JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD díospóireacht -
Thursday, 13 Mar 2008

WTO Talks and Sheep Industry: Discussion with IFA.

Chairman

As we have two items on the agenda today, I propose that we first hear a presentation on the WTO talks by Mr. Padraig Walshe and Mr. Michael Treacy of the Irish Farmers Association to be followed by questions and answers. On the conclusion of that discussion, we will deal with the second item and the same procedure will apply. We will allow an hour to an hour and a quarter for the discussion on the WTO talks and the remaining time will be devoted to the discussion on the lamb sector.

I welcome the delegation from the IFA — Mr. Padraig Walshe, president, Mr. Michael Berkery, general secretary, Mr. Con Lucey, chief economist, Mr. Michael Treacy, director in Brussels and Mr. Michael Doran, national livestock chairman. I thank Mr. Treacy for his assistance and for looking after the committee members when they were in Brussels. When discussing the second item, I understand Mr. Walshe and Mr. Berkery will be joined by Mr. Henry Burns, IFA national sheep chairman, Mr. Colm O'Donnell, vice chairman of the sheep committee and Mr. Kevin Kinsella, director of livestock. They are all welcome.

I draw to the witnesses' attention the fact that while members of the joint committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before it. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Walshe and Mr. Treacy to make their presentations.

Mr. Padraig Walshe

We have been before this joint committee on many occasions and we have always been received in a positive manner, for which I thank the Chairman. Bearing in mind all the threats we have discussed at meetings of this committee, I can say without fear of contradiction that the greatest threat to Irish farming, the food industry and employment in rural Ireland of our generation is the present EU position in the WTO negotiations in Geneva. I am accompanied not only by the senior staff members of the IFA but by all our national officers and the chairmen of our various commodity committees, which demonstrates the seriousness with which we regard this issue.

I welcome this opportunity to inform members of the committee on the precarious circumstances in which Irish agriculture finds itself, arising from the likelihood that a WTO ministerial meeting in the next two months will "initial" a final agreement. Members of the Oireachtas will be aware of the major reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, undertaken by former Commissioner for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, Franz Fischler, which was completed in June 2003. A solemn commitment was made at that time that the major reform and reorientation of the CAP would be the European Union's contribution on agriculture in the WTO Doha development round.

The EU Commissioner for External Trade, Mr. Peter Mandelson, has shamefully and blatantly reneged on the commitment of Mr. Fischler and of the Council of Ministers in 2003. We are not just facing further reform of the CAP, we are also facing its destruction. When I addressed the Oireachtas Joint Committee on European Affairs three weeks ago, I stated:

The Commissioner is working behind closed doors at the moment in Geneva in what we believe is a reckless destruction of the CAP. He is prepared to sell out the beef industry to get a deal at any cost. He is engaged in a race to the bottom, to the lowest standards of food safety, animal welfare and the environment.

Since I addressed the Joint Committee on European Affairs, the problem has become more acute. The Government's strategy so far has done nothing to prevent Mr. Mandelson from promising further concessions on agriculture with a view to obtaining a deal. The only winners in Mandelson's globalisation agenda are the multinationals, commodity traders and corporate ranchers. Without being personal, I also include Mr. Mandelson's own career. It is indefensible that the European Union is on the verge of unwinding the CAP, thereby abandoning food security for Europe's 500 million consumers at a time when global food commodity markets are changing dramatically. In 2007, the world's population of more than 6 billion people consumed more food than was produced. Food stocks are at an all-time low, with less than 30 days' supply now available.

The food industry is the largest Irish-owned manufacturing sector, accounting for more than 50% of exports. Ireland's food and drink exports were worth €8.6 billion in 2007, representing 17% of Ireland's net export earnings. Farming, the food industry and the service industries depending on agriculture provide 300,000 jobs, which amount to 25% of all jobs outside the greater Dublin area. The WTO deal on the table in Geneva threatens food exports and 50,000 jobs in rural Ireland.

With the finest raw material in the world, the Irish food industry is the means of achieving higher value-added consumer products, given a fair chance, but if Mr. Mandelson gets his way, it will never have that chance. What a shame. Despite the fact that the Doha negotiations commenced in November 2001 and the European Union made its formal offer in October 2005, the Department of Agriculture deliberately never published its calculations on, or assessment of, the cost to Irish agriculture of the Mandelson offer on the table in Geneva. Notwithstanding this, the IFA economics section has calculated the cost to the economy at €4 billion per annum, with 50,000 jobs lost in manufacturing and services and a further 50,000 farmers put out of business. In the presence of the Taoiseach and Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week, officials from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food did not disagree with these figures.

The European Union set out to achieve a so-called balanced deal involving non-agricultural market access, NAMA, and services, in addition to agriculture. I challenge anybody here — be he or she associated with the Government, Opposition or business interests — to demonstrate the tangible benefits to Ireland from the proposed deal on the table. One cannot even demonstrate potential gains to offset the certain losses in the agriculture and food sectors from the present deal.

The greatest threat to Irish agriculture from the WTO negotiations comes from the major cuts in import tariffs. For beef and dairy products, the two major sectors which account for 65% of agricultural output, EU import tariffs would be cut by 70%. For other products such as lamb, pigmeat, poultry and cereals, tariffs would be cut by between 55% and 70%.

The IFA's assessment is that a 70% cut in beef tariffs would severely depress cattle prices in Ireland to an unsustainable level of €2 per kilogram, or 70 old pence per pound. When account is taken of the increased volume of imports after a WTO agreement and the EU becomes the dumping ground for South American ranchers, the likely price for Irish cattle could be as low as €1.80 per kilogram. These prices would not remotely cover the cost of production.

Butter is the most vulnerable of the main dairy products. Following a 70% tariff cut, the imported price would be 16% below the EU price. This price fall, combined with lower skim milk powder prices as a result of the 70% tariff cut, would reduce the milk price in Ireland to approximately 24 cent per litre, which would have a devastating effect on confidence and development in the dairy sector.

For lamb, the EU already imports 283,000 tonnes annually, including 228,000 tonnes from New Zealand at zero import tariff from previous trade agreements. These preferential imports, equivalent to 26% of EU consumption, will be increased further in a new WTO deal, particularly with Australia which will export millions of sheep. The normal import tariff on lamb would be cut by between 55% and 70%.

Committee members will be aware of the income crisis in the sheep sector in recent years. Evidence of the attrition that has occurred in the sector is available to the Minister. Sheep numbers are down by 40%. An increase in EU imports under WTO would decimate lamb prices and the sheep industry in Ireland.

As regards pigmeat and poultry meat, the import tariff, already relatively low, would be cut by between 55% and 65%, depending on the particular product. The result would be little or no protection for European producers who must meet high standards and EU costs while not producing in dollar-a-day economies.

While again not wishing to be personal, I want to refute the propaganda being peddled by the European Commissioner Peter Mandelson that we are only interested in protectionism. In 2008, Europe will be the largest food importer in the world. This year the European Union will import €100 billion worth of food products, a quarter of the food exported from all over the world.

To aid economic growth and progress in developing countries, the unilateral agreement, known as the Everything But Arms deal, by the EU provides for unrestricted imports of all products from the 50 poorest countries in the world. We believe this is an enlightened and liberal strategy to lift the economies of and people in the poorest countries, particularly in Africa. However, by destroying the European food market, Commissioner Mandelson is also destroying the opportunity for these poor countries held out in the EBA agreement. No other wealthy country in the world, the US, Canada, Japan, Australia or New Zealand, has made such a tangible commitment to the 50 poorest countries in the world.

The winners in Mandelson's scheme are not the poorest countries but the agricultural superpowers such as Brazil. Even in these countries, the poor and landless will never benefit, as wealth and agricultural property is concentrated in the top 5% of the population.

In last week's welcome debate in the Dáil on the WTO negotiations, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, was rightly critical of the concessionary approach of Mandelson in the negotiations, when she stated that the European agrifood sector must not be sacrificed for the sake of a deal. While she did not say so, I earnestly hope the Minister includes farmers in the European agrifood sector. I remind her that without farmers in the future she may well be referring to the European agri-imported food sector.

In her speech, the Minister failed to put on record the devastating cost of a Mandelson deal. If Mandelson gets his way, Europe will be flooded with beef from South American ranches where landless labourers are paid only subsistence wages. Produced with lower costs, lower standards and on enormous ranch-scale units, dairy products, lamb, pork and chicken will be shipped to the EU from all over the world. The European model of agriculture based on the family-farm structure will be destroyed. Corporate ranchers, multinational traders and shippers, and international supermarket chains will reap huge profits. Once they have control, consumers will pay the price they set for food. There is no evidence jobs will be created in industry or services in Europe to offset the massive €17 billion losses in European agriculture.

Mandelson is a failed negotiator. For all his concessions, the US and other countries have offered nothing. All three candidates for the forthcoming US presidential elections are committed to protecting their farm and food industry as a vital national interest, stating quite clearly food is a security issue for the US. For Ireland, beef and livestock is a vital national interest. Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world. Beef is three times more important to Ireland than wine is to France.

