Vol. 857 No. 4
1. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the progress made to date in getting approval of the rural development programme from the EU; his plans to publish a copy of the issues raised by the EU in relation to the rural development programme; the nature of these issues; when a reply will issue to the EU on these matters; if there will be public consultation before the reply issues; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43095/14]
We were told that the rural development programme would be in place well before the end of the year. I understand that observations were made to the Department. Does the Minister intend to publish those observations and will he clarify when the response from the Department to those observations will be submitted to Europe?
I ask the House to indulge me before I answer that question. I wish to pay tribute to the former Deputy Joe Walsh, who died in recent days. I think he was Ireland's longest serving Minister for Agriculture and he made a very significant contribution to modern agriculture in this country. He is someone I knew well and respected very much. I wish to pass on my condolences to his colleagues in Fianna Fáil, his friends and family. It is appropriate to do that during questions on agriculture on the day after his funeral.
On Deputy Ó Cuív's question, the draft rural development programme, RDP, was submitted to the European Commission on 3 July 2014, a number of weeks in advance of the regulatory deadline. Due to the Commission’s heavy workload in dealing simultaneously with 118 RDPs, its formal observations on the draft RDP, which were due on 3 October 2014 were not received until 20 October 2014. Since then, my officials have been systematically working through the various informational, technical and policy matters raised by the Commission. A detailed response to the Commission’s formal observation has issued.
The next step in the approval process will be a period of bilateral discussion with the Commission. It is difficult to predict exactly how long these discussions will last, given the resource constraints in the Commission and the need for the Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development to co-ordinate with the range of other directorates-general which have commented on the draft RDP. Following agreement of the RDP via these bilateral discussions, the RDP must go through a formal adoption process in the Commission.
It would be a matter for the Commission as to whether it wishes to make available a copy of its observations. Those observations were essentially structured in a question format. There were 266 questions asked, many of which were technical in nature, seeking clarification on costings, legal references and so forth. If it would be helpful, I will appear before the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, along with officials from my Department, to go through the questions that were asked, identify areas that may be problematic and so forth.
I am still hopeful the RDP will be approved before the end of the year but that timeline is now very tight. As Deputy Ó Cuív knows, that has implications in terms of launch dates for new schemes and so forth. My priority is to get this done as quickly as possible, but obviously because a lot of money is being sanctioned by the Commission, we need to make sure that all of its questions are answered.
I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he outline why he cannot publish the observations? While I welcome his offer to come before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I believe that members of that committee would be at a disadvantage if they did not have a copy of the Commission's observations. Has the Minister asked the Commission for permission to give Oireachtas Members the Commission's observations and the Department's replies to same? I understood that the change in Government was all about openness and inclusivity, particularly with regard to Oireachtas Members, the elected representatives of the people. Will the Minister explain why he cannot publish the Commission's observations and the Department's response to them?
The Minister also said that the timeline is very tight in terms of getting approval before the end of the year. Can I take it that the green low-carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, will definitely not open before Christmas? It seems we are already a month or two behind where the Minister had hoped we would be at the beginning of the process.
The direct answer to the Deputy's last question is "No". We will still be pushing for the adoption of the RDP and the opening of GLAS before the end of the year. That said, there are some things that are outside of my control. The Department had a very quick turnaround time following receipt of the questions from the Commission because we are very anxious to expedite this process and get decisions made and approval granted as quickly as possible. I have made that known to the new European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development whom I met this week. We are still pushing hard to stay on schedule and to get the RDP approved as soon as possible. We think that it is still possible to do it before the end of the year. We want to open up GLAS as well as several other schemes, the targeted agricultural modernisation, TAM, schemes in particular, in January and February of next year. We are anxious to get on with that but obviously the timeline is tight.
On the question of publication, I can publish the observations if I want to. I do not think there is any legal impediment to doing so and I am willing to publish them. However, I am not sure that publishing 266 questions, most of which are very technical or legal, will add anything to the process. Instead, I propose that I appear before the aforementioned committee to go through the different areas on which the Commission has asked questions, to contextualise some of those questions and outline our responses to them. I do not have any fundamental objection to publishing the observations but I do not want to give an impression that there is some fundamental problem here when there is not. It is normal that there would be a lot of questions asked of a document as large and as detailed as our RDP.
