M. J. Nolan
Ceist:19 Mr. Nolan asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the controls and checks, if any, carried out by his Department on animal feedstuffs imported; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23418/96]
Other Questions. - Imported Animal Feedstuffs.
The importation of animal feedstuffs containing bovine material of UK origin was banned following an EU decision last March. Imports from other countries are allowed provided they comply with the animal health conditions set out in the relevant EU directives. Cereal based animal feedstuffs are allowed entry to the State from the UK only on production of sufficient evidence that no bovine material of UK origin was used in its manufacture. Imported feedstuffs are sampled and analysed on a regular basis to ensure that the above named provisions are complied with.
What checks are carried out? Are they on-farm checks or are they carried out in feed compounding mills?
The question relates specifically to imports of feedstuffs and £2.8 million worth of such feed is imported. Importers' premises are visited on a regular basis as part of the Department's inspectorate's monitoring of premises which manufacture or handle animal feed. Samples are taken for analysis which is carried out at the State laboratory. Where breaches of the regulations occur measures are taken, including impounding and destruction of feed to ensure illegal material is not placed on the market.
The Minister's reply suggests that on-farm checks are not carried out where farmers import directly from outside the State. What action is taken in that case? Is there a register?
In regard to the changes I put in place with particular reference to meat and bonemeal, a licence is required to manufacture, import, distribute, feed or hold meat and bonemeal. That regulation was introduced in September. People feeding ruminants or producing meal for ruminants will not get a licence. If they have a dedicated poultry or white meat business they will get a licence but if, for example, they have a provender mill plant they will not be allowed to use the same feed line for pigs and poultry. As with the approach to the illegal substance, angel dust, I have put in place a task force inspectorate to deal with this aspect of meat and bonemeal. As regards other imported feeds, they are checked at the point of import.
Has the Minister reintroduced customs and excise regulations and is documentation necessary? I have seen vehicles carrying feedstuffs travelling across the Border without being checked.
With the Single Market most of the customs officials have been relocated and I can speak only for the Department's inspectorate. I suspect that imported feed may have been involved in some BSE cases. In regard to meals, I have asked that checks by the Garda and sampling by the Department be carried out, similar to the operation of security to prevent the smuggling of animals. It is illegal to export meat and bonemeal or animals from the UK-Northern Ireland jurisdiction. Special measures are applied in that regard.
In regard to feedstuffs, yesterday I had a meeting with IGFA, the Irish Grain and Feed Association and requests were made by many people that there should be a full display of feed ingredients in compound feed. I reached agreement with that association today that, in addition to the existing declaration, feed information will be available whereby all feed ingredients in compound feeds will be, from a certain date — I hope, shortly — displayed in alphabetical order so that people are in no doubt about the matter. In addition, on 1 January the law will require that every piece of meal will contain a label stating that it does or does not contain meat and bonemeal and if it does, it is banned for ruminant feed. In that way there can be no inadvertent feeding of meat and bonemeal.
The Minister stated that some of the problems of BSE may have been caused by imported feed, a matter that was brought to his notice in the House some time ago. On what date did he request that the new regulations be put in place?
The changed regulations on meat and bonemeal and licensing arrangements——
I am talking about general feeds.
The question has been put, let us hear the reply.
The arrangements operating along the Border vis-à-vis meat and bonemeal have applied since March-April, but the meat and bonemeal controls came into effect in mid-September.
I am talking about compounds, not meat and bonemeal.
There will be sampling of meal on an ongoing basis. My predecessors probably did an amount of work in that regard.
There is an onus on me to facilitate as many Deputies as possible. Too much time has been spent on this question.
Is the Minister saying meat and bonemeal is a component of feed, despite policing? Is he also saying meat and bonemeal is responsible for BSE?
The principal cause of the extra number of cases in Ireland is due to the feeding of meat and bonemeal. I have consistently said that is where people worldwide departed from nature. It is still legal in every member state except Britain to feed meat and bonemeal to non-ruminant animals, namely, pigs and poultry.
Is it a component of feed here?
It is for white meat.
What plans does the Minister have in regard to the declaration of ingredients on all compounded animal feedstuff? We cannot have proper traceability unless there is declaration of all ingredients, as is the case in North America. It is important that is done because meat can have different flavours depending on the ingredients used.
The Deputy is now making a speech.
I am anxious to hear the Minister's comments on that.
