Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 May 1978

Vol. 307 No. 1

Agricultural Produce (Meat) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1978: Second Stage .

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hussey)

: I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of the Bill is to amend and extend the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Acts and the Pigs and Bacon Acts, which is the basic legislation regulating our meat export trade. The changes provided for in the Bill would not in any way interfere with the fundamental principles of the basic legislation but rather are intended to adapt aspects of it to the circumstances of a changing meat export industry.

In essence the Bill consists of four distinct provisions: first, it provides for the introduction of fresh meat classification at meat export premises; secondly, it would replace the existing absolute ban on the breeding or keeping of coloured pigs with a more flexible arrangement; thirdly, it provides for the collection of veterinary inspection fees at meat export plants on a monthly basis, instead of half-yearly as at present, with effect from 1 July 1978, and fourthly, it provides for the possible employment of detention officers at meat export plants, subject to certain consultation with the Veterinary Council of Ireland.

It is now some months since the Minister for Agriculture announced his intention of introducing a mandatory beef carcase classification scheme, and the reaction since then from all the interests concerned has been most encouraging. Sections 2 and 3 of this Bill would enable the Minister to make regulations providing for the compulsory classifications and appropriate marking of fresh meat. It is envisaged that for the time being such regulations would apply only to carcase beef for export markets. The classification of beef carcases is bound to benefit all the interests concerned with the beef industry, and in particular it should convey the preferences of overseas customers back through the exporters to the producers of the cattle. We export, in one way or another, more than four-fifths of all the cattle we produce. If we are to get the best return from the market we must produce the right kind of cattle and must avoid over-finishing them. In an industry worth over £500 million pounds a year even a modest price increase, reflecting improved quality, would have major consequences for the income of farmers, for factory profits and for the balance of trade. It is evident that the preference in most export markets is for a leaner type of animal than we have traditionally supplied and we can get significantly increased returns by recognising this and adjusting our breeding and feeding policies to take account of it.

The scheme, which, subject to the enactment of this legislation, would be brought into operation early next year, will apply to all cattle—steers, heifers, cows and bulls—slaughtered at meat export premises. It will be operated by trained classification officers employed by the Department of Agriculture and the cost of their employment will be borne by the Exchequer. Classification as such will have two main elements—conformation and fat score—probably with seven sub-categories of each. Other data such as sex, age and weight may also be included in the information fed back to producers. The sole duty of classification officers will be to determine, as objectively as the nature of this exercise permits, the conformation class and the fat class of every animal slaughtered at the meat export premises.

The determination of the price to be paid for cattle by the meat factory will remain, as it has always been, a matter between the factory and the producer. The Department or the classification officers will have no role to play in the determination of prices as a result of this particular scheme. It is important to make this distinction. Factories and producer representatives may agree to base payment for cattle on the results of classification, but this will in no way influence the classification officers in their work. However, the ultimate success or failure of a scheme of this nature must depend on impartial objective assessment of the beef carcases, the maintenance of rigid standards and the recognition of this by both buyer and seller.

Deputies will observe that the scheme will relate to beef carcases and not to boneless beef. This is because, at the carcase stage, differences in conformation and fat cover will be readily apparent to the trained eye and overseas customers can contact with confidence on the basis of classification. Boneless beef on the other hand introduces other elements, such as butchering skill and the degree of fat trimming, which a customer might prefer to judge for himself. We do not thereby mean to suggest that we should concentrate on the export of carcase beef. Far from it. Indeed, we look forward to seeing a major increase in exports of vacuum-packed boneless beef in consequence on the big improvement in the MCA co-efficient which was secured as part of the recent price package. Even if the carcase trade were to cease altogether, however, carcase classification would still be indispensable as a means of informing producers about the market suitability of the cattle they are producing and as a guide to improved future production.

Under the Pigs and Bacon (Amendment) Act, 1956 there is an absolute ban on the keeping or breeding of pigs of a colour other than all white. Under this Bill the absolute ban is removed and the importation of coloured pigs can be allowed in accordance with regulations made by the Minister for Agriculture. These regulations would only be made if circumstances so warrant at any time. We have no plans in mind at present for such regulations. The provision in the Bill is, therefore, merely an enabling one.

Sections 5, 6 and 7 would amend the various statutory provisions relating to the collection of veterinary inspection fees at meat export plants by allowing for the collection of the fees on a monthly rather than on the current half-yearly basis. The intention is to allow for a more orderly flow of funds from the inspection fees. As the Minister for Agriculture has stated in this House on a previous occasion, the receipts from these fees cover only part of the cost of the service. Under the present arrangement of half-yearly collection it is well into the new year before the fees for the preceding July are collected, which is a wholly unjustifiable situation nowadays. This provision does not entail any increase in the level of inspection fees: it simply facilitates their collection on a more even basis throughout the whole year.