I would have presumed, from my experience, that there would be a lot of questions. Indeed, I have never seen a situation where the Commission did not have an awful lot of questions. None of this would faze me, I have to say. I would not make a big issue of it. I would like to see the questions, the direction and the responses. If they are legalistic, we will deal with that too because we are legislators after all.
Does the Minister intend to review his Department's proposals for both GLAS and the areas facing natural constraints, ANC, scheme in the context of commonage areas?
Is the Minister willing to meet concerned Deputies about this issue? There is huge concern in the counties that have large amounts of commonage. Their calculation is that the proposals put forward by the Minister will take €17 million per annum out of the commonage areas and transfer it to other parts of the country.
I believe the Deputy is referring to the calculation that some people have made if the Commission had implemented what it was proposing for a flat rate payment across the country.
It has nothing to do with that.
It would never have happened, because the country would have been broken up into different regions, with different flat rate payments for different regions. That is a spin some people have been putting on this-----
That is the spin the Minister is putting on it. Check that with the Commission.
-----and it is not based on fact. As the Deputy knows, we have held meetings regarding the concerns of commonage and hill farmers about qualification for single farm payment, stocking rates, problems of destocking and under-grazing, eligibility for GLAS and the process of applying for GLAS payments. We have spoken about that a number of times. Deputy Kyne has also raised it with me repeatedly.
We are trying to show as much flexibility as we can, to reflect the realities of commonage farming, while at the same time ensuring we get approval from the Commission and that we do not get a significant fine or disallowance from the Commission due to implementing something inappropriately. We are continuing that process.
Yes, I will meet Deputies from areas that are concerned about this to discuss what we have been doing. I virtually have a daily conversation with Deputy Kyne on this issue and I have also spoken to Deputy Ó Cuív about it on many occasions, both on and off the record.
2. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if his attention has been drawn to the concerns of active commonage farmers regarding implementation of, and criteria for, the GLAS scheme; and the action he proposes to alleviate those concerns. [43097/14]
The issue I wish to raise is the criteria for, and the implementation of, GLAS and what actions the Minister proposes to take in respect of the concerns expressed by farmers who wish to participate in this scheme. There are a number of questions. When can they expect their first payment for GLAS? Will farmers be allowed to enter GLAS as individual farmers? When will the management plan be initiated and who pays for it?
On the timing of it, I hope to get approval from the European Commission before the end of the year to enable us to open GLAS before the end of the year. I have spoken to farming organisations about the process by which farmers will apply. We are trying to let approximately 30,000 farmers into GLAS in one go. That means there could potentially be 35,000 to 40,000 applications. Each farmer, and a collective of farmers in the case of commonage, will have to sign up to a GLAS plan, and that process will take time. We estimate that it will take at least five months to allow so many applications, as a planner will have to be attached to each one. There are only approximately 400 planners in the country outside of Teagasc. Everybody has accepted that if there will be that many farmers coming into the scheme in the first tranche, it will take some time. My priority is to get as many farmers into GLAS as possible, and to get them into the scheme through an application process that everybody understands and in which they have time to apply for it.
There will be an approval process after the application process, which will also take a couple of months. All the applications will be online, so we should be able to do it relatively quickly. Certainly in the last quarter of next year we should have farmers into a five year GLAS scheme and they should start getting payments for it before the end of the year. That is the process on which we are working. It is the process I have outlined for the last six months in consultations with farming organisations and so forth. If we cannot get the rural development programme, RDP, approved, everything will be delayed slightly. However, we are pushing as hard as we can to get the RDP approved as soon as possible.
I am anxious to get a large number of commonage farmers into GLAS. However, commonage farmers farm collectively - that is what commonage is about - so there must be a commonage plan in the commonage areas which farmers farming in those areas, or at least a portion of them, sign up to in order to qualify for the scheme. As I said earlier, we are trying to be as flexible and reasonable as possible, reflecting the different realities of commonage farmers, while at the same time trying to ensure we get approval from the Commission because much of this money is European money.
