Thursday, 9 Feb 2012

Other Questions

Farm Inspections

Questions (6)

Dara Calleary

Question:

6Deputy Dara Calleary asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he will outline in tabular form providing county breakdown of all the cross compliance and GAEC penalties, as well as the land eligibility penalties applied on farmers for 2009, 2010 and 2011, with a detailed breakdown between each of the different cross compliance Statutory Management Requirements and each of the GAEC issues as well as the land eligibility issues the number of farmers penalised in each county under each heading; and the amount of penalties applied or moneys deducted under each heading. [7232/12]

Oral answers (5 contributions)

Deputy Simon Coveney

My Department, in the context of delivering the direct payments schemes, is required to carry out annual inspections covering land eligibility and cross-compliance to ensure compliance with EU regulatory requirements. The value of these schemes to Irish farmers is €1.8 billion annually. It therefore is incumbent on my Department to ensure the regulatory control environment is implemented comprehensively to avoid EU disallowances.

Eligibility checks must be carried out on 5% of applicants. These checks are carried out to verify the actual area claimed in the application form corresponds to the area farmed by the farmer and to ensure that any ineligible land or features are deducted. Up to two thirds of these inspections are carried out without a farm visit, as the information is verified using the technique of remote sensing via satellite. The rate of inspections for cross-compliance is 1% of applicants, to whom the statutory management requirements, SMRs, and good agricultural condition, GAEC, apply. However 3% of farmers must be inspected under the bovine identification and registration requirements, while 3% of sheep or goat farmers must be inspected covering 5% of the flock. The penalty for non-compliance with the SMRs and GAEC is normally 3% but this can be reduced to 1% or increased to 5% depending on the extent, severity and permanence of the non-compliance. Where the non-compliance is deemed intentional, the reduction is normally 20% but this may be reduced to 15% or increased to 100%, depending on the extent, severity and permanence of the non-compliance found. The regulations allow for a tolerance to be applied where the non-compliance is regarded as minor in nature and where remedial action is taken.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Again I must interrupt the Minister.

Deputy Simon Coveney

As for the specific question, in the time available it has not been possible to compile a full range of data as requested by the Deputy. However this is being compiled and when it is available, as it is for 2009 and 2010 at present, the details will be forwarded to the Deputy.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House.

It is a regulatory requirement that land eligibility inspections must be finalised before any payments can issue in a given year. On the other hand, cross-compliance inspections take place throughout the calendar year and can be carried out after the payment has been made. In so far as possible, my Department tries to integrate some of the eligibility and cross-compliance inspections with a view to minimising the number of farm visits. However, since all eligibility inspections must be carried out before payment, these inspections are prioritised. Approximately 11,900 farmers were inspected under the 2011 schemes including those inspected using remote sensing.

In the time available it has not been possible to compile the full range of data requested by the Deputy. The information sought will be forwarded to the Deputy as soon as it is compiled.

Under EU regulations, as well as the requirement to carry out annual cross-compliance inspections and apply penalties for non-compliance, member states also are required to take on board the results of inspections carried out by other bodies as part of the legislation underpinning the individual SMRs. This is known as cross-reporting. Any non-compliances detected also are subject to cross-compliance penalties. Under these arrangements, for example, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government would be expected to cross-report any non-compliance detected by local authorities in the course of their inspections under the good agricultural practice, GAP, regulations.

