I am aware of that and I appreciate the Minister's acknowledgement. Everybody agrees that this is a welcome Bill. As we are an agricultural country very much involved in the meat business, it is essential that we maintain the highest standards possible in relation to the production, slaughtering, transport and marketing of this product. It is timely that this Bill should be before the House now for a variety of reasons. The public are much more conscious nowadays about the need for a high standard of hygiene in the slaughtering of animals. People are concerned, and what was permissible and acceptable 30 years ago is no longer acceptable.
If one had looked at a television programme during the summer one would have perceived one of the very real reasons for the introduction of this legislation at this time. In that programme people saw the kind of things that can happen, although legislation was already available whereby measures could be taken to ensure that high standards would prevail and would be seen to prevail. Notwithstanding all that, there were obviously areas where for one reason or another it was not possible to enforce the usual high standards and, as a result, unscrupulous people took advantage of that situation for their own selfish ends. Their activities as portrayed in that programme could do nothing to enhance our image as a meat producing country which applies high standards of hygiene. Neither could it help the peace of mind of consumers here or of possible customers abroad.
I should like to compliment the small family butcher who has given the Irish consumer a great service through the years. The consumer is usually on personal terms with the person from whom the meat is purchased. The average housewife knows her family butcher very well and if she is not satisfied she will quickly make her feelings known to him. Family butchers have always striven to achieve very high standards and it is to their credit that they have achieved that degree of rapport with their customers. I believe they will continue to give a great service.
Reference has been made to the different standards applicable to slaughterhouses providing meat for the home market and those supplying the export market. It is not really true that the home consumer has been getting second best. It is just that in many cases, and for obvious reasons, greater emphasis has been placed on the export market and probably this has been to the detriment of the home consumer. In order to ensure the highest possible volume of exports of the highest standard, second place was probably given to the home market in a number of areas, for instance, in the standards laid down and the availability of funding.
IDA grant-aid and FEOGA grant-aid is not available to the same extent to the individual who processes solely for the home market. This can have very serious effects on the ability of those people to provide themselves with the right environment to process a product to the standards now required. For instance, in relation to the disposal of offal or waste from a slaughterhouse, no grant-aid whatever is available if the plant caters only for the home market, despite the fact that its counterpart catering for the export market can have ready access to considerable amounts of grant aid. One of the downstream effects of this disparity is that there is not the same pressure to compete. Since the person catering for the home market was aware that he would not qualify for grant aid the impression was created that a lesser standard would do for the home market. That is quite wrong and quite misleading. The same standards must be applied everywhere. The problem was that the person running the small slaughterhouse had to become involved in heavy expenditure in order to meet the standards obtaining in the slaughterhouses catering for the export market. I know it can be said that a person who sets up in business should be expected to provide all the ancillary facilities at his own expense. I accept that point but it must be admitted that the exporter has a decided advantage.
I would ask the Minister to consider opening up the financial avenues to those catering for the home industry. If we are to apply standards which we all accept are necessary we should also understand and accept that the people who are to be asked to meet those standards should have access on an equal basis to the finances available to others. I accept that a great deal of extra expenditure will probably be entailed even within the ambit of this Bill in bringing up many premises to the standards required. We must not continue to treat the small slaughterhouse owner or processor in a fashion which is not helpful to the home industry. The Minister might consider making finance available to fund the provision of offal disposal facilities, sewerage facilities, etc. This is very important from the point of view of local authorities who often have recourse to legal action in these cases. If we set standards they should apply universally and the same financial aids should be available across the board.
The Bill proposes to introduce strict controls in relation to knackeries. The television programme to which I referred gave a very valuable insight into what goes on in some of those places. It is important to ensure that there is no possibility of dead or worn-out animals being conveyed to illegal slaughterhouses or knackeries. I do not want to give knackeries a bad name but the activities going on in some of these places, as outlined in the television programme, would certainly tend to create a very bad impression. We must be absolutely certain that, in no way, can any animal such as the kind ordinarily sent to a knackery find its way onto the domestic food market. Obviously the regulations obtaining heretofore were not sufficiently rigid to ensure that some very odd things did not happen. That was borne out also in the course of that food programme. In times of financial stringency people are inclined to go for what appears to be a good deal. But, from what we have observed, anything like a good deal emanating from those places was eroded by the health risks involved. Even a superficial inspection of the slaughtering arrangements would be a sufficient warning to anybody to keep well away from such places.