The Minister's reply indicates that there will be no payment before the end of next year.
The last quarter of next year.
People who are coming out of schemes will have no payment for over 18 months. That will create financial difficulties for the smaller and weaker farmer. Regarding commonage and getting farmers to sign up to a plan, I appreciate the difficulties that will present. Getting everybody or even 50% of people to agree on something will itself create huge difficulties. I welcome the fact that according to the briefing we were given recently, the Department is taking a far more flexible approach to this. That should be encouraged. If only one farmer out of five is prepared to sign up for it, he should not be penalised if the other four do not. I hope that will be provided for.
The Minister said that applications and a GLAS plan can be done without an implementation plan being completed. That is my understanding of the Minister's reply. That means the process can move forward as we wait for the implementation plan, particularly with regard to commonage areas.
It is important to clarify that regardless of how many shareholders are in the commonage, if a commonage area is to qualify for payments under the GLAS scheme, there must be an expectation, indeed a reality, that certain actions will be taken on that land that go beyond what is required under the basic payments scheme. Under the regulations there must be some added value environmentally from the GLAS scheme. That is the point of the scheme.
We are trying to facilitate a situation whereby half of the active farmers in a commonage area, or half of the land in a commonage area that is being farmed by the farmers, would buy into a commonage GLAS plan for the commonage. They can work through their individual planners if they wish, but they must be working towards one agreed plan. We can then say to the Commission that these are the actions we are paying for and this is what will be done in this commonage to draw down the payments of €5,000 or €7,000 per farmer or shareholder in the commonage. That is the conversation we are having. We cannot simply do away with all of the requirements. There must be a commitment by a portion of the shareholders in the commonage area to ensure that there is added environmental value in that commonage area. From the Commission's point of view, GLAS is not an income support but an investment in an environmental scheme, which is why one must qualify for it.
With regard to an overall plan for a commonage area, is the responsibility to pay for that on the people who are applying for GLAS or will the Department pay for it? It appears that if only a small number of people buy into it and there is an overall plan, the onus of paying for it falls on the person who is a recipient. If only two out of five take up the scheme and the other three do not, the two are improving the commonage for the five, even though only two people are buying into it.
Everybody who applies for GLAS must pay the planner for their GLAS plan.
What about the overall plan?
There will be an individual commonage GLAS plan for each commonage. There is no same overall plan for all commonage areas. There was an idea, and we have moved away significantly from it, that the overall commonage framework plan would implement and force a commonage framework plan on each commonage area.
We have instead moved towards a basic stocking rate requirement on disadvantaged lands and commonage lands to try to make it as easy as possible for farmers to implement. We have said there will be flexibility in terms of the levels of stocking individual shareholders and farmers will apply. We are in discussions with the Commission on whether somebody who has an agreement with another shareholder to cover his or her stocking rate can qualify to be part of the farming and management of that commonage. One example of the flexibilities we have discussed with the Commission are cases where, for example, somebody has an interest in two or three different commonage areas, decides to put stock in one of them and agrees with other shareholders on the other two to cover the stocking rates which would otherwise apply. Such issues have been raised with me and my officials.
Let me be clear. We cannot simply design this scheme to our own liking. It needs European Commission approval because it is funded through the RDP programme which is co-funded by the Commission. It is a fair issue to raise and we are trying to deal with it.
3. Deputy Thomas Pringle asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the way he sees the formation of beef producer groups benefiting farmers dealing with the meat processors in view of the limited number of operators in the beef sector; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43099/14]
My question concerns beef producer groups, about which the Minister has made many claims in the negotiations with beef sector and farmers. How will things work in practice, given the lack of competition in the beef sector?
I thank the Deputy for asking this question and I am very pleased to have an opportunity to outline what I think beef producers in Ireland can do. As the Deputy knows, as Minister I cannot get involved in influencing price directly. I have received two letters from the Competition Authority, which made very clear how far the beef forum can go on a series of issues and where it cannot go in regard to trying to influence price directly. We can, however, try to restructure the beef industry in a manner that ensures farmers increase their negotiating capacity in areas such as price, specifications, conditions in the market and the information flow between processor and farmer on what the market needs, when it needs it and so on.
