Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have a quorum and will commence the meeting in public session. I remind committee members and witnesses to turn off their phones and I welcome from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine Mr. Tom Moran, secretary general, Mr. Aidan O'Driscoll, assistant secretary, Dr. Kevin Smyth, assistant secretary, and Mr. Paul Dillon, assistant secretary. I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee to brief us on the Department's six-month report on developments in the EU from July to December 2013. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to this committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person, persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Moran to make his opening statement.

Mr. Tom Moran:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation to this meeting. We are delighted to be here and I have brought a very senior team, including three assistant secretaries from the Department. Committee members have copies of the six-month report on developments in the EU from July to December 2013 and it gives details of dossiers progressed under the Lithuanian Presidency. I will provide a brief overview of the work carried out by the Department during that period.

The period in question focused predominantly on Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, deliberations around finalisation of the CAP reform package agreed under the Irish Presidency. Agreement was reached on the final legal texts of the four pillar dossiers under CAP on direct payments, the common organisation of the markets, rural development measures and the horizontal measures. Discussions also commenced on a series of delegated acts on CAP reform. These are the detailed rules for implementation of the reform package and the texts were finalised earlier this year.

The Minister launched a consultation process in July 2013 on how the direct payments regulation would be implemented from 2015. There was a considerable amount of feedback from the various stakeholders, including this committee's submission. At this point, most of the decisions have been taken and have been well flagged so I do not propose to go into detail here. However, I would be happy to answer any questions members may have. Further stakeholder consultation took place on the outline of our rural development programme, RDP, and the Minister announced the details of our funding commitments under the RDP for the period 2015 to 2020. Our draft RDP was submitted to the EU Commission last week and we hope to receive, and will press strongly for, early approval for the suite of measures we have developed.

By way of background, the new rural development regulation moves away from the old axes structure and is instead based on six priority areas for rural development. These areas are fostering knowledge transfer and innovation, enhancing competitiveness, promoting food chain organisation and risk management in agriculture, restoring, preserving and enhancing ecosystems, promoting resource efficiency and supporting the shift towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy and promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas. The new RDP will be a vital support in terms of enhancing the competitiveness of the agrifood sector, managing natural resources in a sustainable manner, and ensuring the balanced development of our rural areas.

Under the Lithuanian Presidency, the Commission organised a conference in September to discuss the future of the dairy sector following the expiry of quotas, which will end in March or April of 2015. Although there were few developments on this issue in the period we are reviewing, I think it may be worthwhile to bring the committee up to date on developments that have taken place this year on the matter. A growing number of member states, including Ireland, has been arguing for an adjustment in the final year of quotas. We are arguing that the soft landing envisaged for the expiry of quotas is not happening in all member states. However, there have been attempts by some member states to link the soft landing issue with the post-quota policy. The situation in the dairy sector was discussed at every agriculture Council of Ministers meeting under the Greek Presidency and the Italian Presidency also indicated it will be on the agenda at the next Council on Monday. The position is that the Council is divided on the steps that should be taken in the run-up to the abolition of quotas and afterwards.

The Minister has lobbied for measures to be taken to address this, notably through an adjustment of the butterfat correction coefficient. Our allies on this include Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, Austria, Poland, Luxembourg, Estonia, Belgium and Latvia. However, another large and influential group of member states, including France, Spain, the UK, Sweden and Italy, is opposed to taking action. Some are linking this issue to the policy direction to be taken after quotas expire. There are subtle hints that some would like to see the reintroduction of some form of supply control in the event of a crisis in the sector. As I said, the matter will be discussed on Monday and at this stage it is difficult to say what the outcome will be. The reality is the Council is divided on the issue and it would be unwise to anticipate changes to the current quota arrangements, especially for farmers during a year of strong grass growth.

On the Common Fisheries Policy, the regulation on the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund was concluded during the Lithuanian Presidency. The three pillars of the fund are to help fishermen in the transition to sustainable fishing, to support coastal communities in diversifying their economies and to finance projects that create new jobs and improve quality of life along European coasts. The Minister recently secured EU funding to the tune of €148 million from this fund. This is a huge increase on our allocation, more than double the €72 million allocation for 2007 to 2013. Ireland must now prepare a programme setting out the arrangements for spending the fund and submit this to the Commission by 20 October 2014. The Department has been working on the new operational programme since 2013 and has engaged with stakeholders on a number of occasions to date. Further public consultation and a strategic environmental assessment will take place over the summer of 2014 and the process mirrors that applied to the rural development programme. The Commission also published its annual proposal for total allowable catch, TAC. Following stakeholder consultation in November, Ireland successfully negotiated a TAC of around 270,000 tonnes that, importantly, included increased quotas for Celtic Sea herring, mackerel, boarfish and blue whiting.