In 2010, in an effort to minimise duplication of farm inspections between the two Departments, my Department agreed to carry out approximately 1,600 nitrates inspections under the GAP regulations on behalf of the then Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. This arrangement was retained in 2011 and also will apply in 2012. In total, cross-compliance and GAEC inspections resulted in the higher monetary value of penalties applied in 2010 of €1.88 million, compared with €800,000 in 2009. This represents a penalty rate of 0.1% to protect direct payments of €1.8 billion annually.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I thank the Minister for his reply. As the Minister is aware, the issue of cross-compliance, inspections and so forth resonates deeply with the agricultural community, which sometimes considers itself to be dealt with unfairly. Statements have been made to the effect that the selections are random. However, I have been approached by farmers, who undoubtedly also have been in contact with the Minister, who have been inspected under REPS, cross-compliance and the single farm payment year after year. Some farmers who have been involved in REPS for the past ten years have stated they have been subject to inspection almost every year. Is there a category within the Department that zones in on a particular group of farmers or an individual farmer for any reason? In addition, Members are regularly told by the farming community that cross-compliance checks are much stricter here than in other countries. It would be important at least to conduct an analysis of how such cross-compliance checks are carried out in other member states, as well as in Ireland. Perhaps such analysis could then be brought before the Oireachtas.

Deputy Simon Coveney

First, I need to know if people are being inspected repeatedly because according to my information, only a relatively small percentage of farmers are meant to be inspected each year. If people are of the view that they have been targeted for four years out of five, for example, that would be strange and I would like to know about it and find out why it is the case. Perhaps the Deputy might forward the relevant details to me.

On whether we are implementing the rules on cross-compliance in inspections in a more aggressive way than is the case in other European countries, the requirements in this regard are laid down by the Commission and enforced by it through an audit process. In the coming days officials from the Commission will be auditing the AEOS and REPS payments for last year in order to discover whether we have carried out the required inspections and completed the necessary paperwork. The Commission also does this in the case of other countries. It is often stated Ireland is much stricter than other member states when it comes to inspections and cross-compliance. Our inspections are driven by the requirements laid down by the Commission and the audits it carries out. If we do not meet the requirements to which I refer, we will be fined. We would lose out as a result because my Department would be obliged to pay such fines and would not be able to spend the amounts of money involved on farmers or the food industry. We carry out inspections in order to minimise the number of problems that might arise during the audit process. The financial cost relating to such problems can often be substantial. We will be obliged to pay in the region of €12 million to the Commission this year in respect of previous non-compliance issues, overpayments, etc., which were revealed in audits. It is not the case that the Government has decided to take a tough approach in dealing with farmers, rather we are playing by the rules because if we do not do so, everybody, including farmers, will be obliged to pay the cost when issues arise from the audits to which I refer.

Agri-Environmental Options Scheme

Questions (7)

Jonathan O'Brien

Question:

7Deputy Jonathan O’Brien asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he has finalised arrangements to the agri environmental options scheme 2012; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7072/12]

Oral answers (3 contributions)

Deputy Simon Coveney

This question relates to the agri-environmental options scheme, AEOS, for this year. Rather than providing the Deputy with a long dissertation on the REPS and the AEOS, I will outline the facts as I see them.

At budget time I stated I would like to introduce a new AEOS but that it would be targeted at a specific group of farmers. I have repeatedly stated those who are farming in special areas of conservation, SACs, or in areas in which restrictions apply as a result of environmental considerations such as those relating to ecosystems which must, from the perspective of EU law, be protected should receive some recognition. We cannot afford to provide an AEOS for everyone who exited the REPS in the latter half of last year or who is due to exit it this year. I want to put in place a much more targeted AEOS which will not be as expensive and which will target Natura scheme areas and SACs in order that financial recognition will be provided for farmers who are restricted in what they can do in obtaining a commercial return from their farms. This will require the putting in place of additional mechanisms to evaluate whether the type of farming engaged in is sustainable and in sympathy with the environment. We will try to keep the scheme as simple as possible in order that it will be easy for farmers to implement and for us to monitor. As soon as I have details of the scheme, I will pass them on to Deputies.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I look forward to receiving the information to which the Miniser refers. Regardless of the industry in which they are involved, farmers need to know what will be the level of their income in order that they can plan for the year ahead. The longer we leave those involved in the farming community without this knowledge, the more difficult it will be for them to prepare for the scheme. Is the Minister in a position to indicate when the proposals relating to the scheme will be ready?