Producer organisations in other parts of Europe represent large numbers of farmers collectively and negotiate on their behalf, which leads to better outcomes than we have here. One of the major weaknesses in the beef sector, which is not found in the dairy sector, is that farmers, in effect, are price takers when they bring cattle to factories. No negotiation takes place. Farming organisations need to apply a lot of pressure through protest and so on if they are unhappy with prices.
There is a better way of doing things, whereby 1,000, 2,000 or 3,000 farmers who are producing beef would be represented by a farmer-owned producer organisation which would negotiate on their behalf. It would be responsible for communication between the marketplace, represented by processors or retailers, and the primary producers, that is, farmers, to make sure they were getting the fairest deal possible from the marketplace. That would fundamentally change the balance of negotiating power between farmers and factories, something which is currently being expressed through protest.
There has been a public consultation process on how the different stakeholders would like to see producer organisations working. It is also in the interests of processors, because they will have a much more professional negotiating system with primary producers in terms of ensuring quality, specifications and all the other elements. We intend to push on with this and have approval from all of the stakeholders in the beef forum to do that.
It is true to say that farmers are price takers because they have no choice. There is no competition in the beef sector in this country. There are three major players, one of which is dominant. Over the past 20 years many small abattoirs have been put out of business as a result of increasing regulation. They have been taken out of the buying market for beef, which leaves only three factories remaining.
If a farm producer organisation pulls together 1,000 farmers and negotiates a deal which necessitates the transport of cattle, what use is it to them? The fundamental problem is that we do not have competition in the factory sector and farmers are forced to be price takers. The proposed solution is just papering over the cracks. It will probably streamline the process for the factories, remove the threat of protest and allow them to continue as normal.
I and others totally disagree with the assessment of the Deputy. That is why everybody in the sector, including farming organisations, is willing to facilitate the introduction of producer organisations. The processing industry is willing to consider the proposal. It has no choice, because we are going ahead with it. The process is about increasing and improving farmer representation. It is true to say that there are three large players in the market, but there are many other processors. It is not true to say that only three processors are killing cattle. There are also live cattle exports, which have been used to introduce competition into the market for cattle. Such exports include cross-Border live cattle exports, as well as to places like north Africa and other parts of Europe. Live cattle exports increased significantly this year.
I do not accept the accuracy of the Deputy's assessment of the marketplace. Producer organisations work well in other countries which also have large processors. We should not forget that 90% of our beef has to find a home, consumer, buyer and client outside Ireland. To facilitate that trade, we need processors which have scale. The Competition Authority makes sure they are not abusing that position, but we can restructure the marketplace to increase the negotiating power of farmers through POs which will be owned by farmers. That is a good thing, and the Deputy should welcome it.
Time will tell. We will see in a couple of years' time whether farmers will be protesting again. The fundamental problem is that the market is controlled by too few operators. I am sure international markets have competition authorities which have the teeth to be able to investigate markets which are not functioning correctly. It is not that long ago that the Competition Authority made public statements to the effect that it could not carry out any investigations because of staffing issues. Would the Minister be willing to call in the Competition Authority and ask it to investigate the beef sector if producer groups do not achieve the goals set for them by the Minister?
There is no need for me to call the Competition Authority, although we have spoken to it, because it contacted us about the beef forum to understand what is going on. It is very plugged in and engaged on beef issues and has examined the beef market. I could quote statistics on beef prices all day in terms of average EU prices, EU 15 prices, the comparison between Ireland and Britain and so on, but the Competition Authority is an independent statutory body, as it should be. If there is evidence that inappropriate behaviour is occurring in the beef sector, I am confident it will intervene, but it has not done so.
My job is to try to ensure a beef forum works in all of the areas where it should be influencing and developing policy, and that is what we are attempting to do today. We will get a lot done today at the beef forum on a series of areas such as weights, age, base price, increased transparency in receipt dockets and other areas about which farmers have expressed concern to me over the past 12 months. That is what it should be doing.
4. Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will provide details of the interaction he has had with representatives of the salmon farming industry in the past year; the main issues they raised with him; if he has met any delegations from companies representing this industry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [43096/14]
As the Minister knows, I have serious concerns, which I have expressed previously, about the dual role he plays in regard to aquaculture. His Department is meant to promote aquaculture, but on the other hand he is the policeman who issues licences. Will he outline to the House the discussions he has held with the aquaculture industry in the past year?
I have had many discussions with various players and stakeholders in the area of aquaculture as this is something Deputies and Ministers do all the time. I speak of discussions with non-governmental organisations, people with concerns relating to licensing systems and companies. This is part of my job as the Minister with responsibility for the marine, aquaculture, fisheries and the development of a sustainable industry with a licensing system appropriate to sustainability. I act on the basis of the legal, scientific and environmental advice on applications that I receive from other State agencies. We have a strict process for this and the interaction between my Department, the National Parks and Wildlife Service, the Marine Institute, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, the environmental pillar and other stakeholders shows I listen to everyone. It is my job to listen and put policy in place and ensure the licensing system functions appropriately. I am involved in the licensing system but it also has an independent appeals process.
I think Deputy Ó Cuív may be referring to recent media reports on a meeting I had with Marine Harvest. On 30 January I met with representatives of Marine Harvest Ireland. The meeting was chaired by the Taoiseach, and officials from the Department of the Taoiseach and my Department were also in attendance. The meeting was held at the request of the company to discuss licensing and industry development issues associated with the company's operations in Ireland.
As is appropriate, it was explained from the outset that specific applications which the company submitted to my Department for consideration could not be discussed in detail in view of the statutory basis of the assessment process. It was also made clear that the Galway Bay licence issue could not be discussed, and I know the Deputy is concerned about this, although it has nothing to do with Marine Harvest. It was felt that such a discussion would not be appropriate and it is important to be upfront about these things. I often meet companies to encourage job creation and investment in Ireland and I also meet people with interests in the aquaculture industry. Equally, I meet people with concerns relating to the aquaculture industry to ensure the licensing system functions properly.
I asked if the Minister would provide details of his interactions with the salmon farming industry in the past year and the main issues raised. I also asked him to outline whether he has met delegations from companies representing the industry. The Minister's reply is totally inadequate. He referred to a meeting that took place on 30 January because he knows the minutes of that meeting were made available through a Freedom of Information Act request and are a matter of public record. Has the Minister had other meetings with people in the salmon farming industry? I did not ask anything about Inland Fisheries Ireland, IFI, or any other body. If the Minister had other meetings with people in the salmon farming industry, when did they take place in the past year and what companies were involved?
I note that the Minister of State, Deputy Joe McHugh, attended the meeting referred to and it is not normal for a backbencher, which he was at the time, to do so. Did Deputy McHugh attend any other meetings or did he request other meetings on behalf of salmon farming companies in the past year?
I think Deputy Ó Cuív is trying to create smoke where there is none. I understand Deputy McHugh attended the meeting because the headquarters of Marine Harvest, where many people are employed, is in his constituency. I do not remember the details but I suspect Marine Harvest requested a meeting with the Taoiseach and me through Deputy McHugh. I believe such a request was also made directly to the Taoiseach. The international CEO of Marine Harvest was in Ireland at the time and it is not unusual for a Deputy from a constituency affected by such a meeting to attend, especially given that, in this case, he was asked to facilitate the meeting.
I went to Bergen in Norway for the North Atlantic Seafood Forum and, while there, I had a number of meetings with salmon farming interests, including Marine Harvest, and other companies. It is easy to send the Deputy the details of these meetings as minutes were taken at all of them, as far as I can remember. Such meetings are merely examples of me doing my job as a Minister who is trying to promote Ireland as a location for food and aquaculture investment. I made it very clear at all of the meetings, with Marine Harvest and the other entities, that the licensing system in Ireland is tough. We are trying to put a fair system in place that can allow applicants get fair consideration and reassure people that the licensing process is sufficiently robust. I have a responsibility to perform a balancing act in this regard and I take it very seriously.
