Mr. Tom Moran:

On the US-EU TTIP, it is not a question of the agreement on Irish beef going to the United States being part of it. It is completely separate. European beef, including Irish beef, was banned in the United States because of BSE. It is a BSE-related ban that we are trying to have lifted. We have had lifted it in all other countries. There are only two countries being considered for the admittance of beef to the US market through the lifting of the ban, one of which is Ireland, while the Netherlands is the other. The Netherlands wishes to export veal, not beef. Therefore, we have blazed a trail in this regard.

Consider the circumstances that obtained when half of our beef exports were going to third countries, including Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Russia. One needs options in the beef market. It does not matter whether one uses them, but one needs them. It is very difficult if supermarkets, or any buyer in any commercial arrangement, have a hold over the outlet. Over 90% of our beef goes elsewhere in Europe; some 50% is exported to the United Kingdom. These statistics will not change dramatically, but, when trying to sell one's beef, one needs options. A certain number of tonnes of striploin, or higher value cuts, might go to the United States, for example. Options strengthen one's bargaining position, which is very important. The extent to which one uses these options will depend on the commercial return from the markets.

On the question of information for producers, I agree with Deputy Willie Penrose. The position is not like that concerning milk. Milk is bought and sold every month and one receives one's monthly cheque. Beef production involves a long project, not unlike building a house. One cannot become involved, therefore, without knowing the outcome, as one might be feeding animals over the winter only to be stuck waiting. Therefore, what one needs is transparency. Ideally, contracts are required. Particularly with a specialised product such as bull beef, contracts are required in order that one will know where one is going if one invests heavily in feed and stocks animals over the winter, for example. This point emerged very strongly in Mr. Michael Dowling's report. He will emphasise it later. We are very strongly in favour of this. Not only is transparency required; contracts are also required.

With regard to the grid, Senator Pat O'Neill is absolutely correct. Members know what the grid is, for which the payment basis was worked out between farmers and the factories. The Department does not and could not have an involvement in it. The Government and the Department cannot enter the space involving the negotiation of price between buyers and sellers of a product. One simply cannot be in that space for a host of reasons, many of which have legal implications. However, what came out of the forum and what the Minister made clear only last week was the importance of the grid and using it such that farmers would know precisely the basis on which they were being paid. Therefore, if there is a bonus, they will know the basis on which it is added. Alternatively, they will know the basis on which a payment deduction can be made. Again, it is a matter of clarity and transparency. We could not get involved in negotiating a new price structure between farmers and factories and it would not be correct to do so. However, we agree with the Senator that transparency and predictability are very important.

The question of sacrificing everything just to rush into the US market will not arise. The discussions will be difficult. The US Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Vilsack, came to three countries, namely, France, Ireland and Luxembourg, where he met Council representatives. We are pleased that he came here. He came here in order that we would understand American agriculture and that the Americans would understand our system. The two systems are different. The United States has a very serious difficulty in trying to understand the concept of geographical indicators that link a product with a tract of land. Mr. Vilsack emphasised in his public comments the role of science in coming up with proof and in deciding whether something was good, not good or causing no harm. There are many other considerations involved in this regard. It was not that we were negotiating on the TTIP because we could not do so; it is a competency of the European Commission. What we were doing was explaining where we stood and we were trying to understand where the United States stood. We were engaging in bilateral negotiations on beef production and the US Secretary was extremely helpful in that regard.

However, I do not think anything is being sacrificed as a result of engaging with him.

The EU, including Ireland, has its own position on GMOs. No doubt, these things will feature in the way in which the negotiations progress, but they will be difficult. It was well recognised that some of the more difficult aspects of the TTIP negotiations will involve the technical aspects around agriculture and food. There will be others as well.

The key point about the US audit of plants in Ireland is that it is a systems audit. They pick two plants and give a rigorous assessment. Traditionally, going back 20 or 30 years ago, the USDA approval of something was always gold standard. They do examine things very rigorously and they will work it out from that assessment. It then falls to member states to approve other plants based on the US standard as worked out through those two plants. That is the way it will work. There is a set period of time after which those discussions will take place. They have 60 days within which to come back and we also have 60 days. Our aim will be to try to tighten up those periods.

There are advantages in the Canadian agreement. Senator O'Keeffe talked about my somewhat enigmatic comments about the type and nature of quotas. I might not have been clear enough. The issue is that a tonnage of beef is not an absolute in itself because it depends what type of beef it is. For example, 20,000 tonnes of high-value fillets is not the same as 20,000 tonnes of forequarter beef, minced beef or lower value cuts. When a quota is being negotiated in international trade, our aim is to ensure that that reflects either the fall of the animal or some relation between the value of the cut and the overall quantity. That has been our strong position in MERCOSUR, WTO and the Canadian discussions. It will also be our position in the US talks.

There are advantages to the Canadian deal. We have access for 18,500 tonnes of cheese, including 16,800 tonnes of high quality cheese. I can give the committee a note on that, so I will not read out a load of figures on it. We have duty-free access for milk protein concentrates into Canada, which is increasingly important for the Irish dairy sector. There are gains in Canada therefore on the dairy side for Ireland and we can send on a list of those for the committee's information.

Nomad cattle is a strange phrase but this is a commercial choice. Governments do not make this choice, it is made by slaughterers in the North under the influence of their purchasing arrangements with UK retailers. Concerning beef, legally, one must include details of where the animal was born, reared and slaughtered. If this happens in different countries, it gets complicated. An animal may be born in the Republic of Ireland, reared in the North and slaughtered in Britain. It can be complicated both for labelling and processing, because a processor must do those on separate lines at separate times. It is done for ease of their operations. The Minister has raised this matter with his counterpart in the North to see if something could be done about it.

Deputy Heydon referred to young farmers, which was a key feature of the CAP. The Minister was very successful in giving them top priority and ensuring that the top-up arrangement was compulsory across all member states. A specific issue is often referred to as the old-young farmers - ones that have already been there. We are seeking to solve that through some kind of priority in the national reserve. We have raised that with the Commission and have difficulties with it, but we are trying to resolve it.

I think I have covered everything.