The Minister's speech was silent on the following facts. Under Mandelson's deal, Ireland's livestock industry would be decimated. Cattle prices would fall to €2 per kilogram, and more than 100,000 cattle farmers would be made redundant and 1 million suckler cows slaughtered. Milk prices would fall to 24 cent a litre as increased butter and other dairy imports undermine the EU market. There would be serious losses in the sheep, pig, poultry and grain sectors. Sugar beet growers have already been sold out as a result of WTO. Beef, unlike sugar beet, once gone cannot be brought back.

The Minister in last week's Dáil debate was also silent on the €2 billion loss of export earnings and the €4 billion in total loss to the economy as a result of Mandelson dealing away Irish agriculture. The 50,000 job losses in rural towns in meat processing, co-ops, suppliers and services were also omitted from the Minister's speech. I do not need to remind committee members that in 50 towns throughout the country, meat, milk and other food processing services are vital employers and wealth creators, in some cases the only enterprise in a town. Neither was mention made of the 50,000 farmers who would lose their livelihoods from beef.

I am not presenting these figures to embarrass the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I am presenting them to remind her and the Taoiseach that this is the case they must make in Europe, so there can be no doubt as to the gravity of the situation.

These must be red-line issues for the Minister and the Government. Otherwise, they will be sleep-walking into the destruction of the Irish beef industry and severe damage to dairying and the rest of Irish agriculture.

The Minister appears to be investing much political capital in maintaining the green box for the single farm payment, which she describes as a red-line issue. Vital as the single farm payment is, it is not under attack in the Doha round. The Minister is deceiving herself if she thinks she can present saving the single farm payment as a satisfactory outcome for Ireland while losing on tariffs and market access that will devastate product prices, farm incomes and production. The Minister is in denial if she thinks this would be a satisfactory deal for Ireland as the loss of production will have long-term consequences for the raw material base for the food industry, jobs, food security and the environment.

In her speech to the Dáil, the Minister quoted from the Doha mandate at the launch of the negotiations on the commitments on import tariffs, domestic support and export subsidies. However, there was a further commitment in the Doha mandate to which the Minister did not refer. That commitment states:

Take note of the non-trade concerns reflected in the negotiating proposals submitted by members and confirmation that non-trade concerns will be taken into account in the negotiations.

While the Minister refers to the importance of the fair application of equivalence in animal health and welfare standards, this issue has been allowed to disappear off the table in the Geneva talks. The issue is ignored in the paper by the WTO's agriculture chairman, Crawford Falconer.

I am critical of the fatalistic approach of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and her Department that sooner or later there will be an agreement. No agreement is better than a bad agreement. This is a bad agreement. Commissioner Peter Mandelson is shredding Article 39 of the Treaty of Rome, which was the foundation stone of the Common Agricultural Policy and European integration over the past 50 years. Dismantling the Common Agricultural Policy will invariably lead to re-nationalisation, causing stress and tension in the European Union.

While creating fear about the consequences of lack of agreement, the trade Commissioner cannot demonstrate a single tangible concession from the other trading blocs in the negotiations. In any case, world trade has continued and expanded since 2001, when the Uruguay Round was fully implemented. The Uruguay Round rules will continue in the absence of an agreement. No agreement is better than the very damaging agreement on the table. The Minister and the Taoiseach should say so at the earliest possible opportunity.

The world is changing before our eyes. The three key resources for the future are food, water and oil. Already many food exporting countries are putting limits on their exports, as food security and inflation control are now their greatest priorities. In other countries, irrigated agriculture is being wound down, as water is needed directly by the people. With global warming, the temperate climate zones in most of Europe are best placed to produce food, and Ireland has many advantages with its mainly low-cost, grass-based potential. We must stop Commissioner Mandelson. If he succeeds, he will destroy our production potential, and that can never be recovered.

The down-turn in construction will impact heavily on rural Ireland, with many IFA members losing off-farm employment. The WTO deal coming down the tracks will have an even greater impact on job losses. The loss of the sugar beet industry was devastating for the towns of Mallow and Carlow, but beef is 20 times greater in significance to rural Ireland. While the impact will vary in different towns, the loss of jobs and spending power in Mallow and Carlow will be repeated in 50 towns across the country, except this time the economy will not be as robust in providing alternative employment.

I want the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Mary Coughlan, to reflect these realities at the Council of Agriculture Ministers meeting in Brussels next Monday. Only the Minister and the Taoiseach can put down a non-negotiable marker for Commissioner Mandelson and Commission President Barroso. For Ireland, a small country in the European Union, a vital national interest is at stake. There is no balance in this deal. Irish farmers, the food industry and the workers who will lose their jobs see no balance in the agreement. What they see for certain is that they are being sold out by Commissioner Mandelson.

Mr. Michael Treacy

Thank you, Chairman. The president has given a very detailed speech on the position, so I will be fairly brief. The negotiations are ongoing in Geneva, Brussels and other places and while it is difficult to predict exactly the outcome, progress is being made. The critical forum in Brussels will be the Agriculture Council and the General Affairs Council. The Commission is trying to push its agenda very strongly, particularly through the General Affairs Council.

The critical issue is the balance between agriculture, non-agricultural market access and services. We can see quantifiable offers in agriculture. We can see figures and huge losses for agriculture in the negotiations. We do not see gains in the other sectors. On services, the most the Commission is allowing is a signalling conference and in non-agricultural market access there is no real progress. Nevertheless, the Commission is pushing ahead and our worry is that limited progress in non-agricultural market access will be presented by the Commission as progress which could possibly allow a deal to be made on agriculture.

We have agreed to give up export refunds. We were told by the Commission that we would get parallelism where other countries would make similar offers, but that has not been the case. In market access, we see increased offers from the EU. Sensitive products represent a mechanism to safeguard EU production and we thought that such a mechanism would be based on imports into the EU, but we are now told that it is based on consumption. For example, we were talking about basing beef on 4%-6% of internal consumption in the EU, totalling 8 million tonnes, as opposed to imports which would be very limited. There are other issues related to the weakening of what is known as the safeguard clause, as well as a move towards ad valorem taxes which would mean less protection when world prices are low.

Chairman

I compliment the president and Mr. Treacy on their presentation this morning. I can speak for every Member when I say that we are 110% behind them. If Commissioner Mandelson gets his way, rural Ireland is dead, dry stock farming is dead, the poultry, sheep and pigmeat industries are dead. That is all we are left with in rural Ireland. We will do everything in our power. This committee has requested a meeting with the Commissioner. Whether he will accede to our request is another story, but we will not be found wanting on this committee in doing everything that can be done.

Deputy Michael Creed

I welcome the delegation and I thank Mr. Walshe and Mr. Treacy for their presentation. It is unfortunate in the sequencing of things that we are having this debate in the agriculture committee after a similar debate in the Dáil last week. The president must have read the deliberations, because his speech is similar to what I said on that occasion. Issues were raised such as the fact that Commissioner Mandelson exceeded the brief he was given, non-trade matters, environmental and animal welfare, the food security issue, as well as the proposals which would seem to accelerate the outsourcing of food production. The ultimate insult to both primary producers and consumers in the EU is that one can now purchase and consume something in the EU that one cannot legally produce within the Union. That is where the interests of primary producers and consumers are ad idem, which represents a possibility to build alliances when defending the interests of Europe in negotiating. It has not always been the case that the interests of primary producers and consumers have been the same, but it is now and that is a model worth preserving.

Looking around the room, I have no doubt that we are united in identifying the national interest. However, the prosecution of that case might result in some political differences. The reality is that this issue is substantially played out in the Cabinet, in the Council of Ministers, within the Commission and in the negotiating rounds of the world trade talks. As individuals, it is regrettably something over which we do not have any significant control. However, we need to ask the question about how the case is being prosecuted in Europe. I put down a parliamentary question on 18 October about progress to date in ensuring that non-trade issues were on the agenda, which was part of the instructions given to the Commissioner. The Minister stated in her reply that "I have sought and continue to seek". If she "continues to seek", that is effectively an admission that these issues are not on the agenda. That is a political failure of the Minister.

I know it will be St. Patrick's Day on Monday, but there is a meeting of the Council of Ministers and I hope the Minister will be present. I am not aware of her travel arrangements, but I hope she will be there. Perhaps one of the last intergovernmental conferences between Heads of State before a likely ministerial meeting to initial an agreement is taking place tomorrow. The president of the IFA has called in the past for the use of the veto and I know that he had a recent meeting with the Minister and the Taoiseach. Do they recognise that this is a significant vital national interest? Have the Taoiseach and the Minister given any indication of their willingness to use the nuclear option and invoke the veto?

To an extent, we are advocates. We are not directly involved as a committee or as Members because this is played out at a forum we are not privileged to be within. As an organisation, the IFA has significant access to the Minister through social partnership. Up to today, the Minister has virtually conceded that she has failed to put non-trade issues at the centre of the talks. She must use the Council of Ministers and tomorrow's IGC to effectively deliver a message to Commissioner Mandelson of "this far and no further" with regard to the riding instructions to be outlined to him. It is the eleventh hour. Regrettably, to date the efforts of the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, in the Council of Ministers to bring Commissioner Mandelson to heel have obviously not worked. Monday's Council of Ministers meeting and the Taoiseach's attendance at the IGC tomorrow are vital last opportunities that need to be used effectively to ensure Commissioner Mandelson remains within the remit. If that necessarily means that the proposals on the table are shredded, that is where we need to be in terms of protecting a vital national interest.

