Vol. 422 No. 5
7 Mr. McCartan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will confirm (1) the date on which his Department first became aware of the contamination of cucumbers which led to recent illnesses among members of the public (2) the date on which the first public warning was issued (3) the reason for the delay and (4) if any prosecutions are planned from the recent incidents; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
29 Mr. Kavanagh asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will give details of the procedures used in his Department to monitor the quality and safety of fresh fruit and vegetables; if he has satisfied himself with the present arrangements; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 29 together. I appreciate the concern of Deputies who continue to raise the public health aspect of this matter. I want to say that the problem has been resolved satisfactorily by the Department. The cause and source of the contaminated cucumbers has been identified and appropriate action has been taken. It was an isolated incident and I am satisfied that Irish horticultural products coming on the market are, as they have always been, of the very highest quality. The regrettable incident has highlighted the importance for the utmost vigilance in terms of crop management. There was no avoidable delay within the Department in dealing with the complaint which was first received by the Department of Health.
On 25 May the pesticide unit in my Department was requested by the Dublin city analyst to take samples of cucumbers suspected of causing illnesses. As similar requests are received by the unit from time to time these cannot in themselves be taken as indicative of a widespread problem. These samples were received on the evening of 26 May and were tested for contamination by a range of pesticides. The results were conveyed to the Dublin city analyst on 27 May. No pesticide contamination had been identified at this stage. A joint statement from the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health was issued on 29 May. No prosecutions are being planned by my Department in relation to the recent incidents.
Quality standards for fresh fruit and vegetables are laid down by EC regulations. Inspections are carried out by officers of my Department at all stages of the marketing chain in order to ensure that the statutory standards are being observed.
Maximum permitted levels of pesticide residues in fresh fruit and vegetables are statutorily prescribed in the European Communities (Pesticide Residues) (Fruit and Vegetables) Regulations 1989, S.I. No. 105 of 1989. The maximum residue levels, fixed for the main range of pesticides sold for use on fruit and vegetable crops, are based on the results of detailed supervised residue trials. Full account is taken of the toxicological implications, and a strong emphasis is placed on safety factors for the consumer of the products.
The regulations apply to all produce on the market, whether home-produced or imported. In the event of an excess of pesticide residue being found, my Department have power to seize the produce or to restrict further sales from the same origin and/or to prosecute the person engaged in the sale. Department officials regularly inspect and take samples from consignments at wholesale and retail market levels. The results of testing over the years give no evidence of cause for concern about the safety to the consumer of fruit and vegetables.
Did the Minister state the date on which his Department first became aware of the incident and the date of the first public warning?
On the afternoon of 27 May the first reported suspicion of cucumber-related illnesses was received in the Department of Health. On 29 May it was apparent that the problem was widespread. We had received reports of approximately 30 cases in all. A joint warning was issued by the Departments of Health and Agriculture and Food on the evening of 29 May advising people, for health reasons, not to use cucumber.
Would the Minister agree that the Departments of Health and Agriculture and Food and the supermarkets who sold the product were slow to respond and reluctant to accept there was a problem despite the fact that in the iterim guinea pigs at the Department's laboratory died after being fed with the cucumber while the product remained on sale? Because of the time lag between 25 May and 28 May, the date of the public health warning, would the Minister agree there was a reluctance to issue that warning in this vitally important matter?
I do not agree that there was a reluctance in regard to issuing the public warning. The Deputy will appreciate that all these complaints had to be investigated. It must be remembered that the unit receives complaints on an ongoing basis in relation to health hazards in food. Therefore, the Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Health had to be extremely careful in relation to issuing a public statement which would have the inevitable effect of damaging the industry. No time was lost. The first complaint was received on 27 May so that we are talking about a time span of a little more than one day before it was clearly established that there was a health hazard and the consumer was advised not to use cucumber until the matter was resolved. It would not be fair to suggest that there was any undue delay.
While the Minister suggests there was not an undue delay in issuing the public health warning would he agree that when the announcement was made literally all Irish cucumber producers were put out of business for the sake of a group, who were not deliberately involved? The whole cucumber industry has been devastated as a result of this incident. What action will the Minister of State take to compensate the genuine people who were not involved in the scare and who are Irish producers of cucumbers?
It is true to say, as a result of what was necessary in the interest of the health of our people, that a public statement was issued jointly by the Departments of Agriculture and Food and Health which had the inevitable result of affecting the sale of cucumbers in this country. I should point out that public health was the first consideration. It had been reported to us that people were becoming ill. We acted as quickly as possible, we issued a statement which had the consequences which the Deputy has correctly identified. It is regrettable that one producer could put the entire horticultural industry at risk. I have met with representatives of the growers and I will continue to meet with them in relation to the matter which the Deputy has raised. It has to be accepted that the action we took was in the interests of public health. The problem was not created by the Department of Agriculture and Food but rather by a producer who acted irresponsibly, jeopardised his own fellow producers and put the whole industry at risk. We did not create the problem.