Deputy Simon Coveney

My officials have been working on them this week and draft proposals may be ready as early as next week. However, that is not to state they will be agreed at that point. Let us be clear about the process which must be gone through. I will be obliged to obtain approval from the Department of Finance to introduce a new AEOS. That will not be straightforward because it is difficult to get that Department to agree to any proposals for new schemes that will cost the Exchequer money. In order to get the proposal through, I will be obliged to identify savings elsewhere. It must be remembered that, potentially, the ceiling on my Department's expenditure for next year may lowered again. I suspect we will be considering opening a limited AEOS prior to the summer, with a view to the first payments being made early next year. The scheme will have to be contemplated within the framework of next year's rather than this year's budget.

The discussion on this matter is only in the preliminary stages. This is because I have not yet approved a proposed scheme and obtained approval from the Departments of Finance and Public Expenditure and Reform to proceed with such a scheme. When I obtain that approval, I will be happy to bring details of the scheme to the attention of the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture or give them directly to the party spokespersons on agriculture.

Common Agricultural Policy

Questions (8)

Michael McGrath

Question:

8Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine his views that progress was made on the key issue for Irish farmers in the common agriculture policy post 2013 discussions with Commissioner Ciolos during his recent visit; if so, in what areas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7252/12]

Oral answers (5 contributions)

Deputy Simon Coveney

When I saw this question had been tabled in the name of Deputy Michael McGrath, I thought he had become interested in agriculture. No such luck, however,

Deputy Michael Moynihan

The flood lands of the Minister's territory in Cork South-Central might be invaded if that were the case.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Exactly. I am glad the question was tabled because we had a very useful visit from Commissioner Ciolos a number of weeks ago. Deputies Michael Moynihan and Michael Colreavy made a number of extremely relevant points to the Commissioner during the Joint Committee on Communications, Natural Resources and Agriculture's meeting with him. I had an opportunity to spend approximately three hours with the Commissioner during which time we discussed various matters, both on and off the record. I took the opportunity to outline to him Ireland's main concerns about this matter, the first of which is the need to ensure the budget proposed by the Commission for the CAP should remain intact as we move towards making a decision on the multi-annual financial framework, that is, the EU budget. There are still countries which would like the CAP budget to be cut significantly. We must ensure, at a senior Government level, that this does not happen.

Ireland also has concerns on the reference year issue. Many farmers are also concerned about this matter which is having an impact on the land rental market, in particular. It will continue to have such an impact between now and 2014 if clarity is not forthcoming. The Commissioner now understands this issue, but he continues to maintain many other countries do not appear to have a difficulty with it. He wants to be as concise as possible in determining a reference year. We are going to work together to try to arrive at a solution which will give certainty to the rental market before the end of the year.

I outlined to the Commissioner our concerns about greening. There should not be a separate greening payment. We should build on the cross-compliance structures already in place rather than introducing an entirely new layer of bureaucracy, form-filling and inspections in respect of a separate top-up payment. However, the Commissioner is wedded to the idea of introducing a separate greening payment and that was the mechanism he used to obtain agreement from the Commission in maintaining the budget for the CAP. He obtained that agreement by stating direct payments would effectively be cut by 30% and that a 30% top-up payment directly related to the greening of the CAP would be provided.

The distribution of single farm or direct payments within Ireland is the key issue for us. We discussed this matter in the context of an earlier question. We need to achieve a result in this matter because the last thing we want is for the Irish Presidency to be obliged to focus on significant problems this country might have with the CAP proposals rather than on trying to achieve consensus among member states. We will work intensively with the Commission to try to arrive at a compromise solution which will assist us in achieving our goals.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

The negotiations that will take place between now and this time next year in finalising the CAP deal will determine a great deal in the context of the future of agriculture in this country. For Ireland, a wide variety of issues must be resolved, not to mention those which must be dealt with in the context of the CAP. The Minister understands quite well the reference date has already caused distortion in the rental market. I am encouraged by the comments he made on having something in place by the end of the year on the rental markets, but farmers have jumped ahead and I hope they are not making management decisions that will be detrimental to them. I encourage the Minister to be forthright and upfront with the main stakeholders on whatever proposal the Department will put in place. From what I understand and hear at the farm gate, the use of 2014 as the reference year is having a serious impact.

