I welcome Mr. John Dillon, president of the IFA, Mr. John Bryan, national livestock chairman, Mr. Michael Lynch, vice-chairman, and Mr. Kevin Kinsella, director of livestock. I wish to draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee.
WTO Negotiations: Presentation.
Mr. John Dillon
The last time we appeared before the committee we discussed the overshoot of the beef premium. I recognise the work this committee did in getting a very positive result. I thank committee members and the Minister for achieving a satisfactory solution.
The key issue for discussion today is the WTO and the implication for the European and Irish beef sector. The second matter is the Brazilian beef imports into Europe and Ireland. The final matter relates to the country of origin labelling and the domestic market, and bio-security. I will speak on the subject of Brazilian beef imports. The IFA is calling for a total ban on Brazilian beef imports, which is fully justified on human health and animal health grounds. A partial ban is inadequate and does not go far enough in the protection of the European Union.
Owing to the serious lack of traceability and animal movement controls in Brazil the reality is that a regional ban cannot be effectively implemented. The more serious risk with Brazilian beef relates to its unknown origin and lack of traceability. The origin of the latest outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Brazil is not yet known. EU consumers and food agencies rightly demand rigorous standards from European farmers. The same cannot be said for the policy of importing products into Europe. The European Commission's Food and Veterinary Office has double standards in this regard as it is failing to implement the same regulations on imports as those applied in Europe.
The United States, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea have all banned imports of Brazilian beef on health grounds alone. Last week three new cases of the disease were reported in Brazil. Surely European consumers and producers are entitled to the same standards from imports as apply to European products. Traceability in Brazil is totally unacceptable in anyone's view. Of 200 million cattle, only 16.5 million are tagged. Even those are only tagged 45 days before entering the slaughterhouse. Where is the parentage of those animals? If any Irish producer sent cattle to the slaughterhouse under the standards used in Brazil, all the animals would be put into the skip. The Brazilian standards do not exist and there is no traceability whatsoever. Parentage cannot be traced 45 days before slaughter.
Vaccination against foot and mouth disease took place in Brazil long before a known outbreak of the disease. Producers in Brazil are permitted to use growth promoters, including the one we used to know as "angel dust". We have no guarantee these are not being used as they can be kept without prescription. Traceability is out the window while at the same time we have very good standards in Europe, which we support. However, we want a level playing field and from a human and cattle health point of view we cannot accept imports coming in here. We are calling for a total ban on imports and I hope the committee will agree. I now ask the chairman of the livestock committee to make a few points.
Mr. John Bryan
I join our president in thanking the committee for the great support we got the last time we appeared here. The issue discussed then affected many farmers and I know immediate representations were made to the Minister. We appreciate the effort put in by the all members of the committee.
As members of the committee are well aware, 100,000 Irish farmers are involved in the beef industry. The cost of production is increasing all the time and this has been pushed by European traceability, cross-compliance, the Nitrates Directive, etc. With decoupling we have reached a delicate stage whereby farmers are trying to decide whether to stay in production. The biggest factor is the price of beef, which is governed by the high cost of production, including the cost of keeping and fattening cattle. Imported beef with none of the costs associated with traceability and environmental standards has the capacity to undermine Irish agricultural infrastructure. Farmers make a huge contribution to the environment and economy. It is totally dependent on a farmer being able to sustain a family farm income. Imports are coming from countries with none of the traceability or animal welfare standards. An upcoming EU regulation on animal transport will place additional costs on farmers. This would place constraints on transporting animals over distances greater than 65 km. In South America they travel 5,000 km or 6,000 km without any such regulation. We have always asked for a level playing pitch.
During June and July imports collapsed our prices to a level that forced farmers to decide to exit the business. Farmers from the west of Ireland have been selling weanlings at prices that failed to cover the cost of feeding the animal. I recently attended a Bord Bia meeting where a Teagasc expert said that for a farmer buying weanlings even at such a low price to make a margin of even €50 he would need to get nearly €1.14 next spring. Unrestricted imports as a result of a weaker WTO decision could damage the whole infrastructure of Irish agriculture.
The president has said the lack of identification tags, lack of controls on residue etc., have the capacity to undermine consumer confidence in beef. The European farmer has accepted traceability and has made a big investment in tagging from birth, tracing to the dam, etc. They have learnt to live with these regulations. However, it is totally unacceptable to find the price set by imports coming from a country without any of these standards.
My colleague, Mr. Kinsella, is familiar with the report of the food and veterinary office, which is supposed to supervise imports from all non-EU countries. The office's 2003-04 report, which indicates that there is a substantial lack of compliance with the various regulations, stated that "in relation to the system of identification and certification of origin of cattle, the supervision was found to be very limited and ineffective to prevent serious deficiencies". There was no link at that time between the recording of deficiencies at local level and the cattle records on the central database. The brand system was being used. Approximately 16.5 million of the total of 200 million cattle are registered on the central database. The identification of animals during the fattening period is not linked to the identification of animals at their at holding of birth. Individually identified animals are mixed with animals which are identified by brand. It is obvious that no controls are in place. It is totally unacceptable for the EU food and veterinary office to sign off on their level of traceability. European consumers are entitled to the same level of traceability and biosecurity that is forced on European farmers. Farmers have made a huge effort to abide by such standards.
