Mr. Eddie Punch:

The issue of nomad cattle is a supermarket problem. I believe it is an anti-competitive practice but it is not a regulatory problem. EU regulations on labelling require country of origin on every specific portion of beef. Traditionally, the view of UK supermarkets has been that to use a label stating "Born in Ireland, finished in UK" would be too complex for supermarket consumers to understand. They have simply refused to do it. The interesting thing is that the Italian consumer, apparently, is more intelligent than the British consumer because they are able to understand it. In our view, it is an anti-competitive practice in the UK imposed by supermarkets. There is a question mark in our view about whether processors have been too willing to accept that particular answer at UK level.

I will go back to the question of PGI and what was discussed at the beef task force. Considerable time was spent fighting to ensure the PGI application and the suckler brand application were controlled by a monitoring committee with majority farmer representation. It was agreed in the discussions that the monitoring committee would have the final say on how the suckler brand and PGI would be organised. Obviously, at the moment there is no PGI status, but as soon as it is agreed the monitoring committees have the final say on the use of these.

There is an element of a grey area around this. Traditionally, PGI status has been sought by co-operatives or groups of farmers or primary producers. For example, Connemara hill lamb was secured by a co-operative of primary producers in Connemara. This is tricky because Bord Bia is the applicant. We want the monitoring group to have a complete say over it. However, nothing is written in stone. There is agreement that the monitoring committee for PGI status will be majority farmer represented. Until such time as the application is passed at EU level, the PGI monitoring committee will not be up and running. That is all we can say about that. In private discussions with the Department and Bord Bia we have spent considerable time insisting that the use of PGI status had to be within the control of the monitoring group. That means the use of the logo.

There are difficulties with PGI. The EU regulations state that PGI status is available to any primary producer that meets the standard set out in the PGI document. This is difficult. Let us suppose some farmers set up a given PGI status and then ICMSA sets up PGI status. Then, let us suppose another group of farmers meet the standard set out in the PGI status. We would have difficultly in saying they cannot use it. That is the EU regulation aspect of it. If a producer meets all the standards set out under the PGI, it is not permitted, as we understand it, for a group or co-operative of farmers to claim it is theirs alone. That is why there are challenges in respect of a national PGI status. Such difficulties might not arise if there was a localised PGI status. For example, it is obvious that a farmer in Waterford cannot benefit from a PGI called Connemara hill lamb. However, when there is a national PGI, there are questions marks about restricting the its use. That will not be solved even after the PGI is granted. We will have to see what the EU says about it first.