With regard to greening, the less bureaucracy we have the better because for far too long complaints have been made about the amount of bureaucracy which has built up around the single farm payment and European moneys. We must make a concerted effort to minimise bureaucracy in so far as possible. Emerging markets are coming into play and there is an opportunity for farmers to farm rather than complying with regulation after regulation.

I do not think the use of 2011 as a reference year is making any difference and I encourage the Minister to ensure a proposal is brought forward with regard to 2014. We should ensure the minimum amount of bureaucracy is in place after these CAP negotiations.

Deputy Simon Coveney

We are at one on this issue but it is important to state the big issue for us is the redistribution of direct payments. We also require clarity on rural development funds. We still do not know how this funding will be distributed between the member states. Let us be clear that 2014 issue needs to be resolved but it is not the big issue. The big issue for us is to ensure the €1.3 billion of direct payments that come to Ireland will be distributed among our 130,000 farmers to the maximum effect possible in terms of building, expanding and growing our industry and supporting farm families. This is the key issue and the Commissioner understands this. Of the three hours I spent with him, I spent two hours speaking about this issue.

The other issues are very important and we will try to address them. I do not want to pretend any of these issues will be easily resolved because they will not. Any solution we find must be acceptable to a majority of the 26 other member states which will also be impacted by the changes we may propose in terms of flexibility.

Having said all of this, it is possible to steer our way through what will be a difficult negotiation process. As long as we use the opportunities that exist, especially as Ireland approaches its Presidency during which the deal is likely to be finalised, Irish interests can be protected.

Disadvantaged Areas Scheme

Questions (9)

Dessie Ellis

Question:

9Deputy Dessie Ellis asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the way he proposes to deal with applications for single farm payments from farmers in particularly disadvantaged areas whose stocking density was on, or slightly above minimum density pertaining to the current scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7069/12]

Oral answers (3 contributions)

Deputy Simon Coveney

This question is slightly confusing in terms of how it is worded, but I believe I know what it is getting at and I would like to bring clarity to the changes we have made to disadvantaged areas payments. It is important to say I had repeatedly stated to farmers in disadvantaged areas in the build-up to the budget that we would need to make savings from the schemes because we could not make enough savings through efficiencies in the Department. Even though the costs of running the Department and its agencies has been reduced by €18 million from last year to this year, we still had to make savings in schemes such as REPS and the disadvantaged areas scheme.

With regard to the disadvantaged areas scheme, I wanted to protect people who are farming with reasonable numbers of stock on the land. I did not want to take any money from them and in my view we have managed to achieve this. We have not touched the rate or the area of 34 hectares for which the rate can be applied. The majority of farmers in disadvantaged areas will continue to farm as they did and will continue to receive the same support they did in the past.

We changed the eligibility criteria for the disadvantaged areas scheme. This means people's stocking rate needs to be reasonable and we consulted farm organisations on this. I did not pick the figures out of thin air. We stated that instead of having to have one sheep per hectare, one must have two sheep per hectare. Anyone who knows farming will know this is still an incredibly low stocking rate. Instead of having to keep stock for three months of the year, one must keep it for six months of the year. We cannot have people buying stock for a very short period of time and putting animals on the hillside for three months just to draw down a payment.