Deputy Seán Sherlock

I welcome the IFA delegation. The debate last week could have been delayed a little further pending a good discussion or exchange of views on this issue, although that is as may be. Our view is one which unashamedly seeks to protect the national interest. In seeking to do so, we are protecting our economy, particularly the rural economy, and a way of life that is under threat as matters stand.

Commissioner Mandelson has an agenda which is incongruous when compared to the founding principles of the European Union on issues of subsidiarity and its position as a Community-based trading bloc. While we all recognise the WTO is here to stay, I remain sceptical about the prospect of a deal any time soon. I also remain sceptical about the possibility of any of these issues moving on in the current political climate. While the outcome of the US presidential election will probably have a major bearing on matters, it will not be decided before November.

Be that as it may, this is an important issue for Ireland. I welcome exchanges of views such as this and feel this should happen more often in this committee. While one could potentially question the relevance of these debates with regard to their impact on the final negotiations, it is a matter for debate. It is important for the Irish Parliament to have its say and to reflect these views, and it is important that the Minister would come to the House to report on her negotiations to date.

Unlike Mr. Walshe, I think the Minister's negotiating position is quite good, as was her speech last week — I am speaking above the party-political ambit in this regard. I understand that she has to couch her language in a certain way. She should not come out at this stage and say that no deal is better than a bad deal. There is still some time to play with on this issue and she should build on the progress she has made in establishing the alliance with 19 other member states, which could represent a bloc that will hopefully bring Commissioner Mandelson to book on this issue. She could also perhaps hitch her wagon to the French caravan in seeking to rein in that gentleman.

There is no doubt that Commissioner Mandelson's agenda is totally at variance with that of the Council of Ministers or the member states. Although he is the EU's representative at the WTO, I wonder to what extent the Commission, a supra-national organisation, has powers that would supersede those of the member states. It is an issue that needs to be clarified because we could trade away the rural economy at a time when other sectors of the economy are in serious danger of being undermined. The agribusiness sector is the one sector that has remained a constant through thick and thin throughout the history of the State. It is the one that will always be there. If we are to trade away those concessions that have been hard won through tough negotiations since the foundation of the EU, we must call into question the fundamental make-up of the Union as it is currently constituted. We cannot trade away these issues lightly for the sake of one man's agenda.

Having read the Minister's speech and knowing her position, I believe she is acting in the national interest. We are still in the middle of a negotiation and there is uncertainty as to where it will end. As the Doha process began in 2001 and it is now 2008, it is fair to ask where we are going. I do not foresee any deal being concluded. I would welcome further and regular exchanges of views on this issue between the Minister, the farming organisations and the members of this committee, perhaps meeting in one room, so that I, as a member of the Labour Party, can reflect these views in full view of the Minister and the farming organisations. This would be an important and good way to proceed in the future.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I welcome the IFA delegation. Mr. Walshe has outlined the position very well and nothing I say will add to that. We have been made well aware of this issue at local level by the local representatives of the organisation. As we all recognise, it is one of the most serious issues to arise in a long time. Agriculture has been one of the big Irish success stories. Even now, it is one of our most important industries and we must protect it with all our might. Whatever we must do to protect it must be done.

We are lucky to have in Deputy Mary Coughlan a Minister who understands the position of farming. She has done a good job up to now and I have no reason to believe this will not continue. We should consider the funding that has been paid out in recent times and the funding that is proposed with regard to upgrading farm units, for which massive investment is being pumped in. It would be a serious matter if anything that emerges in the WTO negotiations would serve to nullify this progress. As Deputy Sherlock observed, it is early days. I applaud the IFA for the vigilance with which it represents its members. We must be similarly vigilant and must do everything in our power to prevent the Commissioner for External Trade, Mr. Mandelson, from getting his way. I might be going too far in describing him as Hitler. He is a man absolutely hell-bent on dealing away agriculture for other purposes. That is the only way I can describe him. He is not a friend to farming.

I meet the Minister on a regular basis and I will request that she regularly attend meetings of this committee to update members on developments. We have an excellent representative at the talks in Mr. Michael Treacy of the IFA. We must all work together, regardless of our political loyalties, to resolve this issue. We must maintain our vigilance to ensure we protect the State's most vital industry.

Deputy Mattie McGrath

I welcome the president of the IFA and his colleagues. The size of the delegation indicates how seriously the IFA takes this issue. I assure them we take it just as seriously. I am in regular contact with the Minister and am confident she is in control of the situation and will achieve the right result. Anything else would be a disaster. I was disappointed that the members of this committee who visited our Northern Ireland counterparts could not persuade them to seek a joint delegation to Commissioner Mandelson. They obviously put the union with Britain before the interests of Northern farmers.

We will fight our corner and I hope for a positive outcome. I thank the IFA locally in Tipperary for keeping me informed of developments. We must do the business on this issue and I am confident we will.

Chairman

I am obliged to allow committee members to speak first. However, Deputy Crawford has asked to be allowed to speak now because he has to attend another meeting at 10.30 a.m. Do members agree to allow him speak for one minute? Agreed.

Senator John Carty

It might be wishful thinking to expect him to speak for only one minute.

Deputy Seymour Crawford

I thank the IFA delegates for their informative briefing. I make no apology for calling for a debate on the WTO negotiations in the Dáil. The issue was discussed everywhere else but the Minister was not given the chance to put forward her position for the record of the House. The delegates have quoted from the Official Report today. It was of benefit not only to us that this was done. It was also of benefit to the Minister and her negotiators to be able to indicate that the issue was of sufficient urgency to be debated in the national Parliament. This is the single most important issue that has confronted the State for a long time.

Deputy Christy O'Sullivan spoke about the major demand for farm grants. This shows the enthusiasm of young people to remain in agriculture. However, the young people to whom I speak question what future there is for them in farming. Banks and other financial institutions are asking the same question because they know that if this agreement goes through, the situation will be disastrous. There is no point in saying otherwise.

I disagree that it is early days in terms of resolving this issue. My experience of previous negotiations, as an IFA representative, is that issues can develop quickly. I dread the influence of Commissioner Mandelson. He is a dangerous individual. That is why I appealed in the Dáil for the Taoiseach and other senior Ministers, together with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to take action. If they do not do so, Irish and European agriculture will be sold down the drain. The Chairman was with me in the United States some seven years ago when we saw milk being produced with steroids and beef with hormones. We cannot compete with that. We are being made to follow the green agenda.

Up to half of the pig farmers in my county have found their business is no longer viable as a result of the nitrates directive. The other half will be gone if this goes through. The industry will be decimated. The same applies to poultry farmers. Grove Turkeys had to wind down its operation because it could no longer compete on the world markets. This all happened even before the latest WTO negotiations. How bad will the situation become after those negotiations?

What is our situation in respect of the Committee of Professional Agricultural Organisations in the European Union-General Confederation of Agricultural Co-operatives in the European Union, COPA-COGECA? This is an important issue which I have raised in the Dáil. I am concerned that we may not get the backing of farming and co-operative organisations throughout Europe. Have we 100% backing? Can they apply the type of pressure we are applying through their various heads of state? If pressure is not applied at prime ministerial level throughout the EU to rein in Commissioner Mandelson, there is little this committee can do.

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak. I must leave now but I will return later.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I welcome Mr. Walshe, president of the IFA, and thank him for his comprehensive presentation. He has sounded the alarm bells in no uncertain fashion. I agree that actions speak louder than words and that action must be taken to curb Commissioner Mandelson. He is the architect of this misfortune as far as the Common Agricultural Policy is concerned. The time is ripe to summon every ounce of effort to impress on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the necessity to silence that man as far as possible. We will require the support of France, the most important ally we can recruit. With an allied French and Irish approach, I am sure we can strike a blow that will derail him from scuttling the agricultural policies to which the EU has adhered for the past ten or 20 years.

It is time for common sense to prevail. The committee must try to arrange a meeting with Commissioner Mandelson, to be attended by the representatives of the IFA. How long it will take to eke out a good agreement that is suitable for Irish farmers in the coming years is difficult to say. The referendum on the Lisbon treaty will take place in mid-June. Many farmers are doubtful about supporting a Lisbon treaty that could prove fatal to the agriculture industry in future. In addition, the time has come for commonsense to prevail. It is clearly evident that there is a direct approach by Mandelson to wipe out the Common Agricultural Policy in the world trade talks. He has given no commitment that he intends to protect the CAP, which was reformed in 2003, and it must be driven home to him that he is not infallible. While everyone knows he has a powerful position, were a proper approach to be made by the Irish and French Governments, as well as by the joint committee's counterparts in Europe, the agriculture industry could and would be saved. However, taking an easy approach will not get us anywhere.

I congratulate the Chairman on his efforts thus far to facilitate the IFA in its commitment to safeguard rural Ireland. The Chairman has personally excelled in impressing on the Minister the need for action and to preserve Ireland's main industry. I have heard him speaking to her constantly in this regard. Ireland only has three principal industries, namely, agriculture, fishing and tourism. Fishing has gone to the wall and has been completely wiped out. Agriculture is severely threatened and I doubt whether enough can be gained from tourism to keep the country going. As representatives in Parliament, members should do all in their power to impress on the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not to accept nonsense from Mandelson and to put down a marker whereby commonsense will prevail and the agriculture industry will be saved.

