Jackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives from the Department and Meat Industry Ireland for their submissions. It is the old story. If something is good for farmers, it will be good for the industry and the cost will be thrown back on farmers to bear. We are talking about a very low income sector. It is the imposition of a significant cost on farmers. Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn referred to the IFA's submission. If one considers lambs coming off the hills, they vary in price from €35 to €50 per head. It is, therefore, a very significant part of the sale price. It is probably the lowest income sector in the industry. We are talking about 3% to 4% of the value of the output being the cost of the tag. Monitoring flock performance was mentioned. This is a flock tagging system. There will be no ability to identify traits that could improve the genetic performance of the flock. This is to identify lambs going to slaughter and will mean far greater traceability. We then have the arguments about keeping pace with our competitors. What are the New Zealanders and Australians doing? What traceability systems do they have? Every time we feel we want to secure greater market access, we go back to the primary producer, on whom we place a greater onus and extra cost. Unfortunately, the margin of the primary producer is shrinking.

No one can argue about the benefits and our customers will love it. In the past few months we have secured access to the market in China. There are conditions attached to that market access. When it arrives there, our food produce can be left in unrefrigerated conditions, but that does not mean that China does not want our meat plants to be seven star, all of which cost comes back to the primary producer. As Deputy Martin Kenny said, one cannot argue against the benefits, but one can definitely argue against how the primary producer will carry the cost. Imposing this extra cost on the primary producer is not practical or sustainable.

There is a significant underspend under the sheep welfare and other schemes. The Minister has to step up to the plate. The underspend under the sheep welfare scheme is significant. Funding has to be found to underwrite the cost this will impose on sheep farmers. The hills are being abandoned in sheep farming. The sector is on a knife edge and very few young farmers are entering it. It will be to no one's benefit, from a sustainability point of view or when the preservation of the landscape is considered, if the hills do not continue to be farmed. Imposing such a cost on this extremely low income sector cannot be allowed. We cannot just say it is for the good of the industry and that the primary producer will carry the cost, although we cannot argue about the benefits. Our customers will love it, but they do not care about the extra cost they place on us. The attitude is that it will be done by the industry and that it will carry it. We saw the same happen in the case of quality assurance measures. The cost is placed on us and we are told that it helps us to sell in the marketplace, but a primary producer sees little extra in his or her pocket for it, if anything. We can be told that we will lose market share because of it. As a result of Brexit, will these requirements be placed on the New Zealanders and Australians entering the European market? In the beef industry we do not see this pressure being exerted on imports from South America. They can be imported with virtually no traceability, even though we have to measure up to the highest possible standards. It has been said there will be benefits from a flock point of view in increasing productivity, while from a cost compliance perspective, it will probably reduce the margin for error. However, I think the Department will find a way around it.

Leaving that aside, there are benefits, but expecting the primary producer to bear the costs is not acceptable. There is an underspend under the sheep welfare scheme. The Minister has to step up to the plate to carry the cost of tagging. It is for the good of the industry. Meat Industry Ireland is adamant that it will give us greater access to markets, even though some of our competitors can bring in produce without any traceability and seemingly gain access to lucrative markets. That is a battle about which we could argue all day. It is a high percentage of the sale price. If this was happening in the beef industry, we would be talking about €20 per tag for a calf. That is the comparison and the context in which we have to consider it. If we want to move the industry forward - we will not argue that there are no benefits - the primary producer cannot be expected to carry the cost.