I do not know if the Deputy heard my earlier remarks but essentially the legal position is that an EU directive was introduced in 1992 which set out an either/or situation. Sixteen product categories were deemed unsatisfactory in terms of not giving detail or full ingredients. The industry here decided on the 16 categories by descending weight order, by volume. I have now agreed with those in the industry that, in addition to the legal requirements, they will voluntarily introduce a second label which will spell out all the ingredients in alphabetical order, and that will be reviewed in time. They were not prepared to do this by volume weight because that would give away the recipe element which they felt was a trade secret. I am not legally empowered to go beyond the EU law at this time but this is a significant step forward. I have also discussed with those in the industry the question of prescription antibiotics in pig feed, about which I know the Deputy is concerned. An agreement has now been reached with pig producers that a new finisher ration will be given for the last 28 days which in all circumstances will not be allowed contain antibiotics, with or without a prescription. Those two measures point to the need to integrate the feed chain with the food chain and I hope they will reassure consumers.
Brendan Smith
Ceist:20 Mr. B. Smith asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry the proposals, if any, he has to assist small milk quota holders who face serious super-levy bills; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [23363/96]
With four months of the present milk quota year still to run, it is not possible to accurately forecast the extent of either the liability which will be incurred at national level or the extent of the liability which will fall to be paid by smaller scale producers. I am concerned, however, at the level of excess milk deliveries to date this year. This was estimated at 3.5 per cent or 30 million gallons over quota up to the end of October which would, if deliveries from November onwards remained unchanged on last year, result in a levy bill of £33 million. The October figures, however, showed a slight decline. This appears to be continuing in November which is somewhat heartening.
Under the various schemes operated this year, smaller scale producers were given first priority access to any additional quota which became available. This is also the case under the third stage of the temporary leasing scheme currently in progress. Producers in this category with particular difficulties have been given special treatment. Under the flexi milk rules smaller scale producers will be specifically provided for also.
A further arrangement I put in place this year was the application of a 10 per cent clawback on sales and leases of land and quota. While the indications are this measure is having a positive impact on the amount of quota available under the third stage of temporary leasing, the full impact on volume and price will be more obvious in the coming year.
I stress, however, that the reality is and always has been that because of the unprecedented demand for quota this year, requirements cannot be fully satisfied. In this context I emphasise that it is the sole responsibility of each producer to manage his or her own quota at farm level. Producers should maintain ongoing contact with their co-operatives and TEAGASC advisers as to the action they can take to minimise their super-levy liability.
Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents who are small milk quota holders are in serious financial difficulties due to the non viability of their existing quota and the heavy financial demands on them due to oversupply? Will the Minister indicate if some additional quota will be allocated in the coming quota year to those hardship cases?
Every available quota has been allocated to those farmers producing less than 35,000 or 30,000 gallons. There is no more quota available. For the first time, half of the milk quota under the Milk Quota Appeal Tribunal has been given to such farmers. It does not add to those small farmers' viability to over-produce. People have written to me from all over the country and have attended my clinics complaining of super-levy bills of £8,000 and £9,000 when they have already exhausted their quota. Those people took a risk in overproducing milk, and there is no escape from that. The super-levy rules have not been changed; there has been no quota cut. I appreciate that prices for cull cows have been bad but that will not provide for any mitigation of a super-levy bill. I hope the 10 per cent clawback will stop the movement out of the temporary leasing scheme, and the disparity between the State and the private sector schemes will be brought back into balance somewhat next year.
Will the Minister indicate if progress has been made in regard to a well documented proposal put to his Department and the British authorities by the co-operatives North and South of the Border that additional quota should be made available to small milk quota holders on both sides of the Border due to the importance of dairying as an income generator in those areas? The proposal would be supported by both Governments under the European Union's peace and reconciliation programme. Will the Minister avail of every opportunity, particularly as President of the Agriculture Council of Ministers until the end of this year, to progress this proposal which has the unanimous support of all Oireachtas Members in the Border area as well as farming organisations and co-operatives North and South of the Border? The provision of additional milk quota would help rebuild the economy in that area which has been devastated in the past 25 years.