Senator John Carty

I also welcome the IFA delegation. Last week I met their local representatives, namely, the Mayo county chairman, Mr. Martin Gavin, and the former chairman, Michael Biggins. I will not be repetitive as all members are aware of everything that has been said today. They are well aware of the dangers for farming in Ireland if the outcome is wrong. The joint committee held a meeting last Monday week with the Northern Ireland Assembly's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. While joint committee members were a little disappointed that their counterparts would not come on a joint mission, they understand the latter are not Members of a sovereign Parliament. I suggest the IFA should induce the Northern Ireland representatives of the farming bodies to be on its side. Undoubtedly it has held meetings with them in order that they will keep pressure on from that side.

I have every confidence in the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's abilities to negotiate on this issue. In recent years, she has been a highly able negotiator for Irish farming and has built up strong relationships with Ministers from other countries and with the Commissioner. I assure the witnesses that she will attend next Monday's meeting of the Council of Ministers. I fully agree with the concerns brought before the joint committee by the witnesses. If Mandelson gets his way, agriculture will be in the pit. Moreover, the Minister has informed members that were agriculture to be sold out, there would be no benefit to any other sector. These are the facts.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

I will not take up much time because a great deal has been said. However, I compliment the president and all the officers. The seriousness of the matter is demonstrated by the sight of such a group gathered in Dublin at 9.30 a.m. I also thank the witnesses for the detailed presentation. Must there be complete agreement on this issue or will qualified majority voting apply? While Deputy Creed also made reference to this, I understand the veto may be the only way to stop this. I believe this State has only once invoked such a veto. Alternatively, the Minister could walk out of the discussions. The IFA has discussed this matter with the Minister. Has such an option been put before her and if so, how was it received?

Deputy Sherlock was of the opinion that this might not happen for a long time. However, as I believe Mr. Mandelson is doing everything possible to reach agreement by April or May, time is pressing. I also concur with the comments of my colleague, Deputy Sheehan. If this goes ahead under Mandelson's guidance, I guarantee the Lisbon treaty will go down the Swanee.

Deputy John Moloney

As I am not a member of this joint committee, I am grateful for the opportunity to come here.

Chairman

The Deputy is welcome.

Deputy John Moloney

I welcome the IFA delegation. I also recognise its strength, which makes clear to members the important message that must be delivered and, more importantly, considered today. I thank the president, Mr. Padraig Walshe, and Mr. Michael Treacy for the presentation. Last Monday, the Laois-Offaly IFA organisation met the Deputies representing Laois-Offaly and I wish to reflect on the presentation made by Mr. Henry Burns, Mr. Aidan Larkin and their colleagues. They pointed out that the WTO issue is not a matter about which members will get telephone calls from farmers this or next weekend. While the issue is not immediately pertinent to farmers, quite obviously given the background, its implications are huge.

In years to come, it will be recorded that the campaign in the Oireachtas began on the morning of 13 March. Members must take cognisance of the implications that have been outlined. It is important to stress that such implications are not limited to rural Ireland. One should not immediately go down the road again of segregating the nation by suggesting this only will affect rural Ireland. This has huge implications for both rural and urban Ireland and that message must be sent out. The fact that Ireland is the fourth largest exporter of beef must in itself reveal the implications for both householders and the Irish economy. I recognise the campaign conducted by Mr. Walshe on the issue pertaining to the importation of beef some months ago, which came to a successful conclusion.

I was impressed by Deputy Sherlock's contribution. I was glad to hear that the tactic that should be adopted is to raise this issue above party politics. That is a first step and one in the right direction. I am glad to note he shares the Fianna Fáil members' confidence in the Minister's ability. I do not make that point to try to tie him in for future debates. However, it is important that members are beginning to recognise this issue does not pertain to point scoring within the political system in Leinster House. In future, members should conduct themselves properly, not in a personal campaign against Mr. Mandelson, but to point this out at every opportunity. While I have every confidence in the Minister, it is also important that the Taoiseach hammers home the implications of Commissioner Mandelson's policy for this country at every opportunity and at any conference where he meets the British Prime Minister. It is not just agriculture that will be affected. It will affect the entire operation of the body politic in both countries.

I am impressed by the delegation and I completely take on board what it has said. It is important for all parties to keep the implications and issues on the agenda of their parliamentary party meetings and to try to prepare the steps we must take to clearly safeguard our agriculture policy.

I would have liked to remain for the next debate as I am particularly interested in hearing the presentation by my neighbour, Henry Burns, but unfortunately there is a meeting of the Oireachtas Committee on Health and Children to which I must go. I apologise and wish the IFA and Members well in conducting ourselves properly above party politics to deliver the best outcome.

Deputy Margaret Conlon

I also welcome the opportunity to be here though I am not a member of this committee. I also welcome Padraig Walshe and the members of the IFA and thank them for their presentation. Like other speakers, I agree and recognise that this is the most serious issue affecting farmers. There is real fear and concern among farmers on the ground. Farmers to whom I have spoken over the past few weeks have expressed this fear to me.

Deputy Crawford alluded to Grove Turkeys and the situation in Monaghan. There is a ripple effect when something like that happens. One is not only talking about farmers but about employers, local shops and the local community. In our case, as I have said repeatedly, the loss of 130 jobs is similar to a couple of thousand jobs in a huge city because the effect is so strong. That would be replicated throughout the country if this was allowed to proceed.

Our Minister is working very hard on the issue and I support her stance that the European agrifood sector must not be sacrificed in any way for the sake of a deal. Commissioner Mandelson appears to be a bit of a bully. One thing we were always taught is that the bully should never win. Certainly his motives are not correct and he cannot under any circumstance be allowed to railroad this through. I agree it is very important that we look to our strongest allies, who are probably the French, to ensure he is stopped in his tracks.

I agree with many speakers about the farm waste management scheme. There was a window of opportunity for many young farmers. They saw a situation where things were improving and there was light at the end of the tunnel. They were willing to invest in projects but will be dealt a fatal blow if this goes through. This blow will not only be financial. Morale, self-esteem and all that goes with them would certainly be at a very low point if this went through.

We have a commonsense Minister who has proven her worth in the past. She will leave no stone unturned to ensure that her support for the Irish farm industry and Irish farmers continues. She has not been found wanting in the past in this regard and is doing her level best.

I look forward to meeting the local representatives in Monaghan tomorrow to have the opportunity to discuss matters with them. I thank the IFA for their constant contact with public representatives. Issues are put before us in a very clear and concise way and are clearly pointed out to us. I look forward to working with my group in the constituency and the IFA in a spirit of co-operation into the future.

Chairman

Mr. Michael Doran wishes to speak.

Mr. Michael Doran

I am chairman of the livestock committee within the organisation. A number of Deputies spoke about young farmers' confidence and optimism. I hope I am one of these people. I am one of 63,000 suckler farmers in this country. If Peter Mandelson gets his way, he will take away our livelihoods and the rug from under our feet. We would be finishing all the animals we produce on my farm. Today, we saw beef prices rise to about €3.36 per kilogramme. This just about covers the cost of production but an air of confidence has come back into the beef sector in this country. This is partly because of the IFA's campaign over the past 12 months on standards and Brazil. There is optimism. The figures produced by Con Lucey show that if Peter Mandelson gets his way, we could be talking about a beef price of €2 per kilogramme. This would be the death of the industry because it would wipe it out completely.

I am spending €120,000 on pollution control on my farm to comply with the nitrates directive. I do this because I want to stay in farming and because I believe there is a future in farming. Many other people, including young people, are doing the same. They are investing in their own future and putting their hands in their pocket because they want to stay in farming. There is nothing fair or balanced about this deal and if it goes ahead, it will decimate that industry.

We hear considerable talk about rural development and putting more money into it. The best form of rural development in any rural community is a viable and active agriculture sector. If this is taken away, no matter what money one puts into a rural area, one will not put vigour and life back into it.

Our French colleagues gave us figures from their equivalent of Teagasc that said there would be a 25% to 30% reduction in beef output in Europe if the deal goes ahead. We are opening the door to a lower standard and making ourselves more vulnerable. We will be putting ourselves in the same position we are in today in respect of the energy crisis we face. We are depending on people outside the EU to provide us with oil and we are doing the same with food. Food is vital for life. World agriculture is changing rapidly. Why would we accept a deal that would put us in a weaker position going forward?

We are the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world, with Brazil being the largest, followed by Australia and the US. There are not too many world league tables where Ireland comes fourth. We export over 500,000 tonnes of beef, which is worth between €2 billion and €2.5 billion per year. We are going into the highest priced market in the world, namely, the EU. This will be taken from us and we will be asked to compete with people who face only a fraction of the costs we face in respect of production. They are producing to standards that would be illegal here. If any farmer here tried to produce food to some of the standards in other countries, he would end up in jail. We cannot physically do it.

Bord Bia says that if the deal goes ahead, in ten years every second steak consumed in the EU will be imported. This means that if I am eating an Irish steak, the people on my left and right will be eating imported steaks. That is the harsh reality in respect of the beef sector.