Regarding international trade agreements, negotiations and technical discussions are ongoing between the EU Commission and a number of countries in pursuit of free trade agreements. In the period under review, political agreement was reached on a deal with Canada while negotiations continued with a number of other countries including US, Japan, India, Thailand and the Mercosur countries. The Department continues to work closely with the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to ensure our position is represented in the trade policy committee meetings where the ground work is completed.

As I mentioned, political agreement on the Canadian agreement was reached last October. However, technical discussions are ongoing between Canada and the Commission regarding some issues, including arrangements for the administration of the tariff rate quotas for cheese and beef. These are of significant importance for Ireland and the Department continues to engage with the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development and the Directorate General for Trade. At this point, we understand that the licensing system that will be put in place will regulate the trade evenly over the year.

On the much-discussed trade agreement, TTIP, between the EU and the US, three rounds of negotiations took place during the period under review. The main objectives of the agreement are eliminating tariffs, solving regulatory barriers and working to avoid future regulatory barriers. Discussions between the Directorate General for Trade and the Office of the United States Trade Representative, USTR, are ongoing. There are significant opportunities for Ireland under this agreement to increase our exports of dairy products and consumer foods, including oatmeal, sports nutrition drinks and so on, to the US.

There are also opportunities for the meat sector, including in the context of pork, beef and lamb. For beef and lamb in particular, we envisage the development of a niche market - possibly along the east coast - focused on the Irish diaspora. However, we must also be mindful of any quota that may be offered to the US in beef. We continue to urge caution regarding the size and, significantly, composition of any beef quota offered to the US under these negotiations. As members are probably aware, the US Secretary of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Vilsack, recently visited Ireland and had wide-ranging discussions with the Minister about the EU-US negotiations and with regard to access for Irish beef and lamb to the US market. A United States Department of Agriculture, USDA, inspection of Irish beef-producing plants took place last week. Assuming they meet the US standards, exports of Irish beef to the US could commence later this year. We are happy with the way the inspections went so we are hopeful that the process will move on. Last month the Minister led a trade visit to the US highlighting, among other things, the importance of the US market to Irish producers.

Negotiations with the Mercado Común del Sur, MERCOSUR, stalled in the second half of 2013. A commitment for the exchange of market access offers between the EU and MERCOSUR by the end of the year was not met. We are monitoring ongoing developments in respect of this matter very carefully. Ireland has repeatedly expressed concerns about the threat to both the EU and the Irish beef industry from a badly handled MERCOSUR deal. We have worked with other member states, in particular France, but also with Austria, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Poland on different aspects of the issue in order to highlight our concerns. This matter has been raised at official level at the trade policy committee by the Minister at the Agriculture Council and we have had several meetings with the EU Commission at both ministerial and senior official level. We have made clear our view that the beef offer should not be increased and that it should be structured to avoid a focus on high value cuts, fully respect equivalence and include in-quota tariff rates. We know that our concerns are fully shared in the Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development, DG Agri, up to and including the Commissioner.

In the context of other free trade agreements, FTAS, negotiations are ongoing between the Commission with Japan, India and Thailand. The Department continues to monitor developments and provide input into these negotiations.

I wish to deal now with plant health, veterinary and food safety issues. The legislation in this regard covers animal health, plant health, seeds and propagating materials and includes Regulation (EC) 882/2004 on official controls. The intention behind it is to simplify the administrative controls in the areas to which I refer. During Ireland's Presidency the relevant technical discussions commenced and were continued under the Lithuanian and Greek presidencies. These are substantial dossiers and are not expected to be finalised until 2015 at the earliest. The final part of the so called five-part package, which covered plant reproductive material, was rejected by the Parliament and is now with the Commission for redrafting.