Section 8 of the Bill, which relates to detention officers, is an enabling provision. Veterinary inspectors at meat export plants are required to carry out an ever-broadening range of duties. This is attributable to the requirements of EEC directives on meat inspection and export certification and to the other controls that have become necessary as a result of the introduction of MCAs, intervention and so on. In addition, the level of throughput and the range of products at meat factories are also increasing. The function of a detention officer would be to relieve the veterinary inspector of some of the routine inspection of carcases and viscera and allow for the better deployment of veterinary resources. The detention officers would have to be specially trained for the purpose and section 8 of the Bill requires the Minister to consult fully with the veterinary council regarding their training and qualifications. They would, of course, work under the supervision of the veterinary inspectors. Detention officers are used in many other countries, inculding most other member states of the EEC and in the USA and New Zealand.

As I have stated, this is an enabling provision and I do not want the intentions in this regard to be misinterpreted. There are no plans to employ detention officers at present and if at any time in the future a decision to employ detention officers should be contemplated, there will, first of all, be frank and open consultation with the veterinary profession.

In conclusion, the Bill before the House is intended to make some relatively minor changes in legislation which was framed many years ago and which has in the meantime served us very well. The technology and structure of our beef industry has, however, since changed and has expanded very considerably, now being worth some £300 million in beef exports alone, compared with £61,000 in 1930 when the original Act was passed. The industry has the capacity for continued growth and the legislation must take this into account.

Mr. Bruton

: I welcome this legislation. In relation to the introduction of a beef carcase classification scheme, the key statement in the Minister's brief is that beef classification will convey the preferences of overseas customers back through the exporters to the producers of the cattle. The classification scheme will provide what could be described as a common language whereby the needs of the market can be conveyed right through to the farmer producing animals and he can be informed of how they conform with requirements. The fact that the Department inspectors who have no axe to grind in favour of either the factories, the farmers or the customers of the factories will carry out a classification will ensure the confidence in, and the success of the scheme.

Some points should have been clarified before we were asked to agree to the Second Stage of the Bill. As the Minister said, this Bill is merely an enabling Bill. It enables the Minister to make regulations. The beef classification scheme has been talked about for some time and the Department of Agriculture, at various shows throughout the country, demonstrated to people what would be involved in the scheme they intend to introduce. We have been told that there will be seven classes of conformation, corresponding to the letters of the word "Ireland", in relation to shape and there will be classes from one to six in relation to fat cover. I have given this information in a rather inadequate fashion but it would have been more appropriate if the Minister had given it. The Minister is asking us to give him power to make regulations without telling us what sort of regulations he intends to make. If the Department of Agriculture can tell people outside this House what they intend to have in their carcase classification scheme they should tell the House. As this matter has been thrashed around time and time again I have not the slightest doubt that the Department have specific and detailed proposals in their possession in relation to this matter. I would not be surprised if they had a draft of the regulations ready. We should be told what the Department intend to do because there is no guarantee that we will have an opportunity to discuss the regulations at a later stage if they are made under the provisions of this Bill.

I presume that an order introducing the classification scheme will be made under section 51 of the 1930 Act and unless we seek to annul the scheme as a whole there will be no discussion. There is no requirement for the Minister to get the approval of the House before introducing the scheme. We are being asked to agree to the introduction of a scheme about which we know nothing but about which the people outside of the House know and about which if the Department's intentions were disclosed we might have legitimate grounds for objection. That is not satisfactory and if the Minister of State were on this side of the House he would agree with my point of view. I am at a disadvantage in speaking about what I know from secondhand information to be the Department's intention in this matter.

I understand there is a slight problem in relation to our scheme. In so far as conformation is concerned, our scheme will go on seven different classes of conformation conforming to the letters of the word "Ireland". In France they have only six classes corresponding to the letters of the word "France", and there is a European scheme with six classes corresponding to the letters of the word "Europa".

If we are trying to export to Europe and if the whole intention of the beef classification scheme is to enable us to export more effectively and to give us information on continental markets, why are we introducing a scheme which contains seven classes as against Europe's six? If we want a common language we want one which operates not only between the Irish factories and the Irish producers but which can be understood as between the Irish factories and their customers abroad. Therefore it is in our interests as a producer country to adopt a scheme as near as possible to the scheme that is known and accepted in European countries.

This Government were not alone in discussions on this matter. I remember questioning the then and present Minister for Education and the Minister for Agriculture in 1972 about a classification scheme. I readily accept there is a bipartisan responsibility in relation to this matter. However, it seems to me that we should have gone for a scheme closer to the continental one.

I should like to know how our scheme as far as conformation is concerned corresponds with schemes being used on the Continent, apart from the fact that there are seven different classes. For instance, I should like to know if our grade I corresponds with their E grade in EUROPA or, as I have been told, does it correspond with the letters EU and half of R in EUROPA? If my information is correct, our top class corresponds to almost half of the classification in Europe and the remaining six classes, R, E, L, A, N and D correspond with the other half of their O, P and A. There seems to me to be a difference not only in the number of classes but in the distribution of classes. The whole thing is being introduced to enable us to export more effectively, and it seems to me as a layman that this divergence is difficult to explain. It might be suggested that if we introduce the EUROPA scheme we would not be getting enough cattle into the allegedly top classes of E and U and that because of our traditional breeding policies when we were catering for a different market, the British market, too many of our cattle would not be getting into E and U. I am not suggesting that we should be too worried about that, but we will have to export to those countries in the long run and if what I have been saying is the case, the sooner Irish producers come to terms with the fact that they are not producing enough cattle to get into the E and U grades, or the F and R grades in the French scheme, the better for Irish producers because they can then adjust their feeding and breeding patterns.

