asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether, in the event of partial intervention producing a drop in cattle prices, he will make up the shortfall to intervention price; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Intervention Beef.
6.
The intervention price is payable only for beef duly accepted into intervention. As I stated in reply to a question by Deputy Leonard on 22nd April, I do not accept that a moderation in intervention intake should cause a reduction in producers' prices for cattle, if sufficient use is made of commercial outlets.
In the light of the most recent announcement from the European Commission with regard to the restrictions on beef to be taken into intervention, does the Minister not now realise that the only outlet the Irish cattle industry has at present is the old British outlet? While quite recently at the Dublin summit they were able to get special facilities from the summit meeting presided over by the Taoiseach for the extension of the time during which New Zealand lamb can be imported by a further three years to the tune of 250,000 tons per year, the only thing the Irish Government can get is a total wipe-out of any outlet they might have——
This is a very long question.
——on the European Market and they are now thrown back on to the mercy of the British market alone.
This is the second time that Deputy Gibbons has repeated this untruth in the House.
Tell me where it is wrong.
I denied it on the last occasion and I deny it now.
If it is untrue tell me where it is untrue.
Order.
It is emphatically untrue because at the summit the question of lamb or sheep meat was not mentioned once.
The fact of the matter is that New Zealand can send 250,000 tons of lamb into the United Kingdom until 1981.
This is absolutely untrue.
It is absolutely true.
It is an absolute fabrication by Deputy Gibbons.
It is being used every day in the Referendum campaign in the UK.
It is an absolute fabrication.
Check the record. You do not know your stuff.
7.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, prior to his announcement concerning the restriction of the quantities of beef being sent into intervention, he received representations in the matter from the EEC Commission or from any other agency.
No formal representations were received but my Department were aware from contacts with the Commission that the large proportion of Irish beef slaughterings continuing to be put into intervention at this time of year was a matter of some concern to the Commission. I and my Department were also becoming very concerned at the apparent lack of adequate efforts to develop commercial beef sales as against offerings to intervention, as well as the possibility that over-use of the intervention system would be bound to create not only physical storage problems but pressures for altering the system to our disadvantage in times of seasonally high supplies and weak market conditions.
Does the Minister not consider that his intemperate attack on the meat trade on their alleged failure to get out and sell, as he said, may well have hastened the decision of Commissioner Lardinois and the European Commission to introduce the draconian measures against Irish beef going into intervention of which we became aware yesterday?
This is more of the Deputy's imagination. We were only too well aware already of the pressures coming on the intervention system because of the cost of the Community's budget. It was in order to save this situation that I was putting some pressure on the processors to go out and sell beef in the market and not lose this expertise.
How is it that when the butter mountain was formed nothing happened like what is happening now to the beef men?
Or the wine lake?
That is a separate matter.
It is directed solely against Ireland and it will have a detrimental effect on cattle prices in the autumn.
That is another statement which is not true—that it is directed against Ireland only. These measures have been taken against other member states as well, not just against Ireland. Other member states are putting in 5 per cent whereas we are putting in 50 per cent and we would be putting in 65 per cent but for the fact that I restricted the intake.
This is not good enough. The Minister who is our representative in the Council of Ministers is attempting to justify the attitude of the Commission.
A question, please.
Does the Minister not realise that 85 per cent of our total output has to be exported, whereas France and other meat producing countries are operating largely in an internal market?
The Deputy knows the efforts I have made and the extreme to which I have gone to resist any tampering with intervention because I am totally opposed to any attempt to erode the value of prices negotiated in the spring of the year. The Deputy knows that only too well. There is nothing I can do. The Commission have these powers through the management committee and they have used their powers. All I can do is to try to get that changed if it is possible.
The Minister has another power and he will have to use it, the power of the veto.
The power of the veto could not be used.
Of course it could.
The Commission did what they were perfectly entitled to do, unfortunately.
8.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the amount paid by the manufacturers of cat and dog meat for intervention beef.
My Department made no such sales.
9.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of tons of intervention beef that had to be destroyed on reaching its final destination as indicated in the Brussels report (details supplied); the number of instances of meat of inferior quality that are being investigated; the number of tons of such meat that are held in intervention at present; if his attention has been drawn to a report (details supplied) that hunderds of tons of beef were not properly frozen and the action he proposes to take to safeguard this country's reputation as an exporter of high quality beef.
10.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will make a statement on the report to the effect that some Irish beef held in intervention was found to be in an unusable condition.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.
I have seen the Press reference of Monday 28th April to a Brussels report of the destruction of intervention beef. I have no information about the beef referred to as no Irish intervention beef was involved. The Press article of Sunday 27th April referred to Irish beef in two specific instances which were without foundation; and the English butcher mentioned has since written to the London Office of C.B.F. stating that he was misquoted. My Department also issued a denial to the Press. As I mentioned in my reply to a Question by the Deputy on 22nd April, there have been some instances in which beef offered to intervention was not up to the required standard. Investigation of complaints about beef stored in intervention or sold out of intervention has been taking place in eight instances. It is not practicable to indicate the tonnage but the individual complaints relate to small lots.
I am satisfied that this country's reputation as an exporter of high quality beef will not suffer by reason of these isolated complaints.
Is it a fact that the officers of the Department have to pass the meat while it is going through the factory and before it goes into intervention? Why is the Minister saying it has only just come to his notice now when those agents were investigating the position? Should the Minister not have seen this long ago?
The Deputy must accept that in view of the fact that we slaughtered more than one million cattle, a figure never reached before, which required the degree of inspection, and that we took in more than 500,000 cattle into intervention, it would be impossible to expect that everything would be 100 per cent at all times. Some small things might slip here and there but I still hold that Irish processors are as good as any in Europe. I believe we are processing beef longer than any other member States for the American trade and doing it extremely well.
Is it a fact that some of those reports, even though the Minister is denying them now——
I am not denying them; the people alleged to have made them denied them.
——were the cause of the restrictions from the EEC Commission which came into operation in the last few days? Did that give the Commission the idea to put restrictions on us?
The Deputy is giving the impression, which is wrong, that there has been a complaint only about Irish intervention beef. There have been complaints about beef from other countries. This is only giving some credence to what has been said so irresponsibly in the British press.
Is it not a fact that recordings are taken when meat goes into intervention and if the meat is in good condition when offered it leaves storage in that condition?
If the meat is frozen in time, dispatched correctly and if the correct temperatures are maintained while it is in storage the meat will be in order. What the Deputy said is correct, but we do not know that these things were 100 per cent in the isolated cases.
Would the Minister not agree that it is just another British slander on Irish products?
It certainly was a slander that was completely unwarranted.
The Minister should have refuted those allegations.
We publicly refuted those allegations, and so did the meat factories concerned.