Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Pigmeat Sector

Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 15 May 2012

Tuesday, 15 May 2012

Ceisteanna (333)

John McGuinness

Ceist:

413 Deputy John McGuinness asked the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine the total cost of the pig meat recall scheme; the list of those who qualified under the scheme and the amount each applicant was paid; the way applicants were approved and the person who signed off each approval; the way payments were approved and the person who signed off on each payment; the list of applicants that were not approved for the scheme and the number of these that appealed the decision; the number of applicants still requesting consideration under the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24057/12]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí scríofa

In accordance with EU legislation, the responsibility to place safe food on the market rests with the food business operator and therefore the consequences of a failure to meet that requirement also rests with the food business operator. However in the light of the impact of the dioxin contamination incident on the pigmeat sector, it was decided to introduce as an emergency measure the Pigmeat Recall Scheme (PRS). The scheme was to provide financial assistance to producers and primary and secondary pigmeat processors in Ireland affected by the dioxin contamination incident in December 2008 when the Food Safety Authority of Ireland initiated a recall from domestic and international markets of all Irish pigmeat products. The purpose of the scheme was to ensure the survival of the pigmeat sector. The scope of the scheme was subject to state aid approval from the European Commission with the final terms being approved in October 2009.

Over a period of three years, my Department conducted a comprehensive, detailed and exhaustive examination of all claims submitted in respect of losses arising from the product recall. This involved engaging closely with applicant companies over a prolonged period in relation to the specifics of their claims and the proofs submitted in support of them, much of which was in respect of products utilised in a complex food chain spanning many international markets. Having regard to the emergency nature of the scheme, my Department adopted a practical, proportionate and reasonable approach in its examination of the submitted evidence. All verifiable and eligible claims were carefully evaluated on case by case basis and ex-gratia aid awarded in respect of those claims that were supported by the necessary evidence pursuant to the provisions of the relevant EU state aid approval. In accordance with fair procedures, this process allowed for the consideration of appeals where the applicant was able to present additional information to substantiate the case presented. The payment process outlined above was signed off in each case by Department officials at the appropriate level having due regard to the complexity and quantum of the evaluated claim. Final determinations were made on all claims, including appeals made in relation to earlier determinations, by the end of 2011 in line with the timeframe previously indicated to the industry.

In processing the submitted claims, my Department was cognisant of the fact that there were some losses incurred by the industry in respect of which it was unable to offer any assistance. Generally speaking, claims were not approved for one of two reasons:

the items claimed (e.g. ancillary claims / consequential losses) were precluded by the terms of the state aid approval; or

the items claimed were not supported by sufficient proofs of product destruction / valuation / volume to satisfy audit requirements.

Total expenditure on the PRS amounted to €138m comprising: €102m for primary and secondary product (€97m for primary and secondary material plus €5m for rendering); €30m for culled animals; €5m for value-added products; and €0.7m for beef disposal. Net expenditure, after deducting EU receipts, was €120m. This outcome compares favourably with a potential cost of €200m accepted at time of the dioxin incident.

A list of company beneficiaries and the aid amount received by each by way of a contribution to costs arising from the pigmeat recall is being made available separately to the Deputy.

Mindful of the effects of dioxin contamination on Ireland's reputation as a source of quality food products, I am satisfied that the scheme was successful in mitigating the potentially deleterious consequences of the dioxin incident on sectoral employment, exports and reputation. It enabled the processing industry to swiftly recommence manufacturing operations, maintain employment levels and regain access to third country markets. Indeed, the industry's recent performance is testament to the efficacy of the policy; Irish pigmeat production grew by 9% in 2011 and the value of exports increased by 18% to almost €400m.

Barr
Roinn