There is no mention of food security. It concerns a campaign on standards run by the IFA. The bottom line is that the deal proposed by Commissioner Mandelson must be stopped. There is nothing fair and balanced about it. The Minister must come out and stop this deal because it is the only way we will have a future for beef production in Ireland and across Europe. The only way we can secure our own livelihoods is by stopping this deal. As a producer and representative of 100,000 cattle farmers, I urge the committee to take action. The Minister must be accountable, stop this deal from going ahead and protect Irish and EU interests.

Chairman

Does Mr. Walshe wish to begin?

Mr. Padraig Walshe

I thank all the Deputies who spoke. It is great to see so many of them here. I also very much welcome the opportunity to put on the record of the House the figures I have put before the committee because, while I was delighted to see a debate on the WTO in the House last week, the one thing that disappointed me was a distinct lack of real figures as to the effect it was going to have on Irish agriculture in particular in that debate. This is why it is very important to put those figures on the record.

The point I make continually is that the Departments of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Enterprise, Trade and Employment have never put a figure on the table as to the effect of the proposals. Even the mandate proposal, which has often been discussed, would have a devastating effect on industry. I would like more debate on the real figures and effects on the industry. At the back of the document supplied to the committee is a graph that outlines clearly the effect on prices, that is, €2 per kilogram of beef or, in punts, 70p per pound. At our meeting with the Taoiseach and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last week, departmental officials stated that they had no disagreement with these figures as put to them. They have made their own calculations, but why do they not explain them to committee members and others?

The Doha round has been ongoing for seven years, but the most crucial time in any negotiation is the last 15 minutes. I do not expect the Minister to tell me or the House what her stance will be when that time comes, but it is important that the IFA and committee members as representatives be kept well informed of the implications. The aim of this exercise is a better deal for Ireland, as it will strengthen the Minister's hand when she sits down at the negotiations or the Taoiseach's hand when he sits across from his European colleagues.

Everyone present is aware of the importance of the beef industry. By putting the animal welfare scheme in place, the Minister, the Minister for Finance and the Government have demonstrated their commitment to the industry. The payment of €80 per animal would be undermined were Commissioner Mandelson to get his way. It is a serious issue. Many of the committee members present are from parts of the country where the sugar beet industry was a vital cog in the rural economy. If they or any of the more than 3,000 sugar beet farmers had been told five years ago that the latter would not be growing sugar beet three years later, they would not have seen it as being possible. However, it occurred because of a decision made in the Uruguay round. To put it in perspective, the sugar beet industry was only worth one twentieth of the beef industry's value. While some believe there will be a few cattle owned by hobby farmers who are not dependent on them for an income, there will be no semblance of anyone making a portion of his or her income from livestock farming if this measure is passed. We must take this matter seriously.

Mr. Doran referred to how the food security issue has been left off the agenda. Europe is the largest food-importing bloc in the world with imports of more than $100 billion in value imported annually, but Commissioner Mandelson wants Europe to become more dependent on cheap food imports of any standard. This is incomprehensible.

Most of the figures have been put on the table and I ask members to digest and make use of them. I assure them that we can stand over each figure. I hope the proposal does not come to pass and that, in a few years, people will look back and state that the IFA was crying wolf again. However, we are not. The situation is staring us in the face. As Deputy Moloney stated, it is difficult for farmers whose pockets are not being hurt today to realise that this proposal can come to pass. This situation is similar to that of sugar beet.

Just as we are lobbying the committee, we are working with our counterparts in Europe to try to make them aware of the seriousness of the situation. Members should not forget that, as we are the fourth largest exporter of beef in the world, we would be the worst affected of any country in Europe. We must take our destiny in our hands. We cannot expect others to fight this battle for us. Countries such as France and Germany, which are major producers of beef, have home markets, few exports and strong loyalties to their products among their consumers. We on the periphery of Europe will be pushed out if the proposal comes to pass.

Regarding Deputy Doyle's question, the veto was used once before by the then Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Austin Deasy, in the negotiations that led to the introduction of the milk quota. At the time, milk production was seen as a vital national interest with 70,000 farmers involved. Irish milk production had started from behind the more developed European countries and increased by 20% per annum in the couple of years leading up to the negotiations. By leaving the table and the room, the then Minister managed to get 13% more quota than other countries. In terms of the devastation to rural Ireland, the matter at stake is more serious than the introduction of the milk quota ever was.

I appreciate the opportunity to put our concerns on record and I urge committee members to take this issue seriously and to do what they can to ensure the situation in question does not come to pass.

Chairman

Did the president of the IFA have discussions with his British counterparts and what were their opinions?

Mr. Padraig Walshe

The Chairman is aware of the British attitude to the Common Agricultural Policy. We have the support of our British counterparts, but the political establishment in Whitehall is more or less supportive of Commissioner Mandelson's approach in the dismantlement of CAP. We have spoken with our counterparts at farm level and they support our side, but they do not have the same relationship with their parliamentarians as we have with ours.

Mr. Michael Berkery

I will not delay proceedings. Deputy Moloney referred to the possibility of 13 March 2008 being a significant day. This is so in a certain sense. Deputy Conlon referred to the family farm structure in County Monaghan. The introduction of agriculture in the Uruguay round was a traumatic development. There had been trade rounds since 1950, but agriculture was included in a world set of rules, as it were, for the first time. All areas of domestic policy were subject to what was effectively a world court, which was a new development. The Doha round deepens this level of influence on European agriculture and agricultural policy.

If Commissioner Mandelson binds the tariffs at a level that would almost demolish them, the European food market will be "commoditised" like the British market was before 1973. The members know the implications of that. All of the investment, enthusiasm and good work that Michael Doran referred to will disappear because traders will be in charge. They will trade futures on boats of beef from Brazil, skimmed milk powder from New Zealand or lamb from Australia. That will be more profitable than producing the lamb or managing family farm structures. The committee is close to the rural community — can it see another generation going into farming in that situation? That is the major issue.

Regarding Commissioner Mandelson's agenda, we have been to Geneva and Mr. Michael Treacy made the point that in fora such as Seattle and Cancun there were people such as Franz Fischler and Joe Walsh and Pascal Lamy, the trade negotiator for Europe at the time. These were heavyweight political people who would say that the family farm structure of Europe is unique and that they would preserve and underpin it and not sell it. Every time Pascal Lamy tried to cross the line, he was rowed back. We are short in that department now and this other man has pushed his way through, with scant regard for mandates or commitments given. He is concerned with whatever will get him over the line to get this deal. The Minister will be back in Agriculture House, calculating the damage if he is not stopped.

If we lose the family farm structure it will never come back. It will move on to big operations. I read a debate in the House of Commons on 19th century agriculture. Someone said that the best solution is to turn it into a sheep walk. I was trying to figure out what a sheep walk was in 19th century parlance but I presume it was a very sparsely populated place, with semi-subsistence sheep farming. We do not wish to paint the Armageddon scenario but that is what it means.

Somebody in the meat trade told me that before 1973 he was trading in the Smithfield market in London. The price of beef into England was low, particularly from Argentina, and the price could oscillate by as much as 50% in any one week. If a ship was delayed by the weather and did not arrive in Southampton, the price rose by 50% but if two ships arrived at Southampton the price decreased by 50%. In a family farm scenario, there is no way a man with 100 suckler cows — a significant operation by Irish standards — could operate. It is different in new countries with new land and thousands of miles of plains with very few owners. They could extract whatever stock they needed for the market on the day. What was not needed could remain and could be drawn on another day. We must prevent Commissioner Mandelson's agenda from running on tonnes and tariffs. While he designs formulae with projections, numbers and schemes, the political issue will be the type of farming in western Europe in the future.

Chairman

As Chairman, I will be in contact with the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment informing them of the debate. We will do everything we can. As Deputy Moloney stated, this is an urban as well as rural problem. Some 50 towns being affected would have a devastating effect on the economy.

Mr. Padraig Walshe

I reiterate what the Chairman said about 50 towns. Deputy Conlon referred to towns such as Clones, with 500 people in the meat business. Ballyhaunis is another big town and Ballaghadereen has lost another meat factory. It will be difficult to have milk production in the northern half of the country at 24 cent per litre. What would happen in these 50 towns is unthinkable.

I am joined by Mr. Henry Burns, IFA national sheep chairman and Mr. Kevin Kinsella, executive secretary. One year ago, at a committee meeting the IFA requested the Government to come forward with a set of measures to revive sheep farming and deal with challenges facing the sector as outlined in the Malone strategy report, which had just been published. In May 2007 the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, announced a €34 million support package for the sheep sector. This involved increased REPS payment, national reserve measures and a farm investment package.

The key issue is very simple — almost none of the benefits announced by the Minister last May have been paid to sheep farmers. Mr. Burns will outline the logjams and what changes are required to release these payments to farmers. The IFA has spoken to the Minister and the Department to make the package work for sheep farmers. However, flock owners have seen little or no delivery at this stage and we cannot afford to lose any more producers or sheep numbers. It is an extremely important sector and there are 4,900 sheep farmers in Donegal, 4,500 in Mayo, 4,700 in Galway and more than 2,200 in Kerry. In areas such as Roscommon, Carlow, Kilkenny and Wexford there are huge numbers of sheep farmers. It is an important sector and it is crucial that this package is made available if they are to have any future. I wish to highlight the €34 million committed by the Government to the sheep sector. It must be paid out without further delay. We would appreciate any help the members can give us in achieving that. I invite Mr. Burns to address the detail of the package.