One area of confusion arose which this question is getting at. We stated that farmers with their main holding outside of a disadvantaged area who either purchase or lease land in a disadvantaged area and draw down a payment on it will receive only a percentage of their entitlement corresponding to the percentage of the overall landholding in a disadvantaged area. However, if farmers whose main holding is in a disadvantaged area rent land outside of a disadvantaged area, they do not lose any of their payments. Farming organisations were very concerned about this issue. I do not want to discourage farmers in disadvantaged areas from trying to improve their holdings by renting or buying land in non-disadvantaged areas. These farmers' payments will not be negatively affected and it is important to clarify this.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I understand the intent behind the minimum stocking density and the extension of the retention period. This gets to the core of what is a genuine farmer. It will cost some genuine farmers to get to the minimum stocking density outlined by the Minister. Will the Minister consider having a phased introduction of the minimum stocking levels? He mentioned an appeal system will be put in place in order that no genuine farmer would be ineligible for the scheme. Those of us familiar with appeal systems in the Department of Social Protection do not like the phrase "appeal system" because there is a nine or ten month delay in hearing appeals there.

Deputy Simon Coveney

To be clear, any farmers who must have a low stocking rate because they farm in a commonage area and therefore must abide by a commonage framework programme which requires them to have a low stocking rate are exempt from any cuts and their payments will be maintained.

This is about what happened last year, as last year is the reference year for stocking rates. If one was below the threshold last year, one's payment will be removed unless one appeals and gets it back. This is not about telling farmers that if they do not increase their stocking rate, they will not receive a payment, because farmers would simply increase their stocking rates. This is about making a calculation of the farmers who actively farmed last year and measuring it on the basis of stocking density and the length of time they kept those animals and whether they were horses, cattle or sheep. Landowners taking on horses for three months of the year to draw down a payment will lose their payment. We can no longer afford this luxury.

If there was a genuine reason in 2011 that people had a low stocking rate, such as a death in the family, a son or daughter taking over the farm and stocking rates being reduced to wean him or her in, or an illness or disease outbreak in the herd, we want to hear about it and such genuine cases will get their payments back. This is what I mean by an appeal system. Some of people who simply maintain land to get a disadvantaged areas payment and do the bare minimum with regard to keeping stock for the minimum amount of time will lose their payments and this is the right approach when we have a reduced amount of money to spend. We must prioritise active and real farmers.

Milk Quota

Questions (10)

Billy Kelleher

Question:

10Deputy Billy Kelleher asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the discussions he has held under the Danish EU Council Presidency in relation to milk quotas; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7245/12]

Oral answers (3 contributions)

Deputy Simon Coveney

I suspect this question has come from Deputy Moynihan because he rightly asks it, or some version of it, during every Question Time on agriculture. It concerns the milk soft landing.

I have had informal meetings with the new Danish Presidency. There is a new Danish Minister following elections some months before Denmark took the Presidency. Ireland and Denmark are very much at one on this issue but the discussions on milk, as they are developing in the Council, are a little worrying. Some countries are now suggesting we should not do away with milk quotas in 2015, that the period should be extended and so on at the same time as other countries like Ireland and Denmark are saying we are not putting in place a soft landing that is working and that we should give more flexibility in regard to quota management pre-2015.

This is an opportunity for me to say to dairy farmers that they should stay within quota this year. By the end of December of last year we were 0.08% under our quota and if the same pattern of the first three months of last year were repeated in the first three months of this year we will be significantly over quota by the end of the quota year, which will mean that Ireland will get a super levy fine. We must avoid that. Farmers behaved responsibly in the autumn in terms of early drying off, one milking per day, culling cows in herds and so on. We must continue to be sensible in the way we manage our milk output between now and the end of the quota year to ensure we avoid super levy fines because there will not be a political solution to this issue in the next two or three months.

Deputy Michael Moynihan

I am deeply concerned about this issue. I have raised it at all stages in the past six or seven months. The Europe wide milk quota is ultimately what we will require. I would be concerned if there are to be discussions on not abolishing the quotas in 2015 because many farmers have invested heavily in that and are gearing up towards it. It is important that in whatever framework there is the possibility of a butterfat adjustment. What is the position on that? How many countries support it?

