Vol. 220 No. 5
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why, in view of the fact that his Department were responsible for the conditions under which dead meat was exported from the Dublin Corporation Abattoir since the early nineteen-forties, appropriate steps were not taken to ensure that proper standards were maintained so as to allow for the continuance of the dead meat export trade under the new EEC regulations.
23.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what communications of any nature regarding the conditions in Dublin Corporation Abattoir took place between his Department and Dublin Corporation, with particular reference to the new EEC regulations for the importation into EEC countries of dead meat; and if he will state the dates and nature of any such communications.
24.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if it is possible for an interim arrangement to be made with the EEC countries for the continuation of the import of dead meat from the Dublin Corporation Abattoir pending the bringing of the Abattoir up to the standards required by these countries.
25.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (a) the number of registered slaughter-houses engaged in the export of dead meat to the continent of Europe prior to the introduction of the new EEC regulations regarding the import of dead meat, and (b) the number of such slaughterhouses affected by the new regulations, and where they are situated.
26.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when he first became aware of the regulations of the European Economic Community concerning abattoirs for meat to be exported to the Community; when he first notified Dublin Corporation that their abattoirs did not conform to such regulations; and if he will generally make a statement in connection with the condemnation of such abattoirs for exports to the European Economic Community.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 22 to 26 together.
To put the whole matter into proper perspective, I must first point out that the primary purpose of the Dublin Corporation Abattoir is for the supply of meat for the local trade. The abattoir was, however, registered for use for export purposes by a number of exporters who had not their own slaughtering premises, its use in this connection being limited to the extent that the abattoir was not required for the local trade.
I should also point out that the proportion of our total exports of meat to the Continent which is accounted for by the abattoir is small—less than 2 per cent in the case of beef and about 10 per cent in the case of lamb.
The present difficulty in regard to the shipment of carcase meat and lamb from the Dublin Corporation Abattoir arises from new standards prescribed in EEC Regulations which came into effect on 1st July 1965. It is one of my functions to supply to the EEC countries a list of premises in this country which comply with their prescribed standards. The responsibility for complying with the requirements to bring premises up to the standards required by the importing countries rests with the owners of the premises —in this case the Dublin Corporation. I can only point out the standards required and, in the last resort, withhold export facilities if these standards are not met.
In December, 1964, copies of the new EEC Regulations were furnished by my Department to the Irish Fresh Meat Exporters' Society, which comprises all persons and firms exporting meat from this country, including those exporters who operate from the abattoir.
On 15th June 1965, following an inspection of the abattoir premises, there was a discussion between representatives of my Department and the corporation, during which it was made quite clear that it would not be possible to certify the abattoir as meeting the requirements of the EEC regulations. On 6th July the attention of the city manager was drawn to the unsatisfactory conditions at the abattoir, particularly in relation to the slaughter of sheep and lambs for the continental trade.
There were further meetings with officials of the corporation in August and early in September, during which every opportunity was taken to impress on them the necessity for effecting substantial improvements if the abattoir were to be allowed to continue to export to the Continent. On 10th September, the corporation and the exporters operating from the abattoir were notified that the abattoir premises could not be included in a list of premises meeting the prescribed standards which had been requested by one of the EEC countries. In the course of meetings in my Department at the end of September and the beginning of October with representatives of the corporation, the exporters and the workers at the abattoir, it was indicated by them that considerable improvements would be effected at the abattoir within a month and my Department accordingly agreed on 8th October to restore the abattoir provisionally during that period to the approved list for the country concerned. Full details of the improvements required to bring the abattoir up to EEC standards were confirmed by letter to the corporation on 14th October.
As the principal improvements required were not in fact carried out, I had no option but to withhold certification from the abattoir in respect of exports to EEC countries. Otherwise, I would be furnishing an incorrect certificate to the Government of another country. Having regard to the interests of the country's entire meat export trade, I cannot agree to any further temporary certification arrangement in respect of a premises which clearly does not meet the special requirements of the EEC countries.
The bulk of the meat export trade from the Dublin abattoir to the Continent is in the form of lamb and my Department's records show that for many years the question of providing up-to-date sheep slaughtering facilities had been the subject of discussion with the abattoir authorities and that the construction of a new sheep slaughtering section at the abattoir has been under consideration for a lengthy period by the corporation. Plans submitted by the corporation were approved by my Department in 1961. Revised plans were approved by my Department in 1963, and the latest information available to me is that a further set of plans is being prepared by the corporation.
The fact is that my Department have been concerned for many years to secure that improvements would be made in the facilities available for export at the Dublin Corporation Abattoir. Incidentally, the abattoir is not the only meat export premises which could not be approved for exports to EEC countries. Out of 30 premises which had been engaged in recent years in exporting to those countries, four privately-owned premises have not been so approved. Fortunately, however, our meat export industry as a whole is up to date, progressive and efficient, and no less than 41 premises are approved for exports to the EEC countries. These premises are quite capable of coping with any volume of trade likely to arise in the foreseeable future.
