Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 8

Animal Remedies Bill, 1993: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Ferris

When the debate adjourned I was saying that nobody would condone the actions of some people in using angel dust and I accused them of being guilty of second degree murder. If illegal organisations use angel dust in order to raise funds and farmers continue to use it, we have a double enemy. Enhanced powers of enforcement for the Garda and officers of Customs and Excise to deal with the misuse of regulated remedies are essential in order to protect the excellent reputation of Irish meat and food products at home and abroad. If our image becomes one of having diseased or contaminated food it will do irreparable damage to our reputation which we have spent much public money in promoting overseas.

I welcome the provisions for stiffer penalties for persons found to have imported, sold or administered the growth promoting substance regulated by this Bill. It is a matter of grave concern that residues of animal remedies should remain in meat products. Angel dust is a highly dangerous animal growth promoter. The hormone in the substance can cause heart attacks if taken in sufficient quantities. There is evidence to suggest that a high intake of angel dust by a pregnant woman can result in permanent damage to the foetus. Hormonal imbalance caused by eating meat contaminated by growth promoters has caused premature adolescence in children elsewhere in Europe.

Administering angel dust to a beast reduces the natural fat content and enhances lean meat or muscle, which is why farmers use the product. They see fast profits from it. Farmers who do not use growth promoters and who return their cattle to the same mart for sale can identify the farmers who use angel dust. When it comes to selling a product reared on the best grass in Europe as against the product reared on angel dust, they are not even in the market. It is a disgrace that there is a network of distributors of angel dust throughout the country and that there has been for a number of years, despite successive Ministers' efforts in this regard. It is time we addressed this scandal.

I am disappointed that in my county people living in the heart of the Golden Vale should resort to this drug. In 1990 the Minister for Agriculture appointed a task force to monitor incidents of positive testing for angel dust. By April 1991 only 97 herds had been tested out of a total of 150,000 herds. That gives an idea of the extent of the problem. More than 10 per cent of the herds sampled tested positive for illegal substances at that time. That is an indication that this Bill, while necessary, is almost too late.

The legal back-up which will be given to Department officials to search for and confiscate angel dust is necessary. I commend this Bill to the House on behalf of all of us who are interested in promoting our food products at home and abroad. Any action we can take to protect our good image will benefit future producers. The powers the Minister requires should be made readily available by this House. We should publicise the fact that we are out to get these criminals who damage the health of humans and animals. We also want to get the people who use this product to gain illicit funding for illicit operations. I would ask the Minister to be vigilant in operating the new regulations. I would ask the courts to impose the maximum possible penalties. If the penalties are severe enough, as they were in the past with regard to the use of antibiotics in cheese products and so on, it will hurt producers in their pocket, where it hurts most. Only then will there be some movement away from the use of these products and towards living within the normal requirements of natural production of some of the best quality food in the world, of which we should be very proud.

Mr. Boylan

I wish to share my time with Deputies Crawford and Connaughton. I am glad of the opportunity to support this Bill. My only doubts relate to whether or not it goes far enough and whether or not we will implement it.

It is regrettable that a minority of farmers are prepared to damage the good name we have achieved with regard to food products. This minority are not farmers in the strictest sense of the word. They are commercial enterprises who are simply there for profit and the consequences do not enter into their minds. These people are quite well known in many cases. It is known who they are and from where they operate. They are known in the Department and in the meat factories. When cattle are being booked into meat factories the question asked by meat factory owners is if the cattle are being fed on dust, and if they are they fetch a higher premium. There is no doubt about that. If cattle are not being fed on dust the factories are not interested in some cases or else they pay a lower premium. That is how these cattle are getting through the system.

My doubts about the legislation and about implementing it arise from a question I put to the Minister almost two years ago on Thursday, 4 July, 1991 as follows:

To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he has satisfied himself that the inspection and testing of carcases at abattoirs and meat factories is adequate to detect the use of substances such as angel dust and/or jungle juice in the production of beef by some large scale beef producers in this country; if not, whether he intends introducing new legislation; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

In reply the Minister said:

I am satisfied that the testing regime in place at meat factories and the powers available to veterinary inspectors to detain and sample suspect animals and carcases are adequate to detect illegal usage of growth promoting substances and to ensure that meat containing such residues does not enter the food chain.

If that was the case the problem should have been eliminated. It is not the case and these people are getting their cattle through the system. Somebody somewhere is not doing his job. About 95 per cent of farmers are honest, decent, law-abiding people and far too often for minor offences they are treated as criminals. This is a major offence by people who are highly involved in producing bulk meat, irrespective of quality. The question must be asked as to how they can get through the system. At the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry we learned that officials were not doing their job and turned a blind eye to what was happening — it is probable that there was money on offer. This was only a small number of people but they were in key positions. There are excellent diligent and conscientious officials who were troubled by what they saw happening but when they brought it to attention they were demoted. Both I and the Minister know that for a fact and nobody need deny it. While that is happening this problem will continue.

Ireland has a name for quality meat which is produced on grass or silage without any additives and there is a market for it. We are talking principally about food products. In the dairy world we made a household name of an Irish brand called Kerrygold where we could not supply the market because of the huge demand. That market can be damaged by unscrupulous people who produce low quality meat. One meat factory owner told me that carcases treated with angel dust or jungle juice when put into cold storage would not set but turned into a rotten slime. We saw evidence of that at the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry. When an animal falls ill it has to be treated and must be retained for a certain period. Sometimes, animals are fed in the morning and sent to the factory in the evening. The Minister has the support of my party and that of every decent honest farmer in Ireland in ridding the system of those people. This would result in a levelling of the playing field and everybody would be given a fairer opportunity to compete in the market place. We have proved that there will be a market. All the experts said that farmers would have to be prepared to accept lower prices but the markets have opened up. I assure the Minister of my wholehearted support and that of the farmers I represent in Cavan-Monaghan.

Mr. Crawford

I too would like to lend my support to this Bill. It is sad that we need it because we had all hoped that the people involved in the use of illegal substances would have been brought to justice long ago. I want to emphasise that we do not want to see ordinary small farmers or small time operators being used as scapegoats for the real criminals in this business. There is a danger that the powers that be will find it much easier to go after the ordinary farmer who has been misled into using this substance and that he may be portrayed as the real criminal. I do not condone any person who uses this substance but we must ensure that we go after the real criminals, those who hope to make huge sums of money by whatever means and regardless of their long term interests, which are definitely not the Irish farmer, the food chain or the economy as a whole.

As one who has been involved in meat promotion for some years I realise how damaging a discussion such as this can be as it can be used against us by our competitors. For once and for all we must take this issue seriously and ensure we do not find ourselves in the same position as the Belgians and others who had bans on all these substances many years ago and who are still openly flaunting the use of growth promoters of the worst kind. This could easily be seen when one walked into a cattle market and lifted up an animal's tail. These growth promoters were being used under the direct eye of the European Commission so they know how difficult it was to put a ban into operation.