That leads me to the quality mark which is very important although it may be difficult enough to enforce. I think it was Deputy J. O'Keeffe who inquired whether it would be possible to apply a quality mark to each chop or steak. Of course, that is not possible. Once a slaughterhouse has been adapted to meet the high standards now required it should be possible to follow the product along the line through all its retail outlets. When there is any breach in the compliance with those standards, under the provisions of this Bill the relevant licence may be withdrawn. That stricture should extend to the retail outlets as well. The provisions of the Bill do not ensure that that would be the case in the sense in which I should like to see it obtain.
If the provisions of the Bill are to be successful then there must be a rigid check kept on the animal from the time of slaughter — obviously it will have been examined and deemed to be fit for slaughter anyway — through the transport process right to the retailer. Any housewife or consumer should be able to rest assured that the product they buy from a butcher represents part of an animal slaughtered under the highest possible standards and that the quality mark applies. They should be able to rest assured that any meat product sold at that retail outlet meets the standards laid down under that quality mark. The success or failure of the provisions of this Bill will be dependent on the ability to follow up any breach of those standards right along the line. If a difficulty or complaint arises following the purchase of meat at a retail outlet it should be possible to check right along the line to establish where the relevant animal had been slaughtered, whether that was done in compliance with the regulations. It will be seen that the quality mark will be of immense importance, provided that it applies to the slaughterhouse and all other outlets after slaughtering.
On the subject of the transportation of meat and meat products modern technology has led to the production of efficient freezer units readily adaptable to the transportation of fresh meat products even in extreme weather conditions. However, occasionally one observes methods or systems of transport that scarcely meet the relevant requirements. There can be the highest possible standards applicable at the slaughterhouse, at the retail outlets but, if the link in the chain between is not as good, the whole purpose of the provisions of the Bill is defeated. I would ask that particular attention be devoted to the transport of meat and meat products, ensuring that the same high standards apply in the course of transport.
The employment or involvement of veterinary inspectors is covered under the terms of the Bill also. They are at present involved in export outlets. I hope their involvement will not become administratively burdensome at a later stage. It constitutes an essential element of the Bill, ensuring that the highest possible standards are maintained, in turn assuring the consumer that the same standards prevail at the relevant slaughterhouses.
I welcome the proposal to issue permits prior to the adaptation of the various premises. That will afford any operator of a slaughterhouse sufficient time to modernise his premises, allowing for a smooth transition from the present to the new system. During the five year period within which owners of slaughterhouses will have to bring their premises up to the required standard there will be an obvious need for extra funding. There is no question of looking for handouts or anything like that. Rather it is a question of giving the slaughterhouses involved the same rights as those involved in the export market, thereby ensuring that the Irish consumer can be certain that investment in the application of high standards of production and hygiene apply equally to the sources of their products as to those for export.
Bearing in mind high technology and its relevance to the food industry it will be readily appreciated that very small outlets can now generate a considerable volume of business in offal and downstream meat products. Quite rightly that was the subject of some unfavourable comment in the media in the not too distant past. In this respect the manufacture, processing and handling of such products are important, as is a rigid inspection of what goes into them. It is most important that people be sure that the product they buy has not been contaminated in any way, that it has been subjected to the usually acceptable high standards of hygiene and production techniques so that they need have no health fears. However, I can recall a newspaper headline I read during the summer which suggested that people would be shocked if they knew some of the products utilised by way of animal by-products.
The local authorities will be responsible for implementing this legislation. That element of the proposal has negative and positive elements, the positive elements being that the local authorities know their country well so that they should be able to pinpoint, in a short space of time, all the slaughterhouses and knackeries within their administrative area and build up a relationship with the people involved over a number of years, thereby making it easier to monitor what happens in these places. On the negative side, I have to say that most of the legislation passed in this House which the local authorities have to implement usually has a sting in the tail; what appears to be a system intended to finance the local authority falls down after a few years, and the local authority finds itself implementing legislation that has nothing to do with it, and eventually grinding to a halt as a result of a plethora of legislation over which is has no control but has an obligation to implement and enforce. There are about 300 Acts local authorities have to implement in most cases with no recompense from the Exchequer. We all know the condition of the finances of most of our local authorities at present — I am not making a political point, I am stating a fact — and this position will not improve unless we do something about it.
