Skip to main content
Normal View

COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS debate -
Thursday, 21 May 2009

Food Safety Authority Annual Report 2007.

Dr. John O’Brien (Chief Executive Officer, Food Safety Authority of Ireland) and Mr. Martin Higgins (Chief Executive Officer, safefood) called and examined.

I welcome everyone this morning. I draw attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee which cannot guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are also reminded of the provisions within Standing Order 158 that the committee shall refrain from inquiring into the merits of a policy or policies of the Government or a Minister of the Government or the merits of the objectives of such policy or policies.

I welcome Dr. John O'Brien, chief executive officer of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and ask him to introduce his officials.

Dr. John O’Brien

I am accompanied by Mr. Raymond Ellard, director of the audit and compliance division, and Ms Margaret Campbell, finance and planning director in the corporate services of the FSAI.

I welcome Mr. Martin Higgins, chief executive officer, safefood, and ask him to introduce his officials.

Mr. Martin Higgins

I am joined by Mr. Ray Dolan, director of corporate operations, and Mr. Peter Dewhurst, finance manager.

I ask Mr. Buckley to introduce the special report by the Comptroller and Auditor General: Accountability of North-South Bodies 1999-2007; the s afefood annual report 2007; and the Food Safety Authority annual report 2007.

Mr. John Buckley

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland was established in 1999. It is responsible for ensuring food complies with applicable laws and co-ordinating the enforcement of food safety legislation and the work of other state agencies in the area of food safety, including the HSE, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and local authorities.

In 2011 it is intended that it be amalgamated with the Irish Medicines Board and the Office of Tobacco Control in a new public health and medicines safety authority. Its overall cost for 2007 was €19 million. It employed 94 staff in 2007 and funded the local authority veterinary service at a cost of €7.8 million in that year. The local authority veterinary service conducts animal and hygiene inspections most of which were conducted at slaughtering plants. It has agreements with other agencies that conduct on the ground supervision work. Overall, there has been a movement beginning in 2007 towards structuring the national food control activities through a multi-annual national control plan as required by EU legislation.

The Food Safety Promotion Board is a North-South Implementation Body established under the Good Friday Agreement and which operates on an all-island basis. It is audited on a joint basis by the Comptroller and Auditor General of Northern Ireland and me. It employed 35 people in 2007 and its main activities were in the area of research, upon which it spent €2 million, and food promotion campaigns, upon which it spent €3 million in 2007.

In 2000 and 2001, without qualifying our certificates, we reported on a number of matters that arose out of our audits. These include failure to tender for advertising costing around €500,000 through the EU journal; payments under research contracts that were heavily front-ended, with 80% of research contract payments being paid in advance of work being done; and the acquisition of excess space for its head office and the lack of competitive tendering for the fit out of the premises.

Apart from the above matters both organisations have received clear audit reports in all years to date. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has received clear reports and had no audit comment in any of the years.

Dr. John O’Brien

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland was established in 1998 as the national body with responsibility for the enforcement of food law in Ireland. The establishment of the FSAI, one of the first such independent food agencies in Europe, followed the collapse of consumer confidence during the BSE crisis and several other food scares of the 1990s. The FSAI is a statutory, independent and science-based agency, dedicated to protecting public health and consumer interests in the area of food safety. The FSAI was set up to be independent of the food industry and operates under the aegis of the Minister for Health and Children. The remit of the FSAI covers the safety of food whether produced or marketed in Ireland. The FSAI is governed by a board of ten members which is assisted by an independent scientific committee of 15 members and a food safety consultative council of 24 members.

The principal function of the FSAI is to take all reasonable steps to ensure that food consumed, distributed, marketed or produced in Ireland meets the highest standards of food safety and hygiene. We are also charged with bringing about the general acceptance that the primary responsibility for safety of food is borne by the food industry across the food chain. In the past ten years, the FSAI has worked in partnership with all interested parties to ensure a consistent standard of enforcement of food legislation and to underpin food law with science-based risk assessment.

Enforcement of food law is carried out on behalf of the FSAI in partnership with other State bodies, known as official agencies. These act as agents of the FSAI under a service contract system. The main official agencies are the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the local authority veterinary services attached to city and county councils, the environmental health function of the Health Service Executive, the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority and the Marine Institute. These agencies are accountable to the FSAI for their food safety programmes, their standards of work and their actions in food law enforcement.

The FSAI audits the agencies for their compliance with the terms of the service contracts. The FSAI also coordinates the activities of these agencies to achieve the most effective and efficient use of these State resources in protecting the health and interests of consumers. The service contract process provides a mechanism for co-ordination and harmonisation of food safety control delivery and allows the FSAI to keep under review the efficacy of the inspection services nationwide. All service contracts are published on the website of the FSAI.

As well as our food law enforcement role, the FSAI seeks to promote the highest standards of food safety and hygiene. To this end, the FSAI aspires to develop a culture of food safety in Ireland by engaging with those who can directly improve food safety practices. Stakeholders include the food industry and its representative groups, as well as consumer groups and State agencies that can positively influence food safety standards. Apart from our role as a food law enforcement agency, the FSAI advises both the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on scientific and technical aspects of food legislation and participates in expert working groups of the European Commission.

The FSAI employs a staff compliment of 84 whole-time equivalents, many of whom are technically qualified to higher degree level. All of the professions concerned with food safety work together in the FSAI under one roof. The expertise available includes environmental health, human medicine, veterinary medicine, microbiology, biotechnology, toxicology, nutrition, food science, analytical science and agriculture. The FSAI is funded by the Exchequer and received a total grant of €18.9 million in 2007 of which €7.8 million was allocated directly to the local authority veterinary service.

A major feature of the past five years has been the implementation of new food legislation. The authority has facilitated this through the provision of training and guidance for food inspection officials, seminars, the publication of codes of practice and guidance notes. Following on from the introduction of new regulations, the authority ran two advertising campaigns in 2007 addressing food labelling and the legal traceability requirements on food businesses. In addition, a number of major reports were published aimed at supporting the work of food inspection officials and supporting regulatory compliance by food businesses. These included: Guidance Notes on Product Recall and Traceability, HACCP Compliance, and Development of Guidance Material for the Safe Feeding of Reconstituted Powdered Infant Formula; two reports on Zoonoses in Ireland; a report on The Labelling of Food in Ireland 2007; the first Multi-Annual National Control Plan for Ireland, which was forwarded to the European Commission; and an information leaflet for businesses and a guidance note for inspection officers on the requirements of the Health (Country of Origin of Beef) Regulations 2006, concerning the declaration of origin of beef in restaurants. In addition to a comprehensive range of technical publications, food businesses and food inspection personnel can also avail of information from the FSAI website and advice from a specialist advice line.

During the second half of 2007, the FSAI received and processed more than 300 submissions from food businesses wishing to make nutrition and health claims under newly introduced EU regulations.

A total of 45,503 food establishments were supervised by the official food agencies in 2007. In addition, a total of 211 food incidents, ranging from accidental contamination with, for example, glass, bacteria and chemicals, including product recalls, were handled by the FSAI, and enforcement officers in the official agencies served 37 closure orders, six improvement orders and 15 prohibition orders on food businesses for serious breaches of food safety legislation. Most closure orders were served on catering establishments and the FSAI is continuing to support the development of standards among small businesses through its training programme. The FSAI also brought a successful prosecution in the case of one company found to have used illicit meat labels and the repackaging, re-labelling and distribution of meat on both sides of the Border.

Upon the foundation of safefood, the Food Safety Promotion Board, following the Good Friday Agreement, the FSAI Act 1998 was amended to avoid duplication of roles and requiring the agencies to co-operate in the performance of their functions. In addition, the annual budget of the FSAI was adjusted to allow for the transfer of some functions to safefood, for example, assessment of food-borne disease surveillance data; research activities; and advice to the public on food safety and hygiene.

Networking and co-operation between the food safety agencies on the island of Ireland has been a priority in recent years for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, the Food Standards Agency of Northern Ireland, FSANI and safefood. Good working relationships have been established across the agencies at all levels and formal memoranda of understanding have been signed between the agencies that set out a framework for co-operation between the organisations. I signed a memorandum of understanding with safefood shortly after taking up my post in 2004 and signed a similar co-operation agreement with the Food Standards Agency, Northern Ireland, in 2005 covering the handling of cross-Border incidents, an area that had been highlighted by safefood.

The FSAI and safefood maintain a close working relationship. The CEOs meet on a monthly basis. In addition, there are regular meetings of technical and communication staff to co-ordinate activities. Examples of collaboration between the agencies include the FSAI, safefood and FSANI creating the All Island Food and Nutrition Forum, now renamed the Obesity Forum, to promote collaborative and co-ordinated activities in the area of public health nutrition. This alliance sponsors annual seminars on topical nutrition subjects. In May 2007, a co-sponsored seminar entitled Dietary Habits: The Evidence for Change, was organised in Dublin and was attended by personnel and board members from all three agencies. Senior staff from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and Food Standards Agency of Northern Ireland participate as members of the scientific advisory board of safefood which meets regularly. Staying in contact and sharing information on work programmes avoids overlaps and duplication of activities.

A collaborative project between both safefood and the FSAI was undertaken to improve the collection, analysis and dissemination of national food surveillance data through the development of a national food surveillance database. In collaboration with FSANI, these data will, in time, be used to compile a national profile of food surveillance on the island of Ireland.

The support by safefood of the introduction of new laboratory information management systems, LIMS, in the HSE laboratories has led to ongoing improvements in the analysis and sharing of food analysis data with the FSAI. In the area of collaboration, there is the salt reduction programme. A complementary approach has been adopted whereby FSAI facilitates initiatives by food manufacturers to decrease the amount of salt added during manufacturing in parallel with public information campaigns by safefood directed at influencing consumer behaviour.

