Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 89: To ask the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food his views on the proposal to electronically tag sheep; and if he supports these proposals. [3979/10]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I have on many occasions expressed concern about the mandatory introduction of electronic identification, EID, in the sheep sector. My consistent view has been that the introduction of EID of sheep should be on a voluntary basis. This position was most recently articulated to the European Commission and fellow Ministers at the Agricultural Council on 20 November 2009. Regretfully, there was not sufficient support among other member states and none from the European Commission for any further roll-back on the mandatory deadline, 31 December 2009, set for the compulsory introduction of EID or for a voluntary scheme.

The prevailing view at EU level is that member states should proceed with implementation. Other member states have already proceeded with implementation of EID on a mandatory basis. Therefore, I have no discretion as regards the date of implementation for electronic identification and there can be no question of deferring its introduction for a further period. In these circumstances, we must now proceed with its introduction.

During the period of debate at EU level, I placed a strong emphasis on pressing our case for a voluntary scheme and in this regard I have secured, in discussions with the European Commission and Commissioners, major concessions in regard to EID. These concessions include a slaughter derogation, which means that all lambs intended for slaughter and under 12 months old can now be exempted from EID. This will result in EID being largely confined to replacement breeding stock born after 31 December 2009. This means the vast majority of Irish sheep will be excluded from EID requirements, which will minimise costs for producers.

Furthermore, lambs identified under the slaughter derogation and subsequently retained for breeding purposes can be tagged with an EID device at the second holding. This is a major breakthrough in facilitating existing trade practice in the sector and addresses the concerns raised by Irish farming organisations that the new EID system would eliminate the sale of breeding sheep at marts, which would otherwise have an adverse effect on competitiveness in the industry.

My Department has circulated to farm organisations and other stakeholders for comment a technical document outlining the proposed changes to the National Sheep Identification System, NSIS II. This is part of a consultative process which has been ongoing for some time. The stakeholders have been asked to examine this document carefully and to engage with my officials to ensure that whatever revisions are made to the NSIS best suit Irish conditions and minimise the burden on farmers within the parameters of the new legislation. I urge the various organisations to contribute specific input to the proposed system.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is not too often I am first to speak at Question Time. Does the Minister acknowledge that this will place a further cost on the primary producer given the cost per tag is estimated at between €2 and €2.50? Farm organisations are suggesting this will place a burden of up to €30 million on primary producers. Does the Minister acknowledge that the current traceability regime is adequate and that it is ludicrous that any European Union proposal would seek to electronically tag any animal for the purpose of meeting some bureaucratic designation?

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I accept that there will be some additional cost to primary producers. One of the first meetings I had as Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was with the EU Commissioner for Health, Androulla Vassiliou, in regard to this issue which comes under her remit within the European Union. I met Ms Vassiliou while she was here in Dublin and have spoken to her on a number of occasions in Brussels at Council of Agricultural Ministers meetings and elsewhere at which times I outlined our total opposition to the mandatory implementation of this proposal.

When we raised this issue at the Council of Agricultural Ministers, few member states, with the exception of Hungary, which supported us in recent times, Britain, which had previously supported us, and Northern Ireland, which had also expressed concern about this proposal, backed us. We had no support for our case around the Council of Ministers table. Indeed, some countries were robust in their criticism of all countries not having implemented this decision. There was total opposition to Ireland being given a further derogation. It should be remembered that this decision was agreed in 2003, postponed until January 2008 and subsequently to the final day of 2009.

As regards the cost of implementation to producers, I too have seen the figures which Deputy Sherlock accurately quoted. However, officials in my Department in consultation with officials in Teagasc, who are specialists in this area, undertook a thorough analysis and forecast in regard to costs. It is estimated that with the derogations we have received the additional cost to the primary producer will be less than €1 million on an annual basis. That is the best estimate available to the Department.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the assumption of €1 million industry-wide or is it divided by 30,000 sheep farmers? Is that the basis of the Minister's claim? Did the European Commission put forward this proposal in 2003 or did it come directly from a Council of Ministers initiative? I would like to know the Council's stated reason for refusing the derogation on the Irish position.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not quite sure from where the proposal initiated in 2003. I am not sure if it was proposed by an individual member state or by the Commission. I believe - I am open to correction on this and will check this for the Deputy - it was a Commission proposal initiated by the then Commissioner for Health and Public Safety. The analysis undertaken by my Department indicates that the additional cost to the average farmer with a flock of 100 sheep is estimated to be approximately €30 to €40 on an annual basis. Deputy Sherlock referred to the cost of tagging. We expect that the first year of tagging will probably be expensive on the basis that we will be adopting a standards based approach rather than a specified tender supplier. A number of people will have an opportunity, once they meet the standards, to supply this particular product. It is estimated that the cost will reduce rather than increase each year. This is based on the belief that EID will apply to more than 18% of the national flock.

We appreciate that the sheep sector is hard pressed. The only additional funding available to us under the national reserve in 2009 was the €7 million derived from what is commonly known as unused funds. I devoted this entire sum to an upland sheep payment. This year, an €80 million per annum scheme will be introduced for the sheep sector. The additional funding that will be provided to assist the sheep sector will be many multiples of the additional cost imposed on the sector through Europe insisting that EID is implemented.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will now return to Question No. 88.