Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for the presentation. I am a strong supporter of the BDGP. It has helped to identify superior and inferior animals at an early stage and no one can gainsay that. It is extremely important in that context. The aggregation of statistics over a period with regard to genetic merit and evaluation of those is surely the best way to identify or point towards the most suitable animal, whether male or female, on a farm, which is critical. Are the witnesses suggesting that the volatility of the Euro-Star indices is leading to deselection of some good quality animals on a farm? Is the thrust of their argument that, because they lose the four star and five star nomenclature, identification or tagging, they are being wiped out?

I remember doing a study on the best way to produce beef more than 20 years ago. We have to ensure that beef does not come from a dairy farm but from within the beef industry itself. Many years ago, only one in four of our animals could penetrate the high quality and high priced markets of the European community. That has significantly increased over the past two decades. I recall that well. We cannot depend on the introduction and penetration of the Holstein breed for the high priced markets and that has to be questioned. I am interested that the change in our evaluation system over three periods of the year has led to significant difficulties with the scheme.

How many pedigree farm producers are there in the country? Many of our suckler farmers are struggling because of a number of issues, not least recent events, particularly the abolition of milk quotas. That is having a major impact on suckler farmers. Many people, not just suckler cow farmers but tillage farmers, are drifting into milk production. I hope they do not regret it five or ten years down the line. Be that as it may, we cannot stop them. That has led to a 4% or 5% drop and there is another 4% or 5% drop in the offing. It is not so long ago since we went had more than 1 million and we will be down to 800,000 in the not too distant future.

I am somewhat concerned about some aspects of the presentations. As Deputy Cahill said, it is better that we sort everything out without being overly confrontational. I come from a beef background like Senator Paul Daly. We want to ensure the highest quality beef production so that we can secure the highest return for our farmers. When the witnesses were making the argument, what was the Department's counterargument about crossbred bulls and half-breeds, as we call them, having to be included? The witnesses call them speakeasy bulls. Why was there was insistence by the Department that they be included?

Have the witnesses derived no benefit to the BDGP? Surely it has contributed some moneys over the past two years or so. I would not like to see a message leaving the room that the witnesses are flogging this out the window and that is the end of it. It is a worthwhile scheme. There is a great deal of nitty-gritty and typical departmental bureaucracy at the beginning, which is an impediment, but it has been adopted by a significant number of farmers and more farmers appear eager about it. We get demands here to increase the budget to be allocated to farmers over the next number of years.

I am disappointed that the witnesses say there is a lack of communication. I will cross-examine the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation, ICBF, about the fact that it is not communicating with people like the witnesses from the Irish Charolais Cattle Society, who have a significant input. I agree with Deputy Cahill that this is an area we should certainly dig into. I cannot understand why an executive from the ICBF could not hold a meeting with the ICCS executive to sort it out. It should be in a position to point this out. I am shocked that it is not explaining to the society how they indices are calculated. That is a basic requirement and a significant component. I would be interested in the make-up of the board. The Irish Farmers' Association and others have much to say when they come in to meet us. Surely they are not asleep at the wheel in making sure that information as salient and important as that was furnished to the ICCS by the ICBF over that time.

When the witnesses arrived, I noticed that a booklet appeared posthaste that they had sought for the guts of a year. That does not make sense. I am disappointed with that behaviour by an organisation that is comprised primarily of farmers. I do not know what way people are elected to the ICBF. The make-up of it seems a bit lopsided. If there is only one pedigree representative, which represents a significant number - I grew up with some representatives of that group - it looks a bit one-sided. On a 16-person board, 6% represent the people who are at the coalface of breeding. That sounds a bit Irish. One would not get away with it anywhere else. We will ask the ICBF directors how the structure of the board is arrived at because that is important. The ICCS is under-represented. I do not agree with everything the witnesses have said. Some of it was a little inflammatory but that is fair enough. I come from a party that is inflammatory as well and there is nothing wrong with that. We are not clones. I do not mind a bit of that. That is ground hurling. I do not agree with the witnesses but they are entitled to make the point. I am sure the ICBF will refer to the strength of its position but I am flummoxed. Did the ICCS make a submission to the board to try to increase its representation? If there are 15 or 16 different breed societies, they are surely entitled to more than one board representative. The lines of communication would surely improve with additional people representing the interests of the cattle breeders, who I am sure regard the best interests of the various societies and, ultimately, farmers that they represent as paramount.

Sometimes this boils down to no greater politics being played at farm level than trying to get on boards. I will tease that out for the witnesses. I know they are talking about going back 50 years but we will try to secure additional improvements in the operation, application and terms and conditions of the BDGP, but I do not want the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater. It is important that we retain the programme because there was much suffering to get it in place from day one. It is not right from the perspective of the ICCS, and where we see value to it, I am sure the committee will try to address it with relevant authorities, including the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who will come before us in a few weeks.