The Minister will confirm therefore that he is responsible for granting and refusing licences. What did Marine Harvest mean when it requested that a champion, as it put it, be put in place? Was this the reason Deputy McHugh became the Minister of State with responsibility for both Gaeltacht affairs and, strangely, natural resources? We know Údarás na Gaeltachta supported the salmon farming industry. Is the Minister of State, Deputy McHugh, the champion Marine Harvest sought in the Government?
Not yet.
No, Deputy McHugh was appointed as a Minister of State with responsibility for areas relevant to his constituency. This applies to the promotion of the Irish language and his other responsibilities. Regardless of who is Minister of State, my job is to ensure there is a robust and legally sound system whereby my Department considers applications in conjunction with the relevant agencies and other Departments, especially the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht.
What about the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources?
The Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is also consulted.
It is even more important that the Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources is also consulted as it has IFI-----
The Minister has the floor.
Deputy Ó Cuív is correct but the evidence is that I have not granted a single salmon farming licence in three and a half years. He seems to be accusing me of being a patsy to the industry who waves licences through. Not one such licence has been granted. Only in the shellfish sector have licences been granted because we are putting in place a system that works, unlike the previous Government, which made a bags of it. We assess many bays that are special areas of conservation.
I take a very cautious approach to salmon farming because there are concerns in the area but I promote the right type of salmon farming. I want to ensure it is done properly and in a sustainable way in order that we can stand over it on a licensing and from an environmental perspective. This is how I make decisions.
5. Deputy Martin Ferris asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine if he will report on any progress on the issue of a single label for Irish beef and his negotiations with British retailers regarding the nomad cattle issue. [43098/14]
The Minister, his Department and Opposition spokespersons have engaged with farming organisations to try to resolve the issue of so-called nomadic cattle. I refer to cattle taken from the South to be processed in the North. Can the Minister outline his negotiations with factories on this? Is there light at the end of the tunnel?
As the Deputy is aware, there is a commercial preference at UK retail level for simple origin labelling bearing the name of a single country of origin only. It must be recognised that this commercial purchasing strategy has facilitated the sale in major UK retail outlets of large quantities of beef from cattle born, reared and slaughtered in Ireland. However, it adversely affects the market for beef from cattle of mixed origin, such as those traditionally exported to Northern Ireland for fattening and slaughter.
I have been pro-active in supporting this traditional trade and have met my counterpart in Northern Ireland, the Minister, Ms Michelle O'Neill, MLA on a number of occasions. We have also written jointly to the three UK retailers which currently stock Irish beef - Tesco, Asda and Sainsburys - asking them to consider a new mixed label for animals born, reared or slaughtered in both jurisdictions on the island. Minister O'Neill has also approved a voluntary beef label in Northern Ireland for cattle born in the Republic of Ireland, raised in the Republic and, or, Northern Ireland, and slaughtered in Northern Ireland. This label would facilitate the sale of beef from animals born in the South and slaughtered in the North if retailers were willing to stock the product carrying this label. At this stage, the voluntary label has been approved by the authorities in Northern Ireland but, of course, the question of using such a label is now a commercial matter between processors and retailers in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the UK.
I will continue to pursue this and other matters with the major retailers. To this end, I invited a representative of Tesco to the last beef roundtable meeting and a very useful exchange of views took place with all of the stakeholders in the sector. I also recently met the Minister, Ms O'Neill, MLA, and the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium, NIRC, in Dublin to explore the labelling issue further. In summary, the NIRC advised me that its members have considered the mixed label issue in some detail and have concluded that for the moment they are not prepared to change their labelling policies. At that meeting both the Minister, Ms O'Neill, MLA, and I received a clear message from the retail sector that labelling polices will remain unchanged for the present for a number of reasons including consumer preference and logistical difficulties within the supply chain. However, it was agreed to keep the matter under review and I will continue to engage with the NIRC in this regard.
In terms of live exports to Northern Ireland this year, I confirm for the Deputy that total exports to Northern Ireland from the South are higher in 2014 than in 2013. This is important. Exports in the beef sector are at over 80% of last year's total and have performed very strongly in recent weeks, particularly for finished cattle. In addition, live exports of dairy cattle from the Republic to Northern Ireland in 2014 are higher than in 2013. That said, this is still an issue and we will continue to work on it. Ultimately, I cannot force retailers to stock mixed country of origin beef, as they see it, next to simple, single country of origin label beef while charging the same price if that is not what consumers want. The market is starting to resolve this issue because of supply contraction in terms of the number of cattle being slaughtered.