The real danger is to the ordinary commercial farmer who wants to do his job properly and remain in business. The fact that some people have been allowed to use growth promoters, angel dust etc., has meant an increase in carcase weight. This has come about because proper action was not taken by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and it has meant that the European Commission has decided to introduce a carcase weight limit. Commissioner MacSharry actually agreed to introduce a 340 kilo weight limit. This means that those genuine livestock farmers who are trying to upgrade their herds to continental standards and want a good carcase weight and good quality for our European markets — which are becoming more important on a daily basis because of the curtailment of intervention and third country export refunds — are being asked to bear the burden of the carcase restrictions, partly because we failed to curtail the use of illegal growth promoters and other substances.

I commend the Minister for his belated action in ensuring that this matter is properly handled. I assure him I will both publicly and privately give him all the support necessary to ensure that these people, be they subversives or otherwise, are brought to justice. I emphasise that I do not want the ordinary small operator made a scapegoat to justify the actions of the Minister and the Government and that the real criminals must be pursued.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the Bill so far as it goes. From my previous experience I should say that everybody in Agriculture House is firmly resolved to stamp out this practice in so far as it is possible. I have one major reservation about this Bill which will be the main plank of my contribution.

I should like to refer first to the overall scene. I do not think the farmers, the processors or the marketeers of the agricultural community fully understand what will hit us during the next couple of years. Intervention was the system into which we put 80 per cent of our steer beef. It is the avowed intention of the EC that intervention will be phased out. We experienced much difficulty in selling one quarter of our produce direct to the supermarket shelves in Europe; in fact we were not able to do it. What type of difficulties will we face if we have to sell four, five and six times that amount of produce because we will not have the crutch of intervention? Suddenly it becomes a huge selling task. I do not have to inform the House that the environmental lobby is like a huge roller coaster not alone throughout Europe but throughout the world. Everybody is more concerned about the air they breathe and the water they drink. There is no reason to believe they will not be just as conscious about the meat they will eat. I am concerned that there appears to be some sympathy for a point of view that there is nothing wrong with natural growth promoters.

My two colleagues who have spoken extremely well came to the central point, which is whether we have the technology to identify drug residues in a carcase. I do not think so. Many years ago the creamery industry used milk that was contaminated with antibiotics, penicillin and intra-mammary injection residues. Then a system of inspection was adopted so that the milk could be analysed. Before we knew where we were the processors were saying that the farmers were giving them substandard milk and the milk was sent back to the producer. The same thing happened in regard to brucellosis. A milk ring test was introduced and farmers could be notified a few weeks later if there was something wrong with their herd and it would be tested.

When I was Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry in 1986-87 I asked the veterinary inspector if he had the technology to detect in a carcase the fact that angel dust had been fed to an animal at any time during its life. I was told that the technology to do this did not exist at that time but that it was being perfected. I suggest that that technology is not there now. If an animal gets a does of angel dust a week or two or even three weeks before it is presented for slaughter there is no problem in detecting it in the system then. What I want to know is if it could be detected if the animal had been dosed six months or ten or 12 months previously. I suggest that the technology to do that is not available yet because if it was we would know that a carcase was contaminated. We might not know who fed the angel dust to the animal but we would certainly know who got the money for the animal.

That is entirely different from the checks and balances included in this Bill. They are good and I will go along with them as an effort to cut out the middlemen. I have a horror of the intervention of the subversives. Angel dust is available not only in dust form but in liquid and tablet form. There is no place for anybody who injects or contaminates animals with this kind of terrible substance except behind bars. I am long enough in the tooth, and so is the Minister, to know that if there is money to be made unscrupulous people will get involved. The only thing that will stop them is the knowledge that if their animal is caught with the illegal substance they are very likely to be taken to court and put behind bars.

It is my view that nine out of ten of the small percentage of people involved in this illegal practice genuinely believe that they cannot be caught. If they thought they could be caught they would not be involved. The stakes are high and that is why they are involved. Everyone would agree with giving the Garda greater powers of access to farms and with trebling or quadrupling the fines. I will accept that, because my opposition to the trade in angel dust is unqualified. However, if it is not possible to identify residues in the carcase this Bill will fail.

There are many other aspects of this Bill that I would like to address but what I have just said is the central one. If we cannot get over the problem of technology we will be back here in a few years looking for new powers for the Garda.

My final point, which I must make quickly lest the Chair rules me out of order, is to ask the Minister of State to give more assistance to farmers in filling in the area aid application forms between now and 14 May. There is murder in the country and there will be huge problems. Let me leave the Minister with that pleasant thought.

Miss Coughlan

I am glad my colleague got in that parting shot. He will get a lot of support from everybody here. Some of us do not have the time to do a degree in agricultural science in order to fill in forms. I welcome this Bill. I appreciate the opportunity Members of the House have to express their abhorrence at the misuse of animal remedies, mainly angel dust, by some farmers for their own short term financial gain. This is to the detriment of the long-term potential of farming, both here and abroad.

We in Ireland are very proud of our image of green fields, fresh air, clear lakes and streams, and we have used those images to pomote Irish produce as being of very high quality, wholesome and naturally produced. Why spoil that image? Given our peripheral location in Europe and the formidable task that is facing the food industry post-CAP reform and GATT, we must target the quality segment of the world market. To this end assurance of quality of a product from farm to retail outlet is a key factor.

I agree with my colleagues opposite about the soft touch of intervention. This is going to be removed and we will have to wake up and fight against some of the big world names, particularly the New Zealanders, and do our best to promote our own produce and corner that market niche. I hope this Bill will help that aim.

It must be recognised that the consumers dictate to the market and they want hormone-free produce. I wish producers would listen to them. The beef industry has had adverse publicity in this country and in Europe in recent times. If we can guarantee the exclusion of prohibited substances, as CBF are trying to do at the moment in the beef quality assurance scheme, it will go a long way towards allaying consumer concerns.

It would be wrong of me and of people in this House to give the impression that the majority of farmers condone the use of illegal substances. This would be an unfair assumption, I know the majority of farmers are concerned about the quality of their produce and that they work within the law but we cannot allow a minority of people to ruin the reputation of the livestock and meat industry. I know there is a train of thought in some farming circles that natural hormones should be reintroduced and legalised which would, perhaps, reverse the trend of the black market sourcing of growth promoters. This is a nonsensical argument. It has been expressed to me on occasions in County Donegal because some farmers feel that people abroad get away with using growth promoters.

I listened with concern to what my colleagues said in relation to the fact that within European countries, even though it is known that growth promoters have been used, it is very difficult to do anything about it. Some Irish farmers feel it is difficult to compete with that unfair competition abroad. However, we should not take that reason into account. As a result of the changes in relation to carcase weights, tighter controls in relation to the movement of cattle and the proposed cattle register, responsibility will revert to the source of the meat.

In his speech on Tuesday the Minister indicated that the European Commission has issued a discussion document on the use of hormones in livestock production. If accepted, as it should be, it will ensure a common approach within the Community in relation to the use of hormones.

I wish to refer to one or two sections of the Bill in particular. The Minister proposes to increase the membership of the consultative committee which will advise and assist him in making regulations under the Bill. Perhaps he might consider appointing consumer representatives to get an input from all interested parties.

