John Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Aylward. I thank the Leader for putting this item on the agenda. I do not usually act as Fine Gael's spokesperson on agriculture but that position has been designated to me today. I wish to refer to a number of important issues the Minister of State has raised, as well as others that he did not directly refer to in his remarks. I agree with much of what he said about the Fischler proposals on CAP reform. The Department should be congratulated on its work in this area. The majority of farmers, whether in my area of Kilkenny or elsewhere, realise the benefits of amalgamating and reducing the red tape in agriculture in recent years. The move towards a single payment will be welcomed across the board.

I am also encouraged by the Minister of State's statement that there is no question of sacrificing agriculture to pay for achieving overall agreement in the new world trade talks. Many farmers feared that the overall aim of getting agreement in those talks would mean agriculture taking a back seat, and I am delighted the Minster of State indicated the Government regards it as a priority that agriculture is not sacrificed. That is very important, because if the benefits outlined in the CAP reform proposals are going to accrue then it is necessary that agriculture is not sacrificed at those talks.

There have been rumblings from the Department recently to the effect that retired farmers will be catered for under the new CAP reform proposals. That should happen, as many of those farmers had to retire through no fault of their own. In many cases medical conditions forced people to retire before they would have wanted and whoever takes their farms over should be open to production rights. I am glad the Department is taking that on board.

Live exports were discussed today but there was no agreement on the issue. The Council of Agriculture Ministers failed to reach agreement this morning on a regulation improving the welfare of animals during transport, despite prolonged and intensive efforts by the Presidency to broker a solution. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, stated that extreme positions were maintained by delegations and this made it impossible to reach a balanced agreement which would meet the objectives of ensuring a legitimate trade for live animals, leading to a real improvement in animal welfare standards also. I urge the Minister to improve this situation, as he surely understands the importance of the live export trade to Irish agriculture. Any attempt to restrict this vital trade would have devastating consequences for Irish livestock farmers in terms of market access and price competition. I am far from convinced by the scientific evidence upon which the countries that oppose the trade base their arguments. It is public knowledge that Dr. Bernadette Early of Teagasc has conducted a detailed survey of the conditions in which animals leave the country in live exports for other parts of the EU. She found that in current conditions if the numbers of animals contained within each vehicle was not extremely large that there was no unnecessary discomfort caused to the animal, so one has to question those who continually complain about animal welfare. What is their evidence based on? These countries are insisting that animals should not be unloaded from vehicles at staging points and that stocking densities should be increased to allow additional space for resting, feeding and watering. These proposals will be unworkable and do not necessarily represent best practice.

IFA figures on a typical journey from Ireland to Spain or Italy costing €6,350 suggest that this change would increase the cost per animal from €99 per head to €144 per head. Given the margins for those in the beef sector, that kind of increase would make the trade unviable.

The current lack of support among a majority of EU states for staging posts is equally difficult to comprehend. Staging posts allow animals to be unloaded, watered and rested as well as facilitating essential cleaning and rebedding of trucks. Much of the opposition to the live trade is unfounded and there is no scientific evidence for it. The detailed Teagasc study on the transport of cattle to Spain concluded that the cattle reached Spain in excellent condition with no adverse impact on animal welfare. That is the current position, which leads me to question how the trade's opponents come up with their views. The survey also proved that there is no adverse impact on animal welfare from long distance transport, provided proper animal welfare conditions are in place, and that significantly reducing stocking density levels on trucks from the current levels adds no animal welfare benefits.

The live export trade is of paramount importance to Irish agriculture. It is worth €200 million per annum and involves the export of over 200,000 animals to Europe, with 70,000 animals going to non-EU markets. It provides essential cattle price competition and valuable market outlets for livestock. The industry is uncertain as to whether it will be permitted to continue into the future. We all know live exports provide a floor for the market and if the trade did not exist it would leave the beef factories with a virtual monopoly, though some argue they already have a monopoly. Removal of the live trade would enhance their position.