I do not want to labour the point, other than to reiterate the IFA's basic requirements. Labelling is required to protect the home market. I appreciate that there is all-party support for the legislation that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, intends to introduce in the Seanad. The IFA is calling for greater biosecurity at airports and ports. It is totally unacceptable, given that there has been a recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in South America, that one can arrive at Dublin and Shannon airports without having to dip one's feet. As Mr. Dillon said, the IFA favours a total ban on imports from Brazil and any other country that does not meet the high standards which are in force in the EU. The IFA wants EU vets to be deployed at plants outside the EU to supervise animal identification and to undertake residue testing. It is hard to accept the word of a vet in Brazil who says there are no residues when we know there are no controls on beta-agonists and other things which are not acceptable.
Mr. Kinsella will go into greater detail on the IFA's position on the WTO negotiations. The IFA welcomes the stance of the Minister, Deputy Coughlan. We cannot have a sell-out on the WTO. It is essential that no access be allowed to products which do not meet the standards in place here. The EU needs to defend the single farm payment at WTO level.
Mr. Kevin Kinsella
I have drawn the short straw because I have to try to explain some of the more complex beef sector issues being discussed by the WTO. I will try to give some flavour of what is at stake during the negotiations which are taking place in the run-up to those in Hong Kong, which should be the final negotiations.
The joint committee has circulated details of the livestock sector's proposals, which were compiled by the IFA and Meat Industry Ireland. It is not often that the IFA agrees with the meat factories and Meat Industry Ireland on various issues. As Mr. Dillon said almost a year ago at the IFA's AGM, the IFA understands that the WTO poses a serious potential threat to the Irish livestock and beef sector. Mr. Dillon said that the IFA needed to meet the representatives of the meat processors to work out a strategy, to set out a road map and to make some proposals to help Ireland to try to deal with that threat.
The proposals which were drawn up when the IFA officials met their counterparts in the meat processing industry have been presented to the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, the Department of Agriculture and Food, the EU Commissioners, Mr. Mandelson and Ms Fischer Boel, and the EU Commission. The joint committee has a copy of the proposals. I do not intend to speak in detail about the proposals and the negotiations because they are quite complex, but I would like to make a couple of key points. I will listen to other proposals and answer any questions about the negotiations which are asked by members of the committee.
The EU took the bold decision in advance of the WTO negotiations to put its house in order by introducing the decoupling system. I do not think any of the other parties to the trade negotiations can point the finger at the EU by arguing that it has not reformed its system of agricultural subsidies. Since the subsidies have been decoupled from production, they can no longer be said to be trade-distorting. When the EU was putting its house in order, a big leap of faith was required on the part of Irish producers and the Government. It was made clear to the IFA that the changes would lead to a decrease in production in the EU, which would lead to a corresponding increase in producer prices and incomes.
While the decoupling system is continuing to reduce EU production, it has not had the positive impact of increasing producer prices from their very low level. Instead, it has attracted greater volumes of beef imports. EU beef imports increased from 370,000 tonnes in 2001 and 2002 to almost 540,000 tonnes last year. The IFA expects the latter total to be exceeded significantly this year. The main problem with the increase in beef imports, which has resulted from the deficit created when internal EU production was reduced, is that the imports are coming in at very low prices. The increased imports have caused a decrease in prices, rather than an increase in prices at the production level. That effect is the opposite of that predicted by many EU Commissioners, including the former Commissioner, Mr. Fischler, when the decoupling system was being discussed. The impact of the system has been the opposite of what was envisaged at that time.
As the president and the livestock chairman of the IFA have said, the vast majority of the EU's beef imports come from South America. The beef being imported into the UK and continental countries tends to come from selected large-scale ranches in Brazil and, to a lesser degree, Argentina. The imports do not come from the poor African countries which are cited by the EU Commissioner, Mr. Mandelson, and others when they are justifying reductions in tariffs and increases in imports. When IFA officials met representatives of the key UK supermarkets such as Tesco, Sainsbury's and ASDA, we were told that most of their beef imports come from six specific farms in Brazil.
The importation of beef from those ranches will make a small number of wealthy people more wealthy, rather than helping family farmers in the developing world. The committee should not be fooled into thinking that the WTO will lift all boats and improve the circumstances of workers and smaller family farms in developing countries. Our experience to date has taught us that will not happen. The price collapse that took place when there was a significant increase in the volume of beef imports in May, June and July of this year was a good example of the impact of such imports on Irish and EU agriculture. The main reason for the unviable decrease, of approximately €100 per animal, in cattle prices at that time was the increase in Brazilian beef imports into UK supermarkets.
I would like to speak specifically about the negotiations which are taking place ahead of the WTO talks. I think the internal supports will be all right because the EU has introduced the decoupling system. Some of the export supports, such as the export refunds and subsidies, are under pressure, however. The only issue at stake is the date on which the supports will have to come to an end. The IFA would like the process of phasing out the export supports to continue for as long as possible to provide for some level of competition.
The real threat to the Irish beef sector that will be posed during the WTO negotiations relates to imports. I refer in particular to the issue of market access. The IFA's proposals for dealing with the market access issue, which relate to sensitive product status and the tariff-free quota, recognise that Ireland has to meet certain world trade obligations at WTO level. The EU has to negotiate an overall ceiling on the volume of beef being imported into Europe. The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, and the EU Commissioners, Mr. Mandelson and Ms Fischer Boel, have to ensure that imports are not unlimited. They need to ensure that there is an overall ceiling on the volume of product coming in.