Mr. Henry Burns

We appreciate the opportunity to put sheep on the agenda. As the president stated, we were here one year ago in pre-election times. We had a serious lobby at the time because of the crisis that has arisen in the sheep sector. There has been some response to the lobbying and I will now address that and the problems that have arisen. The committee has been supplied with a briefing document.

If one was to read the farming press and the general press, one would assume the sheep business is finished and that there is no one left farming sheep. That is not true. It is still worth in excess of €500 million to the economy. We have lost sheep numbers and sheep farmers over the past few years, mainly for economic reasons. We expected a change in the structure of sheep farms when decoupling occurred. It would have been unrealistic not to expect that but we expected it to settle down after two or three years. One thing that has happened consistently in recent years, since decoupling settled down, is that we have lost 250,000 ewes per year. We predicted that the structure of our flock would improve, with flock sizes increasing. The average flock size in Ireland is approximately 107 ewes but it is declining. We are losing our best, biggest and most efficient producers. They are the individuals who have done the figures on the industry. They have examined it and decided it is not profitable. Some of the individuals who might be tagging along do not realise how little there is in it. They are just tagging along and have sheep for traditional reasons, but the people who are really trying to make a living out of it are leaving the industry faster than anyone else. That must be addressed.

Sheep production is the third most important farming sector in Ireland. As the IFA president has already outlined, in some specific counties it is a very important industry. We have lost 40% of the sheep we had approximately ten years ago, which is a stark figure. When we were at our peak, we had 4.79 million ewes. That was in coupled premium times. We have lost an enormous number of sheep since then.

In fairness to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, she appointed a group to examine the industry just over two years ago. That group was chaired by Mr. John Malone. The last time the IFA was here we put forward proposals to that group which we felt would help the situation. The group's recommendations were issued and in reaction to them, the Minister launched a new supplementary measure under REPS, worth €28 million per year. The Department claims it is an extra negotiated fund for sheep farmers, through REPS. The fund comprises €28 million per year over five years, which totals €140 million. Last year was the first year it was supposed to happen but not one cent of the €28 million went to sheep farmers in 2007. If the restrictions that are currently in place remain, the likelihood is that very little of it will go to sheep farmers this year too.

Another measure the Minister announced as part of her package for sheep farmers was the single farm payment national reserve measure for sheep. This measure is aimed at sheep farmers in receipt of a single farm payment at the very low level of €6,000 or less, who are to receive a top-up of €1,000. The fund for this measure is €6 million over seven years, totalling €42 million. Very few people have been paid under that measure to date.

The Minister also announced a 40% grant aid investment scheme for fencing and handling facilities. It is well recognised that labour is an enormous problem on sheep farms and is another reason that people are leaving the industry. While that programme was welcome, the standard costings and specifications only went up on the Department's website on 18 October. We had a meeting with the Department on that date to clarify some specifications but the scheme closed on 31 October. In essence, sheep farmers had about a fortnight to apply, so very few got into the scheme.

An additional element of the package was further funding for ICBF for its work on breed improvement, of which we are very supportive.

Once the package was announced, farmers quickly identified the reasons they could not access funding. There are four groups of farmers who are not eligible for funding who, when taken together, amount to almost all sheep farmers. An individual who is in REPS 3 cannot get it; a person who has sheep only cannot get it — he or she must have a mix of cattle and sheep; an individual with mountain commonage who has less than 20 hectares of enclosed land cannot get it — that covers a lot of people in the west of Ireland; and a person with less than 70 ewes can only get aid at a reduced rate — he or she does not get the full €1,000. That amounts to a large group of people. There is a pattern there.

We have put solid proposals to the Minister which could be implemented without having to be put to Brussels for approval. We propose that the money should be paid to those in REPS 3 and that it should be €2,000 per farmer. The reason for the €2,000 figure is quite simple — the whole emphasis should be on getting the €28 million out to the farmers who are working in an industry that is in crisis. If €2,000 per farm was delivered this year, with 14,000 farmers in receipt of the payment, that would be an achievement. We believe it will be a success if 14,000 farmers are included in the scheme. We also propose that the minimum requirement of 70 ewes be reduced.

This was announced as a special sheep package through REPS. There is an issue there in that people already in REPS can draw down supplementary measures as it stands. They have told the IFA that they can draw down some supplementary payments that are worth more than the sheep measures, so they are not gaining anything extra by having sheep. In that context, we propose that people with sheep should be allowed to draw down a third supplementary measure. I do not want to get too technical but, put simply, this would mean that an individual in REPS would get something extra for having sheep. Something extra must be available, given the announcement referred to a special sheep package.

On the national reserve, we propose that all applicants should have their national reserve cases assessed and the full €6 million should be paid out without delay. The Department has indicated payments will be made in May. It must happen by then, at the very latest. It cannot be allowed to drag on any longer than that date.

On the issue of the on-farm investment programme, we propose that there be a ring-fenced fund of €8 million in capital aid when the farm improvement scheme reopens. The Minister has already indicated that the scheme will reopen and it is very important that it does because very few sheep farmers managed to draw down the funding the last time, even though it was a key recommendation of the Malone strategy.

Members are probably aware of the problems regarding advance payments on REPS at present. This package is part of REPS 4, although we would like it to be drawn down under REPS 3 as well. Either way, there is an enormous problem with REPS 4 at the moment, in that farmers cannot draw down their money in advance. The advance payment system in REPS is under threat at the moment, which is leaving REPS itself under threat. We will see a big decline in the number of people participating in REPS, particularly REPS 4 — which would be a big problem vis-à-vis the sheep scheme — if the advance payment system does not continue.

Some members may be aware that at EU Commission level there is a growing realisation that there is a problem in the industry. On foot of lobbying by the IFA and others, including politicians, a report on the European sheep sector was commissioned. We have a simple view on this — a report on the sector in Ireland was published, which identified all of the problems therein. If the IFA representatives and committee members had a half-hour discussion, we could identify the main problems in the sheep sector, namely, income, lamb price, financial aid and imports. As has just been discussed, the WTO negotiations also have the potential to decimate the sheep industry.

Our main point regarding the EU report is that it must be solution driven. There is no point in having another report which identifies the issues and problems. The EU report must identify solutions. Luckily for Ireland, Irish MEP Mr. Liam Aylward has been appointed as rapporteur on the report for the European Parliament. That report is advancing at present. On the technical side, Ernst &Young was commissioned to carry out the study, which has happened. It has made strong recommendations on payments at farm level, labelling of lamb, support on promotion and the EU import policy.

The IFA has drawn up a ten point plan in response to the Ernst & Young report. The first point refers to the need for Government action and members may wonder why we have put that first. There is no point in gaining something at European level if we are not able to look after our own business at home first. In that context, the €28 million REPS payments must be issued to sheep farmers and the farm investment scheme must be reinstated this year. The money must be paid out this year. We need to stabilise the flock before we even examine the possibility of increasing it in the future.

Our second point is that there must be a lamb price increase to restore viability to the sheep sector. There are already some positive signs in the marketplace in this regard, providing we do not get an influx of imports. As the IFA president said, 127,000 tonnes of New Zealand lamb already comes into Europe, tariff free, as part of the last WTO deal. The agreement was that they would not exceed that tonnage and would not bring any lamb in at tariff level. That is a theoretical argument in itself because it cannot be done at the present tariff level, although it will be possible if the tariff is reduced.

In regard to a promotional programme to increase lamb consumption, the amount of lamb consumed in France has dropped. We lost 40% during the 2001 foot and mouth incident because, even though prices rocketed at the time, consumption naturally declines when supply is limited. The British were not in the market and when they returned we only recovered half of that 40% decrease in consumption. We need to address the 18% constant drop we have experienced in French consumption. This year we will be commencing a promotional campaign in co-operation with French and English lamb growers. The EU will need to invest money in that campaign.

Price transparency is needed in terms of analysing the various levels. We are all aware that lamb costing €254 in supermarkets is worth €80 to the farmer but production standards are also important. In Ireland, every sheep is tagged, there is traceability in respect of veterinary inputs and we comply with strict environmental regulations. Last spring's imported product which decimated our early lamb market by decreasing our price by €1.50 per kilogram in two weeks did not have to comply with any of those standards. Equivalence of standards is important if we are to compete with imported products. The WTO formed part of our submission on the EU report.

A new environmental welfare maintenance scheme paid on a per ewe basis is gaining support at European level. As the market will not sustain sheep production in some areas of Europe, we have reached the stage at which a support mechanism is needed to stabilise the flock. In parts of this country and elsewhere in Europe, the terrain is too difficult to farm anything but sheep.

We are concerned that Ministers have voted for a proposal to introduce electronic identification by the end of 2010. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said she does not think it is a practical measure, yet we have voted for it. Our traceability system is already completely adequate. The proposed system will be four or five times the cost of the current one, which is already expensive enough for farmers, although it will not deliver additional benefits in terms of traceability. Therefore, we question the relevance of the proposal.

We have also made proposals on per capita payments in hill and mountainous areas. Farmers reacted well to the announcement of €34 million for the sheep sector. The problem arises, however, of how we get our hands on the money. We cannot find the ATM to which the former Deputy, Joe Higgins, referred. We have the sheep but we lack the card to withdraw the money. We need to clear that logjam and we would welcome any help the committee can provide in that regard.