On the food sector, the European Commission launched a proposed reform of the established information and promotion regime for European agricultural and food products in November 2013. The new policy is based on an evaluation of the current policy framework and was developed in parallel with the CAP post-2013 reform process. The aim is to increase the added value of the agrifood sector and its contribution to the European economy by moving towards a European and global promotion policy that will be more focused on the commercial aspects of the sector. Following intensive negotiations earlier this year the package was signed off under the Greek Presidency. It is the fastest ever agreement reached under co-decision with the European Parliament in the agricultural sector.

The six-monthly report on forestry refers to the ongoing discussions on a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe. These discussions have continued into 2014. There are a number of inter-institutional differences regarding the preferred strategy to be adopted and these will be discussed further at a ministerial conference on forests, the timing of which has not yet been confirmed. In addition, discussions on proposals for a forest law enforcement, governance and trade licensing scheme for timber imports into the EU have now concluded, with agreement with the European Parliament on amendments to the existing regime.

That concludes my opening statement. I would be happy to answer reply to any questions or discuss any issues which members may wish to raise.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran for his presentation. He stated that a great deal of time was spent on the detailed regulation. It is often said that the devil is in the detail. Our discussions with representatives from the Department last week indicated that a major challenge is arising for farmers who have so-called commonage land in the context of what constitutes an active farmer. It appears that if one puts any stock on semi-cultivated land, one will not receive any form of single farm payment whatsoever. In situations where there is a mixture of lowland and commonage, only some people actively use the hilly land. This suits those individuals because it means they can have more stock. As Mr. Moran is aware, there has been an ongoing battle against the overstocking of hills in any event. The remainder of farmers involved in the type of scenarios to which I refer just use the enclosed parts of their farms. I understand it is stated somewhere in the small print that if farmers do not put stock on the semi-cultivated land, they will not receive single farm payments. This would have a huge effect on a large number of farmers on the west coast.

The GLAS scheme also seems to be giving rise to major problems for commonage farmers. Did the requirement that 50% of an active shareholders in a commonage join the scheme on the same day emanate from the Department or does it arise on foot of an EU regulation? Is this requirement immutable? We cannot use freedom of information to discover who are the commonage farmers and which of them have submitted area aid forms because the information is private and is not, therefore, disclosable. There might be 200 people in a commonage but only 100 of them might have submitted area forms. I understand from Mr. Moran's officials that it is not possible to discover the identity of those 100 individuals in order to discover whether they all want to join GLAS together or whether only 50% of them to. Is this down to the regulation, was it the result of a slip up in the negotiations or does it emanate from the Department? If the latter is the case, then it could be changed.

Will Mr. Moran provide details of the discussions which took place in the second half of 2013, when Irish and British beef prices really began to diverge? For example, what discussions have taken place at EU level in respect of barriers to free trade. The entire idea behind the Union is that there should be free trade and that borders should not be used to erect artificial barriers in respect of such trade. As Mr. Moran is aware, there appear to be a significant and increasing number of barriers to free trade between Ireland and both Britain and Northern Ireland. What discussions took place at EU level in respect of country of origin labelling being misused and employed as a barrier to free trade? Was the possibility of moving from country of origin to origin EU labelling - in order that free trade in the beef sector will not be hindered - discussed?

I understand that a change has been made in the context of the regulations. Previously under the CAP, the N+2 mechanism ensured that payments to farmers were spread out over a number of years. As a result, payments for the 2007 to 2013 period will not actually cease being paid until 2015. I understand that on this occasion payments will be made up to 2023, which means that it will be a ten-year rather than a nine-year period. This indicates that the money on offer will be somewhat lower than previously because payments are going to be spread out over ten years. It is something similar to what the Government has stated is the position with regard to the country's loans, namely, the longer the payment schedule, the less one is obliged to pay each year. How much of the money available under the CAP will be on a seven-year timeframe? I understand that such a timeframe applies in respect of single payments and that a ten-year model applies with regard to rural development.

Of the billions we will be allocated, how much will be paid in the seven year timeframe and in the new ten year timeframe? We need to know this to get handle on the annual payments we will receive.

Under the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund, €148 million has been secured, which shows the difference between the funds for agriculture and for fishing. The allocation works out at €20 million a year if the timeframe is seven years. Will Mr. Moran confirm if it will be allocated over seven years or ten? Will it be paid in the period from 2014 to 2020 or from 2014 to 2023 or even to 2022? If the timeframe is seven years, the allocation will be €20 million a year and if it is ten, the allocation will be €14 million a year. There is a major difference between the two. Will Mr. Moran confirm if compensation for shellfish farmers hit by incidents of red tide, toxins and such like which will result in their being out of business for one or two years is included in the EMFF package?