I have said I am speaking in the absence of information on this matter, but if we are to have a large I class covering animals whose conformation is ideal for the continental markets and also other classes which would correspond to the top half of R in the EUROPA scheme, if there is such a wide range, a farmer who produces cattle which correspond to the I grade will expect to get the same price regardless of the fact that there is a wide range of cattle within the I grade, some of which are ideally suitable for the continuental markets. The problem of having such a wide range within the I grade would lead to expectations as to price which cannot be fulfilled by individual factories because some of them may find they are producing for a specific market which corresponds to E and not to U in the European scale. The Minister has been at pains to tell us in his opening speech that the scheme does not promise a price; but, naturally enough, if people get into the I classification they will have expectations as to price and it is important that these expectations would be fulfilled. Otherwise the scheme will not be as successful as we would all hope it will be.

I hope the Minister will be able to allay the fears I have expressed. If I have been wrong I have been making an honest mistake because the scheme is not before the House, but it is important that these fears should be raised at this stage rather than when the Minister has become committed to a regulation. That is one danger that could arise from the nature of the scheme.

There is another danger, and I know from his speech that the Minister is conscious of it. It is necessary that the staff carrying out this classification will be of very high quality and that their decisions will be uniform across the country. It would not be a good thing if there was a classifier in a factory in one part of the country who would be more lenient about the number of cattle he let into the I grade than a classifier in another part of the country who would not be as lenient and who, when a doubt would arise, would be inclined to put cattle into R grade. If that happened it would immediately lead to a grave lack of confidence in the scheme.

These men will be operating far from each other and they will not necessarily be meeting each other in the course of their work. There might be a classifier in a factory in the south and another in County Monaghan and unless the Department bring them together to compare their work, there is no reason why they should make exactly the same judgment. But it is essential for the success of the scheme that they make the same judgment. I agree that the Department will exercise intensive supervision of their work in different parts of the country, that there will be people moving between the factories who will spot any divergence, but there will need to be a high standard of training before the classifiers take up duty.

I should like the Minister in his reply to give the House specific information in relation to the training he has in mind and the supervision arrangements in regard to the work of the officers who will be responsible for classification. It is important that we have men of quality operating. It will be visual assessment. Men who will classify carcases will not do so on the basis of measuring sticks to determine fat content as is possible with pigs. That cannot be done with cattle because there is not the same uniformity of fat content distribution. It will be visual and physical assessment and much will depend on the accuracy and the judgment of the officer concerned.

I should like some information about how much the scheme will cost the Exchequer. How much will be provided this year and next year and when will the scheme be introduced? This is enabling legislation and it does not introduce the scheme. We should like to know when it will be introduced. The classification scheme is the most important. Although I have had some critical things to say about it, I should like to make it clear that I welcome the introduction of the scheme. I hope the points I made were constructive and that the Minister will answer them to my satisfaction.

Section 4 allows for the breeding and keeping of non-white pigs. The ban on such pigs was introduced in 1956. It was introduced then because the Danes had a similar ban on non-white pigs and it was felt that in order to compete one had to be sure that one could satisfy the consumer. At that time apparently the consumer was not happy with the non-white pig—the saddle back, I think—that was prevalent then. It was largely a case of consumer resistance. It was not that the meat of the non-white pig was intrinsically worse. It was just that the consumer had got used to a certain type of colouring in the rind. However, I understand that with recent developments in the breeding of non-white pigs, in many respects these pigs have a better performance than white pigs. For instance, in terms of muscle content the new breeds of non-white pigs—the New Hampshire and the Pietron breeds —are somewhat equivalent to Charolais in beef. They produce more quantities of lean meat than is the case with the Landrace, the white pig that is quite common in this country.

There is a case for introducing the facility for breeding and keeping non-white pigs, subject to proper regulation. It is my information that these pigs are being bred here in contravention of legislation. I know this is being done—and not by private individuals either—for very good reasons because the people concerned are anxious in the interests of better husbandry to find out how these breeds compare. That kind of thing should not be illegal; it should be encouraged, not discouraged. It would be ridiculous if any person was prosecuted in such a case so long at it was being done subject to proper controls, as is the case in the situation I mentioned. There is not question of a deterioration in the general breeds. The animals are being kept apart and their performance is being observed to see if they come up to standard and compare well with what has been done elsewhere with white pigs.

I should like the Minister to come off the fence with regard to this matter. He has said he will introduce enabling legislation with regard to non-white pigs but he has also said that he has not any immediate intention of doing anything about the matter. He should do something about it immediately so that we can have the best range of breeds. I know that some people will not thank me for saying that. Those who are involved heavily with existing breeds may not want to see the other breeds introduced, but in the area of beef production that objection had to be overcome. It was overcome by the intensive introduction of Charolais cattle, and latterly by Simmenthal, Limousin and other breeds which are making a worth-while contribution to producing the kind of beef needed for the export market in particular. Non-white breeds of pigs are allowed in France and they are the rule in the United States. I visited farms in America where they produced hogs. Generally speaking those animals are of a coloured variety. If that can satisfy the American consumer, who is very pernickety about all kinds of food, certainly it should satisfy the consumer of Irish pig products.