There needs to be a degree of parallelism between the concessions given by the EU and the concessions not being given by the other trading partners, including the United States. They relate to matters such as labelling, food safety, the environment, animal welfare and the phytosanitary and foot and mouth disease issues to which Mr. Dillon referred.
The IFA appreciates the strong stance taken by the Government, Minister for Agriculture and Food and Opposition in defending Irish agriculture, in particularly the livestock sector, against proposals for excessive cuts in World Trade Organisation negotiations. It is vital to maintain the momentum built up by the Minister and Government in alliance with France and like-minded countries in Europe throughout the talks.
We need to have a political impact on the UK position and that of the key EU negotiator, Commissioner Peter Mandelson. The IFA is concerned about how far the Commissioner is prepared to go in selling out agriculture to secure a final deal on world trade and told him this directly during a recent meeting. The IFA president has also expressed our concern directly to British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Irish political leaders have a role to play in trying to rein in the excessive concessions being offered by Commissioner Mandelson and the UK Government in these negotiations with the objective of protecting family farms in Europe against globalisation and liberalisation of world trade. While these trends may have delivered in the area of services, they have not delivered on the food side, nor will they because critical issues such as food security, consumer requirements, animal health and phytosanitary questions must be taken into account.
The IFA cannot understand how it is possible that, on the one hand, the EU Commission has access to EU reports indicating that traceability and animal control methods in Brazil are inadequate while, on the other, the EU committee on public health and food safety, which met last week, is able to express satisfaction with a regional ban in Brazil. These two facts cannot be reconciled and this contradiction must be challenged at the highest level by politicians. The IFA requests that the joint committee raise this issue and challenge the discrepancy at the highest levels. I thank members for their time.
I will address the Minister's proposals on labelling as they relate to the home market. As members will be aware, the home market takes heifer beef which in many cases is supplied by smaller farmers, particularly those in the western half of the country. They sell the most profitable animals, bull calves, and keep the heifers, fatten and finish them and earn a few euro from them. This market is being undermined by the current level of imports. The IFA understands that imported beef, including South American products, accounts for up to 30% of the market. Once this beef enters Ireland and its packaging is removed, no one has any idea what becomes of it as it moves silently through the chain.
Over the years, Ireland's tourism industry has partially built its reputation on the quality of Irish food. If some of imported beef is found to be masquerading as Irish, it can undermine the beef industry and farming sector. We have been lucky thus far in that no health problems have arisen as a result of such imports, not only because the tourism industry would be damaged but also because farmers and producers would take the first hit. This is the reason the IFA is keen to have control and compulsory labelling introduced.
Surveys carried out by the IFA at various points around the country in recent years and subsequent DNA tests of products have shown that these imports are dispersed throughout the island and are not concentrated in a single area such as Dublin. The proposed legislation must be comprehensive and carry substantial penalties for those who flout the law. The IFA insists that Irish beef must be sold as an Irish product and foreign beef must be labelled as originating in the country from which it has been sourced. Given the level of profit that can be made through deception of this nature, it is imperative that this be reflected in the legislation by providing for substantial penalties for those found to be engaging in this deceptive behaviour. I suggest a fine of €100,000 for a first offence and a substantially higher penalty — perhaps €500,000 — for a second offence. This is the only way to stamp out the practice.
A dedicated section of the Department of Agriculture and Food should be charged with enforcing the legislation. Farmers who flouted the law were dealt with by a special investigation unit in the past and many, including some who were subsequently found innocent of any wrongdoing, suffered great hardship and many sleepless nights. Much of the energy of the special investigation unit should be diverted towards enforcing the proposed legislation. Over the years, penalties were imposed on farmers for lost tags and unintentional errors in applications. The importance of the beef sector to farmers and producers and the quality image Ireland has built up over the years for tourism require that we be thorough. The legislation must be enforced to the maximum possible degree if we are to maintain our reputation for certification and traceability.
I apologise on behalf of Deputy Naughten who had to leave to take the Land Bill in the House. I welcome the IFA delegation. Having once chaired the livestock committee, I place on record my interest and involvement in this area. The Food and Veterinary Office of the European Union, which is based in Ireland, highlighted the lack of traceability of Brazilian beef long before the most recent outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. Brazil abandoned its tagging and traceability system last October. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease made traceability a much more serious issue. Some time ago my colleague, Deputy Naughten, demanded that all beef imports from Brazil cease. Now that the fear of foot-and-mouth disease has been realised, there should be no excuse to import any Brazilian meat into Europe.
We have all learned from the lack of controls in the United Kingdom and the impact of the outbreak of food-and-mouth disease on this country. For this reason, it is difficult to understand the failure to introduce a total ban on meat imports from Brazil. I ask the Minister to work with her EU colleagues towards that end. Other countries have set a precedent in this regard and it is hard to understand our lax attitude towards it.
The last issue Mr. Lynch raised related to the home market. In the past ten years half of the abattoirs have been closed, which has had a major effect. That is the result of departmental over-stringency and red tape. I remember one butcher who built an abattoir according to the instructions and advice of a Department official. When a more senior departmental official came on the scene he advised that the new building was not suitable for the purpose. Individuals within the Department did not even know what the regulations were or how to monitor them. That is one issue. I understand that on 1 January this year even more strict legislation came into force. It is difficult to understand why we are legislating in such a way that ordinary abattoirs will not be able to supply the domestic market, especially the catering trade. It is in the interests of the IFA to take a strong stand to try to get rid of the red tape.