With all of the trade agreements being negotiated, the key issue is equivalence. In other words, if somebody were to sell into this market, would he or she have to adhere to the same standards in regard to genetically modified organisms, animal health and welfare and all of the other standards required to be met in European farming? Is Mr. Moran confident that when trade interests which are much more dominant in the European Union than agricultural interests get to work, we will be able to insist on equivalence being maintained in all free trade negotiations? If it is not, lower standard producers with bigger farms will have a massive advantage over us and could dump a lot of their produce in our markets and thus undermine the livelihoods of European farmers.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran for his presentation. I have a few questions on milk policy. It appears from his presentation that in some areas there is a resistance to the cessation of quotas. He referred to a post-quota policy. What does he envisage is meant by this? Will some countries try to hold on to their quotas or advocate holding on to some quota at the end of the negotiations?

Regarding the Common Fisheries Policy, Ireland successfully negotiated a total allowable catch of 270,000 tonnes which includes quotas for sea herring, mackerel, boarfish and blue whiting. Was success secured for onshore fishermen who I am told make up 80% of those involved in the industry? Much of the quota for herring, mackerel and boarfish was ring-fenced for a small number of boats that make an awful lot of money, but the vast majority of those involved in the sector are only surviving from day to day, mainly due to the lack of quota.

Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív has pointed out that the figure of €148 million secured works out at an allocation of €20 million a year if paid over seven years and less if paid over ten. How does Mr. Moran envisage the allocation operating? Will those coming into the sector be grant-aided to upgrade their fishing vessels or the exploratory gear they use, particularly in dealing with discards?

The transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations are taking place between the European Union and the United States. On the regulation of the beef industry in the European Union in terms of traceability from conception to placement on the market and ensuring there is no use of hormones to enhance product, how will the Americans overcome this issue? I am told American beef producers use growth hormones in producing beef. How will the system work if their product is placed in the European market? Will there be traceability? Mr. Moran has mentioned that exports of Irish beef to the United States could commence later this year. I am aware that the price of beef this year is higher in the USA than it has been for a considerable time. Normally, Irish producers would not be able to compete in the United States because of the price factor. Unless we target a niche market for organic beef, how will Irish producers be able to compete in the US market?

Pat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a few brief questions following on from the points raised by previous speakers. I also welcome the delegation.

On the timescale for the rural development programme, as I understand it, a proposal was made to the Commission in the past week. Is that correct? When does Mr. Moran expect to receive a response? When does he expect the Department to be in a position to take in applications from the first applicants under the 2015 green low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS? At what stage in 2015 will the process be up and running?

On milk quotas, to which Deputy Martin Ferris referred, I am concerned about a phrase Mr. Moran used in his submission, namely, "some form of supply control in the case of a crisis in the sector" in the future. I am concerned because some countries are very strong on this issue. Many farmers in Ireland invested a substantial amount of money to increase their herds and expand their facilities on the understanding that they would have freedom to produce as much as possible and that there would be a market for them. They need to know in the short term if there will be obstacles as they move forward. There are serious targets to be achieved under Food Harvest 2020, particularly in the dairy sector. Given that large investments have been made, this is a source of serious concern for those in the middle of an investment process. There is a need for certainty. It is important that we have some allies, but there is also a strong group building on the other side and it is a battle we will find hard to win. The timescale involved needs to be known in the very near future because people are beginning to plan for what will happen in March 2015 which is only seven or eight months away.

Deputy Martin Ferris referred to the beef industry. Mr. Moran mentioned that the US Secretary of State had been here in recent weeks.

What will be the value of our exports to the American market when it opens later in the year? There are disadvantages and advantages in that from our point of view and from a European point of view. Is there the potential that we will flood the market with American beef when we are trying to get our beef to America? Are we playing one against the other, and will we get lost in the middle of that situation? As Mr. Moran knows, beef farmers have been through a difficult time. How will all this fit into Food Harvest 2020 from our point of view? Some people would argue that the targets will never be achieved. That is a matter for debate but if the markets we are trying to open are not worthwhile, for example, America, is it worthwhile going there in the first place?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Penrose, Senator O'Keeffe, Deputy Heydon and Senator O'Neill are offering but Mr. Moran might like to take the questions from the first three members.