Section 7 is important and relates to implied conditions in certain contracts of sale. I realise there are reservations in relation to this but responsibility must revert to the farmer. I hope this will be a deterrent to the use of illegal substances.

The Bill also increases substantially the powers of authorised officers. Deputy Dukes expressed concern regarding the extent of these powers. Given the serious nature of the problem these powers are necessary and will, in fact, be needed only if there is a serious misdemeanour. Too often we introduce legislation that does not give sufficient powers to deal with dangerous and difficult circumstances. There is then an outcry when action has not been taken by the relevant Department. As we are dealing with a drugs problem similar to the problem pertaining to illegal cannabis, heroin, etc., I am glad that a tough line will be taken, as provided for in section 11 of the Bill. This section is similar to the provisions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, 1977.

I have spoken almost exclusively of the use of illegal substances by farmers and producer responsibility but resources will also have to be put into preventing the manufacture and sale of such substances. In particular, there should be closer co-operation with our neighbouring authorities. This is imperative given that subversives and drug barons are responsible for supplying drugs, especially angel dust. As a representative of a Border county I hope there will be close co-operation between the Northern Ireland and Irish authorities in this regard. Close co-operation between the farmer, the factory and the Department inspector will also help in breaking the drug rings and, I hope, halt the availability of illegal substances. The increased penalties under section 24 of the Bill and the threat of disqualification from farming, cattle dealing etc., will be an expensive lesson for those found using illegal substances. Regardless of size, farmers would not like to receive a fine of £25,000 or a threat by the courts to remove their livelihood. This section is a strong signal to the farmer and to the courts in particular that we take this problem seriously.

This comprehensive legislation is needed to consolidate former legislation and regulations and to give the necessary powers to deal with a self-defeatist exercise by some farmers. We depend on our food industry for jobs and for the safety of the consumer and I hope the introduction of this Bill will help to stamp out illegal activities.

I know there is tremendous support for this Bill within the House, many farming and consumer organisations also support it. I hope, given adequate resources and the proposed extensive powers to authorised persons that we will clamp down on the use of such illegal substances and their availability. It is a difficult task but not an insurmountable one. If we are to grow and develop as an agricultural country and compete with world producers we must guarantee quality; it is only by working together that we can achieve that aim.

I commend this Bill to the House and hope that the livestock and meat industry will once again flourish. The consumption of meat has reduced in some parts of the world but I hope that with the promotion of a quality product we will increase consumption of meat. I listened attentively to Deputy Molloy when he said that farmers were almost doing themselves an injustice by making the consumer a vegetarian. I do not want to see that. I hope that meat consumption will increase and that the promotion of our quality product will be intensified given the stiff competition from other world producers. I want farms large, medium or small, to flourish. Like my colleagues I am aware of the problems of small farmers and it is unfair that they have to compete with unscrupulous farmers.

I hope the Minister will use the powers in this Bill to ensure that illegal activity is stamped out and that we will have a natural product. We should promote our green image to bring prosperity to the meat industry, the beef sector in particular, given the various scandals that have been associated with it, perhaps unfairly on many occasions over the past number of years. I hope that another Bill will not have to be introduced in this House and that the scandals associated with the industry, the backbone of our economy, will be forgotten.

I congratulate the Minister for bringing this Bill to fruition. As I have only spoken on agriculture matters at Question Time and on the Adjournment, I take this opportunity to wish the Minister well in his portfolio. I know he has farmers' interests at heart and that he will not be able to make very many changes because he will have to deal with a very strong farming lobby within the House, but I wish him every success. I hope this Bill will help the promotion of agriculture and the re-creation of jobs within the sector.

Mr. Sargent

Cuireann an Comhaontas Glas, the Green Party, fáilte mhór roimh an Bhille seo, Bille um Leigheasanna Ainmhithe, 1993, agus, is cinnte, tá anjab le déanamh ag feirmeoirí an lá atá inniu ann. Aithním é sin agus aithníonn an Comhaontas Glas é sin, agus tá anmheas agam ar a bhfuil á dhéanamh ag feirmeoirí. Cé nach feirmeoir mé féin tá gaolta agam atá ag dul don fheirmeoireacht i gContae na Mí agus i gContae Longfoirt. Tá cur amach áirithe agam ar chúrsaí feirmeoireachta dá bharr sin agus de bharr na suime ginearálta atá agam san fheirmeoireacht.

The Bill is very welcome as it contains necessary measures. The Title of the Bill refers to animal remedies, presumably it relates to non-domestic animals even though the thrust of the Bill relates to humans not only in regard to health factors but also in regard to profit and economics. Perhaps a Bill for animal and economic remedies might be a more apt title in some respects. As Deputies are aware, the background to the Bill has been greatly publicised and it relates largely to the beef industry and what is euphemistically called the use, or misuse, of angel dust.

I wish to refer to the effects of that substance on humans. In medicine there are a great deal of general remedies. They include what are known as beta-blockers or propandadol, which I understand is used by 1 to 2 per cent of the population, which is a large percentage from the medical point of view. The use of such substances would be very important in the treatment of asthma and blood pressure. The misuse of such a very dangerous substance as clenbuterol or angel dust acts against medical prescriptions and for that reason it is extremely dangerous. It has the effect of being a beta-agonist and results in, for example, increased agitation for people with asthma. It is also dangerous to women and unborn babies when taken during pregnancy. It has a severe and dangerous health implication which is being addressed in this Bill.

The effects of the misuse of that substance extend beyond the health area. The health of the beef industry is also at stake. There has been adverse publicity in that regard, some of it was warranted, but it has had the unwelcome effect of tarring with the same brush, many people who have nothing to hide. Profiteering by subversive organisations is completely unacceptable and must be addressed in relation to this Bill. Apart from the health effect there are many other effects which come within the remit of this Bill. This legislation which prohibits the use of angel dust is welcome.

I would question whether the title accurately reflects the intent of the Bill. The use of the word "remedy" suggests something that would make people better. I would question whether some of the substances covered can be properly considered to be remedies, for example, bovine somatotropin, a substance for increasing milk production. It may be a remedy for increasing milk yields but it is not a remedy for animals. I would question also whether a substance such as nuvan, used in fish farming, can be considered a remedy. It has a devastating effect on the eco-systems, particularly in some areas along the west coast. In the short term, that substance is intended to kill off lice on fish but it does much more damage. There are other substances which do not relate directly to farming covered in this Bill. I would like to know if the unlicensed substances used for putting down animals, for example, dogs, are covered under this Bill. I would question whether they could be called remedies. I would welcome the Minister's reply in regard to these matters.

The Government policy underlying this Bill is interesting. It has not been stated clearly but one can be read between the lines that the use of substances is often necessary, but we must control their use and ensure they are not misused. If the Government policy was adapted along more Green Party lines there would be less use for such alter ego substances and perhaps that would be beneficial both economically and in health terms. I recall that concern over the misuse of substances, not only angel dust but other substances, for example, chemicals used in animals, was often dismissed as hysteria. I am pleased that we are facing up to the reality that there is misuse and it must be tackled by legislation. I welcome that change.