I should like the Minister to introduce a regulation to ensure that only the best breeds are introduced, subject to the necessary control. At least we should experiment and see how they work rather than have the absolute ban that exists at the moment. I cannot understand why the Minister would go to the trouble of introducing an enabling provision unless he had some intention of using it. I should like him to come off the fence when he is replying to this matter.

It is probably reasonable that arrangements should be made regarding monthly payments of the fees to the Department. There is no doubt that this will have an effect on the liquidity of meat plants. Up to now they were able to keep the money for six months. They got the interest but now they will have to pay it every month and the Department will get the interest. That can pass itself back to the farmer in terms of slightly lower prices paid by the plants because they will not be able to get the interest. They will not be able to hold on to their money for as long as they have been able to up to now. Some of them may have to borrow money to pay the fees. They will have to pay interest on money borrowed to pay fees on a monthly basis as against holding it for six months and that interest charge met by the factories inevitably will be reflected in a marginally lower price to the producer. When that is taken in conjunction with the recent decision of the Department to increase the veterinary fees in meat plants by more than 100 per cent, and in addition to various other levies which it is suggested may have to be met by meat plants, we will see that the amount of money being taken out of the meat plants by various people will be quite considerable and will be a good deal more than would be taken out of the export of live cattle.

We already know, quite apart from those various schemes that meat plants are at a disadvantage in relation to the anomalies in the MCA system. Those are far more serious than the small matters I have been mentioning.

The Minister during the course of the prices negotiations in Brussels succeeded in having a change made in the co-efficient for the calculation of the MCA for chilled beef but he failed to do anything about frozen beef in this respect. Frozen beef represents almost as important a component of our exports of carcase beef. I cannot understand why he did not do anything about frozen beef when he was doing something about chilled beef because the principle is the same. I presume if the principle is accepted at the negotiating table that it will be applied across the board. The Minister seemed to suggest in the House—I may have misinterpreted him—that the problem of not dealing with the frozen beef and dealing only with the chilled beef arose from the fact that, allegedly, the fresh meat exporters did not tell him that they wanted both frozen and chilled beef to be dealt with in this matter. That is my impression of what the Minister said.

That seems to me to be quite inexplicable because the Minister is the person responsible and he and his officials should know the trade as well as any fresh meat exporter. They should know that chilled and frozen beef should have been dealt with in so far as this change in the MCA is concerned and that the change should not have been confined to chilled beef. If there was not an alleged failure of communication between the Minister and the fresh meat exporters' society I would like to know what was the reason that this was not dealt with at the price negotiating table. It is all very fine for the Minister to say that he is removing a particular anomaly in relation to chilled beef, that the other anomalies will be dealt with in the normal way, that a study group is being set up by the Council of Ministers to deal with the matter and that he will try to get it brought forward quickly. Once you leave the price negotiating table your bargaining position is greatly reduced. If you withhold your agreement to the price package and say: "I will not agree to this until I get agreement on other MCA problems" you have a much stronger position there for getting action in relation to, in this case, the MCA on frozen beef. Once you agree to the price package and leave the price negotiating table and it goes into the normal course of all the various matters dealt with by the Commission all the time, that are being reviewed ad infinitim by the Commission, there is no guarantee that you will have any equivalent bargaining power at any other time during the year until the next price negotiation.

The danger, because this matter has been left over and only the anomaly in relation to chilled beef has been dealt with, is that the frozen beef anomaly, which is almost as serious, will not be dealt with until next year's price negotiations and a whole year will have been lost. We all know the substantial amount of employment which could be created in our meat plants if those anomalies in the MCA were removed entirely, not just in part as has been the case so far. There is very substantial employment in the meat plants in my constituency and in the constituencies of all the Deputies who are present in the House at the moment. They are giving added value. We are all committed to added value as far as agricultural production is concerned. I believe the Minister should have been successful in dealing with the entire MCA problem in the recent negotiations and not successful in dealing with only part of it. He will be judged in this respect by the results rather than by the intentions.

I would like to refer to the detention officers. I gather that this is only an enabling provision and that extensive consultations will take place. I welcome this enabling provision. I agree that consultations must take place so that the high standard of work of the veterinary inspectors will be maintained. The only consideration in those negotiations should be the maintenance of the standard of the work. The justification for a professional restriction in relation to who may do what must be nothing but the fact that by having people of a particular profession doing the work it will be done to a standard to which it would not otherwise be done.

I welcome the fact that the negotiations may now take place. There are grave dangers to our long-run competitiveness across the whole area of industry and social services if professionalism operates on any other basis than solely that to have work done to a certain standard you must have a professional. The only justification for the existence of a restriction is performance and nothing but performance. I welcome this Bill and I ask the Minister to give more information on the precise nature of the regulations he has in mind to introduce under the various enabling provisions of the Bill.