Mr. Tom Moran:

I will follow whatever the Chairman wants to do. Will I deal with the issues that have been raised?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I think so, yes. Mr. Moran can then answer the questions that will be put by the other members. We can get a bit lost if there are six or seven sets of questions.

Mr. Tom Moran:

I get lost as well, so I agree with that.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I doubt that.

Mr. Tom Moran:

The members asked interesting questions, some of which I presume will be raised by other members so it might be as well to deal with them. I will begin with the one that has been raised by a number of Deputies and Senators. I want to be clear on the milk issue. The decision has been taken that quotas will end as and from next year, and it was reconfirmed under the health check. As part of the exit from milk quotas it was decided that there would be a year by year increase in the EU quota to ensure there would be an easing out and a soft landing, which is particularly applicable to countries like Ireland. No increase was provided for in the very last year. What was provided for was a report from the Commission to the Council on the state of the market. Some years ago, Ireland and a small number of member states were conscious of the fact that this soft landing would not necessarily apply equitably across all countries and were of the view that some would have a hard landing. With a number of other countries, therefore - Denmark, Luxembourg and Netherlands - Ireland started to press for some form of an adjustment in the last year. That is all we are talking about. The obvious possibility of adjustment would have been to have a further increase in quotas. Another one would be adjustment in the levy. They are now not possible because of Council regulations, which cannot be changed.

There is one final mechanism that could be used, namely, an adjustment to the fat coefficient. It is a technical term that essentially means a lift in the quantity of solids in milk that can be produced in the last year. As I said, the supporters of that adjustment idea have grown considerably in number. Equally, the opponents have been adamant that the quota regime should not be touched in the last year in that the decision has been taken to end it next year, that it should be left as it stands until then, and that there will not be a quota from that time.

A number of issues emerged in the debate about adjusting the last year. It is no secret that not every member state likes the end of quotas but that decision has been taken, and we are not going back on that. However, in the debate about the last year, other countries have begun to suggest some other mechanism to deal with crises. The Commission's response, and it is something with which we would agree, is that there are market management measures provided for under CAP reform and in the event of a dip in prices, a supply issue or a volatility related issue, even though the broad prognosis is for an increase in the market, continued increase in demand and a strong optimistic output for milk, market management measures would be applied quickly.

The Commission has also set up the idea of a price observatory to gather information quickly and accurately across the milk market and to be able anticipate in that regard. We would have no difficulty with that.

Allied with those other countries we want to see if we can get an adjustment to the fat coeffiient in the last year, which makes perfect sense in Ireland's view. However, Ireland, and all those member states, would not countenance any hint, subtle or otherwise, towards supply control from the end of quotas onwards for the reason mentioned, namely, farmers and the industry invested. That train has left the station. Quotas are gone, and Ireland is gearing up towards at least a 50% increase. As far as we are concerned, that is finished. I would not be concerned in the slightest on that question. We will still try next week to get an adjustment to the fat coefficient in the last year.

On the question of commonages and so on, commonages spill over Pillars 1 and 2. I know Deputy Ó Cuív and others have a strong interest in and attachment to them. They are a difficult concept to handle within the Common Agricultural Policy, probably because the concept is not generally shared across other member states, but some key factors apply, one of which is the principle of active farming. Active farming has been spelt out clearly in the new Common Agricultural Policy. If payments are to go to active farmers, by definition, active farmers must be defined and if they are defined, it must be done by some means. The way we do it is by the actual farming. In commonage terms it means the holding stock. In other words, if someone farming on a commonage wants to claim a Pillar 1 single payment, they must stock in line with commonage framework plans coming down the track. If, however, they apply under GLAS, the new environmental scheme, by definition they must do more than is required under Pillar 1. If someone has land in commonage, they must add some further environmental condition to get the newly announced payment of €120 per hectare.

