Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for selecting this as a topical issue today. I also thank the Minister, Deputy Creed, for coming to the Dáil to respond.

The issue I wish to raise is the unilateral decision by the Minister, announced a couple of weeks ago, to introduce mandatory electronic tagging for all lambs under the age of 12 months, even when they are going directly to the factory from the farm. This move was taken by the Minister without consultation. It was landed on the farming organisations and representatives without any notice. One questions why there are farm organisations and farmer representatives if the Department and the Minister are not going to engage with them and treat them as the stakeholders they are in our agriculture sector. Although there was some consultation and although there were meetings between the farm organisations and the Minister in the summer of 2015, there has been no real engagement whatsoever since. There were points of dispute with regard to how electronic tagging could be introduced at that stage. The Minister has not made an effort to resolve these matters since then.

The Minister very opportunely took the decision to announce the unilateral decision on the same day that the Common Agricultural Policy budget and associated cuts were announced. I wonder whether the Minister considered it to be a good day to bury more bad news. Obviously, the very difficult news that we were going to have a challenge regarding the Common Agricultural Policy budget was going to dominate the headlines.

There seems to have been a lack of preparation and proper consideration by the Minister. There are a few points to which I would like him to respond clearly. The first is on the cost of introducing electronic tagging. When lambs are going straight from the farm to the factory, a tag that costs 18 cent currently suffices. With electronic tagging, that cost will increase to €1.05, amounting to a 90 cent increase. The IFA estimates this will result in an overall cost of €2 million, borne entirely by farmers. The Irish Natura & Hill Farmers Association and the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, along with the IFA, have opposed adamantly the Minister's approach to this and have stated how they have been ignored in the process.

What engagement has the Minister had with the factories on seeking a contribution from them towards the cost? The new system will be of benefit to the factories and assist them in streamlining their processes. There should be a contribution from them to assist.

The Minister introduced a sheep welfare scheme last year and there was under-expenditure in this regard of €7 million. A sum of €25 million was budgeted and €18 million was allocated. Surely the Department could assist with the cost.

On the timing, the Minister is seeking to make electronic tagging mandatory from 1 October. I am interested in hearing the rationale for picking that date. If the Minister is seeking to ensure clear identification of this year's crop of lambs, showing their origin, he should note most of those lambs will already have left the farms by 1 October. Surely it would make more sense to introduce the initiative in the following year.

What plans does the Minister have to introduce a sheep database? Will he consider it? Does he believe there can be full traceability with electronic tagging without introducing a database alongside it?

Overall, I ask the Minister to think again. Unfortunately, he is not working with the stakeholders involved - those who will be involved in implementation. It is a disgrace that the Minister ignored farmers to this extent. The unilateral move shows he is out of touch with them. Unfortunately, that is consistent with how he approached the fodder crisis and other crises experienced by the farming community over the past couple of years. I ask the Minister to draw a line and start to engage. He should try to ensure this issue will be addressed hand in hand with farmer representatives.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Charlie McConalogue for raising the matter. I am surprised he did not refer to the fact that I engaged in extensive consultation with him and Deputy Martin Kenny when they called to the Department. They got a full briefing on electronic identification, EID.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would not call one meeting extensive.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One cannot argue that there was no consultation at political level. There was consultation at farm organisation level in 2015. There was consultation with farm organisations in the context of the sheep welfare scheme, which was worth in the region of €20 million to the sheep industry. Therefore, I do not accept there has not been consultation, both formal and informal, at political and farm organisation levels.

I announced the mandatory extension of EID for all sheep in a press release issued on 2 May 2018. The new rules will require all sheep sold from 1 October 2018 to be identified electronically. I announced also the introduction of a one-off support measure, up to a maximum of €50 per keeper, for the first purchase of EID tags.

Electronic tag readers and associated software are included as eligible investments in the TAMS to assist sheep farmers in flock management. There will be no change to the identification requirements of sheep aged over 12 months, all of which will be required to be identified with a full EID or bolus set. This measure was necessary as the current sheep identification system is overly complex, relying heavily on the reading and transcription of lengthy identification numbers at all levels of production. The current system relies almost totally on paper records, leading to avoidable errors at all stages of the movement cycle of the animal, including at slaughter.

Let me outline the benefits of EID to the sheep industry as a whole. Full EID in sheep will simplify the sheep tagging system and will significantly reduce the onerous administrative and record-keeping burdens currently imposed on sheep farmers as they move sheep to livestock marts, slaughter plants and export assembly centres. The new rules will provide a more robust sheep traceability system and will further support the development and sustainability of the sheep industry, as detailed in Food Wise 2025. EID will enhance our opportunities for market access to third countries, including the USA, as well as considering the potential of sheep meat access to Japan and other markets. The move to full EID and the inclusion of EID readers as an eligible investment in TAMS will make the recording of the movement of lambs off farm much more convenient and will greatly simplify the paperwork involved for sheep farmers.