Arising out of the Minister's long and inaccurate reply, I should like to ask him if it is not a fact that the first communication received by the corporation from his Department was dated 10th September, 1965 and that in the course of that letter it is clearly stated that this directive was issued by the EEC countries on 26th June, 1964? Could the Minister tell this House, as the Minister responsible for the dead meat export trade, why there was a lapse of 15 months before he took any action to ensure that the standards required were met?
Did I understand the Minister correctly to say that the first time he communicated with the exporters concerned was in December, 1964, and, if so, would he explain why he sat down between June, 1964 and December, 1964 and did not raise the matter at all? Would he further please explain why he raised the matter with the exporters' association in December, 1964 but did not then raise it with the corporation, on his own reply, until June, 1965?
There are two separate aspects of this. First, there is a question of sheep slaughtering facilities, which is the main aspect of the matter. The situation is that since the middle 1950s my Department have been in constant communication with Dublin Corporation month by month in an effort to get them to provide reasonable and adequate facilities.
That is untrue.
Order.
Let the Minister place the communications on the Table of this House.
The Deputy will resume his seat.
The position is as I have said. Indeed, as some of my predecessors will be able to confirm, my Department have been in constant touch with the officials responsible in Dublin Corporation in an endeavour to have them provide proper and adequate sheep slaughtering facilities at the abattoir, both from the point of view of the home trade and of the export trade, but particularly the export trade which is our major responsibility. In fact, in pursuance of these discussions the corporation submitted to my Department on two separate occasions, in 1961 and in 1963, plans which they sought our approval for. We examined these plans and on both occasions approved of them and urged the corporation to proceed with them. Unfortunately, they have not as yet proceeded with them.
In reply to Deputy Sweetman, while the regulations were promulgated by the EEC Commission in Brussels in July, 1964 they were not expressed to come into operation until July, 1965. We had a considerable amount of inquiry in order to satisfy ourselves as to their exact content and the exact stipulations laid down. It was not until December, 1964, we were able to have the whole thing completely cleared and inform the exporters, the people directly concerned, of the position and of the requirements they would have to meet.
Did I understand the Minister correctly to say that he did not inform the corporation until the following June? Will the Minister make it clear to the House why he and the Minister for External Affairs took five months, on their own statements, to elucidate what must apparently have been, judging from what has happened, fairly clear? Would the Minister further say if the estimate of £1 million for the trade involved given in the newspapers is correct?
Yes, but it fluctuates.
Say, in 1965, or in the last convenient year.
It would be in that neighbourhood. There is a misconception about these regulations which are laid down by the Commission in Brussels. The intention is that countries should eventually harmonise their individual country's requirements with the Brussels Commission regulations. So far, of all the six EEC countries, only one country has asked us for a list of approved premises.
How can you harmonise if you do not communicate them to anybody?
At this moment, we have separate regulations which are operating with another EEC country and which have not yet been harmonised with the——
We are in danger of losing that trade too, are we?
No, we are not. I was saying that at this moment we have separate regulations which are operating with another EEC country and which have not yet been harmonised with the Commission's regulations. It is not that every country of the EEC adopted these regulations in July, 1965. The EEC in Brussels prescribed these regulations and said, in effect, to them all: "You must eventually harmonise all your regulations with these".
Was that not the obvious time for everybody to be informed?
We got these regulations cleared by December, 1964. But five members of the EEC countries still have not apparently adopted them.
Is there an operative date?
Am I to understand from the Minister that only one country of the EEC has brought these regulations into force?
Yes.
Why, then, did the Minister for Agriculture write to the corporation and the exporters on 4th January of this year stating that shipments could not be made to any destination other than to the United Kingdom?
Only one country, as yet, has asked us for a list of approved premises under these regulations.
As and from 1st February of this year, is it not a fact that the Minister will not issue a licence to any destination other than the United Kingdom in respect of exports from Dublin Corporation Abattoir? In view of the Minister's statement that only one country, as yet, has asked us for a list, how does he reconcile that statement with his action——
In anticipation——
It is a pity the Minister did not anticipate the position in 1964.
I anticipate that it is only a matter of time until the other five EEC countries ask for a list of approved premises, the same as I have supplied to one country.
I understand the Minister to say that in June or July, 1964, the Commission laid down certain regulations. Is it clear that these regulations were adopted by each one of the Six and that only one of the Six has asked for the Minister's list from this country?
There is no question of adopting these regulations.
Exactly, they apply automatically to them all.
Countries of the EEC are expected to harmonise their regulations with these Commission regulations. So far as we can ascertain, only one country has asked us to submit a list of approved premises under these regulations.
Why has the Minister banned exports to all countries other than to the United Kingdom, in view of that statement?