Another condition that relates to the GLAS one, and it was mentioned previously, is the idea of a collective. There is shared ownership but there is also shared responsibility, and there was a consultation process on the level of that. There was a figure of 80% at the beginning but at the latter stages of consultation, having listened to the arguments, including from here and elsewhere, it was decided that the more appropriate figure would be 50%. However, there must be a collective sharing of responsibility for managing the commonage in line with environmental practice. That means there must be a common plan that covers 50% of the active farmers on the commonage or 50% of the land. There was a change to that last week or the week before, which was welcomed by the organisations because of the serious engagement we had on it.

Regarding beef-----

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Can I ask a question?

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let Mr. Moran finish.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked a specific question on that. Is this being driven by something in the regulation or by the Department?

Mr. Tom Moran:

The application of Pillar 1 payments to commonages is provided for under the Pillar 1 EU regulations.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about Pillar 2?

Mr. Tom Moran:

For Pillar 2 payments one must bring additionality beyond the requirements in Pillar 1. Pillar 1 requirements mean that one stocks, is an active farmer and observes good agricultural and environmental conditions, GAEC.

The green, low carbon agri-environment scheme, GLAS, or Pillar 2 payments must be a further step beyond in order to justify the additional payments that are there. One such condition must be that there is some element of collectivity or common planning to mind the commonage.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that written in the regulation?

Mr. Tom Moran:

It is one of the conditions.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us be clear on this. This has gone to the European Union for approval.

Mr. Tom Moran:

Yes.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Consequently, the Pillar 2 payments, as proposed to be drawn down in this way, must be approved by the European Union.

Mr. Tom Moran:

The programme as a whole has gone to Brussels and will be examined over the next couple of months as to whether there are issues in that regard. However, we already have had some engagement with the Commission on this issue and are clear on the fact that there must be some form of collectivity because by definition, it is commonage.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Because it is commonage. Very well, we will move on.

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.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What is the estimated amount of co-funding?

Mr. Tom Moran:

I am not clear on the level of co-funding. That is something that will be worked out with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, and the Department of Finance.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about shellfish compensation?

Mr. Tom Moran:

My feeling is that it does not include compensation for fish diseases, but I will check this and provide the information to the Chairman. It is a fair question.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am somewhat perplexed about the proposed trade in beef between the United States and Ireland. I accept that there are defensive and offensive interests, but it is difficult to understand how there can be equivalence when the vast majority of United States beef is produced under a different method, much of it hormone-driven, while we have rigorous standards, hormone-free production, rigorous trade accessibility procedures and focused quality initiatives. If beef is to be imported on an equivalent basis, will we be allowed to accentuate the country of origin so that consumers will be in a position to discriminate, as the French do? We are a little squeamish when it comes to ensuring that our interests are protected. I have grave concerns about that. Mr. Moran correctly indicated that it is a niche market. While we obviously want to sell a lot of our beef, we will need to be careful about what is imported.

The US Secretary of Agriculture, who was leaning across a gate when being interviewed by RTE, was asked about genetically modified foods, and, of course, he wants a significant relaxation of standards in that regard. The European Commission has a different view - or, certainly, member states have. How can that be reconciled? If he goes down that line, is that another area that will represent a trade barrier from our perspective? We should not sacrifice all merely to rush in. I would have grave doubts about such a course of action.

With regard to the current situation in beef, when the Department, in conjunction with Bord Bia and others, secures a market it is a job well done, but one can buy gold too dear. I would be worried about what might happen in beef. I come from a significant beef-producing area and I know how farmers are suffering at the moment.

I must agree with Mr. Moran that while we all can trot out glib solutions, a lot of this is market-determined. We must face up to that. Mr. Moran is correct. The relaying of information and the nod-and-wink practice has to stop. Clear, unequivocal information must be given to beef producers well ahead of time. What happens in the beef sector does not happen in other sectors, particularly the milk sector. I hope this round-table conference achieves a crystallisation of views and ideas that will address a situation that is occurring for many beef farmers across the country. How will the matter be reconciled? How will they square that circle? We have a particular view on genetically modified crops, under which Ministers have operated over the years. How will that feed into the matter? Was the US Secretary of Agriculture using that as a bargaining tool? What interpretation did Mr. Moran put on the US Secretary of Agriculture's view on genetically modified crops? Was he using it as a hard bargaining tool?

I have one other question. The Canadian agreement has now been finalised. What benefits will accrue to Ireland from that agreement? Will it be worthwhile, or has Mr. Moran given any thought to that? What benefits might emerge from it?