I would ask that the Department take account of the alternatives to the use of such a large range of chemicals. For example, the use of such chemicals could be minimised and a more natural means of rearing animals could be adopted which would be cost effective and would not cause the stress which intensive agriculture often promotes to counteract the use of chemicals. It is also necessary to ensure that we supply high quality products on the international market and reduce the use of chemicals, or rule them out where possible. Even if we do not produce the same quantity but produce good quality we should not need to rely on intervention which has involved a huge cost to the EC in general and to Ireland also. The health benefits that would result must be measured also. They would not relate to the Minister's Department, they would relate more specifically to the Department of Health, but we should approach this matter in a holistic way. Savings in terms of health by a reduction in the use of chemicals, in farming or in general, would be offset by savings in the cost of dealing with sickness and disease. A recent study carried out in America dealt with drug induced sicknesses and the medical profession there now acknowledge that some prescribed drugs, instead of curing a disease, cause other problems. We should be conscious of the cost involved and realise that it is not helpful economically, ecologically or healthwise. A reduction in the use of chemicals would also be more humane to the animals involved and that aspect of the problem should not be overlooked.

I am disappointed that the Bill does not indicate a trend from a dependence on conventional drugs. The Bill refers to control and regulation, but that is merely fire brigade action. I would like to see more positive action in favour of homoeopathic remedies which do not involve the use of conventional drugs. It should be acknowledged that the rearing of animals can have a bearing on the use of chemicals in agriculture. The promotion of extensive, rather than intensive, agriculture would improve our international as well as our domestic trade. Intensive agriculture gives rise to animal sickness and hence more drug use. I ask the Minister to make some reference to agricultural methods in the Bill although they are not directly related to it. It should at least be acknowledged that more extensive agricultural methods would reduce our overall dependence on chemicals in animal farming.

The Bill refers to the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee but I would appreciate more detail in regard to representation on it. For example, consumer organisations should be represented so that the committee would have the benefit of a wide range of opinions which would be helpful to all concerned. Farming organisations, animal welfare groups and the people producing the substances should also be represented. There might be a temptation to include only representatives from the chemical industry as they would have a keen interest in being represented on such a committee. That is understandable, but in an overall context we should ensure that there is widespread representation on such a committee.

The Bill evokes a sense of the past because it does not deal with genetic engineering which will probably become more and more an issue in the future as the use of chemicals in agriculture becomes a thing of the past. In future the breeding of animals and crops will be based on genetic engineering and this area should be dealt with in legislation so that certain standards and conditions can be put in place. Progress in that area — I use the word "progress" with some hesitation — will include increased milk production which is guaranteed under genetic engineering. Tillage farming and aspects of agriculture dealing with animals will also be dictated by the boundaries of genetic engineering. Control in regard to genetic engineering appears to be covered in EC regulations and lack of independence from a national point of view is evident. Such control could be covered under the provisions of this Bill. The Dáil should have control in that area and the veterinary profession would like more involvement from an Irish point of view. It should be noted that genetic engineering often leads to widespread vivisection and animal experimentation. The method of production, as well as its effects on humans and animals, must be borne in mind.

The increased Garda powers provided for in the Bill are part of an overall scheme to deal with abuse of chemicals. Are those powers equal to those which the gardaí exercise in searching for armaments? The Animal Remedies Bill, to an extent, also relates to subversive activities. Searching for armaments and angel dust is similar in that the people who abuse those substances and their effect on human and animal health relate to profiteering and subversive activity.

The Minister should state the amount of funding which will be provided for implementing and monitoring the provisions of the Bill. By monitoring its provisions we will be aware of our success in solving the problem. Will an annual report in the form of an ongoing assessment of the success of this Bill, be published? Those are my main concerns from a Green Party point of view. I would welcome a reduction in the use of conventional drugs and a reduction in intensified agriculture, as that is intrinsically related to the use of chemicals in agriculture in general. Representation on the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee should be wide-ranging and there should be safeguards regarding the use of genetic engineering in agriculture. Will the Minister also refer to the Garda powers, the funding and monitoring of the provisions of the Bill and the publication of an annual report? I welcome the Bill, but would like more detail in regard to those areas so that the Bill would be holistic in its approach.

Dr. Upton

First, I will refer to the interesting and important point made by Deputy Sargent relating to the relevance of genetic engineering in agriculture.

Some aspects of genetic engineering, its use in animal production and so on are covered in the definition of "animal remedy" in section 1 of the Bill which may deal with some of the concerns expressed by Deputy Sargent.

The main reason for the introduction of this legislation is the use of angel dust as a means of enhancing the value of an animal by between £100 and £150. The Bill is welcome inasmuch as it will help to reduce the abuse of this drug in animal production. The term "angel dust" is something of a misnomer. It is a term that was used to describe a specific hallucinogenic drug used in human medicine during the fifties. The use of this drug as an anaesthetic was discontinued because of its undesirable side effects.

The term "angel dust" in the context of the Bill refers to a group of drugs known as beta-agonists. In simple terms, these drugs have the capacity to alter the composition of the carcase of an animal by directing the food towards the production of muscle and away from the production of fat. This improves the grading of the animal and adds to its value by approximately £100-£150.

The main beta-agonist used in this country is clenbuterol, whose effects are similar to those of adrenalin. There are between ten and 30 beta-agonists available on the market. A number of these are being tested extensively in laboratories throughout the world. Some of the major drug companies still hope it will be possible to have these beta-agonists legalised in some countries and put into the markets there. While the use of these drugs in animal production as repartitioning agents is legal in some countries, it has been made illegal in other countries where it was legal heretofore.

The value of these drugs in enhancing animal production only became apparent during the eighties. As I understand it, the first report on the value of these drugs as repartitioning agents for use in animal production was published by the American drug company Cyanamid in 1983. These drugs, which have been around for a long time, have been widely used in human medicine for the treatment of many disorders. They were developed for use in human medicine and it was only later that someone in the pharmaceutical industry realised that they could be used with great profit in animal production by changing the composition of the carcase of beef animals. The main driving force behind the use of these drugs in animal production is that they increase the value of the animals by changing the composition of the carcase. It is only in recent times that the Europeans realised that they were being used in animal production. In an effort to curb the use of these drugs it has been proposed that there should be a limit of 340 kilograms on the carcase weight of an animal. This is one way of getting on top of the enormous problems caused by these drugs.

As previous speakers said, many farmers have died while using this drug, which is particularly dangerous for people who suffer from heart and respiratory disorders. The people who died inhaled the dust into their lungs while dusting it onto animals feeds. The people who manufacture this drug have got around this problem by producing it in liquid form. This has the advantage of being less likely to poison the person who uses it.

I do not think that there can be any doubt about the widespread misuse of these drugs in this country. Anyone who analyses the data on the composition of carcases produced in this country will see clearly the sharp and distinct change in animal production after this drug became available. It has been said in the past by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry that the sharp changes in Irish beef production may have been due to new animal breeding methods. Anyone who knows anything about animal breeding knows full well that such sharp changes in animal composition cannot be brought about in such a short period of time. If the Minister consulted the technical people in his Department he would be put right on this immediately. I have no doubt that the significant change in the composition of the carcases of Irish beef is related to a large extent to the abuse of this drug. There is no other plausible explanation for this change.