Mr. E. Collins

: Our agricultural spokesman has welcomed the Bill. I would like to make some comments in relation to some of the provisions in it. Section 2 enables the Minister to make regulations for the mandatory beef carcase classification scheme. There has been a lot of comment on this provision and it has been generally favourable. I doubt if the scheme will be effective because while the classification scheme may be mandatory and be administered independently of the trade by officers of the Department the negotiations concerning the price paid for such carcases lie entirely with the factory managers and the suppliers of the live cattle. It is obvious to me that there will be resistance by many suppliers to having their prices based on the result of the classification. The essential benefit of the classification scheme will result at the sales end where the customer abroad will at least know that he is getting a certain quality carcase from the factory.

Deputy Bruton's comment in this respect is interesting because we have now three schemes, the one we will implement, the one used in France and the one used in Europe generally, the Europa scheme. It seems unnecessarily complicated to my way of thinking. We should be moving towards a unified European classification scheme. Instead of doing that we seem to be unnecessarily fragmenting our schemes.

In relation to the reclassification scheme, there is one matter of burning interest to both the factories and the suppliers. I refer to the point in time of the inspection by the official of the Department. Will the inspection to determine the grading of the carcase take place prior to trimming or will it take place after trimming? As the Minister may be aware, the breeding of our beef stock is slightly on the fat side and we are only now slowly moving towards producing the leaner continental-preferred type of beef. Many factories trim the meat after weighing and after veterinary inspection. By doing so they improve the grading of the carcase certainly from the point of view of the continental buyer. Will the Department allow this trimming to be done before classification or will the classification be made prior to trimming? If it is made prior to trimming will the Department allow subsequent trimming after the carcase has been classified? That may seem to be a technical point but here we are talking about substantial sums of money and substantial benefits which would accrue to the customer and to the supplier as well as to the factories. It is a vital point and I should like the Minister to reply to it. If classification inspection takes place after trimming certain benefits will accrue to the supplier and to the factory. I would like the Minister to look into this matter very carefully.

In relation to the scheme itself, we are now apparently going to have 48 different grades and grading may, in fact, reach as high as 64 different grades of carcase. This is unnecessarily complicated. I speak from my own experience and I maintain that at most six gradings are quite sufficient. All these gradings suggested here will only lead to arguments within the trade and at the factories and between the factories and the inspectors. I do not believe this number of grades is necessary. It goes beyond reason from the point of view of the practical operation of a beef classification scheme.

Will the officers come from the present people employed in the factory or will they be specifically recruited? Will they go through a special course and, if so, where? Of what will the course consist? Will the classification officer be combined with the detention officer? Will there be two separate people or one composite person? I believe these officers should be sufficiently paid to ensure they will carry out their duties in an independent manner as, indeed, the Department officers have done down through the years.

Will the Minister introduce a classification scheme for lambs? There is need for such a scheme. The present scheme in respect of lamb exports to France is unnecessarily narrow. The 48 lbs limitation is too limiting. Excellent quality lambs which should be exported to France are not allowed because of this limitation. The permitted quality is unnecessarily high. It eliminates the possibility of exporting mountain lambs unless they are finished on the lowlands or intensively fed. There is a varied trade for lambs in France at different price levels. There is a good trade for heavier lambs and, indeed, quite a good trade for poor lambs. The price levels would, of course, be different. At the lower level relatively good mountain lambs should be allowed into France. The price received would be good and it would benefit the mountain sheep producer. That would give the industry a tremendous fillip.

The Minister has made public statements about the great deal he got. It was very welcome certainly but it was too narrow in its perspective in regard to the sheep industry. We should move forward. I am worried about the establishment of a common agricultural policy in regard to sheep. From the information I got at the beginning of this week I believe Europe is moving towards a lower retail price policy. I believe that, if we have a common agricultural policy in relation to sheep, we will be going back to a 20 per cent customs duty applied to sheep. I am very worried about the prospects of the common agricultural policy because England is in a special position from the point of view of the importation of lambs from New Zealand. I believe they will continue to import cheap frozen lamb from New Zealand and will benefit from the CAP on lambs by exporting their own domestically produced lambs to France. This will have a deleterious effect on the Irish sheep trade to France. This is a very important field and I wonder what we will do in that regard.

I am sorry I digressed. I want to know if we are to establish a classification scheme for lambs. I am in favour of one. It is a pity this Bill was not extended to enable the Minister to establish a classification scheme for the export of sheep as well.

Is the Minister aware that the cost of the levy scheme to the factory is extremely high, unnecessarily high? This is being reflected back on the price to the producer. Is the Minister aware that the same veterinary staff who inspect carcases at slaughter houses are also there to inspect live cattle at the point of exportation, to carry out testing for brucellosis and TB, to carry out inspections at the registered boning offices, to carry out inspections in relation to APS contracts going into and coming out of cold storage, and to inspect the intervention system at cold storage point?