Deputy Michael Creed

I am always impressed when contributors speak from their hearts. Mr. Burns's presentation made his convictions in that regard abundantly clear. I thank the IFA representatives for meeting us and for the documentation they have supplied. We will pursue with the Minister the matters they raised.

I wish to make several comments, although some of my colleagues have more experience than I of working at the coalface of this industry. While sheep farming is carried out on an all-island basis, from Carlow to west Cork, I am particularly conscious of its significance for marginal land. Mr. Burns observed that the people leaving the industry are the ones who had the time and resources to do the maths and they came to the conclusion that they were not getting a return on their efforts. However, they are probably farming lowland areas rather than marginal lands. The challenge we face is how to put cash into the pockets of those who remain in the industry and, in that regard, the proposals outlined by Mr. Burns are important.

One of the first issues brought to my attention following my appointment as Fine Gael spokesperson on agriculture, fisheries and food was the Malone report. Excellent and worthy though that report is, it largely concerns long-term matters and does not deliver the cash injection needed due to the obvious collapse in numbers since the introduction of single farm payments. If numbers drop below a critical mass, the viability of those who remain will be called into question. The analogy with the pig farming sector cannot be overlooked. One of the first policy proposals I made, and which has been taken up by Ernst & Young, was a ewe premium that would put cash into farmers' pockets. Ernst and Young's report is welcome, although I take exception to the manner in which it envisages the funding will be provided. It is heartening to note that policy makers and officials at EU level appreciate the serious problems that have arisen. Generic branding and promotions of lamb are important in terms of restoring consumption to previous levels. My colleagues and I will certainly pursue the IFA's proposals with the Minister.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

I thank Mr. Burns for his excellent report. I am not an expert in the sheep sector, although my brother is intensively involved in sheep and pig farming, both of which are experiencing difficulties.

I am concerned that the package of €34 million, which is not a small sum, cannot be drawn down. We have to investigate where the problems have arisen and how we can address them. It is important that we get clarification from the Minister on how to address the matter because, like the pig sector, sheep farming has existed for a long time without support from any quarter. Now that sheep farmers are facing difficulties, it is up to us to help them to remain on their farms. They comprise an important part of the overall picture, so there must be some solution to the challenge of drawing down the money.

Deputy Andrew Doyle

I thank Mr. Burns for his presentation. It is ironic that next week housewives will not bat an eyelid at the prices they are asked to pay for lamb because it is a traditional food. I hope sufficient early producers remain in this country to gain some benefit from the sales but that is debatable given the chilled lamb being imported from New Zealand.

I come from County Wicklow, which has a mix of uplands and a tradition of intensive sheep farming on either side of the hills. It is a ripple effect. When the intensive farmers leave the sector, the breeding stock market is affected. This is particularly true in my area, and I am a sheep farmer. Every intensive farmer who decides it is not paying is a customer lost to the uplands farmer. This has a knock-on effect on the environment and the wonderful people who have to be looked after when they want to walk the hills. I am being cynical about this because allowing people to walk the hills might be a motivation to save the sheep industry. That issue relates to national parks, management of heather burning, deer and so on.

We have lost sight of the fact that if one goes to a dietician or health specialist they will tell you sheep meat is one of the healthiest meats. We have also lost sight of what is happening in the New Zealand sheep sector, as reported in the Irish Farmers’ Journal or any global or English farming publication. Dairy farming is eating into the New Zealand production system all down the south island. We are in danger of losing an industry, similar to the WTO, before it has its chance to shine again. Sheep meat production in one of the main producing blocks, New Zealand, is in decline because dairy farming has become so profitable. It is interesting that there are two reports, one European and one Irish, the Malone report. I was not here when it was discussed last year. There is an opportunity. In this context, €34 million is a small amount of money. If that needs to be unlocked, not to prop up the sheep industry in this country but to kick-start it, that should be done, whatever it takes. I come from a stock breeding area. There is another issue which is not on today’s agenda, genotyping and scrapie on an all-island basis.

The man who scanned my sheep this year said he was almost as busy as ever but that this is the last chance saloon for many sheep farmers and they will get out if there is no money in it this year. If that is the case, the people producing the breeding stock will not have targets. The €34 million should be made available. The fencing was the first time a targeted farm improvement programme was put in place to improve farm structures, make them more manageable and reduce labour. That would have made it attractive but it was pulled. Applications were submitted on valid data and it was closed off before they were even stamped last October. There was cross-party co-operation on the WTO talks, but I note, although I was not here, that the commitment given was in May 2007. I wonder why it was not delivered on.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

I congratulate Mr. Burns on his presentation. It is incredible that not one cent of the €34 million package announced by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, in May 2007 has been paid out. Where is the Minister going without a bell on her bike announcing a package without the staff in the Department to pay it out to the farmers concerned? Pious words butter no bread for the Irish sheep farmers. They are in dire circumstances. There is a report by Ernst & Young. Does it take consultants such as Ernst & Young to produce a report to highlight the serious plight of the Irish sheep farmer? It is a sad reflection on the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that it is not master of its business. I say this without fear of contradiction. It should not happen in any country that a scheme is announced to aid the sheep industry and not one cent is paid out.

Red tape and bureaucracy in the Department has doomed many of the good proposals put forward. It is evident that the package announced last October lasted only two weeks. Many farmers applied for it, yet it was closed after two weeks because the Department was unable to cope with the influx of applications. That is nonsensical and bad management from the beginning. That is why Mr. Burns is here today making a presentation to the joint Oireachtas committee on the serious situation of the Irish sheep industry.

I was very impressed by my colleague from County Wicklow, Deputy Doyle, whose county can boast of having Wicklow lamb. Wicklow lamb was a big tradition throughout the country, even in the good restaurants of west Cork.

Deputy Christy O’Sullivan

What about west Cork lamb?

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

No, Wicklow lamb was on the menu. I have no doubt that Kerry lamb is not far behind. If it was put on the plate one would not know the difference. It is our duty as representatives of the farming community to use our influence to untie the red tape in the Department, which has failed to communicate with the sheep farmers. It is a disgrace to think the IFA sheep farming committee must come here to demand something that should have been delivered 12 months ago. When the package was announced the Irish Farmers’ Journal of the day covered it well and in good heart.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

It was just before the election.

Deputy P. J. Sheehan

It was announced just before the election. Was it an election sop to gain votes in the isolated areas of the country? As it has not been delivered, it must have been. This is only one of the promises that were not kept. We will deal with this to the best of our abilities when the House resumes in the first week of April.

Deputy Michael Creed

With his belly full of Easter lamb.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Like the other members I congratulate Mr. Burns on his presentation. I know a little about the sheep sector. There are a few questions even Ernst & Young is not asking. We are down 2 million ewes. We had depopulation, foot and mouth and Mr. Burns contends we lost 40% of the market. Was that primarily of the French market? I am talking about the light lamb, the mountain ewes, which we primarily have in my area. At one stage they were nearly all going to France and some to England. The market for light lamb seems to be gone.

The IFA proposes to increase the price of lamb. I would like to hear how it intends to do that. As a butcher in 1986 I went to Nenagh one day and bought 450 lambs which cost £45 per head. Coming home that day I said to the old man, "Boss, we must be making a pile of money out of sheep". He was a man who said very little but he said, "Extremes are no good for nobody". I did not ask him what he meant. The following January, he gave £105 a head for the same sheep and I understood what he was talking about. Those stores would have been bought that day at £35 a head and sold two months later at £105. I would not say it is always the right man who gets paid but it is the middle man.

How will the price of lamb be increased because the number of ewes and lambs in the country is down yet the price is very low? Going back to 1980, yearling wethers were making £60 or £70 per head, which would be about €150 now. The simple answer to increasing the price of lamb is to stop imports but that is not really a runner.

The €34 million package has not been delivered and a surprising number of sheep farmers contacted me in January and February who were under pressure because of bad weather and the cost of rations. It was the first time in a long time that sheep farmers felt they were being left out in the cold. I have put down a few questions and I asked the Minister directly if she would give a direct payment per ewe. It was a watery enough answer but we will wait to see if the €34 million package will come.

Deputy Michael Finneran

I should explain that I was at another meeting this morning, which is the reason I am late coming to this important meeting.

Last week I met the local chairman and regional organiser of the IFA in Roscommon to discuss the WTO position. I was very taken with the very strong case made by the IFA delegation and what it saw as the gutting of beef prices if the Mandelson proposals are to be adopted. I understand certain safeguards exist, according to our MEP, that would prevent that but farmers are very worried. I have spoken to our own MEP, Seán Ó Neachtain, since then on whether a Council of Ministers meeting could or would take place in the near future. I will meet him this weekend on this very matter when he attends my constituency office and he will be brief me further.

Those who come from a farming background know very well the problems in farming today, with the cost of feed, meal and fertiliser having gone through the roof. It is very hard to factor those increased costs into the level of income for farmers.

Commissioner Mandelson has responsibility in the area. I know I am going back over the topic——

Chairman

Please do not, if the Deputy can help it.

Deputy Michael Finneran

I will not dwell on the topic other than to say I support very much the concerns of the IFA in this matter. I apologise for not being here earlier. I have spoken to Mr. Ó Neachtain on the matter and we intend to follow up on it.