I wish to refer further to the extent to which this drug has been abused. In 1981 the then Minister for Agriculture, Michael O'Kennedy, saw fit to summon factory executives to a private meeting in his office to warn them that his Department had information which showed some people in the beef industry were encouraging farmers to dust animals, which is the term used in the trade to describe the abuse of this drug. I welcome the Bill in so far as it recognises the extent of this problem. It marks a welcome change from the attitude adopted by the then Minister in January 1991 when he said that he had all the powers necessary to deal with this problem. I am glad the Minister recognises the major threat this drug poses to the beef industry and agriculture generally.

The manner in which angel dust has been abused illustrates a very Irish phenomenon. The use of angel dust has been condemned in the strongest possible terms by the Minister for Agriculure, Food and Forestry, farming leaders of all persuasions, departmental officials, agricultural scientists, veterinary experts and consumer representatives. Everyone who has spoken on this topic in public has condemned the use of this drug in the most vigorous manner possible. In spite of these warnings, this drug is still widely used. This tells us much about the Irish character and the significance attached to the quality of food produced in Ireland. I have also condemned the use of this material. I had my eyes opened when I met the parish priest in a certain area who told me that some of the people in his parish had heard me on the radio the day before and that I would be well advised to mind my own business instead of condemning the use of angel dust. He was very much in touch with his flock.

Mr. T. Foxe

Was he a farmer?

Dr. Upton

No, but many of his parishioners were. Many Deputies who have contributed to the debate have referred to the value of Irish products and the perception of the quality of Irish products in Europe. I suppose some people still have the perception that our products are produced in a healthy, wholesome, green environment. However, at the rate we are going and having regard to the commitment which seems to exist to destroy that image, we will soon get the message across to people in Europe as to what has actually been happening in this country.

This Bill goes as far as a Bill of this type can. We would be naive if we thought we could eliminate the abuse of these drugs through the introduction of legislation. The simple reality is that the forces which fuel the use of these drugs are much stronger than the capacity of any legislation to eliminate their use. We would be simple minded if we thought that anything we did or said would eliminate the use of these drugs as long as there is the incentive of an additional £100-£150 per animal to encourage people to use these drugs. The people who use these drugs are foolish and shortsighted. There are always people who will put short term gains before any long term considerations. We tend to continue that practice ad infinitum. Any of us who has doubts about the difficulties of controlling abuse of drugs need only look to their abuse in human medicines here and the enormous market obtaining for their illicit use in the case of human beings.

The Minister has his hands full endeavouring to deal with this problem because the small amounts of this drug being used, quantitatively, can wreak enormous changes. It is relatively easy to import a very small weight of drug, of enormous value presenting enormous challenges to the people endeavouring to police the importation and/or use of such illicit materials.

The provisions of this Bill are wide-ranging, particularly those allowing an authorised officer to enter premises and so on which are to be welcomed. These provisions should prove fruitful in curbing the abuse of this product. Anybody engaged in the beef industry should be able to make a fair guess at whether an animal has been treated with this drug based solely on the appearance of the animal, bearing in mind that it changes the composition of the body of the animal and the fact that subcutaneous fat is very low in such animals. This should allow somebody clued into animal production to make an educated guess at whether such animals have been treated with the drug. Anybody who works in a meat factory should be able to make a fair guess at whether animals have been treated because of the composition of the carcase and the colour of the meat, which tends to be dark and, when cooked, tends to be somewhat bland and tough, the reason being that the meat itself will contain a relatively small amount of fat. It will clearly be seen that, in many cases, the very appearance of the animals themselves gives the game away.

Within the past few days there has been much discussion about the implications of the GATT round of negotiations on food standards. There is an article in today's edition of The Irish Times and there were others in some of the British newspapers last week, indicating that pressure would be exerted on us by the Americans to lower our standards in relation to residues permissible in foodstuffs. I understand pressure will be exerted again to allow the use of hormones as an aid to animal production. We should resist any such pressure as vigorously as possible. The changes that will be brought about as a result of the GATT negotiations will open up enormous opportunities for this country in terms of producing wholesome food required by the European consumer. But if we continue in the manner we have been doing, we will wreck such opportunity and destroy the good image of our food products. We should endeavour to exploit our good image further.

There is considerable debate and scientific argument about the value of hormones in beef production but, in a sense that is quite irrelevant to what the consumer wants. What is relevant is what the consumer wants and the consumer simply does not like the use of such products. Whether they be good or bad, whether scientists expound their merits or demerits, is beside the point. The consumer is perfectly entitled to express his or her preference. It is rather like people having preferences about the colour of their clothing, or their choice of motor car or its colour. The consumer is perfectly entitled to have those prejudices which some people in the scientific world would argue have no scientific base. It would be a great pity if we lost sight of that reality.

In the course of this debate a number of Members spoke about the opportunities obtaining in Europe for Irish beef, the need to get our beef onto European markets and so on. The simple reality is that there are no brands of Irish beef which have any impact on European markets. In many ways, we are putting the cart before the horse in talking about such matters. We are selling such beef in the form of commodities, we are cutting the carcase down the middle, putting it into vacuum packs and toddling off to supermarkets in Europe to sell it. If we are to exploit such markets we must produce wholesome Irish brands.

That takes me to the recent report on food which had absolutely nothing to say about getting down to brass tacks in production and or marketing. When the provisions of this Bill are enacted, we shall simply not be able to exploit such market opportunities unless we can produce our own brands. In order to do so, it is absolutely essential beyond any doubt that we consolidate our food industry. Proposals to deal with that matter are conspicuous by their absence from that recent food report. Goodbody stockbrokers in their report on the dairying industry, spoke in terms of the need for £2 billionworth food companies to be established and developed. I am bewildered as to why the people who published that food report within the past few days did not address that fundamental, central question to the development of our food industry, in order to generate the type of brands which European consumers can identify and continue to purchase, knowing they are products produced in a healthy, wholesome environment free of contaminating chemicals.

The provisions of this Bill go as far as one could reasonably expect. I commend the Minister, his Departmental officials and others who prepared it. There is much more to the development of our food industry and to exploiting the potential of healthy, wholesome Irish beef than is contained in the provisions of this Bill. I hope we shall endeavour to exploit such possibilities in ensuing years. If we do not, the world will move away from us and we shall continue to lose great opportunities in European markets which would lead to the creation of jobs both in the food industry and farming sectors.

Mr. Clohessy

I wish to share my time with Deputy Tom Foxe.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Clohessy

I welcome this Bill and congratulate the Minister on the serious view he has taken of its provisions.

The provisions of the Bill outline a comprehensive approach to tackling recent problems experienced in relation to the usage of illegal animal growth promoters in cattle. There was considerable focus on the use of angel dust. There are other matters in relation to animal health highlighted by the provisions of this Bill. The gravest damage is being done to our beef industry by the use of illegal substances. Indeed the scandal of angel dust has been nothing short of a national disgrace. Frequently we witnessed the most terrible abuses, when the authorities within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry were almost helpless in preventing such criminal acts.