I have not banned exports to anywhere. All I do in this matter, as the responsible authority in this country to whom these foreign countries look, is to refuse to certify any premises in this country which do not comply with their regulations.
The Minister has been issuing certificates since 1943. Why, on 4th January of this year——
Can the Deputy not grasp simple facts?
The Minister is grossly negligent.
The EEC countries have brought in new regulations. All of them have not yet asked us for a list of premises complying with the regulations. One has—and we have supplied that country with a list of premises which we regard as coming within their requirements. Apart from all that—my predecessor is in a position to confirm it—down the years, my Department have been struggling to get Dublin Corporation to improve their abattoir facilities and to bring them in line with modern standards.
Is it not a fact that the first communication from the Minister's Department that listed a number of items—23 items—that required improvement was dated 14th October, 1965? I shall lay the document on the Table of the House.
Is it not clear from my reply that the fact that Dublin Corporation submitted plans for our approval as far back as 1961 for new slaughter facilities in the Dublin abattoir proves that we were in touch with them?
Not at all.
Not at all.
Does the Minister not agree that this is a most important matter? Does he not agree, therefore, that when apparently, on his case—I do not know which case is true— nothing was done that should be done, we have lost the trade, thanks to inaction either by the Minister's Department or by the Corporation: it is for the Minister or for the corporation to settle that. However, does he not agree that when nothing was being done to save this trade, it was up to the Minister, as Minister for Agriculture, at least to address a letter to the Lord Mayor of the city of Dublin and the Borough Council, pointing out the seriousness of the matter—or did he?
I shall allow only three more supplementary questions.
Is not the net effect of this operation to exclude from the continental export meat trade a number of independent operators who have operated in the abattoir and to transfer £1 million worth of exports to the established factory owners?
Not necessarily.
I would advise Deputy Cluskey to examine that aspect.
I shall allow Deputy Clinton to ask a supplementary question. He has been waiting to ask a question for a long time.
They have been trying to get that trade for the past 15 years and I was trying to defend the widow woman who had a bit of the trade in the abattoir.
In view of the fact that the Minister stated that they have been endeavouring for years, would he agree that when the corporation received this communication——
There was no widow woman on the delegation Deputy Cluskey brought to see me. They were as hard-faced looking as you ever met.
The delegation had quite enough example of your arrogance and disinterest in this matter.
The Deputy should use the third person.
Did the Minister receive a letter from the corporation approximately four weeks after his letter of 14th October? Did he receive a letter listing 17 items that have been complied with or were in the course of being complied with?
I do not think the Deputy does his trade union any service by coming into my Department where he was received in the capacity of a trade union official——
I am here as a Deputy.
——and afforded every courtesy and possible information and subsequently coming into this House and trying to turn that information into political capital.
You were guilty of gross arrogance. You even repudiated your own Parliamentary Secretary, who is a gentleman, when he dealt with the situation.
I shall allow the final supplementary question to Deputy Clinton.
Would the Minister say whether the exporters who use the abattoir up to the present are assured of accommodation in the premises that come within the regulations of the EEC? Furthermore, could the Minister tell the House how extensive and how expensive are the alterations and why it is that the corporation have not carried them out? Have they given a reason?
The reply to the first question is that in the case of private meat exporters, who, up to now, have been using Dublin Corporation abattoir, the abattoir is the only public abattoir in the country licensed for this purpose. Indeed, it is something of an anachronism that it should ever have been licensed for meat export because basically its purpose is to serve the home trade. However, it was for a variety of reasons. In fact, when the Dublin Corporation built it first in 1930, it was regarded as the best and most efficient abattoir we had in the country. Down the years it was permitted to participate in this export trade, although, in fact, developments in this business have long since rendered its present facilities obsolete, but the reply to Deputy Clinton's question is that as far as I know—indeed, not as far as I know, but definitely—there is no other public abattoir to which these entrepreneurs can go to get slaughtering facilities.
And the Minister cannot assure them that they would get accommodation?
They are private entrepreneurs. It is a private business. The provision of facilities for themselves and others elsewhere is a matter for themselves.
But there is money involved.
There is a fair amount of money involved, yes. The main thing is that I think it is true that the sheep-slaughtering facilities cannot be put in proper order in the present premises. It is clear that a new sheep slaughtering premises will have to be erected. This has been recognised by the Dublin Corporation themselves for many years. As I said, they submitted plans in 1961 for new premises, which we approved of. They submitted new plans in 1963 for new sheep-slaughtering premises, which we approved of. As far as my information is, they are now engaged in the preparation of still further plans.
What about the cost?
Will the Minister put the regulations and correspondence on the Table? It is impossible to follow it all by question and answer. Or is he trying to shelter the Tánaiste, who did nothing for five months?
In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies, I propose, with the permission of the Chair, to raise this matter on the Adjournment.
I shall consider the matter. Question No. 27.