It is clear that live exports have improved in the last number of weeks, which has to do with cost. Perhaps that is a big part of what the IFA has been involved in over the last number of weeks regarding pickets and so forth. It bears testament to how right the IFA's argument is on what one gets for beef in the so-called "UK" or in the North compared with what one gets down here.
My recollection is that because there was such a collective effort and everyone was on the same wavelength on a resolution of this issue, an unnecessary intervention by the CEO of Dawn Meats put a spanner in the works. My understanding is that Tesco was very favourably disposed to an all-island label as was being proposed. That intervention was timed to put a spanner in the works and it did so. This comes back to the argument on the power of the beef barons over retailers as well as producers and the fact that they are working collectively together. I know the Minister does not like me using the word "cartel" but nothing will convince me that there is not a cartel operating to ensure that the supply is at their given price and not what is for the benefit of the producer.
It is important to record that certainly from my experience at any rate there was no intervention of any substance from a CEO of any processing company here.
There was.
Not that affected the discussion on this. I have had repeated discussions with Tesco on this issue. I have had Tesco representatives in my Department where we have had long meetings on this and other issues. We had a meeting with the Northern Ireland Retail Consortium whose representatives made it very clear that it was its members who decided, for the moment anyway, that because they could access meat with a clear country of origin of either Ireland or Britain, that was their preference. It has nothing to do with Dawn Meats or anyone else so let us not try to create problems where the evidence suggests they do not exist.
I am not an apologist or defender of the processing sector or factories. They are big boys who can stand up for themselves. My job primarily is to look after the primary producer. I am the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine and that is what I do. However, I am also interested in telling people the truth and the truth in respect of this issue is that when there is a lot of beef around, as there has been with 15% more beef produced in 2014 than in 2013, and consumption is down, as it has been for most of the year albeit it is improving, retailers will choose high quality meat that has a clear label on country of origin rather than having to choose mixed origin label beef. That is notwithstanding the fact that mixed origin label beef is very good quality also. That has been the source of the problem. As supply contracts somewhat, the Deputy might see a change of heart from retailers.
I would very much like to see a change of heart from retailers. I would also like to see them give the price that has been well earned and which should be respected to the producer. At the end of the line, the producer - the farmer - is the person who is absolutely hostage to the retailers and the beef barons. From my own knowledge of being tied into the farming organisations and individual farmers, they are being held to ransom by a cartel among the beef barons. They are the ones who determine the price and put pressure on retailers regarding a so-called mixed label between bullocks from different countries. It is absolutely madness. I welcome the fact that the Minister and the Minister, Ms O'Neill, MLA, are trying to resolve the issue, but everybody in the House knows the beef industry has data access on every calf born in the State.
It does not.
Illegally maybe, but it has access. Everybody, including the farming organisations, knows that. The only party that does not seem to know is the Government.
We have looked into that accusation and put systems in place to ensure factories do not have access to inappropriate information.
Legally, yes.
With all due respect, if we are going to make accusations, we need to have evidence to back them up. I am not saying it has not been a difficult year for beef farmers; it has. That is why I have been involved intensively throughout the summer with farming organisations and factories to try to change the structure of the sector. There has been a fractious and difficult relationship between farmers and factories for as long as I can remember because farmers want more money for very high quality produce while factories operate in a price competitive environment. We are trying to redesign the relationship between farmers and factories through negotiation and discussion in a beef forum as opposed to megaphone diplomacy which has failed to change anything. That is why we come back to protest after protest whereas the beef forum can function if all stakeholders work with it.
The bargaining power of farmers will increase significantly through producer organisations, which we discussed earlier. In the meantime, we will discuss and try to resolve this evening at the beef forum a whole series of grievances which farmers rightly have. That follows two weeks of very intensive negotiation chaired by Mr. Michael Dowling. Let us focus on the issues we know we can resolve rather than to raise issues which have been doing the rounds for many years.
