Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 31 Jan 2006

Vol. 613 No. 3

Adjournment Debate.

Sugar Beet Industry.

Mr. Stanton

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this very important issue. I hope the Minister of State will provide clarification on the levy. The IFA issued a press release on 20 January 2006 which accused the Minister for Agriculture and Food of misleading the IFA annual general meeting by saying that it was not necessary to pay a restructuring levy of €25 million in 2006. Less than 24 hours later, the Commissioner responded to a question on the matter put by my colleague, Mairéad McGuinness, MEP. She asked whether a country like Ireland must contribute to the restructuring levy in 2006 if it grows sugar beet that year and whether it should intend to cease production in 2007. She stated that this issue was crucial as it would determine whether Ireland produces sugar beet in 2006, which could be the last season for growing sugar beet in this country. The Commissioner responded that the only way to avoid this payment to the restructuring fund is to do away with sugar beet production in 2006 and 2007.

The Minister must clarify this matter because the situation is becoming very serious. A total of 3,700 farmers grow sugar beet who need to know now about the position regarding the levy. A total of 1,000 people employed in the sugar beet processing industry and ancillary activities also need to know how matters stand regarding the levy. Greencore Sugar issued a letter to its growers dated 27 January 2006 which mentioned the necessity of clarification regarding the temporary quota cut in 2006. This cut, which appears likely to happen, could range between 8% to 14%. The decision is critical, particularly if the restructuring levy must be paid on the entire quota. The letter went on to state that Greencore Sugar faces substantial risks attached to processing a sugar beet crop in 2006. The company would like to process sugar beet in 2006 but must engage with its partners to see how these risks can be mitigated or eliminated before such a decision is made.

Farmers must decide whether to grow sugar beet this year. They must make arrangements about matters such as conacre, fertiliser, seed and getting the land ready. They are making these arrangements at the moment. The Minister of State must clarify whether or not the levy must be paid if sugar beet is grown in 2006. What is his understanding about the quota cut?

It is a sad day for Ireland to see the end of the sugar beet industry but people are beginning to accept that it will happen. However, it is crucial that we find out whether 2006 or 2007 is the last year for growing it. If 2007 is the last year for growing sugar beet, will a levy of €25 million be paid this year and a levy of €38 million next year? I am pleading with the Minister of State to clarify issues surrounding the levy because it is a matter of smoke and mirrors at the moment. The people affected are angry, upset and confused. I am sure the Minister of State realises that much hinges on the operation of the levy. I could address the compensation fund but it is a matter for another occasion. On this occasion, we need clarification regarding the levy. Must it be paid this year? The Minister told the IFA that it does not need to be paid but the Commissioner has stated that it does. Who is right? We need an answer tonight. I await the Minister of State's answer with anticipation.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. B. Smith)

I thank Deputy Stanton for raising this important issue. I wish to put on record that the Minister did not mislead anyone with regard to the levy. It will be a matter for beet growers and Irish Sugar Limited to make decisions about sugar beet growing in light of the reformed sugar regime on which political agreement was reached by the Council of Ministers in November 2005.

The main features of the reform package have already been widely publicised. After a long and difficult negotiating process, we succeeded in having the proposals changed to provide a longer phasing-in period, as well as a number of options to enable the sector to adapt to the new regime. There will be a lower reduction in the support price of sugar than originally proposed — 36% instead of 39% — as well as phasing in of the corresponding reduction in the minimum sugar beet price over four years, instead of the two-step reduction originally proposed.

We also secured an enhanced compensation package. Beet growers will be compensated for up to 64% of the price reduction in the form of direct payments which will be worth approximately €121 million to Irish beet growers over the next seven years. A once-off payment of almost €44 million will also become available in the event that sugar beet production ceases in Ireland. In that event also, an aid package of up to €145 million becomes available for economic, social and environmental costs of restructuring of the Irish sugar industry involving factory closure and renunciation of quota. This would involve the submission of a detailed restructuring plan for the industry.

The reform agreement reached last November provides that at least 10% of the restructuring fund shall be reserved for sugar beet growers and machinery contractors to compensate notably for losses arising from investment in specialised machinery. This proportion may be increased by member states after consultation of interested parties provided that an economically sound balance between the elements of the restructuring plan is ensured. The entire compensation package has an estimated value in excess of €300 million.

The final legal texts giving effect to the reform agreement could not be approved by the Council of Ministers until the opinion of the European Parliament had been received. That opinion was delivered on 19 January and it is now expected that the legal texts, which are currently being discussed at technical level in Brussels, will be approved by the Council at its meeting in February. In parallel, the EU Commission is working on preparation of detailed implementation arrangements which can only be finalised once the Council texts have been adopted. Until all the various legal texts have been adopted, it will not be possible to finalise the implementation arrangements definitively but all parties concerned appreciate the importance of having this process completed as soon as possible.