Since the establishment of the FSAI and safefood, much progress has been made in the restoration of consumer confidence and the development of higher standards of food safety and hygiene. A special Eurobarometer report on risk issues in 2006 reported that, among Europeans, the Irish and the Maltese were the most positive about progress in food safety in the past ten years. More recently, external recognition of the progress made has also come in the form of a World Health Organisation food safety award for the FSAI and several “excellence in communication” awards.

In the past few years, food regulatory agencies such as the FSAI have been in transition from exclusive concern with food safety to addressing nutrition as well. Nutrition and health claims are becoming a major focus of the food industry and will be a more challenging area to regulate than food safety. Authorities such as FSAI will face a different landscape in the future as regulations become more harmonized, global trade in food products increases and the food chain becomes more complex. At the same time, it will be important for the FSAI to continue to pursue a consistent, proportionate, efficacious and efficient approach to food law enforcement.

May we publish Dr. O'Brien's statement?

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes.

Mr. Martin Higgins

The Food Safety Promotion Board, which operates under the name safefood,was set up under the terms of the Belfast Agreement as one of six North-South Implementation Bodies. The body was established on 2 December 1999 andimplements, on an all-island and cross-Border basis, policies agreed in the North-South Ministerial Council. Departmental responsibility for safefood rests with the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety in Northern Ireland and the Department of Health and Children in the South.

safefood has its headquarters in Little Island, Cork, with a sub-office in Dublin. The board had a budget of €10.2 million for 2008 which is the equivalent of £9.3 million sterling. The Department of Health and Children provides 70% of the funding, with the other 30% being provided by the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. The organisation has a complement of 30 permanent staff, 23 in Cork and seven in Dublin. In addition, we have four postgraduate fellows, three in Cork and one in Dublin, on assignment from universities and an undergraduate nutrition student placement in Cork. Two outsourced IT professionals are also on-site in Cork.

The governing legislation provides that the chief executive shall carry out the functions of the body, under the direction of the North-South Ministerial Council and will be assisted in the discharge of these functions by a 12-member advisory board and a scientific advisory committee made up of 18 members. The board operates across four directorates with each director reporting to the chief executive. The directorates are food science, human health and nutrition, marketing and communications and corporate operations.

safefood is tasked with the promotion of food safety and healthy eating, and the development of collaboration in these areas. This complements the enforcement role of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, which, as Dr. O'Brien said, is the national body with responsibility for enforcing food law in Ireland. Another key difference is that, while the FSAI has a statutory responsibility in the South, safefood operates in both jurisdictions. The British Irish Agreement Act 1999, which established safefood, amended the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act 1998 to take account of the transfer of certain functions, as Dr. O’Brien outlined. The legislation provides for safefood to review and advise on the adequacy of food law enforcement arrangements in place throughout the island of Ireland but at the request of the North-South Ministerial Council. To date, no such request has been made.

Our key function is to promote food safety as a responsibility shared by the entire food chain. The organisation is also charged with giving advice on healthy diet. In addition to broad awareness campaigns, safefood has also developed programmes specifically for schools and works in community settings with specific target groups. We promote, commission and fund research. The purpose of the research is to provide the evidence that underpins our promotional and educational activities. In the case of food alerts, primacy in the management of these alerts rests with the enforcement agencies in each jurisdiction, for example, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in the South and the Food Standards Agency in Northern Ireland.

safefood plays a key role in advancing scientific co-operation, particularly between laboratories. Food laboratories play a key role in identifying the sources of pathogens in disease outbreak situations. We have established a number of networks aimed at improving the responsiveness and capacity of laboratories. In partnership with laboratories and the food safety agencies, North and South, we have developed an enhanced IT system that will greatly improve the speed at which information can be shared. Dr. O'Brien referred to that in his presentation. At the request of the North-South Ministerial Council, safefood is also examining options to enhance specialised laboratory services for the island of Ireland.

In addition to our collaborations on food-borne disease, we are also engaged in partnerships in nutritional surveillance. Obesity is one of the greatest public health challenges facing developed counties worldwide, and it is vital that we have good evidence on how the problem is developing if we are to tackle it in the coming years. This evidence helps us to develop our communications strategy and to maximise the effectiveness of our messages. The North-South Ministerial Council has also endorsed the establishment of an all-island Obesity Action Forum that is facilitated by safefood. This provides a platform for collaboration and action in tackling obesity and is representative of all the key organisations working in this area.

In regard to safefood, the Comptroller and Auditor General, in his report for the period 1999 to 2007, made reference to procurement practices identified during the 2000 and 2001 audits. safefood was established without staff designated and transferred from other bodies, and the early stages of its development were characterised by a politically uncertain environment. This difficult background is acknowledged by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report. Furthermore, since the recruitment of appropriately qualified staff in 2002 and the establishment of robust corporate practices, the Comptroller and Auditor General has issued clean audit certificates for each of the subsequent audits.

I took up my position in December 1999, and with two seconded clerical staff, began to put the structures in place to elaborate the legislative functions. Early in 2000, there was a suspension of the political structures in Northern Ireland for a number of months. Again in October 2000, at the same time as the formal launch of safefood, further difficulties arose. There was a further lengthy suspension of the institutions between 2002 and 2007. The early suspensions in particular affected safefood’s capacity to obtain approvals to recruit staff. At the same time there was an imperative to get the organisation started in fulfilling its remit.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has referred to the procurement of advertising services in 2000. Due to the staffing difficulties to which I referred, I relied on external consultants' expertise to advise safefood in this regard. While the advertising contract was the subject of a tender process, the full EU procedure was not used. Advertising services since then have been tendered in accordance with best practice and in full compliance with EU procedure.

In the course of the 2000 audit the Comptroller and Auditor General referred to procedures in the funding of research, including the level of grant awarded up front. The early award of research contracts was considered important in order to improve the board's scientific knowledge base and to establish appropriate scientific networks. The timing of our research call fell outside the normal academic cycle. This created particular difficulties for the institutions in the sourcing of research staff. In recognition of this and in order to accelerate the finalisation of contracts, safefood decided to enhance the initial tranche of payments. The contracts were all with respected research organisations with experienced lead researchers with excellent credentials. The conditions contained in the contract provided for the submission of periodic and final reports with associated cost statements. Since then a continuous process of enhancing the management of research projects is in place.

In the course of the 2001 audit the Comptroller and Auditor General identified issues regarding the procurement and fit-out safefood’s headquarters in Cork. Again, the establishment of the Cork office should be viewed in the context of the stop-start environment caused by the political difficulties. Where it was possible to make progress, there was an imperative to press ahead quickly, once the political difficulties were resolved. We had initially hoped to place the project fully in the hands of the Office of Public Works but it was unable to respond within the timeframe available to us. This is not intended as a criticism of the OPW, it responded as best it could within the time and resource limitations imposed on it and us.

Against a background of uncertainty, coupled with a need to make substantial progress in establishing the Cork operation, safefood made every reasonable effort to conduct the procurement and fit-out in as efficient a manner as possible. It acted within the framework of advice given by the OPW, and used the expertise of the OPW in key areas, including the negotiation of the lease terms.

I draw the committee's attention to the fact that the issues referred to in the Comptroller and Auditor General's report occurred at a time when the body was being established and against a very difficult political background. Any procedural shortcomings were rectified, many in advance of the Comptroller and Auditor General raising them with us, and safefood’s audit record since then confirms its adherence to regulatory compliance and good governance.

Can we publish Mr. Higgins's statement?

Mr. Martin Higgins

Yes.

I invite Deputy Kenneally to open the questioning.

I welcome Dr. O'Brien, Mr. Higgins and their colleagues to the meeting. I draw the attention of the witnesses to page 5 of the annual report of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. I have always had the impression that we were over-regulated here in terms of food safety but I did not realise the extent of it until I read through this report. It states: "In 2007, food safety control in Ireland involved over 2,000 individuals responsible for inspecting approximately 45,500 food establishments." That means one person is responsible basically for every 23 establishments. Assuming these people work 45 weeks in the year, have four weeks holidays and allowing some leeway for bank holidays, etc., even if they carry out only two inspections a day but I suspect they carry out many more than that, it means each person would carry out 460 inspections per annum, which, based on these figures, would mean every establishment is visited 20 times a year, almost once a fortnight. How can we justify that? That is extraordinary.

I constantly hear complaints, as I am sure other Members do, about the number of visits they get from these people and the bureaucracy involved in running an establishment. There must be huge duplication. Is it any wonder that food is so much more expensive in this country than in other European countries when people must do so much to comply with the various controls? Obviously these people must justify their existence, so my suggestion is that they are making complaints for trivial reasons. How can Mr. O'Brien justify that level of staffing to cover that number of establishments? How much does all this cost?

Dr. John O’Brien

I thank the Deputy for his question. To begin with the point about the possibility of duplication, when the FSAI was established it was given the task of co-ordinating activities among different agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, local authorities and the health boards, the predecessors of the HSE. All those agencies had staff dedicated to performing certain functions, inspecting premises and so forth. One of the first tasks of the FSAI was to ensure that duplication did not occur. For the first time the nation had an umbrella organisation that looked at who was doing what to ensure there was no duplication and unnecessary inspections.

The other point about duplication is that different agencies regulate and inspect different types of food businesses. The Health Service Executive, for example, which employs 432 environmental health officers, regulates 42,210 premises. On the other hand, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which employs 534 inspectors, inspects 637 premises.

That is almost one each.