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Like Deputy Penrose, I wish to ask about the GM element. Mr. Moran stated that "hormones" is not a good word. Equally, genetic modification is not good. GM has not formed part of this presentation and I would be grateful for Mr. Moran's clarification on that.

I was not clear about Mr. Moran's observation that "we also need to be mindful of any quotas that may be offered to the US in beef and we continue to urge caution regarding the size and composition of any beef quota ...". What does he mean by that? Does he mean that it ought not to be too big?

Has the Department identified the potential suppliers or the potential plants that were assessed? Mr. Moran obviously knows which ones they are. Do we know?

On the overall European position on horsemeat, is everybody now satisfied following the difficulties last year? Has the European position on regulation, control and safety been nailed down? Are we in a better place where there will not be a recurrence of what occurred last year? Obviously, the number of players involved was quite large and the chain is quite long. If there was meant to have been a big European statement on that, I wonder where that is.

Finally, on Mr. Moran's observations about the food sector, he spoke about the negotiation that took place under the Greek Presidency on the food sector and the global promotion policy. I wonder what on earth the global promotion policy is, particularly as it is more focused on the commercial aspects of the sector. I appreciate that Mr. Moran could not give all the detail in that regard because we probably would have been here for quite a long time, but a small bit more would be helpful.

Martin Heydon (Kildare South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the officials for coming today.

On CAP, I want to ask about the Department's efforts in two areas. The first is young farmers, and that cohort of farmers who are still young but are not considered new entrants due to the fact that they started earlier. They missed out on installation aid, so they fell in that gap. Efforts have been made to find ways of addressing this anomaly. Mr. Moran might give us some background on the efforts being made, or the approach and the view of the Department.

Also on CAP, there are the challenges facing malting barley growers - in particular, the specific challenges of the three-crop rule for continuous cereal growers, such as malting barley growers in south Kildare, Wexford and other areas.

On trade, Mr. Moran mentioned the EU-Canada deal. There have been a number of questions about the United States. When can we expect the timelines for the arrangements for the EU-Canada agreement and what are the perceived advantages or disadvantages of that deal for Ireland?

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Moran for his presentation. Many of the relevant issues have been raised by members. I have three points. A couple of weeks ago we heard that Russia had placed sanctions on 12 processing plants in Ireland. Have they been lifted? What negotiations are ongoing in that regard?

It arose approximately two years ago during a joint EU scrutiny committee meeting that we already imported beef from the United States. I do not know what the tonnage is; perhaps it is 1,000 tonnes a year. The market may be opened more with a free trade agreement. At the meeting referred to I asked about the testing of beef to ensure it was free of hormones. Will the onus be on the importer to ensure it is hormone free? If it is not, will the Department impose more sanctions ? Instead of testing one in every 100 tonnes, for example, will it test according to a different regime?

The beef industry is in crisis. The Department had no input when the beef grid was drawn up. It was an agreement between the factories and farm organisations. Will the Department try to take some initiative to design a new grid? This would benefit both farmers and processors and would also benefit the retailers who sell on beef. If prices are transparent, everybody is happy. If world markets are depressed owing to the price being paid, we cannot do anything about it. There are so many sanctions in place, including in respect of over-age and under-age animals, and overweight and underweight animals, and various factors associated with the grid. Therefore, we need transparency. I ask the Department to take the lead on this issue.

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.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is just the Russian issue.

Susan O'Keeffe (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The horsemeat question.

Mr. Tom Moran:

As regards the horsemeat issue, the very fact that it was found in Ireland, originated here and then became European from here, gave rise to a huge amount of work across Europe on new regulations. Looking back on it, I suppose it was a bit of a plus for Ireland, although I would prefer if it had not happened here. It did not do serious harm to our reputation and, in fact, it enhanced our reputation as controllers in the country. These kind of things are always a risk. The new systems that have been put in place on the slaughter of horses, as well as DNA testing, are up and running.

Senator O'Keeffe and I have had that conversation before. When one is dealing with the food sector, one must be 100% vigilant. What occurred was not anticipated across Europe, including the UK or here. It is a question of what the next risk will be, so one must constantly apply a risk approach to food production. By and large, however, we have handled it well. There is still the possibility of prosecutions involved, but I think we have handled it well. It went on into the European system and did not do any harm to our reputation as a result of that. We applied some of the principles we had applied in previous food safety or fraud issues. We were up front, found something and dealt with it definitively. It is the only way to deal with it.