The use of illegal growth promoters is bordering on national sabotage. Our beef industry is being damaged not just here but worldwide. At a time when the image of our beef industry is already under severe scrutiny and the subject of a continuing tribunal, we must welcome the provisions of this Bill which will do much to restore our tarnished reputation.

We must examine the reasons people engage in such anti-national activity. Of course, there are short term financial gains for greedy individuals but the damage they do the nation is enormous, with long term implications. We are particularly vulnerable, being an island community dependent on exports for our economic survival. We are also dependent to a large degree on intervention. The challenge facing our beef and food industry must be to increase our marketing effort abroad. We cannot hope to be successful if our image is constantly damaged by a minority who continue to abuse angel dust.

The great challenge facing us is eloquently outlined by the fact that the European Community is self-sufficient in beef this year. There is now too much beef in storage, a problem which must be tackled. The difficulty was openly acknowledged by the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Rene Steichen, on a visit to the Kinsale Food Forum. He said that he would hold talks with Irish Ministers and officials in a bid to allay their fears. I welcome this commitment and commend the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry for adopting an innovative approach towards promoting the finest Irish foods.

I am glad to note that the definition in the 1956 Act of the animals to which this new Bill will apply has been broadened and extended to include all mammals, birds, fish, bees and any other animal whose produce is intended for human consumption. Therefore, this Bill will have a bearing on the future development of our food industry. The Minister's new plan aims to transform that industry into one of the most modern and vibrant in the world. I wish him well in this new undertaking but, unless we are serious about stamping out the use of angel dust and other abusive substances, we will start with an inbuilt disadvantage. We face severe competition in overseas markets and cannot afford to carry any self-imposed disadvantage.

I welcome the increased fines and prison terms to be imposed on those found guilty of offences under the Bill. Our resolve to end angel dust abuse must be backed up by the Garda and court action and I welcome the provision in this regard.

For the past three years the leader of Ireland's family butchers, Mr. Noel O'Connor from Limerick, has waged a one man war against those involved in the abuse of angel dust. He has stated the case for the beef industry on numerous occasions and was the first to propose a prison term for convicted offenders. He is convinced that Ireland produces the best beef in the world and I share that conviction.

We have a green, lush country with pure and natural resources and instead of destroying it through the abuse of some chemicals we need to build on the organic natural advantages our deep seas, rich land, clean water and fresh air provide. We cannot throw away the advantages of these scarce natural resources in a world where we are envied for the quality of our environment. We should let the world look on with envy and ask ourselves why we continue to shoot ourselves in the foot by abusing animal remedies. Make no mistake, the importance of the food chain is growing and consumers are becoming far more aware and educated about the way our food and food products are manufactured.

There is a gradual move towards a more healthy lifestyle and a drift from traditional outlooks which has serious implications for those who produce and market food products. We are all behind the Minister in the moves to develop new international markets for our food products but, for too long, the food industry has been the Cinderella of Irish manufacturing. This is about to change and I welcome that commitment. As a farmer who comes from the heart of the Golden Vale I know that the vast majority of people are shocked and horrified by the use of illegal growth promoters in the food chain, their concern is reflected by the provisions in the Bill.

I also welcome the increased powers proposed under the Bill for the Garda and the officers of the Customs and Excise. These include the powers to stop vehicles and to enter any land, premises or grounds where they suspect illegal activity. People will also be required to give relevant documentation to investigating officers and officials. Documents may also be requested if there is reason to believe that such material may be destroyed before a search warrant is obtained.

There are also new provisions which will allow gardaí to search and to arrest, without warrant, persons suspected of having committed a crime of this nature. While concern might be expressed by or on behalf of those who will see this proposal as too powerful a move, it must be remembered that very often gardaí are frustrated by inadequate legislation. Innocent people have nothing to fear, only criminals and subversives should be worried about the determined drive by the Garda to bring them to justice.

I am also pleased that offences are proposed in relation to corporate bodies. It is about time that such bodies were made fully aware that the law applies to them. Recent developments indicate that we are at last becoming more aware of the nature of corporate crime. There is no disguising the fact that the corporate sector is not immune from engaging in questionable activities. While such activities may not be criminal they are morally questionable at a time when the vast majority of our people are suffering from the dispiriting effects of a prolonged economic downturn.

In these difficult times there is a temptation to turn to questionable activities and the penalties must be severe, to prevent such developments. The provision in the Bill under which convicted offenders will be banned from re-entering the food trade is significant and welcome and should bring home the seriousness with which we view the matter. At stake is not just the reputation of the beef industry but that of the food sector while the green image we currently enjoy would be damaged forever.

We must view this Bill in a broad context and it will be of help in protecting our environment. Recent research shows that we lag behind our European partners in the protection of the environment — 82 per cent of all Europeans regard the task of protecting the environment as an urgent problem. Taking into account what I have said, especially the need to safeguard the image of our natural environment and food industry, I welcome the Bill and urge people to have a reasoned, rational and wide-ranging debate.

Mr. T. Foxe

I thank Deputy Clohessy for agreeing to share his time with me. This Bill is welcome and the Minister should be complimented for introducing it. It is vital that it proves a success.

Each year we export £1.25 billion worth of beef and cattle. In the past much of this was sold into intervention. In 1992, 750,000 tonnes of beef was sold into intervention but by 1997 this figure will be reduced to 350,000 tonnes. This means that we will have to find a market for an extra 400,000 tonnes of beef by that year. We already have our hands full in maintaining our current markets and it will be quite a problem to find a market for that extra 400,000 tonnes of beef. We need all the advantages we can get and can do without the disadvantages associated with beef produced with the aid of banned chemicals.

In the past it was considered acceptable in farming circles and by consumers to use certain chemicals in producing beef provided a period of between 60 to 70 days elapsed between the last dose and the date the animals were presented for slaughter. It does not matter one iota whether the chemicals are harmful to humans because if consumers are of the opinion that such chemicals are injurious to health they will not buy any meat which has been produced with the aid of banned chemicals. Lest anyone is in any doubt, three years ago we were exporting in the region of 120,000 cattle to Libya but we lost that market because it was their perception that some of our cattle were suffering from BSE, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, known colloquially as "mad cow disease".

The incidence of that disease was minimal, in the region of 20 animals were found with it and each one could be traced to having been imported or to having been fed with imported meal which contained sheep by-products. Because our customers thought our animals had this disease they no longer bought our product. If we continue to use banned chemicals, as sure as night follows day the same thing will happen to our beef trade to the European Community. There would be no uphill battle to find markets because there would be nobody to battle with. Consumers would not buy our products and the bottom would fall out completely from our export cattle and beef trade. In the midfifties — perhaps those who are old enough will remember — we had a very good lamb trade to the French market. Things were going very well but certain "get rich quick" people exported mountain ewes instead of lamb to the market. It did not take the French housewife very long to realise the difference between a chop from a Wicklow mountain ewe and a chop from a succulent well fed Roscommon lamb. We lost the lamb trade to Paris and for almost 14 years. We did not penetrate the French market for a 14-year period, during which every Irish sheep farmer paid very dearly for the sins of the few. The same will happen again if we do not stop the use of the banned chemicals by a few unscrupulous people.