Dr. John O’Brien

The reason is that products of animal origin — meat, dairy products, honey and eggs — receive a very high amount of attention from the inspection authorities. This is a historical fact. Part of that is due to the fact that these products in the past have generated more food safety problems, more problems of hygiene and more problems of food poisoning. In addition, the legacy of BSE lives on. To restore consumer confidence and customer confidence abroad, because much of the product from these agricultural plants is exported, a high amount of inspection was performed on these premises. Do we continue to need that amount of inspection? In the future we will possibly have to review how we balance the amount of inspection focused on the 42,000 premises, many of which would be catering and retail establishments and restaurants, and the amount of inspection we apply to the giant export agriculture plants. I emphasise that the regulation is not necessary just for the protection of consumer health, but also for the protection of consumer and customer confidence. In addition, there are European legal requirements that oblige this country to have a minimum level of inspection, especially in those plants that produce products of animal origin.

I have no problem with a minimum level but this is extraordinary. It amounts to 2,000 people. Does Dr. O'Brien not consider that excessive?

Dr. John O’Brien

In terms of whole-time equivalents, it is 1,311. Many of the additional numbers would be temporary veterinary inspectors employed by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

I will come to that shortly. How much does all this cost?

Dr. John O’Brien

The FSAI contract system contracts for service provision. Much of the funding of the agency is direct funding through the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the HSE and so forth. We do not actually see much of that directly but our guesstimate of what it would cost the country in terms of personnel and ancillary costs would be €90 million to €100 million per year.

If the Minister for Finance is listening to this, he will know where he can start calling with regard to public service reform.

Dr. John O’Brien

I wish to add one point. With regard to the levels of regulation we apply in Ireland, we are in line with other European countries and countries outside Europe with a strong export food market.

I do not agree that we are subject to the same level of regulation. Anybody who travels abroad can see that the same levels are not applied in European countries. It is extraordinary how we implement some European directives with great gusto while our European neighbours lag behind. This adds a huge cost for catering establishments, hotels, restaurants and so forth in this country.

Dr. O'Brien mentioned the veterinarians. There are 172 veterinarians attached to local authorities, 36 full-time and 136 temporary. What are they all doing?

Dr. John O’Brien

The local authority veterinary services supervise approximately 200 slaughterhouses, many of them in rural parts of the country.

That is almost one each as well.

Dr. John O’Brien

The same point applies to the local authority veterinary services as would apply to the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food veterinary service. A large amount of investment is dedicated to the supervision of plants producing products of animal origin. These officials supervise 250 slaughterhouses and 200 meat processing premises. These are small premises generally, employing small numbers of staff, but they are broadly distributed around the country. Many of them are in rural areas where there is limited employment.

There 78 support staff for the 172 veterinarians. That is a total of 250. I cannot understand what all these people are doing. Has anybody carried out a cost-benefit analysis of their work? The agency is funding them to the amount of €7.8 million. How do we know we are getting value for that money?

Dr. John O’Brien

We know we are getting value for money because we pay for just the service they provide in the supervision of these plants. The plants need a minimum level of supervision and we pay for that and no more. The other tasks that the local authority veterinary officers perform are paid for directly by the local authorities.

Do they not have to report back to the agency as to the work they have done?

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes. They must justify what they submit as expenses. We pay the cost of running the service in arrears. We scrutinise every submission they make before payment, be it for personnel or expenses, so we have the opportunity of requiring those officers to justify themselves. It is a very good closed loop mechanism.

I must disagree with that. Does Dr. O'Brien have a breakdown of the number of veterinarians and support staff per local authority?

Dr. John O’Brien

I will begin by correcting one point about the temporary veterinary inspectors. These are temporary staff, many of whom would work in practice. They are brought in just for the purpose of completing an inspection and no more. We are not carrying any additional costs with the temporary veterinary inspectors; we are just paying for the service they provide. The rest of the service is provided by full-time veterinary inspectors. Many of the local authorities would employ just one or a small number of these.

Is there a breakdown of that?

Dr. John O’Brien

In 26 local authorities the service is provided by one wholetime veterinary inspector. In five of the larger local authorities, it is provided by two to five wholetime veterinary inspectors. These are very small teams distributed around the local regions.

Can Dr. O'Brien give the committee a breakdown of the 36, 136 and the 78 staff that the agency is funding per local authority? I do not expect him to give it to us now but perhaps he could do so later.

Dr. John O’Brien

We can provide that.

Does Dr. O'Brien not think it would make more sense to have these veterinarians operating under the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food rather than local authorities?

Dr. John O’Brien

That is a very good question. There is an historical differentiation between local authorities, which in the past used to supervise domestic plants producing products for domestic consumption, and large plants producing products for export, which were supervised by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I would certainly like to see a more harmonised approach that would entail the formation of a more harmonised service. Right now the system does work effectively in the sense that we have a focus from one Department on large facilities and then a local focus from local authority vets.

When we are doing a report at some stage, we might consider making that recommendation. It does not make any sense to have them under the auspices of local authorities. There are 800 temporary veterinary inspectors in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is that the same as bringing them to do the work?

Dr. John O’Brien

It is.

I am not singling out the Department of Health and Children or the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but another complaint I have had from people is that some of these inspections are arranged in such a way that the person carrying them out has to travel a distance in order to do it. In that way, the person can claim travelling expenses. I suggest there is a certain abuse of funding there and that we could save a certain amount of money if the person located closest to the establishment would carry out the inspection. Does Dr. O'Brien have any view on that?

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes.

I note that he is nodding and seems to agree with me.

Dr. John O’Brien

We would have the opportunity to scrutinise claims made by the local authority veterinary service because that money is channelled through the FSAI. In the case of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the HSE we would not have that opportunity. The responsibility to do that would fall to local officials. I suggest that local authority veterinary units are located closer to the units in question.

Yes. I am not really talking about local authorities, but in fairness Dr. O'Brien is right, they would be. I suggest that is not happening in other agencies, however.

Dr. John O’Brien

I cannot comment on other agencies because I do not have the information that would reside with them. I am specifically referring to the HSE and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority is referred to on page 8. It is an outfit that I do not have a lot of time for, I must say. Some 25 people carried out 2,214 inspections, which is 63 each. That is a little over one per week, which seems to be an extraordinary waste.

Dr. John O’Brien

They do a lot of other work on sampling products for marine biotoxin testing, including molluscs such as mussels and oysters. The number of units these officers supervise is quite high. There were 2,214 establishments and 1,900 fishing vessels, so there are a lot of units involved.

No, the 1,900 are part of the 2,214; they are not additional.

Dr. John O’Brien

They have to meet every fish landing as well, so there is quite a lot of involvement with the day-to-day production activities of the fisheries sector.

They seem to have an extraordinarily light workload. The audit opinion on page 55 states

The authority recognises the cost of superannuation entitlements only as they become payable. This policy does not comply with financial reporting standard 17, which requires such costs to be recognised in the year the entitlements are earned.

Why does the authority not comply with that standard?

Dr. John O’Brien

We have had discussions with the Department of Health and Children on this. In fact, we have correspondence confirming that we are not required to comply with that at the present time. Therefore, it is not a matter of policy that the FSAI adopted; it was a matter of policy applied to us by the Department of Health and Children.

Therefore, the Department of Health and Children is telling the FSAI how to apply this.

Dr. John O’Brien

In fact, I think it applies to several agencies under the wing of the Department of Health and Children.

That suggests therefore that the Comptroller and Auditor General is qualifying all of the reports in that regard.

Dr. John O’Brien

I believe that is the case.

That seems to be a wider problem.

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes, it is not limited to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. It does apply to all the agencies under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children.

According to a recent decision, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Irish Medicines Board and the Office of Tobacco Control are to be amalgamated. The target date for amalgamation is January 2011, but the FSAI has a lease that does not run out until 2017.

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes.

What happens to the last six years of that lease, or does Dr. O'Brien know yet? Will the FSAI be staying in the same building?

Dr. John O’Brien

The discussions on the implementation of the merger are still ongoing, so it is not possible to say at this point what the implications would be for the lease held by the FSAI or, indeed, the accommodation situation for the other two agencies involved. This is a matter that has to be worked out in the next several months.

Under the heading of communication activities, "industry liaison" — whatever that is — went up by 422% from €123,000 to €655.000. Can Dr. O'Brien explain what that is?

Dr. John O’Brien

In my opening statement I mentioned that we had advertising campaigns in 2007. In this respect, industry liaison referred to two advertising campaigns: one on traceability, which cost €245,000; and one on labelling at a cost of €208,000. These were targeted at specific requirements of food businesses as regards their obligation to comply with regulatory requirements. We wanted to complete the cycle of implementation of new legislation and to bring this to the attention of businesses during that process. So that is the industry liaison. In addition, we participated in the national hygiene partnership, the healthy food for all programme, the environmental health officers association and the UCD foundation. Those were the major areas under industry liaison which performed in 2007. A major part of our work is to support businesses some of which would obviously feel the difficulties of compliance with new legislation, which now comes by and large from Europe. It is EU legislation rather than of Irish origin. We are keen to ensure that businesses are supported in that respect.

Does that mean that the figure for 2008 will be back down again?

Dr. John O’Brien

It was much lower in 2008, in fact. We did not have an advertising campaign in 2008 for budgetary reasons.

The FSAI has a board, a scientific committee and a food safety consultative council. There are some 49 members in total, which seems excessively bureaucratic. How much is all that costing?

Dr. John O’Brien

The establishment of the food safety consultative council and the scientific committee is provided for in the FSAI Act, so it is a matter of Government policy that these entities exist. They do not receive a stipend and give their time voluntarily, which is a great service to the FSAI and the nation. They do receive travel expenses and we would additionally invest in the meeting costs. I do not have the breakdown costs of those two entities offhand. I could generate those costs but I would say they are minimal relative to the overall costs of running the FSAI.