Animal health is a significant concern for the Department in the context of the sheep traceability system. Trace-back is required from perspectives of food safety and animal health. Producers will have a significant reduction in both the administrative burden and the time and effort associated with the movement of sheep, and will have more accurate records, thus reducing the risk of a cross-compliance penalty related to sheep. Societal and market expectations regarding food traceability are increasing in line with electronic developments. In the interests of the highest standards of protecting the food chain and public health in general, reducing the administrative burden on farmers and underpinning the animal health status of the national flock, the extension of EID to all sheep is a necessity.

While I accept that additional costs will accrue to farmers in extending EID to all sheep, they will benefit from a significant reduction in the labour requirements for dispatch documents that must accompany all sheep on movement. At present, keepers are required to complete the individual tag number of each sheep presented in a batch, a task that is very onerous and open to error and can result in the loss of traceability. Under the new system, marts and factories will operate as approved central points of recording and will provide the presenting farmer with a printed list of all tag numbers scanned in a particular batch, which in turn can be associated with the corresponding dispatch document. Accordingly, the farmer will only be required to record the total number of sheep presented. All other information such as the name, address, flock identifier, etc., is pre-printed on the dockets.

The Government is keen to ensure that we make further progress on sheepmeat access to third countries in 2018 and beyond. Ireland has market access for sheepmeat to 45 countries at present, compared to our beef access to 65 countries, and exports of dairy products to almost 180 countries. Opening new markets for sheepmeat access, including potentially valuable markets such as the United States of America, Japan and, in due course, China, is therefore a key concern. The enhancement of the current sheep identification system will allow the sheep sector to further develop and build on the impressive performance which, in 2017, saw this sector increase the value of its exports by 12% in volume and 12% in value to €310 million, supporting some 35,000 farm families directly in addition to supporting several thousand jobs indirectly in rural areas.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I asked the Minister a significant number of questions when I outlined the problems with how he has gone about doing this. I have not had any answers to those except for the stock response which was mostly outlined in the press release announcing this decision. I asked the Minister about the factory contribution and whether that is something he sought assistance with in his engagement with the meat industry, or if he sought a contribution from it about the issue. The Minister has outlined how farmers should be glad that there will be a saving of labour with lambs leaving their farms. There will also be a significant saving of labour for the factory. I would have thought the Minister would have engaged with them to seek some contribution. I outlined that if lambs are going straight from the farm to the factory, if a farmer has 50 lambs, they will all go from his farm with his tags and it will cost him an additional €50 now. That is a significant cost for an enterprise and for farmers where the average sheep farm makes €15,000 a year. We should not be so flippant about the cost implications for them and placing the entire burden on them.

The Minister outlined that there was consultation. I remind him that any consultation he had with the farming organisations dates back to summer 2015. If there has been more consultation since then, the Minister might outline what it was. All the farming organisations, including the Irish Farmers' Association, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, and the Irish Natura And Hill Farmers Association, INHFA, have been annoyed at how the Minister has gone about doing this. He might outline that to us. I remind the Minister that the consultation he had with political parties amounted to one meeting.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy did not ask for any more. I gave a comprehensive briefing and he did not ask for any more.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There was one meeting which I attended.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I appreciate that the Deputy did.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will remind the Minister of what I said at that meeting. I said that there was some merit to be explored in electronic identification tagging and that it had to be done in a way that bore in mind that the cost should not be on farmers. I also said that the Minister needed to consult with the farming community. There has been no consultation since that meeting.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's time is up.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister has acted unilaterally and in a way that ignores their important role as stakeholders despite the fact he expects them to implement this new regime. I ask the Minister to answer those-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy's time is up.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----questions and if he will go back to the drawing board, engage with farming communities and come back to this in a way that means everybody works together to address this issue.

Michael Creed (Cork North West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to go back to the drawing board or to change the proposal in any considerable detail. I will address the Deputy's issue of a factory contribution. We can take costs out, such as administration from the farmer, which is a cost and labour requirement. If one brings in a batch of lambs, one reads it one's self, one by one, transcribes it and then puts it into a dispatch document. That cost is all gone now. There is a cost gone at the factory because the lambs will walk up the chute and be read with an electronic wand. Taking out all those costs will deliver a better return to the primary producer. More importantly, we should reflect on the cost of not doing it because our traceability system for sheepmeat is not fit for purpose. EID is the best available technology. I have never hidden from the fact that a cost is associated with it but we need to reflect on the costs and opportunities forgone by not having it. I can clearly state that, in the context of market access, for the US, Japan and other markets, not having this form of traceability is a critical issue. If there was an incident where we failed to recall, not only would it be an issue for our sheepmeat sector, but it would reflect poorly on our entire meat export industry. We have an effective traceability system for bovines but we do not have it for sheep. We should reflect on that calmly. Having met with them, I do not think any farm organisation is opposed to the principle of EID. I accept the point that it is about the detail of it. In any scheme such as this, we need to make a decision about introducing it and that decision has now been made for 1 October. There are many issues to be worked through relating to the existing stock of tags, etc. I hope we can resolve that. This is the right thing to do. I do not know quite whether Deputy McConalogue is in favour of EID or not but, in the interests of the sheep industry, this is the right thing to do. There is a cost but there are also costs associated with not doing it.