I mentioned the use of the quality mark and the need to ensure that the same high standards apply right through from preslaughtering, through slaughtering, and on to the retail outlet. There is EC legislation on product liability which eventually will affect us all and that is another reason for rigidly applying the quality mark.
Section 13 as amended in the Seanad allows a representative to continue to operate for a period of two months or to the end of the year in the event of the death of the licence holder. That section might well be amended further, because the two-month period may not be sufficient to allow for the various administrative requirements to be met. It might be possible to extend the period. If the death of the principal occurred in February or March the licence would run to the end of the year but if it occurred in October there would only be two months grace to ensure that the licence was in order, that the premises met the standards required, etc. Therefore, it would be no harm if the Minister looked at that area again to see if it covers all eventualities. I am not so sure it does. It is a bit ambiguous; it could give an advantage in some cases and in other cases no advantage at all.
Relevant to the whole field of animal health is the question of knackeries and the disposal of offal. Animal health certainly did not feature very high in the priorities of some of the establishments shown on that famous television programme. The Bill will have a major impact in this area. Heretofore it was probably felt it was not necessary to apply very high standards in knackeries and maybe it was not but there are serious implications from the point of view of animal health and disease eradication. We have all heard stories about animals' ears disappearing, and we all know the reasons. In this area stricter regulations and stricter supervision could do a great deal to enhance the cause of animal health and disease eradication and that is made possible by this Bill. Standards of hygiene in the transportation of meat etc. is covered by the food hygiene regulations but I would still like to underscore the point I made earlier in relation to that.
The last point I want to make is that it seems to have become acceptable to transport animal offal, and some very distressing types of offal, in open trucks around the country. Perhaps things may change with the introduction of this legislation but this practice causes a great deal of disturbance and annoyance in many of the towns and villages through which these trucks travel. It is not at all uncommon when driving in one's motor car to be assailed by the most offensive odour, and one might find that the vehicle had passed through the village or town maybe half an hour or more before that. That may be all right in winter time but in summer time it can be extremely offensive. This should be dealt with. I understood that all such offal was supposed to be transported in covered vehicles. I understood that regulations made a few years ago would ensure that that took place, but it is not taking place, and the degree of offence created is aggravated in some cases by the blatant manner in which operators repeat offences with impunity. I would like to see more attention being given to this matter because there is no necessity for it in this day and age.
Section 18 provides that where an abattoir is considered by an authorised officer to pose a serious threat to public health he may, in writing, require its immediate closure and require that the slaughter of animals or the preparation of meat therein cease forthwith pending resolution of the offending matter. That will solve many of the problems. First, it will give the public an assurance that if standards are not being complied with and regulations are not being implemented in a slaughterhouse, the State has a right to move in, and quickly. Secondly, the public — and rightly so — will know that repeated violations of the regulations will not be to the advantage of the operator and this is important, acceptable and welcome.
In relation to the presence of residues and contaminants, here also is an area where home consumers as well as foreign consumers will know that the means of inspection and supervision are available to them which will ensure that the products arriving on their tables are absolutely free of contaminants or residues of any description. There should be no excuse for any violation of that sort nowadays. There is plenty of information available to everybody showing that a violation will result in action. It is only reasonable that we should set a very high standard at home as well as for the export market. Anything less than that would be an insult to our people. That important element in the Bill will have far reaching consequences and will do a great deal to enhance the whole meat industry.
People often refer to regulations as impediments to an industry. They are also a very important element of reassurance to the consumer who ultimately is the supporter of any industry. That being the case, any action taken to ensure that the consumer is assured at all times of the quality of the product must mean the continued production, sale and market outlets for the finished product, which is important.
I know other speakers are anxious to become involved in the debate. Perhaps the Minister might give me the chance to have a personal chat with him in relation to some of the other items which might need some modification. We may bring in some amendments — I am not sure of that — subject to discussion with the Minister.