Perhaps Dr. O'Brien could let us have those figures.

Dr. John O’Brien

Sure.

I could ask the same question of Mr. Higgins concerning safefood, which has an advisory board of 12 persons and a scientific advisory committee of 18. That totals 30 people, so how much is that costing us?

Mr. Martin Higgins

The advisory board's fees for 2007 were €80,000 and there were travel expenses of €26,000. The members of the scientific committee, which meets three times a year, are not remunerated but they would get travel expenses. I do not have those to hand, but we could supply them to the committee.

Please do.

Could l get a bit of guidance here? We are discussing the report Accountability of North-South Bodies 1999-2007.

Will this be the Deputy's last question?

I am coming towards the end.

For instance, there is nobody here who can answer my question on the North-South language body. Is this matter part of today's business? Why have we had no report from that body since 2003?

We are only dealing with the FSAI part of it.

Fair enough.

In conclusion, there are a few questions for Mr. Higgins. Some of the operating costs in 2007 seem extraordinarily high compared with those of the previous year. Consultancy fees were up 264%. What services were provided?

Mr. Martin Higgins

For example, one matter of which I am aware is that we put all of our major contracts for advertising and related services out to tender at that time and in order to ensure that we fully complied with EU regulations, we brought in specialist advice to assist us in the conduct of that procurement process. That was one of the reasons for that increase. At present, I do not have precise details on the others but I can supply them.

Printing costs, for instance, were up 611%.

Mr. Martin Higgins

There were a number of particular communications issues in 2007 which generated significant costs. We had embarked on a programme called "Superfoods" to encourage healthy eating and in support of the advertising campaign, we produced recipe folders and inserts at a cost of €22,000.

On other significant costs, for the domestic situation we produced the "Kid's Food Challenge" to encourage children to eat more healthily at home. It was a reward-based poster where the kids would get a sticker from their parents if they ate a healthy breakfast. That cost €27,000. The other significant cost was the Christmas campaign in which we distributed leaflets on safe cooking through the craft butchers of Ireland and also through supermarkets. That cost €18,000. There were a number of particular initiatives that year which contributed to the increase in printing costs.

Does that mean these costs will be back down in 2008?

Mr. Martin Higgins

It is a function of where we are at any particular time with a campaign. Some campaigns are based on just building up an awareness and then others are supported with particular materials. I can get further details on that also.

Surely, it is duplication. It is the function of the Department of Health and Children to advise on healthy eating issues. I see the Department's programmes on healthy eating.

Mr. Martin Higgins

In terms of the promotion campaigns, the Department of Health and Children previously would have done that through the health promotion unit. That side of the health promotion function, the executive functions, went to the HSE. We work jointly with the HSE and, indeed, the equivalent authorities in Northern Ireland, on an all-island basis in terms of healthy eating. As there is spill-over in terms of media, it makes sense to do these campaigns on an all-island basis because the obesity issues facing us are common to both jurisdictions. We work in partnership. For example, all three organisations made a contribution to the most recent healthy eating campaign which is called "Little Steps". It is not a duplication; it is a partnership.

We dealt at length with the over-regulation and the possible duplication, but there are still questions I want to ask in that regard. There are two bodies directly involved, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and safefood, the North-South body, as well as the HSE and, of course, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Dr. O’Brien dealt at length with the co-operation agreements and co-ordinating their activities.

Much time must be lost in deciding who is responsible for food regulation in different parts and the possibility of duplication. Recently, this came to light starkly in the pig feed contamination incident where it was difficult to understand at that time who exactly was in charge or who had responsibility. While we all agree that there is an overwhelming acceptance of the need for food safety given the importance of food production, our exports and the jobs this sector creates, it seems that a great deal of time must be spent, between the four bodies, in duplication and deciding whose responsibility each part is. Perhaps Dr. O'Brien could clarify that for me. He stated that there would be a review of inspections in the future. When is that review scheduled to start, or is it the Kathleen Mavourneen system where it may be for now and may be forever? Is there a definite review planned?

Dr. John O’Brien

To answer the Deputy's last question first, we have a rolling programme of audits of all of the agencies involved in food inspection in Ireland. That programme of review is an ongoing cycle and as we speak, we are reviewing an audit report of another agency. That review process is continuous.

On the details of the Deputy's point about duplication, one of the great challenges FSAI had after its establishment was to look at consistency of enforcement and this issue of the possibility of duplication. The way we addressed that was to publish, for example, guidance notes for the inspectors which outline the rules of engagement with businesses on what they need to do, standard operating procedures for the inspectors in the various agencies and, most important, training programmes — some of which would be attended by staff from more than one agency. We have regular liaison meetings which would be at agency level, but also at multi-agency level. These activities combined will be designed specifically to avoid duplication and unnecessary regulation and to ensure consistency of regulation across the country. If one is a businessman running a food business in Cork, one should experience the same inspection process as would a businessman in Dublin. Consistency is extremely important to us.

Coming back to the Deputy's opening point about enforcement and the number of agencies involved, I reiterate that the FSAI is a regulatory authority responsible for enforcement whereas the remit of safefood does not include regulation or enforcement. Enforcement is the unique job of FSAI and in performing that duty, we are then assisted by agencies such as those the Deputy mentioned — the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, HSE, etc. While these are autonomous agencies, they perform that function on behalf of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

Dr. O'Brien referred a few times to the historical fact that those bodies exist and now he is referring to the liaison and regulation meetings, etc. Is it not time to consign some of them to history and have one body doing this? Which body was responsible for dealing with the pigmeat contamination scare?

Dr. John O’Brien

The dioxin crisis centred on one agency, namely, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which is responsible for the supervision of feed controls. This was a feed contamination crisis. Contaminated feed was given to animals, meat from some of which then entered the food chain. It was a feed crisis which then became a food control crisis. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was the primary agency responsible for the management of the crisis. The FSAI was involved in so far as the recall of contaminated product was concerned and the local authority veterinary services were involved in so far as some of the animals in their jurisdictions were also contaminated. There may have been a perception that there were different actors involved. However, from my point of view and that of the inspectors, it was clear who was responsible for doing what.

Would it not have been far more efficient if one body had been responsible for dealing with the crisis?

Dr. John O’Brien

I do not believe so. Ireland is a small nation and the lines of communication are extremely short. We communicate very well and effectively with the various agencies involved. The multi-agency service contract mechanism that is employed in Ireland has been emulated abroad because it is considered by many to be preferable to having a large bureaucratic agency, with thousands of staff involved, carrying out all operations.

I do not agree with that. Will that to which Dr. O'Brien refers form part of the review that is taking place or is that review taking place with a view to reducing the level of duplication or overlap among the at least four bodies concerned with food safety?

Dr. John O’Brien

Again, I suggest that there is no duplication. I omitted to state earlier that we have a firm policy of "one agency, one business". There cannot be two agencies visiting one business. The rule is one inspector per one business.

What is the overall cost of food regulation in Ireland? Does the food industry contribute towards meeting that cost?

Dr. John O’Brien

With the exception of the €7.5 million we channel to the local authority veterinary services, the remainder of the cost is borne by the agencies, namely, the HSE and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Those agencies do not separate out in their accounting the cost of the food safety inspection programme. Based on the level of staffing — of which we are informed on a regular basis — we are in a position to guess that the costs are in the region of €90 million to €100 million per year. The full cost is not, however, apparent from the figures currently available from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the HSE.

Why is the funding arrangement different? The FSAI funds local authority veterinary services but is does not fund those of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries or the HSE.

Dr. John O’Brien

That is a good question. In 2002, an interdepartmental review chaired by the Department of Finance considered the future of the local authority veterinary service. The findings of the review led to a Cabinet decision that funding for their food safety activity would, in the future, be channelled through the Department of Health and Children and the FSAI. The Cabinet decision did not relate to non-food safety work. The FSAI was not responsible for making the decision. The other major blocs of funding — which would be far greater than €7.5 million — are the responsibility of the HSE and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

The FSAI is paying €1 million in rent. When is this figure due for review and who is involved in the procurement of premises for the FSAI?

Dr. John O’Brien

A review took place in 2007. The next review is due to take place in 2012.

Who is responsible for procuring premises on behalf of the FSAI?

Dr. John O’Brien

The Office of Public Works procured the premises in advance of the agency opening its doors in 1999. Two of the leases are held by the OPW.

What is the term of the leases?

Dr. John O’Brien

They run until 2017.

In view of the decrease in rent values, is there any possibility that the FSAI's rental contracts might be reviewed, particularly as €1 million seems to be a large amount to pay for rent?

Dr. John O’Brien

The figure for rent decreased subsequent to the previous review. At that stage, we were able to negotiate with our landlord — Irish Estates — for a reduction in the amount we pay. However, it is still a large chunk of our budget. One of the consequences of the boom was that the cost of our rent and rates went sky high. The FSAI was, therefore, left with a great deal less money to spend on its day-to-day activities.

Is the FSAI in a position to negotiate its rent on a year-by-year basis?

Dr. John O’Brien

We do so every five years.

I wish to put a couple of questions in respect of expenditure. There was an increase of €71 million in consultants' fees in 2007 over the figure for 2006.

Dr. John O’Brien

The increase was €71,000.

I apologise. What gave rise to the increase of €71,000? Consultants' fees for 2006 were €27,000, whereas in 2007 they amounted to €98,000.

Dr. John O’Brien

Will the Deputy indicate to which part of the accounts he is referring?

Mr. Martin Higgins

That is our figure.

What gave rise to the increase in consultant's fees to which I refer?

