Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 30 Nov 1999

Vol. 511 No. 6

National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Second Stage (Resumed).

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

I am pleased to resume the Second Stage debate on this Bill. As I said in my opening remarks on 10 November, this is a crucially important Bill. Its purpose is to streamline and strengthen existing controls. It is directed at reassuring consumers regarding the safety of Irish beef and, in so doing, will also strengthen the commercial trading infrastructure for the beef sector as a whole. It is, in effect, a landmark Bill.

Beef is a multi-million pound industry which makes a substantial contribution to the economy. In 1998, for example, output from primary beef production, excluding direct payments, amounted to £1.1 billion, or just over 2 per cent of GNP. There are approximately 130,000 farmers engaged in beef production in Ireland and beef is the major enterprise in some 90,000 of these holdings. In addition, some 10,000 persons are employed in the processing sector and in associated industries at livestock marts, the butchering trade etc.

The maintenance and development of a strong, vibrant beef industry has been a matter of concern for all Governments over the years. At the beginning of 1996, the beef industry was in a strong position. Irish beef was commanding prices close to 90% of the EU price through the establishment of a strong presence on the higher margin European markets and reduced reliance on the lower margin third country markets. Confidence in the future of the industry was at a high. The advent of the BSE crisis in March 1996 changed all that.

Although Ireland has only a low and sporadic level of BSE cases, exports to EU and third country markets plummeted and some countries banned imports of Irish beef altogether. The prices realised by Irish beef producers fell to their lowest level in the EU and, equally important, the confidence of customers and consumers of Irish beef was seriously undermined. The crisis affected not only Irish beef, but the EU beef market as a whole. Urgent action was required and a number of initiatives were adopted at EU and national levels.

At EU level, the Commission reorganised and expanded its control and inspection services in the food, veterinary and plant health sectors. These functions are, of course, now the responsibility of Ireland's Mr. David Byrne, the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection. The Commission also established a number of scientific and advisory committees to assist it in the formulation of policies in this area. In addition, a rapid food alert system was put in place to provide early warning of food safety alerts. The overhaul of this system in the wake of the recent Belgium dioxin scare is one of the priorities for the new Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.

At national level, the Government established the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which is charged with protecting consumer health by ensuring that food produced in the State meets the highest standards of food hygiene and safety. One of the functions of the FSAI is to develop and co-ordinate an efficient food safety inspection service across the entire food chain to ensure consumer health is protected. For this purpose, the FSAI has concluded service contracts with a number of agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, for the delivery of food safety services in their areas of responsibility.

More specifically in relation to the beef sector, the regulations on animal identification and movements were strengthened. At national level, there was a commitment in Partnership 2000 to develop a national beef assurance scheme to promote the safety of Irish beef, a central element of which would be the provision of a comprehensive animal identification and tracing system.

While the situation for Irish beef has improved considerably since mid-1996, and while many markets which had been closed to us have been reopened, a number remain closed or partially closed to Irish beef. There has also been a high level of renationalisation within the major EU markets. In addition, the climate for food production has changed dramatically. The protection of human health is now paramount and the provision of a high level of public health protection has become a central focus for all governments. It is now fully accepted that the maintenance and improvement of market position is dependent on meeting consumers' requirements, particularly in relation to food safety.

It is against this backdrop that the Government approved the text of a Bill which places the national beef assurance scheme on a statutory footing. The Bill is clear evidence of the Govern-ment's continuing commitment to ensuring the highest standards of food safety, starting with the very important beef sector. The Bill is also an important element in the overall strategy for the future of the beef industry set out in the recently published report of the beef task force.

The details of the scheme have been discussed extensively with the representatives of the main participants in it – farmers, abattoirs, meat plants, marts, the animal feeding stuffs trade etc. There is widespread support for the introduction of the scheme, albeit some concerns have been expressed, mainly in relation to its scope and the cost of compliance with it.

The Bill provides for the establishment of a national beef assurance scheme, the purpose of which is the development of common standards for the production, processing and trade in Irish cattle and beef for human consumption and the manufacture and trade of feeding stuffs; the application of these standards through a system of registration, inspection and approval; and the enhancement of an animal identification and traceability system for Irish cattle.

The Bill applies to all persons engaged in the primary production and processing of Irish cattle and beef, that is, farmers engaged in cattle and beef production, cattle dealers, exporters of live cattle, livestock marts, slaughtering premises and establishments which otherwise process beef and establishments which manufacture or trade feeding stuffs. Some concern has been expressed regarding the apparent non-application of the scheme to the retail sector. The position is that the Bill needs to be read with existing legislation on food hygiene covering the retail sector. The European Communities (Hygiene of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1998 (SI No. 80 of 1998) and the European Communities (Official Control of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1998 (SI No. 85 of 1998) set out the detailed standards and controls for retail food businesses. These regulations are enforced by the health boards, which have also concluded service contracts with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, and which are responsible for the delivery of food safety for this sector. The regulations just cited set out detailed standards for these businesses, covering the full gamut of their operations, and provide enforcement officers with powers of seizure, detention, withdrawal of product, and the suspension, closure and prosecution of businesses.

Against this background, the Government considers that to include this sector in the registration, inspection and approval system under the national beef assurance scheme would constitute a duplication of valuable resources and the introduction of a two tier anomalous system of control. It would be contrary to the regulatory reform package adopted by the Government, which seeks to simplify the regulatory framework for businesses.