The Danes are like us in terms of milk production but we must build a coalition of partners in Europe. My position for the past eight or nine months is that a Europe wide milk quota must be put in place because we continuously talk on the economic side about export led growth. The Minister is well aware that if the production of milk that ceased at dairy farm level in the past three or four months had continued in full production there would have been markets for that product. We must instill that notion across Europe because they are talking about the austerity packages and gaining exports and so on but we have a product. That does not make sense.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I would love to have a Europe wide milk quota. It would mean we could increase Europe's output of milk by 4% or 5% because that was the amount it was under quota last year but we must get real. We cannot even get agreement on a butterfat adjustment never mind a radical rethink in terms of the way we manage quota across the European Union. I agree with the Deputy on that but it is important not to mislead farmers in terms of what is and is not possible. France and Germany are fundamentally opposed to any change in milk quota management because they hold the view that if the reins are released at all there will be an immediate increase in supply which will impact on prices. They are paranoid about that, as are some of their farmers' unions.

It is important to state also that even though some countries are raising concerns about milk quotas ending in 2015 the big countries, including France and Germany, and the vast majority of other countries, have bought into that happening and, like Ireland, are preparing for it. That will happen in 2015 but I would make the point that even though Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Cyprus and two or three other countries want more flexibility around butterfat adjustments and an increase of more than 1% in quota allocation for countries pre-2015 - that 1% increase each year is the only flexibility we have currently - there are countries that are fundamentally opposed to that.

We have put together informally a coalition of the willing but it is not yet big enough to force change. The Council will not change this because it has an agreed milk health check, which Ireland signed up to in 2009. That is not working but if this is to change we will need a qualified majority in Council to push through that change. We could not do any more to try to achieve that but we will not get there by the end of this quota year unless there is some dramatic change that I am not expecting in the coming months.

Pigmeat Sector

Questions (11, 12)

Kevin Humphreys

Question:

11Deputy Kevin Humphreys asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine the value of the Irish pork industry in 2011; the percentage of that product that was free range or organic; his views regarding the marketing of pig meat as free range or organic that has not been raised in such a manner; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7062/12]

Pearse Doherty

Question:

16Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Agriculture; Food and the Marine if he plans to enforce proper regulation on free-range Irish pig farming; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7074/12]

Oral answers (14 contributions)

Deputy Simon Coveney

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 16 together.

Ireland is more than 150% self-sufficient in pigmeat with the result that export values reached almost €400 million last year, an increase of 18% compared to 2010. The industry supports more than 7,000 jobs in farming, milling, processing and ancillary services. It is the third largest component of Irish agriculture after dairy and beef. The sector reaches into rural communities the length and breadth of the country, especially in Cavan and Cork.

The UK remains the largest single export market while the value of exports to international markets grew significantly during 2011. Pigmeat remains the most consumed meat worldwide and the substantial trade surplus in pigmeat in Ireland and the EU leaves us well placed to avail of developing opportunities in international markets, with China being particularly attractive in this respect.

For the information of the House, I met a representative of a very large pig and pork company from China recently and he told me that China slaughters 650 million pigs a year. That will give Members an idea of the scale of the markets we are trying to get into.

The importance of the domestic market to Irish pig producers must also be acknowledged. More than half our output is consumed domestically, which is unusual for agricultural products, and consumption increased by 7% during 2011.

Food Harvest 2020 targets a 50% growth in the value of output over the next nine years and factors such as improvements in sow productivity and growing the size of the national herd will help to meet this target. While organic production has become more popular in recent years, it remains very much a niche market for the production of pigmeat. The vast majority of Irish pigmeat is produced through traditional methods with approximately 380 commercial herds supplying the bulk of the output. There are approximately 70 organic pig producers and these are relatively small scale operators.

Organic production and labelling of organic products is controlled by European and national regulations. The EU legislation allows member states to use private inspection bodies to carry out the inspection and licensing system of organic operators. There are currently five approved organic control bodies - Organic Trust Ltd, the Irish Organic Farmers' and Growers' Association, IOFGA, the Institute of Marketology, IMO, Global Trust Certification Ltd, GTC, and the Biodynamic Agricultural Association of the UK, BDAA.

