Vol. 462 No. 4
10 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry if, in addition to the other problems regarding export refunds and losses from winter fattening of steers, his attention has been drawn to the fact that animals which have had to be legally retagged have been denied eligibility for slaughter premium, the total losses arising from denial of slaughter premium in such cases; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [4694/96]
The EU Regulations governing the deseasonalisation slaughter premium scheme state that only those male cattle that qualified for, and were paid, special beef premium can be paid slaughter premium.
In cases where retagging of male cattle took place subsequent to payment of special beef premium, deseasonalisation slaughter premium applicants were requested to forward lists showing the old tag numbers and the corresponding new tag numbers for those animals. Where such lists were forwarded and found to be in order by my Department, payment of deseasonalisation slaughter premium on those animals was made on foot of the new tag numbers under which they had been slaughtered as my Department was able to correlate these with the old tag numbers under which they had attracted special beef premium.
In cases where applicants were unable to supply to my Department such lists in respect of certain animals, then under the relevant EU Regulation payment of deseasonalisation slaughter premium could not be made as my Department did not have evidence that special beef premium had in fact been paid on those animals.
Since the animals involved have not been proven to be eligible for deseasonalisation slaughter premium it would not be appropriate to define non-payment on those animals as losses under this scheme.
Will the Minister agree that it would have been very desirable if his Department had adopted the same assiduous approach to enforcing regulations in the case of beef factories owned by a certain resident of County Louth as it adopted in the case of individual farmers with a handful of cattle to whom the £50, £100 or £200 is a great deal of money? The country would be several hundred million pounds better off if his Department had been as assiduous in dealing with this matter as it is in dealing with these unfortunate farmers who make mistakes through no fault of their own.
It is a hypothetical question in relation to the past about which I cannot do anything. I am suspicious about the retagging of cattle in relation to disease control and cattle smuggled from Northern Ireland, and quite frankly, I am not sympathetic to it. Of course a bullock might scratch his ear on a loose nail in a shed and the tag will come out, but the farmer will still have the blue card. If he produces the old card and the new tag number, he can show his beef record and get the slaughter premium. Where he cannot produce any records and he does not know where the animal was when it was 22 months or ten months old, the Department is right to be strict. I am sure the Deputy, given his stance on all these issues, will be supportive of my stance.
, Carlow-Kilkenny): Deputy Crawford, we are at the end of question time. You may ask one quick question.
Is it not time that we put the whole Department of Agriculture system on computer so that these cards will no longer be messed about with?
It is not only the intention but the ultimate obligation of the Department to ensure that there will be a dual tag system, a birth certificate and virtually a passport for each animal, so that every movement will not only be traced but computerised. There is a tendering procedure and so on involved and it is a very large commitment of resources but ultimately it will be done.
