Mr. Tom Moran:

On beef, there has been a great deal of debate on this issue recently and rightly so, because it is not an easy one. Beef farmers have suffered this year in particular, as there has been a serious decrease since September 2013. Prices in the first half of 2013 were at the highest level ever. The current reduction in beef prices is not just an Irish issue, as it applies throughout the European Union and is particularly dramatic within the United Kingdom. A combination of reasons have contributed to this including, in part, falling demand. There is increased competition from other proteins and meats and one need only compare the price of poultry and pigmeat with the price of beef. In difficult times, consumers throughout Europe will make choices in this regard and this is particularly evident in the United Kingdom, which is our primary market. There also is a Russian ban on pigmeat, which means there is a bit more pigmeat knocking around in Europe than there ordinarily would be. What has happened in beef, therefore, is a function of the market.

At the same time, however, the Deputy has raised the issue with regard to Northern Ireland and the question of country of origin. It definitely is clear that the specifications applied by supermarkets through processors and so on probably were less strongly adhered to in a time of shortage and high prices. However, when prices dipped, the specification then entered more into the fray and as a result, there was an unfortunate build-up of out-of-specification bull beef in particular on farms. This gave rise to the action the Department took when the Minister announced the beef roundtable forum. One key point to emerge therefrom was the need for greater communication from processors to farmers, because one cannot simply switch on and off the supply of or the specification for cattle.

As for the issue raised with regard to Northern Ireland, it is down to a choice by retailers in the United Kingdom retail market. Only three retailers in the United Kingdom take Irish beef and their choice is to maintain a product that is called UK beef, as well as non-UK beef. If beef is reared in Ireland and slaughtered in Northern Ireland, under European Union law that must be stated on the label. The British retailers' preference is for the two different types. One is born, reared and slaughtered in England and has the Union Jack and is called British and then otherwise, it is non-British. It is a choice of retailers and is not really a question of something over which we have any great control.

I understand the joint committee is meeting Mr. Michael Dowling later today and he can go into this issue in great detail. While he was doing it for us any way, as part of the roundtable we have asked him to consider the activation measures set out for beef under the Food Harvest 2020 strategy and to ascertain which measures were being addressed and which were not. In addition, as part of the same exercise, we asked him to examine the recent beef issues and to establish what needed to be done. Mr. Dowling came up with some serious recommendations that were presented to the roundtable the last time it met and there is much work to be done by everybody involved, including the processors and suppliers, to get together and to work on some of his recommendations, which involve clarity and transparency in respect of price and specification.

Deputy Ó Cuív referred to the N+2 rule, which involves programme expenditures spilling over into the two years after the end of the programme period. As the rural development programme is based on a series of programmes, some of which are investment programmes that involve long lead-ins, major planning and so on, one cannot necessarily force all the expenditure into the six or seven years covered by the programme. Consequently, member states are allowed to spend some of that money in the following period. For example, in the case of on-farm investment and so on, it runs on, as it is not always easy to plan it. At present, we are in the "+2" period of the old rural development programme. Equally, at the end of the new programme for which we now seek approval, there probably will be spillover but by then, hopefully, there will be new funds and a new programme will be under way. It represents a slight overlap at the end of each programme that runs on and is nothing more than that. It simply involves planned expenditure over a series of programmes.

A question came up on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, TTIP, and beef in the United States. The Minister has stated and the Department is confident that we would be able to put beef into the United States in the autumn, particularly because we are fairly happy with the outcome of some of the audits this week and it just has to go through a process. The key question is how much. The value of the market into which we will be heading in the United States is €700 million. While we will not be anything in that range, we will be heading into specialist markets. Deputy Ferris should note it will not necessarily be organic beef but will be grass-fed beef into niche markets in particular, possibly albeit not necessarily the diaspora areas. Irish beef in the United States could meet a certain target because, if for no other reason, of its size. It is down to consumer preference for grass-fed beef but if one takes a strip loin of a British-Irish breed, two little strip loins fit nicely into a pack, whereas if one is looking at the bigger breeds or whatever, it is a different shape. There is a possible niche market in this regard and when one builds on that, the Origin Green programme and the sustainability argument, I believe we have a good chance, which also is the view of Bord Bia. It is positive and we are working towards it.

The question of equivalence was also brought up, as was the issue of hormones and so on. I agree that TTIP will not be easy. The prize is very big across all ranges, that is, more liberal trade between the European Union and United States is a useful prize at the end of the day. Agriculture was always going to be one of the key difficult sticking areas and within that, the sticking areas will be equivalence and the terms of trade. Deputy Ferris put his finger on it as the issue of hormones will be one of those areas. The European Union consumer does not want hormones. It is not simply a science-based argument. Just because, for example, one could get scientists to prove that beef with hormones does one no harm or whatever, ultimately that only goes so far. If the consumer does not want them, it then is a big issue.

Thereafter, if one allowed beef with hormones from the United States into the European Union, producers here could argue the case that if producers from the United States can come in and sell such beef, they also should be allowed to so do. That aspect of it will not be easy. It is not all just about science. While science is an input, it is not the deciding factor. Consequently, the negotiations will take some time. Agriculture and equivalence, including the matters mentioned here, will be key elements in this regard and it is not just about hormones.

It is not just defensive, as we have an offensive interest in the United States in respect of milk and dairy products. We will have a lot of product and there is a lot of opportunity there. The Irish Dairy Board opened a plant last week in Wisconsin, where it will be using 35,000 tonnes of cheese from the United States to be placed into the food service business.

There is every opportunity for that kind of a facility to take Irish cheese over time. There are significant opportunities in the United States for branded butter such as Kerrygold. There are big prizes to be had in this as well as our defensive interests on beef.

On the European maritime and fisheries fund, EMFF, it is a considerable increase, from €70 million to €148 million. It will follow a programme, as I stated, much like the rural development programme, with schemes. It deals with helping fishermen to adopt sustainable fishing practices. It talks about local communities diversifying their economies and it will fund projects in the fish area, providing jobs in coastal areas. There are also areas to contribute the application of the new fish control regime. That programme is being put together, the issues of co-funding are being worked on, and in the fullness of time, that will be submitted to the Commission. At a particular stage, there would be no difficulty in bringing in some officials and taking the committee through that programme, just as we did on the rural development programme, if that was useful.