We can cover crop diversification by allowing the green cover to be deemed as part of the equivalence. That is the way we will handle it.

Pat O'Neill (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Russian situation.

Mr. Tom Moran:

The Russians have banned a series of plants for dairy products and meat. The situation is difficult. We are involved at a high level with the Russians in trying to undo that. It is happening across Europe and they have done it with a lot of other countries as well. Our ambassador and the new attachéin Moscow have been in and out of the Russian administration trying to resolve it. We have engaged with them seriously. Some elements of it are vague, but we hope to have further clarification this week on whether it is just those plants or whether other plants are included. It is a moving situation.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There were two questions from Senator Comiskey about the 140-kg limit, as well as the activity on lowlands and inactivity on the uplands.

Mr. Tom Moran:

Under the GLAS agri-environment climate scheme, if one was allowing a prioritisation to apply which, in reality, will not be an issue now, and was an intensive producer of milk, beef or sheep and was over 140kg, one must choose from one of the four options underneath that. One of the obvious ones would be the trailing shoe mechanism. It was more a question of enticing people into GLAS but forcing them to deliver on something which is beneficial from a climate viewpoint.

A farmer with commonage and lowland must have mountain sheep in that case. Under GLAS, if one has commonage, it is one of the things one must do in order to be a member of the scheme.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Ferris had a question.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Getting back to the nomad cattle, I take it from Mr. Moran's comments, that this can only be resolved politically between both Ministers. Is that what Mr. Moran is saying?

Mr. Tom Moran:

Excuse me but I missed the beginning of that question.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is there a political initiative to solve the nomadic cattle question? I presume there is also an aspect with the supermarkets, is there?

Mr. Tom Moran:

To be perfectly honest, I would see that as being more of a commercial issue. That would be my own view.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that the resolution of it?

Mr. Tom Moran:

The resolution of it is commercial. It is a purchasing policy among processors in the North on what cattle they want to buy as a result of labelling requirements imposed on those in the markets into which they sell. Ultimately, its resolution will be through the purchasing policies of retailers in the United Kingdom.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a labelling issue which can be resolved politically.

Mr. Tom Moran:

If the UK retailers who buy beef believed there was no problem from their point of view in having beef that was born in the South and slaughtered in the North-----

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about an all-Ireland label?

Mr. Tom Moran:

One would still have to adhere to the beef labelling rules which refer to each one of these stages. We could look at an all-island label, but one would still have to adhere to EU rules at the three stages. It would, ultimately, be a matter for the purchaser to decide whether to apply it.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Polish beef being brought into the country by one of the main beef processors?

Mr. Tom Moran:

I do not know that that is the case.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Moran aware that Polish beef is being brought into the country?

Mr. Tom Moran:

Yes, but there is the right to have Polish beef circulated freely within the European Union in the same way that there is every right to have Irish beef circulated around Poland or anywhere else. If beef is produced within the European Union, it is in free circulation as long as it meets EU internal market standards.

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My point is that if Polish beef is being brought in by one or more of the beef processors in Ireland, it may be exported as Irish beef.

Mr. Tom Moran:

That is a completely separate issue. If Polish beef is being circulated anywhere else, it must adhere to EU labelling standards.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

To be clear, is it the case that if Polish beef is brought in here and sold, it must be labelled in terms of its origin - born, reared and slaughtered - in respect of each member state?

Mr. Tom Moran:

Yes.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would have to carry that label. The point to which Deputy Martin Ferris is perhaps coming concerns the possibility that Polish beef is being brought here, repackaged and processed further before being sold as "origin Ireland" beef.

Mr. Tom Moran:

If the Deputy has the details, we will look at them.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that what Deputy Martin Ferris is getting at?

Martin Ferris (Kerry North-West Limerick, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a rumour.

Mr. Tom Moran:

If the suggestion is that the labelling rules are being breached in that way, it is something we will take very seriously. If there are details, we will look at them.

Willie Penrose (Longford-Westmeath, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be highly illegal.

Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It would be completely against EU labelling rules, not just those of Ireland. I thank the delegates. There is a great deal going on and it is important that we clarify that the current beef talks with the USA are bilateral. I propose that we defer private business until Thursday morning and take Mr. Michael Dowling straightaway.