Mr. Eoin Donnelly:

I am coming at this from a Charolais perspective. We are just after setting up this organisation in the last six months or so. There was a question on how we have been received by the stakeholders. We have been refused admission to the tuberculosis, TB, forum at our first attempt, unfortunately. The Beef Plan Movement has been excluded from a forum discussing future plans to mitigate against the risk of TB in this country. We have also asked to be part of the bovine viral diarrhoea, BVD, forum and that comes under our animal health committee. We have been told to apply to become affiliated with Animal Health Ireland so we can then be invited back into the BVD forum. Those are two immediate examples of roadblocks to getting our voice heard at tables.

We talk about ourselves as an organisation seeking recognition for the number of farmers we represent. It is important that we get some transparency on that issue because other organisations also claim to represent beef farmers. We have spoken to some 20,000 members in marts and town halls in recent months and they have said those organisations have not represented them as beef farmers. We would welcome more transparency regarding which organisation actually represents beef farmers and that being known to the public and to committees such as this. Beef farmers could then get recognition on some of the boards where we do not have a presence at the moment. Those are the challenges facing us as a fledgling organisation.

From a funding perspective, there is much talk about levies at the moment in respect of certain organisations. We would welcome a proper funding structure being put in place that recognises the contribution an organisation is making on behalf of the beef sector. Such organisations, which work for, truly represent and have the best interests of beef farmers at heart should be appropriately funded. Farmers could recognise that work by whatever means they see fit, if a structure was put in place. They could indicate they wished to subscribe to such an organisation, for instance. We are a voluntary organisation and no one gets paid. We do this work completely voluntarily and I think we have done incredible work in recent months to highlight these issues. As Mr. Corley stated earlier, many people have piggybacked on our work regarding these issues and now make them their own. When we look to find the actual origins, however, we must go back to our meetings in the latter part of last year and that is where the topics we are raising came from.

A question was also asked about the 70-day rule, the 30-month rule and so on. It was interesting to see mention made earlier of access to certain markets. Those markets represent 5% of the exports we sell out of this country beyond the European Union.

Some 95% of exports are to the EU.

On the website of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, it is noted that Japan is seeking to move the limits from 30 months to 36 months. That is specifically called out.

We have to be very careful about the language that is used around the 70-day rule and the four-movement rule, especially as it refers to consumers or customers. A retailer or buyer will suit its interests and will do what is required to maintain its retail share. Naturally, they will put criteria in place to protect their position. We need to be really clear that the opinion of the consumer - the person who consumes the product - be sought regarding what are the requirements for particular markets. Dominant retailers set the rules which preserve their own positions. This is very easy to confuse with the language used around customers, consumers and retailers. We have to be crystal clear on this. What does the consumer want? It should not matter what the retailer, which is interested in preserving its position of dominance, wants.

Senator Lombard made an assertion that we should be getting 40% of the EU average. I want to put something on the record concerning the idea of a price of 107% of the European average. An article came out at the end of December last year which alleged that this was the value that Irish beef producers were paid. We heard in previous submissions how important the suckler farmer is. I encourage members of this committee to visit the Bord Bia website and scrutinise that number. From the research I have done in preparation for the mart meetings that we have attended I know that for ten years, what farmers have been paid for the R3 and U3 category of cattle has been less than their counterparts in Europe. I am not talking about the UK, where there is a considerable difference, but rather our counterparts in Europe. For ten years farmers in Ireland have been paid less than the EU average for the EU 12 and EU 15. That information is available on the Bord Bia website. Those cattle will predominantly come from the suckler herd, such as R3 and U3 steers. They are not O or P grade but are of lesser conformation and come from dairy cross. For heifers, it is only in the past two to three years of that ten-year period where we have marginally been paid the same as the EU average for heifers. It is the same story for young bulls. This was the case throughout the period, with the exception of during the horsemeat scandal and in 2015, when we were paid slightly above the European average for our bulls. To support the assertion that we are receiving 107% of the European average one has to look at an O3 and a P3 cow, which is effectively a cull cow from the dairy herd. In that category Irish farmers have been paid more than the EU average. I want to make it absolutely clear that the 107% is tied to, underwritten and underlined by the category of animal slaughtered. We hear that the best interests of suckler farmers are being put forward by the meat industry in Ireland. We have been paid less for steers in the U3 and R3 carcase grades for the last ten years, as well as for heifers and young bulls in those categories, with the exception of one or two years. We have only been paid more for a culled cow in that period, which I suggest is not the best product we could market. I want to make sure that that important point is researched properly and that the claim of 107% is made in the correct context.

Other questions have been asked about forward contracts. This is very interesting, and concerns access to data. I am a part-time farmer, and I work in supply chain as my day job. I have bought materials, manufactured product and sold materials for 25 years. I have done this for US multinationals. If I know that I am constrained by a raw material, I can guarantee that my commercial team will not get my permission to market one product more than I can commit to supply. That would put me under pressure in terms of what I have to buy and what I have to pay forward to buy it. They will not be permitted to market more product than I can supply from the raw materials. If we tell the industry how much beef is in the system, beef being the raw material, I can guarantee that it will not commit to a contract it cannot supply or that would put them under pressure to compete for cattle in order to fulfil that contract. We have heard forecasts of six months, perhaps a little bit longer, indicating the numbers involved and the kind of agreement we will have. Those indicative numbers set the parameters within which we are able to commit to supply. By sharing information on the available raw material in the beef sector I can guarantee that the position will not arise that a company will overextend from a supply commitment that would put it under pressure to buy more cattle and drive the price up. That is how a market should work, from a supply chain perspective. It was suggested that we reduce the national herd. That would leave us in the same boat, because if we reveal the amount of available raw material in this industry, the sales commitments will match that at the other end. If we go from 600,000 tonnes to 400,000 tonnes we would be in the same scenario. The importance of not sharing that information must be made quite clear so that it cannot be manipulated in terms of speculating in sales contracts.

Brexit was felt by the Irish beef farmer a week after the vote when the price was cut. Brexit has already been felt by us. The meat industry in this country is adept at not wasting a crisis. Brexit has been a phenomenal success for it. It has had a two-year crisis. If the weather is dry there is a drought and the price goes down. If it rains, the price goes down. If the cat has kittens, the price goes down. It never wastes a crisis. Brexit has been felt by Irish beef farmers for the last two years. I would invite this committee to evaluate the dairy commodities that sell within the UK and how they have fared over the past two years. The dairy industry has the exact same parameters of uncertainty caused by Brexit, and I would look at how the dairy products in that market have faired relative to beef. The fundamental difference is that there is a co-operative-style approach. Co-operatives actually help their suppliers. In the beef industry there are what I consider to be monopolies that will do all they can to take as much out of this €2.6 billion industry as possible, with no foresight for the consequences for the suppliers in the future. The situation for beef producers at the moment is terminal. Other organisations are looking for payments of €200 per suckler cow. It would be far more beneficial to write the cheque, give it to the major players and tell them not to cut the price of beef any further than to give that money to the farmers. Administratively it would cost less. The major players are ultimately going to get that money; it is just a matter of how long it takes for it to percolate back out so that they can take that share from the farmer.