many of the factories involved and will know there is a need for investment. Equally, we all share the view that local abattoirs should receive support. As a result, in the marketing and processing scheme under the NDP they will be specifically targeted.

Health regulation is the responsibility of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which is under the auspices of the Department of Health and Children. I have expressed a view, supported by the craft butchers association and a number of small local abattoirs, that the imposition of some regulations is making life very difficult. It is particularly difficult in the context of a comparison with the regulations in Northern Ireland. The people affected are meeting with my colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children, Deputy Pat The Cope Gallagher, and we will try to work through the process and ascertain whether something can be done to reduce the burden of the regulations on some smaller businesses. That does not mean that the necessary regulations, as set by Commissioner Kyprianou, or those imposed by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, will not be adhered to. However, the people involved have a case and hopefully some flexibility can be shown.

Members are correct that the 5% modulation has been agreed as part of the CAP health check. The modulation was part of the overall partnership discussions and was divided among all the sectors. As a result we found some of the resources to roll out some of the schemes to which I referred. My view is that there should be no further modulation, and certainly none on a compulsory basis, as that would be at variance with the political agreement made during the 2003 negotiations. It would be nonsense to do so because money would thereby be taken from the people who need it. These people in Ireland are the big farmers. It is different in France where the money can be transferred to the beef sector because big cereal farmers there do not need it. I do not have that option available to me. The UK also wants to transfer resources from the big cereal farmers to other sectors. That is not our position and it is why I have serious reservations on the matter. We will have an opportunity next year to examine the Commission's proposals in the context of the health check on the Common Agricultural Policy and I look forward to Deputies' input into that process.

The March FVO document, which was discussed at SCOFCAH last Tuesday, is available. The new report is not yet available and it will be some time before it gets through the system. On the basis of the March document and the previous reports, I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the shortcomings. I raised the issue on numerous occasions since 2005, so there has been no late conversion.

The road to Damascus.

The road to Damascus is well-paved but we are not yet on the way. I have always expressed the view that the shortcomings need to be addressed. The Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, Mr. Kyprianou, has assured me on several occasions that he will not hesitate to take appropriate action if the measures fail to meet the required standards. In the same vein, the Taoiseach and I have always said that non-trade concerns should be taken into consideration in the context of WTO negotiations. We ploughed a lonely furrow in that regard until new governments in a number of member states brought a recent change of attitude. I will meet the Commissioner on Monday to discuss this and other issues of importance to the agricultural sector and I will make available to members the outcome of our deliberations.

On behalf of the committee, I thank the Minister and her officials for attending today's meeting

Top
Share