The labelling of free range pigmeat is not covered by any legislation unlike organic produce. There are a very small number of pig producers currently styling themselves as free range. As we are running out of time I would like to take some questions.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I thank the Minister. I am neither from Cavan nor Cork but there is a real interest in free range farming. A number of farming communities have gone into that niche with little or no regulation, and there are no rules laid down on labelling. It is a huge industry. Free range farming of pigs is an important element, and it could be a growing element in a niche market. Agriculture is important whether one is an urban or rural dweller but it is sometimes stated in this House that only a rural viewpoint is given on it. Given its importance to the economy, urban Deputies have a keen interest in that developing market.

We need to lay down regulations to safeguard the livelihoods of farmers who have become involved in free range production. It would help them to expand and grow that niche market. We have a world reputation for grass-fed cattle and beef. The high quality of our cheeses are recognised worldwide. If an opportunity is provided for this farming sector to grow, the value of products generated will be increased and the sector will generate many needed jobs in rural areas.

Deputy Simon Coveney

That is a fair point. With the development of the artisan food sector in Ireland, we are finding new ways of adding value to product that can target different types of premium markets. In the past we were very much a commodity food producer. We produced milk to produce cheese or milk powder but now we produce milk to produce both products and, on top of that, we produce sports nutrition drinks ingredients and infant formula, products at the high end of the value added sector, and we are doing the same with beef. We are the only country in the world that can measure the carbon footprint of our beef herds. Some 5,000 farms a week are currently being measured and their carbon footprint being taken by Bord Bia. We have 26,000 beef farms in Ireland and they now have the capacity to label their beef with a carbon footprint label. We are learning how to add value to what is a very special product coming out of Ireland and to measure that and provide the science and data that can convince consumers that they should spend more on it. This is a sector that perhaps we should be considering as well. We have no definition in legislation for free range pork products or pigs, unlike in the poultry sector in terms of eggs. I will talk to the Department about this area. It is an one that Bord Bia is examining in terms of its quality assurance scheme as it applies to pig production. It is examining ways in which it can incorporate not only organic pork but free range pork products as part of that label. I can send the Deputy more on it when I get it from Bord Bia.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I will call Deputy Humphreys again but I call Deputy Colreavy as another question is being taken with Question No. 11.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I understand Question No. 16 is being taken with Question No. 11.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes.

Deputy Simon Coveney

Yes.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

I thank the Minister for that clarification. He is probably too young to remember a television series called "Glenroe". There was a chap in it, Dinny Byrne, played by the late great Joe Lynch, Lord rest him.

Deputy Simon Coveney

I am not that young.

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

The Minister should take the compliment when he gets it.

Deputy Michael Colreavy

Dinny had a nice little scam going on. He used to buy eggs in a shop and then put dirt on them and sell them as free range eggs. It is a long time since Dinny Byrne and his like were selling the alleged free range eggs. It is unfair to free range pig producers and organic producers that sausages and other pork products are being sold as free range when, as the Minister said, there is no legal definition for such free range produce. It is unfair to the consumer and to the genuine producers. I am glad the Minister will examine this area.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Deputy is not asking a question and that he is happy enough to make that point. Does Deputy Humphreys have another question?

Deputy Kevin Humphreys

I thank the Minister for his answer but I do not believe that the quality assurance scheme will work out that well. We need to lay down standards to let that market grow. In the case of pork products pitched at the high end of the market, there is an opportunity to create jobs in rural communities and grow the economy. I take on board what the Minister has said but I would deeply appreciate if he would push this matter a little further. If people want to get into that top end market, they need clear standards and to be able to label their produce similar to the way producers can label their produce as free range. That would help those small number of producers who are mainly based in the Cork area. It would assist in allowing them to grow their income and to grow that end of the industry. I thank the Minister again for his response.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I take it the Deputy has no further question and he is happy with the response he got. That concludes Question Time.

Written Answers follow Adjournment.

The Dáil adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 14 February 2012.