If this is the case why do farmers continue to use those banned chemicals? It is for financial reasons. Farm income goes up and down and farmers will tell you that it is more down than up. Each animal treated with clenbuterol or angel dust is worth in the region of £100 to £150 extra at the factory. Stories are doing the rounds that factory managers and directors are advising farmers to use angel dust. That does not make sense, but rumours are circulating that factory managers are not only advising farmers to use angel dust but telling them where they can get these banned substances. We have a big fight on our hands if we are to overcome this.

I believe the IFA, the ICMSA and the United Farmers Association could do more to educate farmers, who must be educated not only on the damage they are doing to their trade and the country but also the fines they are liable to pay if they are caught. The fines are in place and people have come a cropper in the recent past. In some cases they suffered the forfeiture of their animals, which are worth in the region of £1,000 each. If farmers are advised on the possibility of being caught, and I imagine that after the enactment of this Bill the possibilities of being caught will be greater than heretofore, it would be extremely foolhardy of them to use those substances.

I discussed this topic with a very highly qualified person in the scientific field. I explained to him how I was told in the region of 50 per cent of farmers were using angel dust. He replied that this was not correct. He told me that it might be a different thing if I said that 50 per cent of the animals slaughtered had been treated with angel dust. There is a subtle difference. That leads one to believe that farmers with bigger feed lots are responsible for this. If we do not tackle the problem and find a solution to it, our beef exports and our economy will be in dire trouble.

I do not know of any tests that may be carried out to identify animals that have been treated with those chemicals. I understand that people who are used to handling cattle can make a good guess but it is a different matter to stand up in court and state this for definite. As we do not have such tests at present, further research must be done in identifying carcases that have been treated with these banned substances.

Deputy Upton referred earlier to the quality of Irish beef, but he said there was no point in having a high quality product unless it could be identified as a product of Irish origin. That stands to reason. I hope Deputy Upton, who now moves in Government circles, can bring his thinking to bear on the Minister, who no doubt will go along with it.

It is proposed that the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee will comprise of seven people while in the past there were five. The powers that be think that seven will be more representative and I go along with that. One member will be appointed by the Minister for Health and the other six will be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. They will have special interests in the manufacture, distribution, sale or use of animal remedies. However, there is no mention of a representative of the people who really matter — the consumers. I believe there should be a consumer representative. Needless to say manufacturers of the chemicals will be boosting their own product and it is fair to say, without being too critical of them, that they may be slightly blinded in one direction. I believe there should be a representative of the consumers on that body.

Mr. Flood

I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. As I represent an urban constituency I will bring into focus in a clear and practical way the concerns of the consumer in this regard. I do not think it can be stated often enough how important the meat industry is to the wellbeing of this country. Many contributors have referred to various aspects of the industry and how it has helped our economy to develop and expand and how this industry in times past has been instrumental in creating a very fine image of our food produce in foreign markets. I compliment the Minister for bringing this legislation forward at this time.

In recent times there was a number of highly publicised seizures of illegal growth promoters and pressure was put on the Minister to respond quickly with legislation. However, I am glad the Minister took his time in bringing together all the important issues that needed to be addressed in legislation rather than taking the more populist approach of rushing through legislation which might contain defects. I compliment the Minister and his officials on bringing forward comprehensive legislation which will make a significant contribution towards dealing with this serious problem in the meat industry.

Other countries frequently refer to their richness in natural resources, particularly mineral wealth. We are entitled to refer to our richness in food production resources. As other speakers indicated, we need to be more aggressive in this regard and to put the Irish name on products as we try to find new markets abroad. We should ensure that these products are of the highest standard, that is what this legislation seeks to address.

I will draw to the attention of the House two incidents that had a very serious effect on food and associated food products. Some years ago a certain imported tinned salmon product became contaminated. Consumers were extremely concerned about this matter and overnight its position on the Irish market was destroyed — I am sure the same happened in other markets abroad. I do not believe that product has ever recovered from such a major setback.

The same applied to a table water from France. The consumer, backed up by investigations into the product, became alarmed at what appeared to be a contaminated product and again the market here for that product was obliterated. At that time similar native products were coming on the market. The Irish producer has held that market since and is also developing export markets. These are practical examples of how the consumer, concerned at what it sees as a contaminated food product, reacts — by simply not buying the product. That is precisely what will happen in the meat industry if we do not come to grips with the illegal use of growth promoters.

Deputy Upton made the point that in his role as a public representative he met a priest who, when this matter was raised with him, told him to mind his own business. Another Deputy asked whether that priest was in the farming industry. If that individual or his parishoners are involved in the cattle industry and continue to use illegal growth promoters neither they nor their families will be in the industry for very long. Those who manufacture, sell and use illegal growth promoters are — I do not say this lightly — terrorists of the worst kind. They know where use of this product will lead, it will damage a most important sector of the economy and destroy the livelihoods of countless families.

Severe penalties must be imposed on those convicted for engaging in this activity. The Bill provides for fairly stiff penalties but I ask the Minister to consider in the future, perhaps on Committee Stage, the seizure of assets of those engaged in this illegal activity. I know there are constitutional difficulties but these matters need to be addressed. Those who engage in this activity should know that their illgotten financial gains will be taken away by the State, that the State will not simply impose a fine or a term of imprisonment. Any individual, manufacturing organisation, distributing group or individual, should suffer the gravest consequences, losing everything they own through the seizure of assets.

In the illicit drug trade, for example, it is generally accepted by experts in the area that the total number of seizures in any one year probably represents about 10 per cent of availability of the illegal drug. If the same criterion was applied to illegal growth promoters one would see there is a great amount of this illegal substance in the country. A number of Deputies brought to the attention of the House information, personal experience and local knowledge of this matter, which proves that we are faced with a grave problem in regard to the use of this product.

We all agree that the continued expansion of the agricultural sector is of vital national importance. The meat industry is one of the most important in that sector. In the past year one of the most talked about events in that industry was the Beef Tribunal. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will be happy to hear I will not go into that debate for a variety of reasons, one of which would be brought to my attention, but the reality is that the consumer knows that this industry is in serious trouble. The issue being addressed in this legislation is one more pointer to the consumer who will decide whether to eat meat and meat products.

From time to time there are reports of the seizure of illegal growth promoters. I am not an expert on the distribution of this product but I am told that in some cases it is sold from the backs of vans in public places such as those close to cattle marts. If that is denied I will accept it.

The Bill seeks to address this problem in its widest sense. If it succeeds it will make a major contribution towards reestablishing and enhancing our reputation as a clean producer of stable food and obviously will make its own contribution to the development of this industry, which must be above suspicion when it comes to producing hormone free and antibiotic free meat and meat products.

The consumer will play a significant role in the fight against the use of these substances. The Minister can introduce comprehensive legislation, ensure that it is effectively implemented and that he has the support of the statutory agencies, particularly the Garda, agricultural organisations and farm representative organisations but in the end, to be successful, he will need the support of the consumer. If consumers make it clear that they are becoming increasingly concerned about the reputation of this industry, producers will have to take note if they want to survive and prosper. The effectiveness of the legislation will depend on the Minister's ability to monitor the industry and to provide the necessary resources to make sure that the legislation is effective.