Mr. Martin Higgins

As already stated, a major procurement exercise took place during 2007 and this gave rise to the increase. Another significant factor was the development of a new three-year strategy, in respect of which consultants' fees of €15,000 applied. I do not have the remainder of the details in my possession at present but I will forward them to the committee.

Would it not have been possible for the work carried out by the consultants to be carried out on an in-house basis? Why is it necessary to employ consultants? What type of consultants were used in respect of this work?

Mr. Martin Higgins

It was agreed, following a recommendation from the advisory board, that the work relating to the new three-strategy would be carried out externally. The idea was to bring in outside expertise in respect of the development of the strategy. As already stated, the cost of doing so was €15,000.

The cost in respect of procurement was €16,000. We were of the view that this was a good investment to ensure that the procurement was done properly. The EU procurement process is quite intricate. We do not have the expertise in-house because our staff complement is small. We decided to invest in employing consultants in order to ensure that we would obtain good value for money.

The 2006 figure for consultancy is quite low compared to what would usually be the case. For example, the figure for 2005 was €67,000. There was a dip in consultancy fees in 2006 and this reflects the activities in which we were involved at that stage.

Between 2006 and 2007, legal and professional fees increased from €108,000 to €190,000. What caused that increase of almost 75%?

Mr. Martin Higgins

That related to a legal case taken against the authority under equality legislation in Northern Ireland.

What was the outcome of the case?

Mr. Martin Higgins

It was a discrimination case and safefood was found not to have discriminated against the individual.

I refer to the increase from €153,000 to €225,000 in the cost of computer support.

Mr. Martin Higgins

I referred in my statement to the development of an information system for laboratories, which was a multiannual project. The increase in 2007 relates particularly to that project.

How many new staff were recruited in 2007?

Mr. Martin Higgins

We reckon two or three and they were replacement staff. No new posts were created.

I refer to the note on recruitment expenditure and table 4. The cost in 2006 was €86,000, increasing to €106,000 in 2007. What does that cover?

Dr. John O’Brien

We recruited a new toxicologist in 2007 due to the retirement of the previous incumbent. We also recruited staff for maternity cover and a new veterinary officer. We did not create new posts, as Mr. Higgins alluded to. We filled posts that had become vacant.

I refer to page 61 of the notes to the financial statement for 2006. The allocation for sundry income and funded projects reduced from €90,000 to €16,000 while the authority's income increased from €44 million to €82 million.

Dr. John O’Brien

The difference was due to the purchase of pension in 2006, which did not happen in 2007.

Whose pension?

Dr. John O’Brien

A member of staff who worked for the authority and retired and who used his previous fund to purchase pension from the FSAI.

What about the funded projects?

Dr. John O’Brien

The FSAI is engaged in a number of funded projects. Some are European projects. For instance, there is a project called PHARE for which we received €16,453.

What is the project?

Dr. John O’Brien

Under the project, established EU member states such as Ireland assisted accession countries who were struggling with the introduction of food legislation by sharing our experiences with them and that was funded by the European Commission.

Why did the funding reduce from €90,000 to €16,000?

Dr. John O’Brien

Beneris was one of the major European research projects in 2006. These tend to happen on an inconsistent basis. A batch can come along and there is a lot of activity and then nothing for a while. The key is we are able to recover the cost of being involved in those projects from the European Commission and other sources.

Under communications activities, the allocation in 2006 was €355,000 increasing to €968,000 in 2007, an increase of more than 170%. Will Dr. O'Brien give a breakdown of the communications activities covered?

Dr. John O’Brien

It divides into three categories – public relations, industry events and industry liaison. The total expenditure in 2007 was €968,000. With regard to public relations, we employ the services of Weber Shandwick FCC for the provision of public relations and communications consultancy and the cost of that service in 2007 was €91,000. The highest cost under that heading is industry liaison. I mentioned the two advertising campaigns earlier. The one on traceability cost €245,000 and the one on labelling cost €298,000. The remaining cost relates to industry events. We participate, for example, in the National Ploughing Championships. There are a number of exhibitions such as CATEX, a catering exhibition for industry. The total cost of leaflet production for the National Ploughing Championships was €58,000. We had a large project called the Safe Catering pack, which we produced to service the needs of the 28,000 small businesses in Ireland involved in catering. This product was a DVD and work booklet, which cost €125,000.

Why was there such a difference in the allocation between 2006 and 2007?

Dr. John O’Brien

We did not have an advertising programme in 2006. Much of the new legislation came into force in 2006 and we reacted to the new legislative environment in 2007 by implementing these advertising campaigns. In addition, we received some of the cost of the Safe Catering pack by charging €60 per pack.

Why did the authority need to spend €91,000 on public relations?

Dr. John O’Brien

We do not have an internal communications specialist and we use external expertise for legal and communications services. That is the case with public relations. One of our goals is to bring about a cultural change in food businesses in order that they appreciate the need to operate to the highest standards of food safety and hygiene and that they appreciate what is required of them in the context of food legislation. We use an external communications expert to get that message through to the 45,000 premises involved and he then helps us to channel our resources to best effect.

I refer again to leased and rented property. The authority holds a 20-year lease from 1 May 1997 in respect of offices at Abbey Court, Lower Abbey Street, Dublin 1. The annual cost is almost €1 million with provision for a five-year rent review. What will happen to that property when the review takes place on the amalgamation of the FSAI with different bodies?

Dr. John O’Brien

Two of the three leases we have on the accommodation at Abbey Court are held by the Office of Public Works and the other is held by the FSAI. I refer to the impact of the merger process. It is too early to say what that impact will be, as the discussions on the implementation of the merger are ongoing and the accommodation requirements and arrangements have yet to be decided.

It is obvious that less accommodation will be required if certain bodies are amalgamated.

Dr. John O’Brien

The assessment of the accommodation requirements has not yet been completed and the size of the future merged organisation is not yet apparent.

Will the FSAI maintain the same staff after amalgamation, or what will the situation be after the possible amalgamation of the various bodies?

Dr. John O’Brien

Discussion of the staffing requirements is ongoing and involves representatives of the three organisations to be merged. Discussions are taking place under the headings of human resources, finance, back office information technology requirements and operational issues. The discussions are quite detailed and have been ongoing for the past several months, but they have not yet arrived at any recommendations to be reviewed by senior management or the boards of those organisations.

The organisations must be working with the reality that the Government has already decided that the public health and the medicine safety authority will be an amalgamation of three bodies.

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes. We are reacting proactively to that by setting up working groups along the headings, human resources, IT, finance and operational areas. We have taken the step of setting up those committees to work on what the impact is likely to be. However, I would like to add that quite apart from the merger, our great concern is to minimise what we spend on accommodation, because the more we spend on accommodation, the less we have to spend on food safety measures.

That is the reason I am asking the question. I am quite aware of the sums. When will the Government decision on amalgamation be implemented?

Dr. John O’Brien

The timeline that has been provided to us by the Department of Health and Children is 1 January 2011. Primary legislation will be required to implement the establishment of the new organisation.

I have a few questions for Mr. Higgins. With regard to the safefood offices in Cork, it was said earlier that because of pressures, safefood was not able to pursue normal procurement practices and acted alone on procurement rather than leave it to the OPW, but that this did not imply any criticism of the OPW. Is it correct that the office in Cork has space for 45 people?

Mr. Martin Higgins

That is correct.

How many are there currently?

Mr. Martin Higgins

There are 30 staff there currently, including university fellows.

Have they permanent residency on site?

Mr. Martin Higgins

Yes. The arrangement with the universities is that these are fellowships. They are for three years, but they rotate. Therefore, once one fellow leaves, another takes his place. In terms of providing space for them, it is as if they were members of staff.

Is it correct that only 66% of the office space is occupied currently?

Mr. Martin Higgins

There are a couple of issues. We sublet part of the ground floor, but those in the sublet area also use the common areas. We also have a provision whereby in the event of helpline activities, for example, when we have a burst of activity associated with a campaign, we have workstations that are available if we need to bring in staff, usually from an agency. It is important those people are on the premises when queries come in on which our scientific specialists need to be involved.

In order to maximise the use of space and reduce costs, we have also had an arrangement with the Health Information and Quality Authority, HIQA. We sublet space to the authority on a short-term basis for a period of 20 months when it was setting up in Cork. We are aware there is extra space and in the past, before the HSE was set up, we approached the southern health board about the availability of short-term sublets.

One of the functions mentioned for the organisation was the setting up of enhanced laboratories. In the case of the foot and mouth disease outbreak we had, samples had to be sent to Pirbright in the UK. What steps have been taken by safefood to be self-sufficient in the case of such national emergencies? Does the setting up of enhanced laboratories incorporate laboratories that could deal with outbreaks of foot and mouth disease and others?

Mr. Martin Higgins

We are specifically charged with looking at enteric reference services, which specifically relate to human disease. Therefore, enhanced laboratories would not comprehend foot and mouth disease, which is an animal disease. The laboratories would deal specifically with enteric reference services, including the likes of listeria, salmonella, e.coli and so on. The opportunity arose in setting up safefood for this to be looked at on an all-island basis. That is what we are considering. We want to see if the island of Ireland would have sufficient throughput and what the costs and benefits would be of having that service provided for on the island of Ireland.

There is a service in the Republic of Ireland for salmonella in Galway and Cherry Orchard carries out e.coli testing. Many of the other pathogens go to Colindale in London and all of the pathogens from Northern Ireland go to Colindale. We are examining that proposal currently at the request of the North-South Ministerial Council, but looking at it on an all-island basis.

When does safefood think it will reach a situation when it is self-sufficient in dealing with all the contaminants of foodstuffs?