I find it difficult to understand what has been said here regarding labelling. It has been suggested that the Minister for Agriculture and Food is bringing a Bill through the Seanad. The Department of Health and Children would surely be responsible for any Bill on labelling. I am not aware of any such Bill in the pipeline although we have been pushing for this for some time. The last time a question was asked about this, we were told that agreement had been reached on labelling at local level but it would not be backed up by legislation. Nothing has yet come into force in that regard. This is an extremely important issue on which the Fine Gael Party takes a strong stance. There is a need to be absolutely clear about where meat originates. The difficulty with beef, poultry and so on is that the product can come into an EU country from God knows where and it is then labelled as having been processed in a particular country with no reference made to the country of origin. It is a frightening situation when 30% of meat in the home market is supplied by Brazil.
This time last year I spoke to an ordinary farmer from Northern Ireland who advised me that one of his family was involved in the meat trade in the UK and that person's main job was to travel to Argentina to buy meat. A few weeks later it was announced that a factory in Northern Ireland which bought direct from farmers had lost the Sainsbury contract. It was not too difficult to work out that it had been lost to Argentina. That is the problem we face. I understand that any residues found in Europe were found in imported meat. That is proof, if we need it, that any problems we have in the area come from non-traceable imported meat. This is a most serious matter. We would back Mr. Lynch's attitude to the current lack of security at ports and airports. Security at ports and airports was of the utmost importance during the foot and mouth disease outbreak.
I welcome the strong stance being taken by France on the WTO negotiations. We must follow that in a vigorous and positive manner. It is clear that the changes in the meat importation regime will do nothing for the so-called developing countries. A few years ago, on a visit to the United States with the Chairman and a few others, we saw beef being produced with hormones and milk with steroids. Production regimes outside Europe are totally different to what pertains here. Our main worry is that with the single payment system there is a danger that farmers across Europe will dramatically decrease production. It is important that European consumers be warned about the potential results of such a change. In the context of the WTO negotiations, it is in our interests that we preserve a high level of production in Europe in order that we have high quality, residue-free beef, milk and the other products we need.
I have covered most of the issues raised. The Fine Gael Party will support the Minister provided she takes a strong stand. It is essential that the Taoiseach lead the way on this matter. If the core issue is to increase trade at the expense of the farming community and food safety for consumers, we must oppose it in the strongest possible way.
I call Deputy Upton who, unfortunately, will have to leave as soon as debate on the Land Bill commences.
I welcome Mr. Dillon and his colleagues and thank them for their presentation. Their research on the food and veterinary organisation reports makes for damning and worrying reading. I accept these reports have been published but they make a greater impact when presented in that stark format. It shocked me to hear that clenbuterol does not legally require a veterinary prescription for purchase and use. If I recall correctly, people have gone to prison here because of the misuse of clenbuterol. We clearly have a major health and safety problem if that is the kind of scenario with which we are dealing. The disclosure of that information and its availability to us is important for the consumers on whose behalf we speak.
Two separate issues arise in terms of the control of residues. There appears to be an almost total absence of control of residues in Brazil. We have all raised these matters a number of times and tabled relevant parliamentary questions. The second part of the presentation related to the report on health controls and traceability. Mr. Dillon made the point that records only exist for 16.5 million animals out of an estimated total of 200 million. The co-ordination of those records appears to be in total disarray. We constantly worry about traceability here and quite rightly insist on high standards. We are very critical of people who fail to show they have put in place the appropriate systems. Apart from anything else, it is very unfair to consumers that they are then exposed to a product for which the same high standards are not required.
A good labelling document was produced in 2002 which we were all agreed we should support. In effect, very few of its recommendations have been implemented in any way. The main issue relates clearly to beef used in the catering industry and the lack of labelling thereof.
The Minister stated recently that a voluntary code had been agreed with the restaurateurs and caterers. This is quite laudable in its own right but it is not enforceable. Although the code is a step forward and not a waste of time, it will not be fully effective until it can be enforced. I emphasise the need for full labelling. This should be set down in legislation but it does not appear to be happening. If it is, it is happening extremely slowly. We have had full agreement at this committee for a long time that full labelling is needed.
My next question, which is important, concerns how the insistence on labelling should be policed. Mr. Lynch raised the question of penalties. Apart from considering penalties, one must bear in mind the issues of monitoring and policing, which are also very important. If the code is to make sense and be enforceable, we must have people policing it. It is not good enough to say the legislation is in place. Unfortunately, we have too many laws that we do not enforce and we therefore need to be assured that the code will be enforced, that it will be capable of being monitored and policed and that there will be appropriate penalties for those who fail to meet the requirements.
I believe I am correct in saying there is a prohibition on the retesting of products that have entered the country once they have been approved by the FVO. I have raised this issue a number of times. We are prohibited from carrying out our own tests. One can only afford to carry out a very small number of checks. That is the reality. In terms of trade, we are prohibited or precluded from testing once the products enter the country.