With regard to the sheep industry, I come from a county that produces sheep. I am from a full-time mixed farm but I deal mainly in sheep. I have been reared with the work and I know what it is about. It is very hard today to get young people to take over a sheep farm. There is no return income-wise, to any great extent, and the labour involved is way beyond what may be considered the call of duty. So the sheep industry is under particular pressure.

I attended a conference with the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, two weeks ago in the south Roscommon area with more than 400 farmers from the west and the midlands. There I saw what I can only describe as massive frustration among farmers. These are people genuinely interested in continuing in farming and sheep farming in particular. They are tied in to a great extent to the sheep industry. The opportunity to diversify into other areas is not economically possible for them at this time.

I am very aware of the difficulties. I am worried that the package we agreed and welcomed has not found its way into the pockets of farmers yet. If there is any help I can give, either through the IFA proposals or others, to expand and deliver on that, I will be there.

I was not in a position to attend the press conference given by Mr. Liam Aylward on the sheep industry. I was in Brussels around that time but I had a return flight booked. I see there is a difficulty with the IFA as regards Article 69 and I understand it. However, it is important we engage with all pillars in the sheep industry or else the industry will continue to decline. I certainly do not want to see that.

We have 8,000 farmers in my county actively involved in farming. Many are full-time farmers and the rest make a living. They are part of the economic life of the county and have been over the years. We have one of the major processing plants in Kepak in Athleague. It is a very important industry for my county and constituency. I am not a member of this committee and I thank the Chairman for allowing me to speak. We meet on the fifth floor with the Minister on a regular basis but I am very concerned about the sheep industry, which I do not want to see go into further decline. I assure the delegation from the IFA of my continued support for the sheep industry. I will use my position as a Government Deputy and Chairman of the finance and public services committee, as well as somebody with an interest in the sheep industry, to continue to support those involved and to work out the solution to the logjam we have on the package.

Chairman

We have approximately ten minutes to wrap the meeting up.

Mr. Padraig Walshe

I thank the Deputies for their support on this issue. It is clear they are very familiar with it. The priority is simple; the €34 million package announced last year must be put in place. As Mr. Burns has outlined in great detail, we have put the proposals to the Minister and I urge the committee members to keep pressure on the Minister to get the money out to the farms.

For example, there was a hold-up in sheep farmer applications in the farm improvement scheme. Sheep farmers only had a three-week opportunity to apply for the grant for the fencing and the handling facilities. It is amazing but there are quite a few farmers out there fully dependent on sheep for their income and I know quite a few in places like Roscommon, where Deputy Finneran spoke about. There are also farmers in Carlow and Wexford, for example. Those people are in a bad way at the moment and need whatever support they can get.

As Mr. Burns indicated earlier, these are the people getting out of the industry. The people who have other sources of income or other farm enterprises which are faring better are hanging in there but the people who are fully dependent on the sector are feeling the pinch most and are likely to move out.

The Aylward report is on the agenda of the council meeting next Monday and I hope the Minister pushes the case on this as strongly as she can. Mr. Burns and Mr. Kinsella have been in discussion with Mr. Liam Aylward on that report from the beginning. We hope it has an impact. Given the time of year, I urge committee members to ensure lamb is on their menus as we approach the Easter period of trading. I also urge everyone to remind those in the trade of the dangers of imports undermining us.

Mr. Colm O'Donnell, vice-chairman of the IFA sheep committee and a hill sheep farmer from Sligo, is with us today. Deputy Tom Sheahan is from Kerry and he highlighted that in many parts of the country sheep farming is the only type of farming possible. This may be said of hill areas, in particular, and farmers in such places do not have the option of putting suckler cows on hills, growing crops there or doing whatever is in vogue. If they do not get an income from sheep farming there will be no stock in those areas.

Mr. Colm O’Donnell

I come from the Ox Mountains, an area on the Mayo-Sligo border. This committee has great responsibility to intercede with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Coughlan, who announced a package worth €34 million. Some €28 million of this will go into REPS 4 and €6 million into the national reserve. Our lands in hill areas have been completely excluded from this sheep package. We waited in anticipation and have been very patient with the Minister — there is great respect for her in hill areas. However, the Minister has sold us out on this occasion because we cannot get our hands on a penny of this money, which is being paid on enclosed land at a rate of €50 per hectare up to a maximum of 20 hectares.

The wait for a sheep package was similar to that for the announcement of the manager of the Republic of Ireland soccer team. It has now arrived and we find ourselves farming the most vulnerable land in Europe. We must farm under the restrictions of the habitats directive and the only cushion we have is an extra payment through measure A of REPS. However, we received that payment through REPS 2 and 3. The Minister has announced a package for the sheep industry that excludes us from payment, except on enclosed land. Not many hill farmers in the west and north west of Ireland have 20 hectares of enclosed land. The average in Achill is two hectares of green land with the rest comprised of mountain land. The rate is €50 per hectares so committee members can do the sums.

To further complicate this matter, the Minister has chosen to introduce a mixed grazing measure to draw down this money for sheep. Traditional grazing in hill areas has always been a sheep only enterprise: my father, grandfather and great grandfather ran sheep-only farms because the land would not support any other type of farming, as the IFA president correctly stated. I hardly think it worthwhile for me to get three cows, build handling facilities for them and activate a herd number for the sake of receiving €100 on my 2 hectares of enclosed land. The maximum possible amount is €1,000.

We face bigger burdens as we are farming under the habitats directive relating to special areas of conservation and special protected areas, SPAs. This is a way of life and Deputy Sherlock said earlier that if the WTO goes ahead with its plans a way of life is under threat. I guarantee those attending this committee that a way of life in the hills of Ireland is under serious threat. The knowledge and specialist skills attached to hill farming cannot be learned in a textbook or through third level education, it is passed down orally from one generation to the next. I have three sons and I would like to think they will have something, that they may take over the family farm, when I finish — I feel passionate about this. I do not want to leave my farm but the Minister is putting the final nail in the coffin.

I appeal to the committee to talk to the person Deputy Conlon rightly referred to as a commonsense Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Something must be done about this and I aim this remark at Fianna Fáil representatives here today. REPS 4 is already up and running but to give it blessing as a great scheme more flexibility is needed on extra measures to suit sheep farmers, as Mr. Burns pointed out. The supplementary measures that already exist do not suit hill sheep enterprises so we seek flexibility. However, there is no point in providing flexibility if we still cannot enjoy some of the €28 million.

The number of sheep on Irish hills is falling annually and if they leave a certain part of a hill it is impossible to make them return there because they will succumb to tick borne diseases such as tick pyemia. Sheep must be born and reared in the same area and this is part of the heritage of sheep farming. The hills cannot be managed ecologically without shepherds and sheep. There are many skills involved in shepherding and the report by Mr. Liam Aylward, MEP, refers to a per capita payment to keep such skills alive and to keep farming families working in the hills.

It is important that we get the Minister to understand that our lands should be included for payment under REPS 4 with more flexibility in the options. There is no point doing this in six months, when REPS 4 will have been up and running for a year.

Mr. Henry Burns

I will answer a number of queries. Regarding sheep prices, members referred to middlemen and so on but the bottom line is the retail price of sheep meat increased by 8% in Ireland last year and consumption increased by 3%. The average cut of lamb is €10 per kilo at retail level. The price to farmers did not increase and 80 cent per kilo would come to €16 per lamb. None of the price increases were passed back to farmers. The retail price of sheepmeat has increased steadily for ten to 15 years but the price to farmers has not. It is not that the meat cannot be sold or that it is too expensive but it is not getting to the right place.

Deputies Creed and Doyle mentioned the link between hills and lowlands and this is significant. Vibrant lowland will help the hill sector because it will provide the breeding stock, store lambs and so on. This makes perfect sense.

I did not mention Article 69 and modulation in my presentation but there are worries in this regard because this has been proposed as a way of solving the problem. We do not believe this is the solution. Taking €5 from one pocket and putting €5 in another leaves one no richer. We need a more imaginative way of finding money to support the sheep sector.

Mr. Kevin Kinsella

I wish to make one brief point. The chairman of the sheep committee, Mr. Henry Burns, the IFA director in Brussels, Mr. Michael Treacy, Mr. Liam Aylward, MEP, and I, along with some of our European colleagues, met the French Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Barnier, in Paris the week before last. We had a good meeting with him. Minister Barnier made it very clear that he intends to take unilateral action on the sheep sector in France. He will look after sheep farmers. We have a €34 million package here and we are asking the Minister and the committee to take action to try to get this package paid out for Irish sheep farmers. I thank the Chairman for his help.

Chairman

Is it agreed that the clerk to the committee forward the report of the discussion that took place today on this issue to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food? Agreed. Is it also agreed that she will forward the report on the earlier WTO discussion to the Taoiseach, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment? Agreed. We will be in negotiations also.

Deputy Tom Sheahan

Has the committee had a response from Commissioner Mandelson to its invitation?

Chairman

No, it is too soon for that. I hope we will have a response in due course.

On behalf of the committee I thank Mr. Walshe, the president of the IFA, and his colleagues for attending the meeting today.

The joint committee adjourned at 12 noon until noon on Wednesday, 2 April 2008.