Mr. Martin Higgins

It will be a matter for decision by the North-South Ministerial Council as to whether we go ahead with that. However, with regard to where we are in the process, we got external expertise from the UK, the former chief executive and chief scientist at the Food Standards Agency to act as a facilitator in the process of developing options. We also got technical expertise from Denmark, which is recognised as having a world class service in this area and which also has the same size population as the island of Ireland. We had a consultation process in March and that is completed. The North-South Ministerial Council — the health format — is due to meet in June and Dr. Bell, the external facilitator, will present our current status at that. The next stage will be to conduct a full economic analysis and then return to the North-South Ministerial Council.

Just a few questions now for Dr. O'Brien. The first relates to my personal experience as a consumer at the time of the crisis relating to bottled water. I had a stock of water at home and read about adulterated water in the media. However, as a consumer I could not get any information from the FSAI as to whether my stock of bottled water was contaminated or not. Does Dr. O'Brien believe the consumer was let down badly by the FSAI through its failure to inform the public of the brands of water that were contaminated? Does he feel the authority let down the producers of water who were not among those who produced the adulterated water? When did the incidence of adulterated water come to the attention of the FSAI? How long did it take to produce a report on the water and how long was the time lag between the completion of the first draft of the report and the publication of the final report?

Dr. John O’Brien

I thank the Chairman for his questions and for the opportunity to correct some of the misinterpretations of this issue in the public domain.

I ask Dr. O'Brien to deal with the questions specifically first.

Dr. John O’Brien

First, as part of its programme of work the FSAI conducts regular surveys which include the assessment of levels of hygiene and the determination of chemical and microbiological contaminants in the food supply. These are done on a rolling basis and often are quite separate from the process of enforcement, the process of inspection and enforcement of food businesses.

At the end of 2007 about 1,000 samples of bottled waters were taken by environmental health officers and subsequently analysed as part of a survey to get a picture of the microbiological quality of such products. There are not many surveys like this being carried out internationally and this survey is one of the first times anyone has looked at the area of bottled water. If serious deficiencies were identified during the course of this survey, they would have been followed up immediately by environmental health officers and we confirmed that this was the case. Where action was necessary, action was taken, including resampling, retesting, a product recall in one case, suspension of operations in two plants and voluntary trade withdrawals. There was also a "written-up" during the course of 2008 and businesses concerned were kept informed so we had regular contact with the Beverage Council of Ireland and we also had a meeting with one food company which was concerned with this business. They were informed as to a possible publication date but, generally speaking, these surveys will take a long time to analyse at the statistical level, the level of interpretation of the results. These surveys are quite separate from enforcement because their objective is to get a picture of the status of a specific contaminant or status of a hygiene level and then to follow up later by deciding to take more samples and inspections. With regard to the issue of resource deployment, it helps us to take our resources and put them where they will be most effective.

Unfortunately, during the course of the production of the final draft, and before senior management approval of the final report, on the basis of a draft unpublished version of the report, one newspaper published an article claiming that harmful or dangerous organisms had been found. I note that the Chairman used the term "adulterated water". The FSAI would disagree with the term "adulterated water". The report looked at the presence of indicator organisms which indicated levels of hygiene in plants. Where hygiene levels were inadequate, follow-up action was taken and in two cases, plants actually suspended their operations. I do not agree with the term "adulterated water" and the use of the word "dangerous" by one newspaper and "harmful" by the same newspaper, is entirely inappropriate because no pathogenic organisms were tested for and no pathogenic organisms were found.

I do not answer for newspapers. I am here to ask questions as a consumer. Why was I, as a consumer, the last person to be told about the presence of contaminants in the water I bought? Why were IBEC and other organisations informed but the consumer was kept in the dark?

Dr. John O’Brien

IBEC was not informed. The consultative organisation was the Beverage Council of Ireland and it had no more information than anyone else. The implication that it was being told something that others did not know is not the case.

The FSAI always——

Is Dr. O'Brien saying that the Beverage Council of Ireland was told?

Dr. John O’Brien

It was given a copy of the report a day before publication.

Publication of the final report?

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes.

What about IBEC?

Dr. John O’Brien

Nothing else. IBEC may have received a copy of the report a day before publication.

I asked in my opening question about the time lag between the first and final drafts of the report.

Dr. John O’Brien

The draft of the report which I saw was on 24 ——

I am not asking about what Dr. O'Brien saw, but rather what was the time lag between the first and final drafts of the report?

Dr. John O’Brien

I understand the draft of the report went to environmental health officers in August 2008. I had not seen that draft report.

And the publication?

Dr. John O’Brien

I received a copy of the report for my approval and comments on 24 October 2008. The final publication was approved about four weeks' later, I think 21 November or thereabouts. The final publication on the website of the FSAI was on 4 December 2008.

There was a time lag between the initial draft of the report in August to the final publication in December.

Dr. John O’Brien

There was a requirement to be fair to all the stakeholders involved in this. Questions were raised by an external reviewer about the interpretation of the results and some of the laboratory results themselves——

What about fairness to the consumer?

Dr. John O’Brien

The FSAI always informs the consumer when there is a problem with the safety of a product. We made it clear in our press release of 17 November that we had not detected safety problems with water products on the market. Where there were hygiene problems flagged by the indicator organisms measured, actions were taken immediately. In one case, there was a product recall and that product recall was in the national press so the consumer was informed in that one specific case.

Were reservations expressed within the FSAI about the delay in publishing a final report?

Dr. John O’Brien

There were reservations expressed after an external reviewer had raised questions about the interpretation of the results and the validity of some of the laboratory results.

Why were these reservations not listened to?

Dr. John O’Brien

The FSAI has a duty to ensure that the quality of the science we use to underpin regulatory decisions is correct and fair to all stakeholders, be they consumers or businesses regulated by the FSAI.

What about the FSAI newsletter which was prepared and withdrawn?

Dr. John O’Brien

A newsletter referred to the interpretation of the results in the first version of the draft report. An external independent international expert on water safety raised serious concerns about the interpretation in the early draft report and consequently the interpretation in the newsletter was not consistent with good scientific practice.

Who prepared the newsletter?

Dr. John O’Brien

The newsletter took the information from the draft report and used it without additional interpretation. The difficulty was that as the report had some questions that required rectification, it was therefore also necessary to amend the article in the newsletter.

Speaking as a consumer I believe the interests of business were put before the interests of the consumer and nothing I have heard here this morning changes my opinion. The consumer was badly let down by the FSAI. I have some other questions but I cannot find the reference. I just want to know the interpretation of "adulteration" and "contamination". I am trying to find my own references but they are not to hand.

A report was published in 2006 referring to levels of benzine in soft drinks. What was the difference in the circumstances between the publication of that report which caused certain problems for a company and the failure to publish the report on, what I will call, adulterated water?

Dr. John O’Brien

The term adulteration generally refers to the deliberate act of adding something unwholesome ——

I shall use the word, "contaminated", so.

Dr. John O’Brien

The policy with regard to disclosure of brand information and company information is a Government policy and is not something devised by the FSAI. The authority is required to share with the public through its website and by means of press releases, and so on, information about brands and businesses where there is an identified food safety problem with a product. If a food safety problem is not identified we are not permitted, under current policy, to share brand level information — in the interest of fairness to businesses — and this is a policy which is expressed in writing by the Department of Health and Children.

Comparing the standards applied by the authority to bottled water and standards applied to tap water by other authorities, does Dr. O'Brien consider the standards applying to tap water are of a higher standard than the FSAI applies to bottled water?

Dr. John O’Brien

Unfortunately, the current situation with tap water in Ireland is that approximately 60% of tap waters have the presence of coliforms and about 30% have e.coli organisms present, compared with about 1% or 2% of the bottled waters surveyed by us. E.coli is an indicator of faecal contamination. It can signify that there is a danger of the presence of pathogens. I agree that the Irish tap water picture is extremely bleak. Local authorities are working to improve standards in the tap water sector which are low as a result of the presence of high levels of coliforms and e. coli.

I will come back to the question of the standards that should apply in cases of contamination. How did the authority publish its report?

Dr. John O’Brien

It was published on our website and we issued a press release to draw attention to it. I gave interviews to several newspapers, RTE and another radio station.

I apologise for missing an earlier part of the meeting. Most of the issues have been dealt with. One of the officials from the Food Safety Authority of Ireland became the chief executive of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority. The policy on fish changed approximately two years ago. Changes were made to the direction of the management of the fishing industry primarily as a food industry. Have there been any changes to the standards of invigilation of fish and seafood? Have there been any developments in that regard in the last couple of years?

Dr. John O’Brien

Several members of the staff of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority are former members of the staff of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The chairman and one of the executive board members of the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority both worked for the FSAI. That is an advantage in terms of improving communication. The new agency has become a contractor for the FSAI. It reports to the FSAI under a service contract. Like other agencies, it is subject to audit by the FSAI. The establishment of an independent agency in that area will improve the performance of the sector in inspections.

Are there any international benchmarks in the seafood sector? In the past it was difficult to implement changes in the sector, possibly as a consequence of the manner in which it was organised. Has there been a change in the way benchmarks are considered?

Dr. John O’Brien

A great deal of high-tech science is applied to the supervision of the Irish mollusc and shellfish sector which is a large export industry that requires much testing. It is not like having animals in the field in the sense that one cannot control the environment in which they live and what is fed to them. As seafood and shellfish products come from the sea, they are subject to whatever is washed in and taken in by them. We have an active programme of checking for the presence of marine biotoxins which exist in small micro-organisms and are sucked into shellfish. They have to be monitored on a regular basis. The programme of monitoring is co-ordinated by the Sea-Fisheries Protection Authority under its service contract with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Much of the testing is done in the Marine Institute in Galway which undertakes an impressive programme of scientific analysis to ensure the products we export and consume at home are safe and wholesome.