Agreement was reached on this proposal by my Department and the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. However, the British authorities deemed it a non-runner. The Commission was not sympathetic to it and the matter has not progressed. I endorse the sentiments expressed by the Deputy but I do not want to raise the expectation that this proposal will reach a satisfactory outcome. If such a proposal was approved in Whitehall and in the Commission, there would be considerable resistance from the Council of Ministers because many countries have requested extra quota and a deaf ear has been turned to them. I am willing to do anything I can but I consider it a distinct uphill battle at this stage.
Will the Minister use his influence as President of the Council of Ministers to ensure that unused milk from European countries is transferred as flexi milk. I understand last year a substantial amount of milk was not used up in Germany. Furthermore, will the Minister agree that the processor is mainly to blame for encouraging farmers to produce milk? The farmer pays the levy and the processor can continue to manufacture and sell the product. Will the Minister agree there is need for change in this regard? The processors of the commodity for the manufacture of milk should declare they cannot use up that milk. They are encouraging it because there is a profit margin in it for them and that is where the real problem is.
There was an expectation that there would be unused milk in some member states last year, especially in Germany. This did not materialise. A majority were over quota, some as high as three or four per cent and Germany was not under quota. No spare quota was available. The Commission is resolutely opposed to national transfer or flexi-milk but it did not arise at European level because there was none to spare.
The Deputy is correct on his second point in that processors charge a levy of £1.38 but get milk for virtually nothing and can dispose of it and avail of the EU export refunds for intervention for the disposal of surplus milk. Processors make money out of super-levy milk. It needs to be highlighted that there has been no change in the ownership and management of quotas. It has always been at primary production level.
Many small and medium-sized holders, up to this year, had been getting the usual amount of leased quota from the co-ops. As a result of the changes made by the quota tribunal, land producers started to get access to this milk. Does the Minister believe it is acceptable that only half the temporary lease quota went to producers under 35,000 gallons? Would he not agree that it should all have gone to such people?
I accept that virtually all the milk should go to smaller producers and we have given priority to those who have become accustomed to a dependency on it. In the first tranche, less milk went to large producers under this year's system of allocation than was previously the case. Previously 2,000 farmers applied for temporary lease milk. Some 8,500 applied for it this year at a time when there was less milk in the scheme because cheque book operators could offer a higher price to lease it, perhaps 50p to 60p per gallon, than the 30p per gallon available to the temporary lease scheme. It was a combination of extra demand and the overall pool of temporary lease milk which was the problem rather than milk being given to larger farmers. I accepted the recommendation of the milk quota review group and am not defensive about it. The truth is that less milk went to larger producers in proportionate terms in the first tranche in 1996 than in the previous year.
Does the Minister agree that none should go in future?
I agree with the Deputy that, since there is not enough milk to go around and viability is involved, it would be difficult to achieve the average industrial wage or a figure of that order without giving the milk to smaller producers who deserve top priority.
At this stage we have a difficulty with time. Perhaps the Minister would take together the questions of two Deputies who are offering, Deputy Crawford and Deputy Ned O'Keeffe?
Will the Minister make a renewed effort to get some milk quota for the Border and Northern regions? It is fair to say that no real help to rural Ireland has come out of the peace moneys and very little has gone to the farming community. It is the one area where a small amount of quota from the European Commission could make an enormous difference to the smallholders referred to. I assure the Minister that there is total and absolute support from all Oireachtas Members, co-ops and farmers for some extra effort to be made at the highest political level.
Would the Minister agree that the ground rules should be changed and emphasis put on the processors controlling the quota rather than the producers because the latter are paying the penalty and the former are reaping the rewards?
On the last question, I do not think farmers would appreciate processor control or ownership of the quota. Liability to the levy is the area for examination. These are EU rules in so far as——
Is the Minister prepared to change that?
It is paid for in the first instance by the co-op but is then paid for by those who exceed it. The entire quota system is coming up for review and that aspect can be examined in that context. Deputy Crawford has raised his question with me many times.
Many thanks to Deputy Brendan Smith.
There is no problem with the Irish authorities in supporting this proposal. However, I get the distinct impression from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the British authorities that they do not want reciprocal demands from English, Welsh and Scottish dairy farmers for extra quota. Therefore, they have not seen fit to support our proposal. I will facilitate any dialogue with Sir Patrick Mayhew or Mr. Douglas Hogg which can resolve this matter. I do not want to raise expectations or make promises about something which, unless both Governments actively support it, will not happen. There has been substantial support under the INTERREG programme under the agricultural chapter for the Border counties. I will do everything to foster that in the future.
That concludes questions for today.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.