I agree with all the points in the presentations on health controls, traceability and labelling. Another issue arises in respect of cost. Cost and consumer choice are very important. People state in opinion polls that they want and will pay for the best quality products but when they go to the supermarket they look at the price. The consumer will opt for a more attractive price. This will be protected if we have full labelling and full insistence on good quality control and quality assurance. It will mean there will be a trend extending down the chain of controls to the point where one can exclude beta-agonists, clenbuterol, veterinary medicines, additives, etc. That is the kind of choice the consumer is entitled to and must be given. The cost will probably kick in behind that on a relative scale.
I am interested in the delegates' concerns about biosecurity at airports and I agree with the points made in this regard. We have very poor biosecurity. This was raised in connection with the avian flu and the associated fears concerning people travelling abroad. We must question our level of biosecurity and monitoring. We have scope for much improvement.
Mr. Kinsella referred to meetings of his organisation with Mr. Peter Mandelson. What was his response? Having seen what was presented in the press, I believe Mr. Mandelson is going on a solo run. Why does Mr. Kinsella believe this is happening? What are its implications? I know he has already dealt with this issue to some extent.
Reference was made to a ceiling on the volume of produce entering the country. Do the delegates believe the ceiling should be based on a fixed volume, or should the controls operate only in terms of quality assurance?
On a lighter note, the delegates could have asked me about Peter Mandelson — I could tell them all about him. He is a difficult man to work with. The delegates have probably discovered this.
A number of areas in Brazil are quarantined at present as a result of disease outbreaks. I am told the quarantine means nothing because of the size of the country and that, as a consequence, certain contaminated herds are finding their way into the food chain in any case. If this is the case, a major dilemma presents itself in regard to health and safety. The EU appears to be able to do nothing about the problem. Perhaps the delegates will be able to enlighten me on this.
Mr. Kinsella mentioned parallelism in his presentation. This issue arises given the worries over food safety, labelling and foot and mouth disease. There are two sets of rules in this regard, the first of which is being implemented by the USA, Japan, Australia and South Korea. They are imposing a ban on Brazilian beef for all the reasons mentioned, yet the European Union, a major economic bloc, is effectively abdicating its responsibility towards its citizens. It is quite clear that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, is supporting Irish farmers on this issue. From the European Union's perspective, is it solely an issue of trade rather than one concerning the health and safety of our citizens? This issue must be highlighted and taken on, given that the USA, Japan, Australia and South Korea are prepared to have a total ban on Brazilian beef for the reasons we stated.
We have spoken before about traceability. Since I became a Member of the House, the debate on this issue has been ongoing, as has that on the uneven playing pitch. There is individual traceability within the European Union and all types of controls are in place for good reasons, yet there is none in countries such as Argentina and Brazil.
It is also very disturbing that a hotel in my county was alleged to have been falsely labelling beef as Irish. The IFA exposed this. There seems to be no patriotism or understanding as people are opting for the cheapest beef available to make the most profit. Some involved in the tourism sector are prepared to use imports because they are cheaper. A proactive approach is required on the part of the Department and the IFA to ensure that the public and those involved in the sector are aware of the issues involved. As the delegates pointed out, if the tourism sector is damaged as a result of the use of contaminated Brazilian beef, it will affect many people engaged with and employed in that sector. Is there a structure whereby the Department, the farming bodies and representatives of the hoteliers can come together to address the matter and promote our produce proactively?
It was stated the price of cattle collapsed in June and July to the detriment of the Irish producer. I fully concur with this because I have very close friends who were affected. One must question the motivation of those who brought these products onto the Irish market. Is there a way to deal with that?
Previous speakers have covered most of the points I wanted to raise. Decoupling was to set the stage going into the talks, removing an excuse or argument to be used against the European Union. In other words, production would be reduced in order to prevent the decline in prices and so forth. Imports, however, have undermined everything done by farmers, the Government and the EU. The same is true of allowing those imports to continue unrestricted. How can it be that there are economic blocs in the USA, Japan and Australia restricting and banning importation but none in the European Union?
I apologise for having to leave the meeting but I had a question in the House. The Land Bill is being discussed, in which many of Mr. Dillon's colleagues take an interest. We will go through the hoops on that issue later. I thank Mr. Dillon and his colleagues for raising pertinent issues which are important to the survival of not only the beef industry but agriculture in general.
The independence of the EU Food and Veterinary Office comes into question in light of the fact that earlier this year the Brazilians announced they had abandoned their tagging and traceability system the previous October. They then asked the Food and Veterinary Office to postpone the inspection which it traditionally conducted in April. For some unknown reason, the office acceded to that request and the inspection took place in late August or early September last. We need to know how the Food and Veterinary Office can facilitate a third country's request for postponement. It would not facilitate a similar request by a member state of the European Union.
The IFA highlighted the issue of tagging and traceability in respect of the 2003 and 2004 Food and Veterinary Office report, which is correct, because there are major deficiencies in this process. The European Union's decision that regionality is acceptable in Brazil is without foundation and cannot be accepted under any circumstances because there is no traceability of animals moving from one region to another in that country. It is different here. If an animal moves from County Roscommon to County Offaly, across the county border one knows straightaway where that animal is. That system is not in place in Brazil and as a result we are open to the risk of foot and mouth disease being imported into the European Union, and this country.
The Food and Veterinary Office inspection highlighted two significant problems. The first was that foot and mouth disease muzzles, which are obligatory for the importation of beef into the European Union, were not applied to some carcasses coming into the Union. The second problem was that meat destined for the European Union was stored with meat destined for other countries, which leads to mixing of carcasses.