The Minister and her officials have been keeping in close touch with stakeholders about these developments. One issue on which she hopes to decide shortly is the choice of reference year or years for determining an individual farmer's single farm payment entitlements. I am glad to have the opportunity to update the House on this important issue. It is up to the growers concerned and Irish Sugar Limited to make commercial decisions in light of the new regime. Teagasc, in accordance with its statutory responsibilities, is available to provide advice where required.

Mr. Stanton

The Minister of State did not answer my question. Is the Minister for Agriculture and Food right or wrong? It is a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. It is disgraceful that the Minister of State did not answer my question. He knows what is going on and what is at stake.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Stanton is using up the time available to Deputy Timmins.

Overseas Missions.

Mr. Timmins

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for allowing me to raise this very important issue. When members of our Defence Forces are sent on overseas missions, the least they can expect is that their medical needs will be looked after by the State. These men and women serve at the request of Government, the Houses of the Oireachtas and the UN. We must not forget the difficult and often life-threatening situations in which they are placed on our behalf.

The ongoing mission to Liberia, in which the Defence Forces have served with great distinction, is a particular case in point. This mission is difficult and dangerous. However, the recruitment of a doctor who had been removed from the medical register in his country of origin and the assignment to him of the key responsibility to provide medical assistance to our troops was an extremely serious lapse. The circumstances that led to this must be investigated fully and our concerns must be answered.

In these days of instant access to information, a simple web search reveals a considerable amount about Dr. Lieberthal. It is a fact that, at the same time that Dr. Lieberthal was being considered for appointment, information was available which clearly detailed his unsuitability for the post. An official statement from a provincial department of health in South Africa, carried on a website entry from November 2002, states clearly that Dr. Lieberthal had been suspended from Johannesburg Hospital, and that an audit of all the operations that he had carried out there was to be conducted. Another website listed Dr. Lieberthal as fourth on a list of the top 100 newsmakers in South Africa for 2002, having set a new record for the highest number of complaints laid against a doctor at the Health Professions Council.

It is clear that Dr. Lieberthal was removed from the medical register long before he was appointed in Liberia. That this was not uncovered prior to appointment raises very serious questions regarding the manner in which his qualifications were scrutinised. The company responsible for hiring Dr. Lieberthal, Medicare Solutions Limited, is based in the UK. A search of the UK companies office website shows this company is based in Surrey but no telephone number is given and there is no website for the company. I rang international directory enquiries and they were unable to find any telephone number for a company entitled Medicare Solutions, at the Surrey address or any other address. I hope the Minister can help solve the status of the company.

I understand that this company may have been paid €2,000 per day and that Dr. Lieberthal may have been paid out of this sum. I would appreciate if the Minister could confirm this. What payments, if any, were made to the company? I also understand that Dr. Lieberthal applied to the Irish Medical Council to be registered, but that his application failed. As the Minister may be aware, virtually all employment contracts for doctors stipulate that registration in the General Register of Medical Practitioners maintained by the Medical Council is essential.

With these facts in mind, there are a number of serious questions that may be answered by the Minister this evening. If he cannot do this he may do so at a later date. When did the military authorities discover that Dr. Lieberthal's registration had been erased from the South African medical register? How was this information brought to their attention? When was the Minister informed? How was the requirement for medical personnel in Liberia advertised? Was there a tender process, and if so, on what basis was the evaluation made and how was this company accepted? Was this a once-off arrangement, or has this company been contracted in the past to supply medical personnel?

Is the Minister aware of any other Department or agency that has operated a similar process with this company? Is this company currently supplying any medical or other personnel to the Defence Forces? How much money has been spent on the provision of medical personnel in Liberia? Will the Minister ensure that, from now on, all medical personnel contracted to work with the Defence Forces will be registered with the Medical Council and will be a position to show a certificate of good standing to prove such registration?

In light of the fact that Dr. Lieberthal also attended to up to 500 Swedish soldiers sharing Irish resources in Liberia, is the Minister concerned that the State is now legally exposed to an unacceptable degree following the appointment of this doctor? There is a serious shortfall of medical staff employed within the Defence Forces, of which the Minister will be acutely aware. What action will the Minister take to address this problem?

In assuming ever greater responsibilities, the Defence Forces will continue to rely on foreign nationals contracted to work for specific missions overseas. That a disgraced doctor, erased from his own country's medical register, could be employed to provide medical cover for Irish troops on mission overseas must be addressed by the Minister as a matter of urgency. The process that was or is in place put an unsuitable person in charge of the medical needs of Defence Forces personnel, not only from this State but also from one of our EU neighbours. This must not happen again and the Minister should outline how he proposes to change the current procedures.