I would like to return to a reference that I could not find earlier. Dr. O'Brien has claimed that references to water being "unsafe for human consumption" tend to overstate the level of risk involved. He has suggested such water should be referred to as being "not fit" for consumption, or "unsuitable" for consumption. What is the difference?

Dr. John O’Brien

When an indicator organism such as e.coli, is found, that signifies that faecal contamination has happened somewhere along the line. It does not signify that there is a safety problem. In the opinion of an independent foreign expert, it signifies the need to take action to manage the poor hygiene levels we are experiencing.

Who was the foreign expert used?

Dr. John O’Brien

Mr. John Fowell who used to be a consultant for the World Health Organisation developed the worldwide water safety guidelines which are employed in Ireland. He was one of those who developed the guidelines used in the FSAI's report to guide it when deciding on what was safe and unsafe. The FSAI's scientific committee, an expert group, is examining the general issue of water safety. It is focusing on matters such as definitions, the signification of the finding of indicator organisms and the management of our responses to these events.

I spoke about tap water. The Environmental Protection Agency takes a zero tolerance approach to water that contains e.coli and makes public statements to that effect. In one case, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's attention was brought to water that contained traces of e.coli but that was not brought to the attention of the public. Can Dr. O'Brien explain why the agency and the authority take such conflicting approaches? The EPA takes a zero tolerance approach to e.coli in tap water, whereas it took the FSAI from August to December to publish a report on an incidence of e.coli in tap water that had happened the previous year.

Dr. John O’Brien

It should be pointed out that e.coli is a very useful management tool in the sense that people carry large numbers of e.coli in their bodies all the time. We ingest e.coli every day of the week. It is not an organism that only crops up every now and again — it is ubiquitous. If a person takes antibiotics to remove all the organisms in his or her gut, as soon as he or she stops taking antibiotics all the organisms, including e.coli, will be back in his or her gut within days. It enters our bodies when we consume it as part of our diet. There are differences between the e.coli criteria used for different products. I am reading a report——

With due respect, the product we are discussing is water. We are dealing specifically with it. The EPA takes a zero tolerance approach to the presence of e.coli in tap water, whereas in the case I have mentioned, it took the FSAI one year to inform the consumer of the presence of e.coli in bottled water.

Dr. John O’Brien

In its report the EPA alluded to the fact that e.coli was present in 30% of water supplies in Ireland. I do not think we boil 30% of our water at any one time.

That is not the question I am asking, with all due respect.

Dr. John O’Brien

I will set out the action taken by management. In most parts of the world, including Ireland, the presence of e.coli in a water supply indicates a need to take some form of action. When the FSAI becomes aware of the presence of e.coli, it puts up a red flag. It always takes follow-up action, including retesting. It audits the relevant facilities to ensure they are hygienic. In this instance, unhygienic conditions were found at two facilities. Operations were then suspended at the facilities in question.

The consumer was kept in the dark for one year.

Dr. John O’Brien

The consumer was not at risk.

Who made the decision?

Dr. John O’Brien

During the initial response most decisions were made by local environmental health officers. They are best placed to assess the conditions of production and ascertain whether there is cause for concern. If there are hygiene concerns, action is taken immediately.

I suggest the FSAI took liberties with the rights of the consumer. Consumers should decide whether risks are presented to them by the water they are purchasing. The authority cannot make such decisions on behalf of the consumer. When it was brought to the authority's attention that e.coli was present in water, it had an obligation to inform the public. Its role is not to represent the interests of producers.

Dr. John O’Brien

We have not tried to represent the interests of producers. From the outset, we have taken a diligent and assiduous approach to ensuring appropriate follow-up action is taken when problems are found. I was made aware of the data in the report at the end of October 2008. In relation to the recall, I was made aware——

When were the samples taken?

Dr. John O’Brien

They were taken at the end of 2007.

Yes. That is when it was brought to the attention of the authority.

Dr. John O’Brien

I was made aware of the recall. Consumers were made aware of it in early 2008. The product was deemed to be unsafe and recalled from the market. Other products received follow-up action and appropriate steps were taken to ensure that it was not a safety concern for the consumer. In our press release of November 2007, we reassured the consumer based on reassurance from internal experts but also from external expertise. Given the confusion around this issue, the responsible approach was to get an external view from an external water safety expert who reassured us we were taking the right steps.

The consumer did not have a clue who the producer was. The producers of top quality water were also victimised because they had to defend their position and take out expensive advertisements stating their products were not contaminated.

Dr. John O’Brien

I return to the point I made earlier concerning doubts about the laboratory analysis. It would be irresponsible of us, as a responsible, science-based agency, when doubts had been cast upon laboratory data by an independent expert, to have thrown the data in all directions, causing much unnecessary harm to consumer confidence and the innocent businesses concerned.

To which laboratories is Dr. O'Brien referring?

Dr. John O’Brien

All the laboratory results came from HSE microbiology laboratories.

There was doubt about the ability of these laboratories to——-

Dr. John O’Brien

The expert raised questions about interpretation and the laboratory data themselves in a few cases.

An expert.

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes.

I find it incredible that such a gap could arise between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food Safety Authority on an issue of water quality vis-à-vis consumers. Over a 12 month period — I am repeating myself here — the consumer was left totally in the dark.

Dr. John O’Brien

When data are produced and there is a question mark in relation to enforcement, resampling and retesting is generally performed by environmental health officers to confirm that there is a problem. In the case of a severe hygiene question there may be a follow-up visit to the plant to ensure we are assiduous in our follow through and do not leave any stone unturned. If there is a doubt, we pursue it to the end. However, the authority is bound by a Government policy in relation to the publication of inspection data. We are not permitted to publish them unless there is a food safety problem.

There was a food safety problem.

Dr. John O’Brien

With the exception of the one recall which was in the press.

With regard to my earlier question, Dr. O'Brien is quoted as stating that the reference to some waters being considered unsafe for human consumption overstated the risk and it was more correct to say they were either not fit or unsuitable for consumption. What is the difference?

Dr. John O’Brien

It is the difference between the presence of an indicator organism, which is a management tool used to decide when action is necessary to check whether we are secure that it is fit for consumption, and the presence of pathogenic organisms. We did not check for pathogenic organisms in this particular case, even though the first draft of the report made reference to pathogens, which I believe was inappropriate.

To talk of it not being fit or unsuitable for consumption is to deliberate on how many angels one can get on to the head of a pin.

Dr. John O’Brien

Our scientific committee will look at this question. Again, I am referring to convention and practice, what is in the scientific literature, the terminology used by the World Health Organisation and the external expert who used to work for it.

That may be fine but as a consumer — I cited my own circumstances and those of thousands of other people — we did not have a clue if our stocks of water were contaminated. The authority for which Dr. O'Brien works, whose function is to protect consumers, did not fulfil its role.

My question is on country of origin labelling of food. What would be the position in the event that I purchased beef in a supermarket or restaurant which is labelled as Irish?

Dr. John O’Brien

The country of origin labelling regulations applying to beef are extremely detailed. If one buys beef from a butcher's shop or supermarket, one can expect to find where the animal was reared, cut, slaughtered and so on. One gets complete information. In the case of restaurants, in 2006 Ireland became the second country in Europe to draft legislation obliging restaurants to communicate to the consumer the country of origin of beef on sale in restaurants.

If I go into a restaurant, what must I be given to establish that the beef it sells is Irish rather than Brazilian beef which has been relabelled here and passed off as Irish?

Dr. John O’Brien

Restaurants are obliged, either on their menu or wall or by some other means, to list the countries of origin of the beef on sale.

How does a customer establish if such claims are correct?

Dr. John O’Brien

During the course of routine food inspections, restaurants are subject to scrutiny applying to all the regulations with which they must comply, from food hygiene to country of origin labelling of beef. They are required to keep paperwork. One of the advantages of the new traceability legislation which came into force in 2005 is that businesses must keep paperwork going back for five years. In that paperwork the officer will be able to see if the beef is from Brazil, Ireland or somewhere else and to confirm if there is conformance between what is on the menu or wall and what is in the paperwork.

Has anyone been found not to be in compliance with the legislation?

Dr. John O’Brien

We had one prosecution involving a company in Cork — I believe it was M & G meats — but there was also a small manufacturing facility, I believe, which was prosecuted by South Dublin County Council in relation to failure to correctly label beef which had been imported from South America.

How often are inspections carried out on restaurants and other providers of meat?

Dr. John O’Brien

Sixty per cent of businesses are visited and inspected once per year. A business which is not complying has a high chance of being caught. In addition, we have a facility whereby consumers can complain if they feel they are being cheated or the information they have been given is not correct. There is a facility on the Food Safety Authority's website whereby a consumer can make a complaint. This is then followed up in a targeted approach.

If 60% of businesses are visited every year, some businesses may only be visited once in two years.

Dr. John O’Brien

That could be the case and that would allow significant scope for passing on wrong information to the consumer. The average figure is 60% but we tend to have a targeted system of enforcement. We have a guidance note that helps officers to decide what is the appropriate frequency of visits. Some businesses might receive three visits each year. A large hotel engaged in large-scale catering would be regarded as a high risk operation because if something goes wrong a large number of people become sick. Those businesses would by and large receive more than one inspection each year.

What country of origin labelling applies to beef and other meat products imported and packaged in Ireland?

Dr. John O’Brien

Is the Deputy referring to beef products packaged in supermarkets and butcher shops? The legislation would not have to be——

No, I refer to meat which is imported and packaged here and then passed off as an Irish meat product? This practice used to occur. What has changed?

Dr. John O’Brien

In terms of packaged beef, nothing has changed.