The Food and Veterinary Office also found in some carcasses destined for the European Union that the pH was not kept low enough to destroy the foot and mouth virus. This is a damning indictment of the Brazilian authorities and raises questions about the EU proposals and decision to take a regional approach to Brazil.
It is vital that there be labelling within the catering trade, with legislation to back it up and significant fines for those who abuse the system. This should apply to beef and other food products such as poultry, pigs and lamb. What is the IFA's view of this proposal?
We are all concerned about the abuse throughout the European Union of the clause of substantial transformation which facilitates pork from the United States, beef from Brazil, lamb from New Zealand, vegetables from Israel and chicken from South-East Asia being reprocessed here and sent out as an Irish food product. Even a process as simple as spreading bread crumbs on a chicken fillet can comply with this clause. What view do the IFA's EU colleagues take of that clause and will this matter be progressed because it is very important in the context of bio-security?
It could happen that a side of beef comes in from Brazil as a carrier for foot and mouth disease, is reprocessed here, sent to another EU member state and subsequently found to have the foot and mouth virus. The blame will fall on Irish farmers. That anomaly within the food labelling regime leaves us open to such allegations in the future. It is irresponsible of the European Union to continue to allow the abuse of that loophole.
I endorse the position of the IFA in respect of the WTO. We have reformed our structures within the European Union. We have taken major and difficult decisions and should not have to renegotiate them. I was disappointed to hear the Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Michael Ahern, quoted as being happy with Peter Mandelson's comments to him last week, while the Government and the French authorities are this week criticising the same point. The proposals for 60% and 70% cuts must be immediately withdrawn and not entertained under any circumstances.
The IFA is correct. We need to consider the issue of food security and bio-security. The UK agenda is being pushed, namely a cheap food policy with no regard for the source of the food. I would like to ask the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and his colleagues what will we do if there is a French dockers' strike or a strike in the Netherlands and we cannot get beef, chicken or lamb into the European Union? It is important to have a food security policy.
In these negotiations we should try to import carcasses of beef and lamb — which is close to my heart — rather than premium cuts. At present, for example, lamb chops and legs are imported and the rest of the carcass is dumped on third country markets. The distributors know they can get a premium price for certain cuts in the European Union, which destroys the market here.
I too welcome the president of the IFA and his team here today. I concur with most of my colleagues' comments. This matter, especially the import of Brazilian beef, is serious. The Minister should consider speaking to his counterparts in Northern Ireland and Britain and impose a total ban on all Brazilian beef and on all chicken coming into the country. In total, 85% of our produce is exported. This would be an ideal opportunity for the Minister to seek a ban on all imports of beef into this island.
I welcome the IFA delegation and support its arguments. I was not aware that Brazilian beef carcasses were imported into the country.
They are and that is what the import records have shown.
My information was that it was only top cuts, such as striploin, fillet and sirloin. I understand there is a €3,000 charge on every tonne imported. Deputy Naughten stated the cheaper cuts are being dumped here. We cannot blame the Brazilians for this as we are doing it too in markets in Egypt. Ireland was a supporter of regionalisation because, although we had foot and mouth disease, we were still able to export. Exports are banned in three provinces in Brazil. One of the major provinces is San Pedro where 75% of Brazilian beef is processed and exported. However, because of the lack of traceability, cattle can be taken from any part of Brazil and brought to those facilities and exported to Ireland. I fully support a full ban on Brazilian beef imports.
I agree with Mr. Lynch on the issue of labelling. The Minister is introducing this and it will begin with beef. There will be severe penalties for those caught selling Brazilian beef as Irish beef. However, I have seen beef sold in this way. Butchers do not sell it across the counter because there is an obvious difference between pre-packed beef, which has a three week shelf-life, and the Irish strips bought in shops for retail. Some 90% of the beef used in the restaurant and hotel business is Brazilian. At any dinner dance one goes to, the roast beef served is striploin. Those businesses cannot afford to sell Irish strips. I have seen Brazilian strips taken out of vacuum packs to be put into others and sold as Irish beef. The stricter the fines in this regard, the better.
A battle in the home market and the abattoirs has gone on for years. I have attended meetings on this issue with the IFA, often with Mr. Kinsella, and different Ministers. It is sad that it has reached this stage. Deputy Naughten said more regulations will come into force. County Sligo had 18 slaughter houses 20 years ago. Today, there is only one. This is reflected throughout the country. At that time the local abattoirs processed 25,000 sheep and 5,000 cattle a week. Now the damage has been done as it is only factory buyers in the market and there is no competition. We can take much of the blame for that ourselves.
I hope no more regulations are introduced. In County Cavan an individual built a plant costing £430,000 for slaughtering pigs, sheep and cattle. However, it was not passed due to regulations and he had a brain haemorrhage. Another plant was built in 1985 with full planning permission. The only regulatory authority then was the health board. By 1992, it was closed. The inspectors advised the plant to do x, y and z and it was done at the cost of approximately £20,000. The inspectors came back the following year and advised more alterations at the cost of £20,000. The plant could not afford this.
I welcome the IFA delegation. Its presentation made great sense and the IFA is speaking for the farmers of Ireland. When one looks at what farmers go through if they make a mistake with a form, one sees that it is amazing that a country with no traceability can export its beef to Ireland. It is time to take a firm stand on the ban of Brazilian beef exports. We will encourage the Minister for Agriculture and Food to do so. Mr. Peter Mandelson has had a chequered career wherever he has been.