Minister for Defence (Mr. O’Dea)

The Deputy has raised a number of questions, and although my response will not answer some of them, I will get him the appropriate replies. I was informed of this case on Friday, 27 January 2006. I share the Deputy's concern that this case should have arisen. My first priority in dealing with this is the welfare of the troops who were attended to by this man. To that end the director of the Medical Corps contacted each person who served in Liberia during the period in question alerting them to the case and advising them of the measures the Medical Corps were putting in place to deal with any concerns they may have.

As a result any Defence Forces member treated by the person concerned and who wished to discuss any aspect of his or her treatment with a medical officer was invited to consult their local military medical officer or alternatively to contact the special medical hotline established by the Army Medical Corps. I understand that, to date, there has been one call to this line.

The background to this case arises from the Defence Forces policy of providing medical care for personnel serving with large contingents overseas. In the case of missions such as Lebanon and Liberia it is the practice to send medical officers as part of the contingent. Given the arduous nature of the Liberia mission, with troops undertaking frequent long-term patrols away from base, it was deemed necessary to have two doctors with the battalion. The mission in Liberia is, of it nature, a peace enforcement one. This resulted in a situation whereby medical officers who had been recruited prior to 1993 could not be detailed to serve there and could only be selected to serve there as volunteers.

These requirements, coupled with a general difficulty in recruiting and retaining doctors in the Defence Forces, created a situation whereby the medical officer requirements for the mission could not be fully met among the doctors serving at that time. Following a tender competition involving a number of agencies, a contract was placed with Medicare Solutions Limited, Unit 15D, Oakcroft Road, Chessington, Surrey, England. I do not have a telephone number but I will try to get it tomorrow.

Mr. Timmins

I do not think there is one.

Mr. O’Dea

The contract was initially for a period of three months commencing on 1 June 2004 and was subsequently extended to February 2005. Following a further tender competition a fresh contract, at €2,630 per doctor per week, was placed commencing 1 March 2005. During this time Medicare Solutions had supplied a number of other doctors for periods lasting from a few weeks to three months. This contract expired on 31 December 2005. As and from 1 January 2006 the Defence Forces have been in a position to provide doctors from within the Medical Corps. We will not in the foreseeable future enter into any similar type of arrangement to that I am now describing.

The procedure for selecting suitable individual doctors was that candidates were identified and selected by the Medical Corps from the curricula vitae supplied to the Department by Medicare Solutions, which had expressed an interest in working with the Irish military contingent in Liberia. This selection was done on the basis of the professional qualifications, and particular clinical experience, of the various applicants as per their individual CVs. Dr. Lieberthal was selected to replace another previously selected candidate who had decided at very late notice not to proceed to Liberia. There appeared to be nothing whatsoever untoward in the CV supplied in respect of Dr. Lieberthal.

Dr. Lieberthal was first appointed for a three-month period from 8 December 2004. He was retained in Liberia until 31 December 2005, when the overall contract with Medicare Solutions expired. He worked in a civilian capacity and provided primary military medical care services to troops, that is, largely care of the routine general practitioner type. He also provided a similar level of medical service to a small contingent of Swedish military personnel. It was only after the contract had expired that it came to the attention of my Department that Dr. Wynne Lieberthal had been struck off the South African medical register by the Health Professions Council of South Africa in July 2004 after their investigation of various charges brought against him under the relevant South African legislation.

I am extremely concerned as to how this case arose and I will ensure that all necessary steps are taken to avoid any possible repetition. I am awaiting an urgent report from the chief of staff. Legal advice is being sought as to the performance of the specialist medical recruitment agency engaged to provide suitably qualified doctors who either had or would be expected to fulfil the requirements of the Irish Medical Council. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the outcome of legal advice and possible follow-up action at this early stage.

The requirement to pursue Irish Medical Council registration was included in the contract with the agency. However, I understand that the person in question applied for but never obtained Irish Medical Council registration. The delay in identifying this failure to obtain such registration will form part of the report on the case. While the safeguards in place will be reviewed along with the performance of the agency, it should be pointed out that in the first instance the person himself should not have commenced or sought work based on falsehoods.

Sheep Farming.

Dr. Cowley

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the important matter of why sheep farmers in the Ballycroy, Tiernar and Bangor areas of County Mayo have been asked to remove stock for six months of the year and to destock up to 70%, which will mean the extinction of their farming livelihoods. I do not know if the Minister is aware that the overwhelming majority of those farmers are already involved in REPS and have heavily destocked in recent times.