Does that mean beef can be imported from Brazil, packaged in Ireland and labelled——

Dr. John O’Brien

No.

Has the position in that regard not changed?

Dr. John O’Brien

No, that legislative requirement has been the same for the past several years. Information on the country of rearing, slaughtering and cutting must be on the pack. I am confident that in terms of packaged beef — beef in butcher shops and supermarkets — there is not a problem. The issue of presenting a product as Irish when it was not from Ireland would have been in the catering sector.

That is the problem.

Dr. John O’Brien

That was a problem in the catering sector which would have been addressed by mandating the declarations of country of origin.

Clearly, there was a serious problem for consumers arising from Brazilian imported beef and other meat products being packaged in Ireland and passed off as Irish product. Has anything changed to eliminate that practice, which was widespread?

Dr. John O’Brien

I am not sure how widespread the practice was. We did examine figures on the importation of beef from abroad. At one point we were importing approximately 25,000 tonnes of beef a year.

That is not insignificant.

Dr. John O’Brien

Domestic production is approximately 500,000 tonnes so it was a small percentage of that amount. I am aware that imports have dropped significantly in the past year or so. The amount is nowhere near what it used to be.

That is not the question I asked. Are there any different regulations now on the labelling of imported meat product, which is packed in Ireland and is passed off as Irish?

Dr. John O’Brien

One company that produced meat at a wholesale level was prosecuted for a packaging infringement. We picked up on that and the company suffered a significant financial penalty. The problem of imported beef being passed off as Irish was largely centred on the catering trade and food service, namely, restaurants and catering establishments. That was addressed specifically through the legislation introduced in 2006 that obliged restaurants to inform consumers about the origin of beef served, whether it was Irish or imported. Through legislation and enforcement we have——

What has changed since with the labelling of meat product packaging?

Dr. John O’Brien

There is no change to packaging legislation. It is still illegal for any company to misrepresent what is in a pack, including false health marks and declaring a product to be Irish when that is not the case. We have had several prosecutions over the years for food packaging infringements to ensure that type of practice is eliminated.

But the practice of labelling has not changed.

Dr. John O’Brien

The legislation covering labelling has not changed. It is the same.

Does Dr. O'Brien refer specifically to beef?

Dr. John O’Brien

The legislation relates specifically to beef.

What about bacon?

Dr. John O’Brien

Ireland has made significant representations to the European Commission on the introduction of more detailed labelling for pigmeat, sheepmeat and poultry. Those discussions are ongoing. It is more difficult for some other commodities. We saw during the dioxin crisis that there are significant differences in traceability between the beef chain and the pigmeat and sheepmeat chain.

I recall one producer said there was no need to recall his product as it was not Irish. What has been done in response to that situation because the product was being passed off as Irish?

Dr. John O’Brien

I do not think the products had Irish health marks. They may have had Irish sounding names but they were not declared as Irish.

But the producer was conning the consumer.

Dr. John O’Brien

It paid a very high price for that. Consumers had a perception that some brands were made in Ireland from Irish produce and the company in question paid a price for that.

It is still a matter of some debate as to what would constitute a deception. A false health mark would obviously constitute a deception, as would a direct misdeclaration but a brand name may signify one thing to one person and another thing to another person.

Are there any other questions?

I thank the Chairman for his assistance. He was most helpful. In what way is the country of origin of chicken labelled?

Dr. John O’Brien

We would have less information on packaged chicken, for example, than we would on beef. One would not see all the details.

Let us deal with chicken now.

Dr. John O’Brien

One would have one health mark on a chicken product. The health mark indicates in which country it was produced. We do not have the same degree of traceability, as with beef, for example.

Steps are under way to improve the regulations on chicken, pigmeat and sheepmeat. At European level a new food information regulation is being drawn up on how to communicate information on origin and nutrition to consumers. At the end of the process the consumer can expect to have more complete information about food in general.

That is a long answer to my short question. Does the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, carry out any testing to establish how much water is contained in imported chicken?

Dr. John O’Brien

We have done that in the past.

What were the results of that?

Dr. John O’Brien

Before I came to the FSAI some work was done on water content of chicken imported from the Netherlands. Action was taken against the companies involved. In fact, there was an FSAI press release on that matter at the time. It is not illegal to have extra water in chicken after processing. Some chicken, especially imported chicken, is cooled in water, post mortem. Much of the chicken in Ireland is cooled in air, so it does not absorb any water but it is permissible under EU legislation for chicken that is cooled in water after slaughter to absorb approximately 7% additional water.

Is there any other way in which water can be taken up by chicken or given to it?

Dr. John O’Brien

One cannot add water directly because it is illegal to do so.

I am not asking about the legality. It has been suggested that it can be done and my question is whether it can be done.

Dr. John O’Brien

I am sure there is a technological way of doing if one looks hard enough.

Can the FSAI carry out any tests to establish that?

Dr. John O’Brien

We did so in 2002. We are continually looking at that problem.

The year 2002 is a long time ago.

Dr. John O’Brien

I do not believe the issue of added water is a continuing problem. Technologically, unavoidable water through post mortem cooling is permissible. There are no indicators that there is a problem with added water beyond what is technically unavoidable.

Dr. O'Brien referred to Irish chicken being cooled by air and imported chicken being cooled in water. Some type of test might establish that the water content is entirely different for the two types of chicken.

Dr. John O’Brien

Much of the chicken that is imported into Ireland comes from other European countries. The way we operate within the Single Market is that the supervision of the manufacturing facilities, whether in the Netherlands or elsewhere, is performed by the competent authorities in those states, that is, the equivalent of the FSAI. We recognise their competence to do so as they recognise our competence to ensure the safety of products produced here and exported. It is a mutual recognition system whereby our acceptance of the safety and supervisory arrangements in other countries also applies in the other direction. We do not currently have cause to doubt the competence of the Dutch, Germans or any other competent authority to do its job.

Is our testing procedure as strict or far more strict than those of other European countries?

Dr. John O’Brien

Our testing procedures are consistent with those implemented elsewhere. That is not based merely on our own assessment; we are subject to audits by the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission. That entity audits all the agencies in Europe, including the FSAI, and thus has the opportunity to flag whether we are being under-vigilant or over-vigilant in our task.

What checks are done on organic products? Is the FSAI satisfied that consumers purchasing produce sold at the various outlets, whether regular stores or the open markets of which we see so many, can be sure it is genuinely organic?

Dr. John O’Brien

Organic certification in Ireland is supervised by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I understand there are currently three certification bodies operating in Ireland which are responsible for issuing the certificates following an inspection of those businesses producing organic foods.

On the guarantees for consumers, it is possible, where there is a doubt, for environmental health officers, in collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to check whether a deception is being practised. One successful prosecution has been undertaken of an outlet in the English Market in Cork which was selling as organic produce something which was not in fact organic. These are the safeguards in place. However, they require paper audits because there are currently no reliable chemical tests to discriminate between an organic and non-organic product. An audit of the paperwork of the premises in question is required.

Do tests take place on a range of outlets?

Dr. John O’Brien

The audits and the examination of paperwork would take place in a variety of offices.

With regard to the ever growing popularity of farmers' markets, which are springing up on a weekly basis particularly in Dublin, how long after one is established is it inspected?

Dr. John O’Brien

The businesses concerned are supposed to register with the local environmental health office. The markets receive regular visits from farm inspectors. Some would require an enhanced level of supervision that I referred to. Even if it is a food stall, it must comply with food safety legislation, including refrigeration of perishable products, appropriate covers, levels of hygiene, hand-washing, etc.

The same would apply even if some of the food was sourced from abroad.

Dr. John O’Brien

Yes, the same would apply. Obviously we would be very vigilant in inspecting them.

I thank Dr. O'Brien. Would Mr. Buckley care to comment on what he has heard?

Mr. John Buckley

I shall try to draw together some of the financial and performance issues discussed. Deputies raised questions around the fact that the Food Safety Authority is highly geared, spending €19 million itself but driving activity which costs approximately €100 million. It should, however, be noted that it does not recognise all the expenditure in its accounts such as the financial inputs from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

There are two ideas coming through from the discussion. One, that there is a need to take the total costs of all the food regulation activity and compare it with the total outputs in some form of an output statement, rather akin to what a Department does. The second idea is whether there would be a need for some vertical as well as horizontal rationalisation. In other words, as well as bringing together the tobacco and medicines boards horizontally, perhaps there is a need to integrate activities vertically.

Another issue that emerges is that, failing this, a larger review should be undertaken and a decision made on whether it is viable to have domestic and export market inspections done by separate agencies.

The question still hanging over the Food Safety Promotion Board is the ongoing need for management activity to optimise the space at its head office. That remains an ongoing issue.

On the matter of pension accounting, I would like to confirm that all of the health agencies do not account under FRS 17 for pensions. Under FRS 17, the accounts of the organisation should recognise the true pension cost rather than how much was paid in the year. In addition, the balance sheets of those organisations should recognise the pension overhang or liability. The committee will have an opportunity to examine this in greater detail soon when we produce an overall report on pensions.

In relation to the matter of drinking water, I would like to inform the committee that my office has also done a report on water services which will be brought to the committee in the next few months. It has just been sent to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government who will lay it before the Houses within the next three months.

I thank the witnesses for attending the committee. Is it agreed to note the special reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General on accountability of North-South bodies 1999 to 2007, the safefood annual report 2007 and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland annual report 2007? Agreed.

For next week, is it agreed the committee will take the IDA annual report 2007 and the Forfás annual report 2008? Agreed.

The witnesses withdrew.

The committee adjourned at 12.35 p.m. until 10 a.m. on Thursday, 28 May 2009.
Top