At present the abattoirs finance the veterinary service. If there is to be an increase in the fees in the future, before the Minister increases the fees, he should have serious regard to the other work done by the veterinary service. That work is excellent. Our public veterinary service is second to none in Europe or, indeed, in the world. Our veterinary standards for the meat we produce are second to none. We can be proud of the standards in Ireland of meat we export which goes out having had a very thorough inspection. The quality is controlled right through to the point of export.

If the fees are to be increased, rather than the increases falling on the slaughter houses, there should be a reassessment of the broad spectrum of work done by the veterinary service and an equitable charge should be made on all the participants in this sector of the meat industry in order to arrive at an equitable burden of the levies charged.

The question of detention officers was mooted in the Department some years ago. This is welcome in the Bill and it is in line with the practice in other European countries. The enabling part of the Bill is welcome but I was disappointed to read in the Minister's speech that there are no plans to employ detention officers at present. They would be welcome in the abattoirs and in the factories and also in such places as boning halls and intervention centres.

Qualified veterinary inspectors have a better role to play as supervisors and overall managers of factories. A very real role could be played by detention officers. I am aware an agreement has been reached between the Veterinary Officers' Association after consultation with the Veterinary Council of Ireland. It is not specified in the Bill whether detention officers will have responsibility for pre-slaughter inspections of live animals. Obviously this is work they could carry out. It is a visual inspection requiring some training but it is not necessary to have a veterinary inspector. A detention officer should be able to inspect live cattle, or sheep, or pigs for that matter, and should be trained to do so.

There is no such provision in this Bill. I do not wish to put down an amendment but the Minister might consider an amendment which would allow detention officers to carry out pre-slaughter inspections to relieve veterinary officers of the need to do so. I should like to know what training detention officers will get. What ratio between detention officers and veterinary officers will be established? Will they be recruited from the present AO staff? What staffing level will they attain?

I have already asked if the work of detention officers will be merged with the work of classification officers. In all this development, where do the present permanent and temporary AO staff of the Department stand who have done quite an amount of work down the years? I was sorry to see that in some factories temporary AO staff were made redundant some time ago. Many good men who had good experience were let go, and they should not have been let go especially as this Bill was coming up from the engine room, so to speak. The AO staff do excellent work. Where do they stand? What opportunity will they get for recruitment as classification or detention officers? This is a very interesting field. I should like an assurance that the AO staff will be given every opportunity to get the training required.

I should like clarification on two small points. Section 6 refers to fees payable on exporters licences and section 7 to exporters' permits. I am a little puzzled about the distinction and I should like clarification from the Minister on that point. All in all this is an interesting development. I hope it will be carried out properly. As the Fine Gael spokesman said, we now have three schemes for classification. This is unnecessary. We should have gone for the European scheme. Nevertheless, the Bill is welcome.

Mr. Clinton

: At this stage everything that should be said about this Bill has been said. I welcome the Bill, which is long overdue. I am satisfied that it would have been introduced much earlier were it not for the resistance of various interests in the meat business. Whenever a change is proposed there is always resistance and that is understandable. I do not think the Bill goes far enough. I would be obliged if the Minister would tell the House if he can extend the terms of the Bill by regulation to cover vacuum packing if he wishes. It is of considerable importance that that be covered. In my view broken down carcases in any shape or form should be covered.

One of the criticisms I have listened to over the years in relation to the export of boneless beef in whatever form was that there was an absolute disregard for the fat content and it was totally unreliable. We could have anything from 5 to 25 per cent fat and for that reason it was not acceptable in the continental markets. I do not know whether my suggestion can be covered by regulation, but I am sure there is a way for measuring fat in boneless beef. It is important for the country that we should be breaking down our meat to such an extent that it is ready for consumption. It is a pity that this has been left to be dealt with in the future. It should be dealt with very quickly. I accept that Rome was not built in a day and that the introduction of classification to carcase meat is a big step forward. The people involved in this work would have to gain some experience before the measure can be extended to cover vacuum packed and broken down beef.

Deputy Bruton was concerned about the type of classification, but I do not think it matters a lot. The important thing is to have a scheme that can be understood so that people can buy their beef by description over the telephone. It does not take business people long to understand descriptions. It is only right that people should be able to buy according to a label on a side of beef at any time and know what they can expect to get. It is disappointing that we are pushing the application of such a measure into the distant future as far as the boneless beef is concerned. That is where the jobs are. We are all taking it far too easy in relation to the sale of beef. We are exporting anything up to 80 per cent of our total production and we know that every extra unit of beef produced here in future will be for export. This has never been taken seriously and the people in the processing industry never took it seriously. Farming organisations have not done enough either. If we are to solve the problem of unemployment here everyone must be concerned about the unemployed. The capability of the agricultural industry to find jobs for an enormous number of people is not fully realised. This is a chance for us all to lay emphasis on the importance of being able to export a boneless beef and the customer should be able to rely on the label on the box. The customer should know that he is getting a certain quality of beef with a certain fat content. The Bill does not cover that and that is one of its shortcomings.