This is a very serious matter and could not be more so for the 300 farmers who are affected. They are sheep farmers who farm commonage in the Nephin Beg range in the Mulranny, Tiernar, Ballycroy and Bangor areas of County Mayo. The areas affected include the proposed national park for Ballycroy and also private land. There has been a lack of information from the State about what is happening. People came down to Mayo from on high and made assessments without any input from the farmers, who are trying to eke out a livelihood on the mountain. It is a scandal that so little information was provided, yet draconian measures are now being proposed which will sound the death knell of farming in this disadvantaged area and will be the coup de grâce for sheep farmers.

It is proposed that 70% destocking should take place and that sheep be taken off the mountain for five to six months. This is illogical because if the sheep are taken off the mountain for that length of time it will prove impossible to keep them on the mountain after that. They will simply not go up again. If they are taken off the mountain they will have to go somewhere but where can they go? At least one sheep farmer affected has no low land available to him. What is he to do? Who will find a place for his sheep? Who will pay for the rent of land to accommodate them or provide housing for them for five or six months?

These same farmers have already been badly squeezed by the State. They are already involved in good farming practices such as REPS. Over 90% carry out their farming activity to REPS and they have already undergone a 30% destocking. Yet they are indiscriminately being made to pay a terrible price.

The national plan for the national parks and wildlife service should have been up and running over eight years ago but it is not. It was supposed to be in place when the commonage framework plan was introduced in 2002. That was to be the alternative for those who were not suited to or would not go into REPS, as the scheme was not suitable for everybody. REPS was to be the plan of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the national scheme was to be that of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Until that scheme is in place the commonage framework plan cannot be implemented as the national plan was to be the alternative to REPS for those who did not want to go into that scheme.

The present proposal involves the pursuit of an agenda by faceless bureaucrats who have little or no understanding of the harsh reality of life in rural Mayo. I wonder if they want to know. The result will be the demise of sheep farming and the further depopulation of an already sparsely populated area. I wonder if the plan is to wipe out the farmers completely. People are supportive of the proposed national park in Ballycroy, but must an entire population of 300 sheep farmers be wiped out for the sake of a few day-trippers? These farmers are owed a full explanation of what is going on and demand fair play from the Minister, as I do. They deserve to survive so that they and their children can have a future in farming. Homo sapiens matters too.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. B. O’Keeffe)

I thank the Deputy for raising the issue. As my Department has the lead role in matters involved in this question I am pleased to respond.

In June 2002 the European Commission secured a judgment against Ireland in the European Court of Justice, in case C117/00. The case, which focused on the Owenduff and Nephin Beg areas of County Mayo, was taken under the birds directive and concerned the extent to which the habitat of the red grouse was compromised by the overgrazing of sheep. Since that time considerable work, designed to address the issue of overgrazing, has been carried out by my Department and by the Department of Agriculture and Food. The work mainly finds expression in the production of commonage framework plans. These agri-environmental plans relate to just under 500,000 hectares of commonage land throughout the county including the Owenduff and the Nephin Beg area.

Having regard to the extent of environmental damage and the stocking levels currently on the land in question these lands produce a destocking requirement for each commonage. These requirements range from fairly low levels in commonage areas that are lightly damaged to 70% and higher in areas that are severely damaged. The actual destocking requirements in CFPs are to be monitored and revised at regular intervals and are to have regard to the success or otherwise of measures that have already taken place on each of these commonages. Recent monitoring carried out in severely damaged areas of Owenduff and Nephin Beg has shown that considerable damage is still in evidence. Accordingly it is not possible at this time to revise downwards the full destocking requirement specified in the CFP plans.

My Department and the Department of Agriculture and Food are in ongoing contact with the European Commission on the subject of our response to the judgment of the European Court. A fundamental element of that response is that the destocking prescriptions in the Owenduff and Nephin Beg areas and elsewhere will be implemented. For individual landowners the implementation of these destocking requirements will be met through REP plans or, alternatively, through a plan drawn up under my Department's farm plan scheme.

Approximately 60% of sheep farmers grazing the complex participate in the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, operated by the Department of Agriculture and Food. REPS is a voluntary scheme and participants with commonage land must comply with the commonage framework plan grazing requirements. The scheme will continue to make a positive contribution to specific environmental objectives and will continue to complement actions taken by my Department to address this serious issue.

Implementation of the commonage framework plans commenced in 2002. Where a commonage framework plan required destocking in excess of 50% in that year it was capped at 50%. The overall plan was to rise to a maximum of 60% in following years until such time as a reassessment of the commonage was undertaken. In recent consultations with farming representatives it was reiterated that the recovery plan for theOwenduff area will continue to require an annual period of total destocking. My Department remains in negotiation with farming representatives about the precise duration of this destocking period and I am confident that a resolution can be found shortly which will be acceptable to both sides and credible in terms of our obligations under the European Court of Justice judgment.

The Dáil adjourned at 9 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 1 February 2006.