The Bill is in line with the EC Commission approach to food law. The legislation covers food labelling, flavours, additives, solvents and food nutritional use. Section 4 of this Bill requires that animal remedy containers should display the composition of the and should also appear in any advertisements for the remedy. For too long this was not done and the consumer suffered. Section 5 covers labelling, and false expectations are not conveyed. I am glad about this.

The veterinary profession have a major role to play in the implementation of this Bill. They are at the coal face in the production line. They are the profession who oversee the industry from the farm to the retail outlet. In this respect they are to some extent the guardians of the industry. The appointment of veterinary officers as authorised officers is essential. Will the Minister give careful consideration to this suggestion?

With regard to tests and analyses, it is essential to use a quick, reliable test. There is no point in discovering that a sample has proved positive a week after the meat has been distributed and sold. How will the Minister deal with this important aspect of the Bill?

How does the Minister expect to differentiate between natural and synthetic hormones under this Bill? I understand that they are both practically indistinguishable from the chemical point of view. It appears that the Minister is proposing the use of a different test in the event of a court challenge. I hope that when the various organisations involved are successful in bringing suspects before the courts, the case will not be thrown out because of a technical defect in producing the evidence, which would be very embarrassing. I know the Minister has the capacity and tenacity to ensure that this does not happen.

The powers granted to authorised officers might seem to be unconstitutional at first glance in that a search warrant might not be necessary. The reason for this provision is that the relevant material can be destroyed quite easily. If the Garda or other officers of the State wish to act, they must act quickly. The community will be prepared to accept the necessity for swift action and, therefore, will be prepared to go along with what appear to be fairly draconian powers.

Section 14 authorises the Garda to arrest, without warrant, persons suspected of having committed an offence. This too is a fairly draconian measure. We depend on the community to go along with it and not to criticise it.

The Bill is to be applauded. Its contents are wide-ranging and comprehensive. Evidently the Minister and his officials put a great deal of time into drawing up this Bill which will have a major impact on the meat industry. It will enable us to clean up the meat industry and retain the sort of industry of which we can be proud. I wish the Minister well and I call on other elements, in attempting to tackle this serious problem, to cooperate with the Minister, the Department and the Garda on this legislation. If we work together this problem can be successfully tackled.

Mr. Ellis

I, like other Members and all those involved in agriculture, welcome the Bill. It is comprehensive but the orders which will be made later are the most important items as far as this Bill is concerned.

The Bill aims to put an end to the abuse of angel dust, clenbuterol, jungle juice and other so-called cocktails which are very efficient in some cases in converting the muscle formation of animals and in others, in helping to remove the extra fat from animals in a very short period.

Hormones first became available here in the mid-seventies when we began to copy our compatriots in Europe who used them long before we entered the EC. At that stage we saw the unscrupulous side of this industry. Some people did not observe the regulations with regard to synthetic hormones and did not allow for the 60 day period between implants being put in place and the slaughter of animals. In some cases people decided, mid-way through the term, to double the dose. These things were commonly accepted. The net result was that people lost all sense of responsibility.

Those involved in the use of this substance felt they were quite justified in using it and that all that mattered was the end product. They forgot that this product had to face the consumer, who could well be affected by the consequences of their actions. At that stage the departmental tests were minimal. In some cases it is well known that the Department and some of their research institutes were involved in carrying out trials regarding the use and misuse of some of the drugs. The records will show that this was the position.

We progressed to the drugs of the eighties, namely, angel dust, the jungle juices and the other cocktails. These are the most lethal substances that can be administered by any farmer to livestock. Not only are they a danger to the health of consumers at a later stage but they are also a major source of danger to the people who administer them. None of us wants to identify persons but we all know people who died as a result of the use of angel dust without realising the consequences. We all sympathise with the families of those who suffered as a result of the use of it. What toll would it take on people who regularly consume meat that has been treated with this type of product?

We are all aware of the problems which were created for this country when the BSE scare took place and we saw the effect it had on our meat production. It took a long time to gain access to the markets we lost and we have regained access to them only in the past six months. If we were found to have further irregularities we could lose those markets again.

Farmers are not totally to blame. For many years those at the processing end were prepared to pay premiums for very lean and heavy carcases which gave enormous yields when it came to deboning for intervention. Perhaps because intervention was the final home for some of this beef they felt it was not unscrupulous to have hormones, angel dust and other substances used in the cattle. That is criminal because this is a consumer product that has to be consumed by somebody at some stage. The people involved in this trade have a lot to answer for. The effect it has had on the sales of red meat in this country and throughout Europe is frightening. I have heard people in restaurants and hotels who were eating fish or vegetable dishes ask on seeing somebody eat red meat whether it was angel dust free. That is frightening.

This is a comprehensive Bill but we also have to look at the use of farm drugs, pesticides and all the other substances used in day to day farming activities. Certain pesticides are semi-banned and there are problems in regard to farm drugs. I disagree with Deputy Flood when he said that these drugs are sold from the back of vans. Anybody who is aware of someone involved in such activities has a moral responsibility to make the local veterinary officers aware of it. Many legitimate van men have been affected because of regulations which have been introduced. The net result is that farmers who could buy generic products which were not dangerous for every day use are being forced to buy products which are two and three times more expensive. We must examine the proposed regulations regarding van sales and rather than put the smaller traders out of business the controls should be such that they are answerable at all times for the commodities they carry in their vans and which they hold in their stores 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. If that power were given to veterinary inspectors it would be sufficient to ensure that nobody took the risk of trying to deal in any of these banned products. I appeal to the Minister to consider carefully the regulations being made in regard to farm drugs and to ensure that those people who derive a livelihood from selling harmless drugs will not be gravely affected.

While we speak about angel dust and other products we should also look outside this country at other producers in the world market. In recent times it has been made clear that some non-EC countries are still allowing open use of some of the drugs and hormone products which have been banned. This is frightening when one considers that in some cases the EC is importing meat from some of those countries using hormones. That is a matter that should be fully investigated.

It is reputed that the use of hormones is prevalent in South America, in the large American feed lots and in some of the Eastern countries. When we see this we have a duty to look at our own house and to put it in order. We are in the market place trying to sell a quality product. If we cannot guarantee that it is residue free we cannot guarantee the quality of the product we are trying to sell. Therefore, we must be ever vigilant in regard to the product we sell.

People who use illegal growth promoters are deserving of the full rigours of the law. The law seeks to protect consumers and to protect the quality of our product and the image of Irish meat products in the market place. Some of our competitors are using every opportunity in the international media to highlight even the smallest case that arises in Ireland with regard to the use of hormones, despite the fact that it may have been two years since the event took place. We have to deal with these problems on the international front. In dealing with these situations let us not lose sight of the need to stamp out abuse of these products in Ireland. The abuses of which we are aware are frightening. If we allow this to continue we will shortly lose our reputation for producing a superior product. We will lose our reputation and we will lose our markets and that would be very serious for farmers.

Debate adjourned.