I accept that it is a big step forward that people outside the country can buy beef according to a description. That is long overdue. Like Deputy Collins, I regret that lamb was not covered in the Bill. I do not know why. We are now going to the trouble of bringing in classifications and it should not be necessary to introduce further legislation to be able to describe sheep meat in the same way as we are describing beef here. Even if we do not have sufficient trained staff to do this, this legislation should have provided for the introduction of such a scheme. When we are exporting sheep meat there should be a quality control. There should not be any restriction on markets and we should be able to send our lamb to any market in Europe. People should know exactly what they are buying. It is to be regretted also that CBF are not in some way involved in this operation because they are concerned about the promotion of Irish beef. It is quite on the cards that they will be involved in selling Irish beef. I would welcome that move because there is a place for CBF in selling. CBF should have been given some responsibility in this question of classification. They should be close to this scene if it is their intention to sell in future.

There has been some demand for some time for the introduction of coloured pigs. It is wrong to resist that demand. There is little danger of people going mad in the wrong direction in the pig industry at present because it must be a specialised operation if people are to make money. Pigs are being produced in big units and those who are succeeding in that industry are specialised people. They will not do anything crazy. This is a very cautious approach to this matter and the impression is given that we do not intend to do it all immediately. It would be better to ask the people who would like to import some coloured pigs for crossing purposes to help their business to come and talk about it. It would be better to tell them that so far as the Department are concerned no great obstacle will be put in their way. It is known in the Department and in the pig industry generally that this would be an advantage in certain instances.

A good job has been done in regard to pig breeding during the last ten or 15 years. We have good quality pigs. However, we should not rest on our laurels. Further improvement is possible and will continue to be possible.

In regard to the introduction of detention officers, this is normal and it is done by our competitors. Costs are important and the right type of staff in any industry is important. We must follow the example of processors in other countries and employ the type of people they employ so that matters can be equalised as far as possible. This is a sensible move and I cannot see any objection to it.

The Bill is to be welcomed. It does not go as far as I would like it to go. I should like the Minister to tell us whether he is enabled to include boneless beef, or what I would call brokendown beef, by regulation rather than having to come back with further legislation. My reading of the Bill is that he can include it. If that is so, he should indicate that he intends that this should be done as early as it is found possible, by making a real effort, to do so. We should give all the encouragement we can to having the maximum amount of our beef broken down here.

Deputy Bruton dealt with the various obstacles to the export of vacuum-packed and the portion type of trade. I was surprised at a number of happenings recently. Going back a year or so, there seemed to be only a couple of processors in trouble. Only couple of processors were complaining that things were against them at that time in relation to trade. We took up the case on their behalf and settled it after a few months. We did not settle it without a good deal of pressure. We settled it at the price-fixing time, when we had leverage, even though we were promised it months earlier. Deputy Bruton was correct in saying that you lose your bargaining power and put the day off when you can really put pressure on. There is a great deal of serious trouble in this type of business at present. I am afraid it will take quite a long time to settle this matter and to get canned and cooked meats included and also chilled and frozen meats.

I am pleased that it was possible to get the co-efficients changed somewhat, and that did bring some benefits. Some years ago it was settled that there should be no change in the co-efficients in the middle of the year or between price-fixing times. This was done on one occasion and it caused a lot of trouble. We finally agreed that it would only be done at price-fixing time. There are various items which it does not apply to, such as frozen and chilled beef, and it does not cover canned and cooked meats. These are the areas in which jobs can be found here. As I said during Question Time recently, it is the first time in our history that we are sending beef to Kent for boning. That is a terrible shame for the Irish people: there is something terribly wrong about it in a country which has more than 100,000 people unemployed.

The Bill is a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough. I am sorry it was not introduced sooner, as it should have been. The type of classification to be used was decided upon at least three years ago. At that time the system was tried out in a few processing centres and agreed, but there was resistance to it for other reasons. I am glad that the resistance has been broken down and that it has been found possible to introduce the scheme.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hussey)

: I thank Deputies Bruton, Clinton and E. Collins for their constructive contributions to the Bill. It is generally accepted that the measures proposed in the Bill are very necessary having regard to the changing circumstances in the meat market. The legislation which this Bill proposes to change was framed many years ago and it has served us very well. We all realise that the maintenance of high standards is essential if we are to hold a fair share of the export market. It is essential to ensure that the meat we sell abroad is of the highest quality, not alone for the farmers and the people involved in the industry but for the country in general, and this Bill goes some of the way towards ensuring that this is so. I am glad the three Deputies opposite, who have considerable experience in the trade, have given the Bill a favourable reception.

The Deputies raised a number of points and I will try to answer them as briefly as I can. If there are other problems in relation to the Bill they can be sorted out on Committee Stage. Deputy Bruton asked for a detailed description of the beef classification scheme. We all want to ensure that the scheme will be workable. Anybody who visited the Spring Show could see a clear illustration of how the scheme works. The regulations have not yet been drafted. The draft will include detailed definitions. The trade, the farmers' organisations and CBF will be consulted during the drafting. I want to emphasise that we all want to ensure that the scheme will be workable. That is way it is essential that all those concerned with the industry are consulted.

Mr. Bruton

: When will the regulations be circulated for consultation?