Deputy Ferris asked a very straight question. Will the producers who did not break the law be compensated for the huge losses they have suffered and are continuing to suffer because of the refusal of the public to buy cucumbers since this incident? Did the Minister really say that the person who broke the law by his over-use of pesticides will not be prosecuted? If that is the case surely the Minister is weakening the case of people who became ill taking civil action against that person or against the Department.
In reply to the Deputy's first question, I clearly indicated that the Department of Agriculture and Food did not create the problem. Therefore there is no legal obligation on the Department to pay compensation. I did, however, say that I have a lot of sympathy for the innocent producers who have been affected by this problem. It is for that reason that I agreed to meet with the representatives of the producers. I am not in a position to say whether compensation will or can be paid because there are legal complications and a wide variation of side issues which have to be taken into account. What I am saying is that I have met with the producers and will continue to do so for the purpose of resolving the matter, bearing in mind that there is no legal obligation on this Department to pay any compensation.
In reply to the second supplementary question asked by the Deputy, the reality is that under existing regulations it is not possible for the Department to issue prosecutions in terms of the offending party. The existing regulations do not extend that far. However, under new EC regulations, which will come into force in July 1992 under Directive 414, that loophole in the present regulations and legislation will be closed. In the meantime I have asked officials of the Department to seriously examine the present inadequacies in the regulations to see if we can close that loophole nationally because I am concerned that we would have a repetition between now and 12 months' time when the EC regulations will come into operation.
It is hard to believe those answers.
I understood the Minister to say that we had the power to withdraw produce from the market if it is a health hazard, which is basically what happened as a result of an announcement from the Minister's Department and the Department of Health. Likewise I would say that there are innocent people out there who suffered as a result of that joint announcement. I am pleased that the Minister met them and I will also keep in touch with the Minister directly to make sure that common justice is done.
8 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether the Government agreed to a 4.5 per cent reduction of the milk quota of every farmer without compensation for 1992.
The 4.5 per cent suspension of quota was prolonged for the current year in the context of the continuation on an interim basis of the existing milk quota system.
Final decisions on the future operation of the quota system are due to be taken before the end of this year and in that context the question of the future of the 4.5 per cent suspension will be dealt with.
Is the Minister aware that last week the Commissioner, Mr. MacSharry, confirmed that the Commission will be seeking the permanent suspension of Ireland's 4.5 per cent quota, temporarily frozen in 1987, and also that the Commission will refuse to pay compensation to the farmers affected?
Yes, I am so aware. It is our view that when the matter of the future of suspended quantities comes before the Council of Ministers they can only be decided when the Council agree to the reference quantities applying from 1 April next. There will be a total review of the milk quota regime in the context of the regime which will apply from 1 April next. At that stage I will be arguing at the Council of Ministers that producers have a legal entitlement to compensation for this year as temporary suspension remains in force this year. We will also seek to ensure that for the future the quantities temporarily suspended are not definitely lost.
Is it true that the Italians have been seeking an increase in their quota and are quite likely to get it?
That is the subject of another question.
It is true and they never applied it by the rules.
In view of the importance of the milk quota and the threatened reduction, can the Minister give an assurance that the Council of Ministers will be disposed to override Commissioner MacSharry's proposals? There will be absolute chaos if the quota is not maintained and compensation provided.
As I said already, I will be opposed to the Commission's proposal in relation to the 4.5 per cent suspension of milk quota.
Is the Minister aware that since 1983 the total reduction in the milk quota to all farmers, and particularly to small farmers, now stands at 9 per cent after all the talk we had about the redistribution of quota to small farmers? What does the Minister propose to do about that?
I am aware that that is the position. Since then we have had several redistribution schemes. Sadly, it is true that they have not worked very well. There is a major difficulty for smaller quota holders and new entrants to the milk quota system. We are endeavouring in every possible way we can to try to alleviate that problem through buy-out schemes and various other systems, but to date they have not worked very well.
Is Ireland's special priority status in the allocation of additional milk quota, agreed in the quota discussions of 1984, still in existence or is that status now handed over to the Italians, Spanish and Portuguese?
I have reminded the Commission and the President of the Council of Ministers on several occasions and I have read out the commitment given to Deputy Deasy on that occasion which has not been honoured since. I will continue to do that in the best interests of Irish dairy farmers.
And if necessary take it to the European Court?