Hear, hear.
It is not the first time he has put his two feet in it. His remarks were well out of order and almost anti-Irish. He has not been helpful.
Mr. Dillon
Deputy Crawford referred to the Food and Veterinary Office highlighting issues. However, it often speaks out of the two sides of its mouth. That there are different standards for beef imports and Irish beef is nothing short of hypocrisy. The Food and Safety Authority of Ireland is not happy with what is going on. If the standards of beef imports are up to scratch, it should be made clear. This point should be made, not alone on our side of the table, but also on the Chairman's side.
Some 500 abattoirs have been closed down in the last few years. I agree with Senator Scanlon's comments on this issue. I could not have said it better myself. Local abattoirs are told by the authorities to do one thing but when that is done the abattoirs are told to do more. It is never said what has to be done to keep an abattoir open. Although I am a layperson, I believe there are many residues in beef imports that can be found only in the offal such as the liver or eyes. The beef can come through without finding any residues.
Deputy Upton referred to clenbuterol. It goes back to traceability. The bottom line is that there is no traceability in Brazil. One cannot have traceability where 16.5 million cattle out of 200 million have been tagged 45 days before they go to slaughter. They can also move around the country, with nothing to stop them, and no traceability. This is the type of situation we regularly face. If I dealt with my cattle in that way, under the current regulation I would get no money for any animal and they would all go to the skip.
Some people have referred to the trade issue. Two issues are involved. The first is animal health and human health, the second the trading issue. They are separate, but both are important for Ireland. I would expect health and safety to be the most important.
Deputy Ferris referred to imported beef being sold as Irish beef. That must be profitable because I imagine that in any hotel or restaurant one will not be told, up front at any rate, if the beef is Irish or foreign. One simply buys one beef and pays for it. In some cases I know that such beef is foreign because I have made a study of the subject.
What can be done about this? Bord Bia can take the credit from an IFA point of view. We came up with the idea of "Féile Bia". This involves a mark put by Bord Bia on beef in hotels to indicate a certain quality and standard. Only some 1,400 establishments have signed up to "Féile Bia", which out of 14,000 outlets is not good enough. Bord Bia is talking of only a further 1,000 joining up this year, but that is a long way from grasping the situation and answering the problem. My colleague Michael Lynch noted that if people are caught passing off meat as Irish, penalties must apply which will at least act as a deterrent.
Decoupling was not brought in to distort the marketplace, but when it came in we expected a reduction in production to match demand. However, a vacuum occurred and imports, untraceable products, filled it. There is a question mark over the independence of the Food and Veterinary Office. I will leave it at that.
Regarding traceability, Deputy Naughten referred to the mixing of carcasses. We have to accept that when they come into Ireland they are not mixed, but they can be mixed before they arrive, particularly when the traceability and identity which should be there is not there.
We can have regionalisation in Ireland mainly because we have the ideas that can enable it. There is no acceptance of regionalisation in Brazil because the identification is not there. I will leave the matters of labelling and bio-security to Michael Lynch.
We are asking the committee and as many other people as possible to support the idea of a total ban on Brazilian beef on human and animal health grounds. A comment was made about various cuts of carcass coming in. Mr. Kinsella might make reference to that, in terms of regulations.
Mr. Bryan
Mr. Dillon has more or less covered the issues raised by Deputies Crawford and Naughten. We are concerned that the Food and Veterinary Office accepted abandonment of ID. At this stage it should have applied a ban, which we urged. For some reason the office continued to accept lower standards. That is not acceptable. As Mr. Dillon said, the office has been proved to be negligent. Three further disease outbreaks have been confirmed this week. It is time the Food and Veterinary Office applied a total ban and stopped accepting the lower standards accepted in the past. The standard must be set at the European bar.
Deputy Upton spoke of clenbuterol, and the consumer's entitlement. Consumers look at prices but also trust food safety. They trust the EU to set a standard high enough to be relied on. The idea that someone in Brazil simply signs off forms, without adequate testing, is not acceptable. As Mr. Dillon said, the only way to ensure residue testing is for EU vets to be in the plants in Brazil testing the offal, retina and liver. Anything less is unacceptable.
The idea of a regional ban is almost a bad joke because in Brazil they cannot tell, to the nearest 2 or 3 million, how many cattle are in the region. How can one have such a ban if one does not know how many cattle are inside or outside a region? They can move anywhere. Only a total ban is acceptable. I accept the comments made by all the Deputies and Senators and appreciate them.
We would be delighted with an all-Ireland ban on imports. The problem would be to get the British to sanction it in Northern Ireland. I fully agree regarding the abbatoirs issue. I went through the same experience at home. Year after year, men spent money, and officials continued to come along with different requirements, and eventually people closed down abbatoirs.
Deputy Ferris mentioned the hotels. I would love to think that we could work voluntarily with them. We have tried it but it does not work. They promise the sun, moon and stars in terms of committing to Irish products but as soon as we go out the door they are ready to accept cheaper products through the back door. Unfortunately, that is the case with many hotels. That is how it works. Unless we can apply controls, people will not know what they are eating. They will assume they are eating Irish produce. The hotels risk damaging their industry but as producers we will probably pay a higher price for that. Deputy Upton summed up the situation when she said that what is needed is legislation and policing, with penalties applied. That is what is required.