Mr. Hussey

: In a few months. Deputy Bruton asked also why we had seven classes and not six as in Europe. The answer is that the European scheme is matched by their type of animals whereas our seven classes cover the broader range of Irish animals. Of course, it would be incorrect to assume that all of our classifications are suitable for the export market; a number are not because they would be too fat.

With regard to the French scheme mentioned by Deputy Bruton also, as far as I am aware the French tried to get the other member countries on the Continent to accept their scheme but they did not succeed in achieving that aim. Until there is a common EEC scheme we must cover all our types of animals.

Deputy Bruton spoke also of the different standards operated by different officials. I might tell him that those operators will be specially trained for the job and there will be area supervisors. The Deputy also requested some specific information on training programmes and so on but this cannot be given at this stage because the Bill is only an enabling one. Deputy Bruton asked about the cost of the scheme.

Mr. Bruton

: If we are to have the regulations within a few months surely the training would need to be under way almost immediately, or when is it going to be initiated?

Mr. Hussey

: We are at present recruiting staff. The regulations will come into operation immediately but it is not necessary to have this staff trained immediately. That can be done towards the end of the year. The cost of the scheme will be £150,000 per annum. Ninety five per cent of this will be for salaries and travelling and five per cent for equipment. Again, subject to the enactment of this Bill the scheme will be brought into operation early next year, which was another point raised by Deputy Bruton.

As regards the question of coloured pigs, there is no demand at present for the importation of non-white pigs. We have to ensure that such would not damage the predominant strains which, in turn, could damage our bacon industry. This is something of which we must be very careful. The introduction of a new strain warrants careful examination not only in regard to its attributes but also its effect on cross-breeding and to the element of disease risk in regard to the areas from which imports might be arranged. This is something we must also monitor very carefully. As Deputy Bruton pointed out, if it should be found necessary at any time or for any purpose to import that kind of animal, it is important that the Minister should have the power to do so. That is what this Bill enables him to do.

With regard to factory fees, I am not aware that factories have any liquidity problems. The fees are not so large as to cause any factory to borrow. During his negotiations in Brussels the Minister raised the question of the frozen beef co-efficient at the prices negotiated. The case for frozen beef is not a clear-cut one nor is it identical to the case for chilled beef. The pattern of our trade in frozen beef is to countries where the MCA represents a charge and not a subsidy. I understand that Deputy Bruton has tabled a question about this subject and perhaps it would be possible to have more information given at that time.

Deputy E. Collins raised some questions in respect of classification. He was concerned particularly about when classification would take place. Classification will be carried out after carcases have been trimmed to standardised dressing specifications agreed between the factories and the farmers. An agreed dressing specification is at present in operation in all factories.

Regarding classification officers— another point raised by Deputy E. Collins—these will be people drawn from one of the agricultural officer grades. They will not be drawn from the recruitment grade but rather from one of the promotion grades and, therefore will be experienced and responsible officers. The duty of the classification officer will be completely different from that of the detention officer so that there will be no merging of the jobs in that operation. Deputy Collins also mentioned the possibility of classification of sheep meat. As Deputies know, there is nothing in this Bill about classification of sheep carcases. That would be an entirely separate matter and I dare say will come in its own time.

Mr. Bruton

: Would it be possible under the Bill?

Mr. Hussey

: Yes, it is possible under the Bill.

Mr. Bruton

: For example, it could be goats meat or anything.

Mr. Hussey

: That is correct. In fact, Deputy Clinton mentioned that in his contribution. Fresh meat is defined in the 1930 Act as meaning and including beef, veal, pork, mutton, horse flesh and goat flesh. Therefore, any of those can be included.

Mr. Bruton

: When will we have a classification scheme for goat meat?

Mr. Hussey

: Classification could be extended, by regulation, to all of these as the market demands. Therefore, if there is the demand we can arrange to bring in the goats as well. Deputy Clinton wanted the classification scheme extended to vacuum-packed meat. I referred to that in the course of my introductory remarks when I said:

Deputies will observe that the scheme will relate to beef carcases and not to boneless beef. This is because, at the carcase stage, differences in conformation and fat cover will be readily apparent to the trained eye and overseas customers can contract with confidence on the basis of classification. Boneless beef on the other hand introduces other elements, such as butchering skill and the degree of fat trimming which a customer might prefer to judge for himself. We do not thereby mean to suggest that we should concentrate on the export of carcase beef. Far from it. Indeed we look forward to seeing a major increase in exports of vacuum-packed boneless beef in consequence of the big improvement in the MCA co-efficient which was secured as part of the recent price package.

I think that is covered in that passage. I had mentioned the classification of other meats, one of the points made by Deputy Clinton. It would not require an amendment of the Act. It could be covered by regulations. Of course, this could be watched when we get adequate experience of the operation of the carcase classification. I think that covers as briefly as I can all the points made by Deputies and I thank them for their contributions to this debate.

Mr. Bruton

: Will the Minister consider between now and Committee Stage the possibility of introducing an amendment to allow these regulations which are going to be made to be debated here in the House? It is important that they should be, and I ask him at least to consider that possibility as at present they will not necessarily be debated.

Mr. Hussey

: I understand that they will be very detailed, but we will look into it.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 6 June 1978.

Business suspended at 6.42 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.