Mr. Kinsella
I cannot explain why Commissioner Mandelson is so difficult to deal with. He is on a solo run in terms of selling out agriculture for other issues on the WTO negotiations and can only be reined back in by the political process. We ask for the committee's help in that regard.
Deputy Upton asked a question about our proposal that there be an overall ceiling on the level of imports into the EU. We separate that fully from the animal health issue and the trade issue. Our proposal on the ceiling is in the context of there not being an animal health problem there. The Chairman and Mr. Dillon outlined that clearly. The animal and human health issue must come first. If the animal health status and the other health issues are such that they justify a ban on imports, from Brazil or anywhere else, the EU Commission should take that decision and move on it. The issue of a ceiling in trade negotiations is totally separate.
I very much welcome the view expressed by almost all members that there should be a total ban on Brazilian beef imports into Ireland. That is the view that I heard from around the table, and almost every member expressed it. We welcome that endorsement of our position.
The second issue on which I want to touch is that of the Food and Veterinary Office. This committee is critically important, and perhaps it should invite representatives of the Food and Veterinary Office to appear before it to explain its position and the contradiction regarding what it reports and what happens. With the committee's good offices, we can tease that out and get an explanation.
We met the director general of the Food and Veterinary Office and his team recently in the Chairman's constituency in Trim. We are aware that, as Deputy Naughten said, it has carried out another mission visit to Brazil. However, what did its staff do? They wrote up a report and sent it back to see if Brazil would accept it before it became public or was laid before the Commission. We find that unacceptable. Why would one conduct an audit or write a report, send it back to the people being audited, ask for their comments and then post it on the Internet and make it public? That is not an acceptable approach. We farmers are not audited that way, and we do not understand why they should adopt a different approach in this case.
There is very strong support in the committee and the Oireachtas for labelling and legislation on the issue. We welcome members' support for legislation on mandatory labelling. We also welcome the support here for our proposals on increased bio-security at ports and airports. Some people might see that as a small issue, but it is a very pertinent one in the minds of the public and consumers. We are an exporting nation, and we should have the highest animal health status. We strive to achieve that, and in that context we should have very clear and stringent bio-security rules applying at our points of export, whether those be ports or airports. We welcome whatever support the committee can give us in pursuing that with the Department of Agriculture and Food and any other Department. I thank members once more for their time and for allowing us to make this presentation.
Mr. Dillon
Deputy Naughten referred to the reprocessing of products entering Europe that are then misleadingly sold on as coming from there. That it seems to be Irish or British is not at all acceptable. Another question was asked regarding where we stand on our labelling of food products, which is the worst, whether it be chicken, beef, sheepmeat or pigmeat.
I support everything said here today. We have visited the Food and Veterinary Office as a committee on various occasions and with visiting delegations. We will invite Mr. Gaynor and his officials from the office to appear. If they are not willing to come, we are willing to visit them in Grange, which is not that far away and a good part of the country.
Mr. Dillon
I suggest that they come out on their own.
I agree. If they are not willing to come here, we are willing to go to them as a last resort. Regarding Mr. Mandelson, we know his attitude to Irish agriculture and agriculture in general. We will ask the clerk to the committee to write to the Taoiseach, asking him to talk to Prime Minister Blair and persuade him to get that man back on track. I will talk to the Taoiseach personally.
Before we finish, I believe that Deputy Crawford has a question.
I would like to return to an issue with which I am no longer as in touch as I once was. The Egyptians are now buying Irish beef again. In the old days, when they came in to do that, they had their own veterinary personnel. The issue of organs was raised. They investigated the animal's organs to ensure that they were correct, never mind the carcass itself. Have we made any effort to ensure that if we import beef into Europe, our veterinary personnel at EU level do the same job on our behalf? That point should be very strongly made. If we are prepared to import beef, chicken and other products, we must ensure that the EU, on our behalf, subjects them to the same stringent tests as exporters from our country do us when they come to buy cattle or carcasses here.
Mr. Bryan
We have made the point to the Food and Veterinary Office and the Minister. We have Egyptian and Russian veterinarians here. Nothing less is adequate, and we do not complain about them. It adds a cost to the production that we must carry when our beef goes to Russia. By the same token, we feel that European veterinarians should be in South America conducting full and adequate tests rather than accepting a piece of paper.
On all the issues, the clerk and committee members will contact the Minister and her officials and make known to them the concerns raised today. I thank the president, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Bryan, Mr. Lynch and Mr. Kinsella for answering our queries. I also thank Mr. Dillon and Mr. Bryan for their kind remarks regarding the overshoot. It was a pleasure for the committee to work on behalf of the farmers of the country, and I am extremely glad that it was successful. It may be Mr. Dillon's last meeting here as IFA president, although we hope not. I know that he has a month or two left. However, just in case——
Mr. Dillon
I volunteered not so long ago. One never knows.
In case Mr. Dillon is not here again, I thank him personally and on behalf of the committee. It has been a pleasure working with him. In his roles as president and vice-president, I worked with him on numerous occasions. Once we travelled to Northern Ireland, which was extremely beneficial to the small farmers of this country. During his reign as president and vice-president, he always had the interests of farmers at heart. We may see him back here wearing a different hat. I thank him again for his help and assistance.
We will enter private session since we have one or two housekeeping matters to attend to. We will allow the delegation to depart.
The joint committee went into private session at 4.40 p.m. and adjourned at 4.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 November 2005.