However, by regulating primary production and processing, the scheme will regulate the sources of supply for such businesses. In addition, under the scheme they will be obliged to source their supplies only from participants who are approved, and non-compliance with this provision will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties are provided. Furthermore, provision has been made for the appointment of officials of the health boards as authorised officers to check whether this provision is being complied with. I am satisfied that the combination of the food hygiene regulations and the national beef assurance scheme will ensure the entire food chain is encompassed in regard to the production, processing and sale of Irish beef and cattle.

The Bill provides that only persons meeting the prescribed standards set out in its Second Schedule for the various categories of participants will be approved to participate in the cattle, beef and feeding stuffs industry. The standards in question are already contained in existing legislation for the most part and cover such matters as animal identification, animal health, animal remedies, animal feed, hygiene and hygiene practices, production and manufacturing practices, construction, maintenance and operation of premises and the environment, including pollution and waste control. There is, however, provision for the making of regulations where gaps have been identified in existing legislation, for example, in relation to the possession of, or tampering with, cattle ear tags and identity cards and the documentation of certain operational procedures in meat plants. Accordingly, while the Bill will tighten up the implementation of existing provisions, it will not impose any undue new legislative burden on participants.

The Bill provides for a mandatory application, inspection, approval and registration process for all participants, the purpose of which is to provide independently-backed assurances about the safety of Irish beef. As it will take some time to complete the inspection process, there is provision for transitional arrangements under which all participants will be deemed to be provisionally approved until they have been either granted or refused approval under the scheme. All participants will be formally inspected and the arrangements for the inspections are being agreed with the various representative organisations. Agreement has been reached with all the parties concerned except the farming organisations. The proposal is that the inspection of farms will be carried out as part of the annual disease test on all herds. Discussions are continuing on this point and it is hoped the matter will be agreed in the near future. I stress that nothing in the Bill will prejudice the outcome of these discussions.

Participants who are found to be in compliance with the requirements of the scheme will be issued with formal approval and will be entered in the register of approved participants. The period of validity of the approval will be open-ended, although there is provision to set a fixed period of validity for all or some categories of participants, should this prove necessary in the future. Approved participants will be subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure continued compliance with the scheme and there is provision for the making of regulations setting out the procedures for such re-inspections. Details of the re-inspection procedures will be agreed with the various representative organisations.

Participants who are found not to be in compliance with the scheme will be informed of the action they must take to bring themselves into compliance and will be given a reasonable amount of time to do this. However, if they fail to take the necessary action they will be informed that their application for approval is being refused or revoked. Participants will have an opportunity to make representations against such decisions and the matter may also be appealed to the Circuit Court in the event of the refusal or revocation proceeding. The final sanction is that participants who have not been granted approval or who lose their approval status will not be allowed to trade in cattle, beef or feedstuffs. It must be stressed that these provisions do not introduce a licensing system to produce beef, but rather seek to ensure all cattle and beef produced for human consumption in Ireland comply with the statutory requirements and are safe to eat.

There has been some criticism that the level of the penalties provided for in the Bill are draconian. I stress the penalties provided for are the maximum applicable and it does not follow that maximum fines will be levied in all prosecution cases. This is a matter for the courts who have a duty to ensure the principle of proportionality – that the punishment fits the crime – is observed. The Department does not enter into legal proceedings lightly and I assure the House that prosecution of offences will be undertaken only when all other remedial options have failed. However, it is essential to have strong deterrents in the Bill to deal firmly with the very small percentage of persons engaged in criminal activity in the sector.

A comprehensive system for animal identification already exists for Irish cattle, including bovine tagging and cattle identity cards. In 1997, work commenced on a major enhancement of the animal identification system with a view to incorporating data on all animal movements, as required by EU law. This system is known as the cattle movement monitoring system and involves the use of electronic means to capture data on animal movements through computer links established at livestock marts, meat processing plants and export points. A paper notification system is used to record movements where electronic means are not feasible. Implementation of this system is well advanced and, when fully operational, will provide for verification of the origin, identity and life history of bovine animals before they enter the human foodchain. The system is already in operation in relation to private sales from farm to farm and in more than 90 per cent of livestock marts, with the remaining marts coming on board at an early date. The system is also being rolled out to export approved meat plants with 80 per cent operational to date. It was introduced at local authority abattoirs on 27 September and piloted at live export points last month. To date, 2.2 million animal movements have been recorded on the system. With the co-operation of all parties, it is expected the system will be fully in place by the end of the year.

Under the Bill the requirement for relevant participants required to notify the movement of all animals on to or off their holdings or premises will be reinforced. There is also provision for the making of regulations setting out the form and time of the notifications, and the procedures for the use of the CMMS database to identify and trace animals slaughtered for human consumption. The inclusion of CMMS provisions in the Bill is necessary to provide the requisite legal powers to ensure participants comply with the requirements regarding the notification of animal movements, and that animals whose origins and life histories cannot be verified can be barred from entering the human foodchain.

The national beef assurance scheme is a comprehensive and far-reaching scheme which demonstrates the commitment of the Government to underpinning the beef sector and I am glad to note the Bill has the overall support of the industry. I accept there are a number of outstanding issues still to be finalised, including the arrangements for the inspection of farms, and these will be attended to in full consultation with the relevant industry partners.

It has been said that the Bill is unduly restrictive and that it will impose an additional burden and cost, particularly on farmers, without delivering any tangible benefits. This is not the case. The standards farmers are expected to meet are already largely contained in existing legislation. As to costs, the vast bulk of producers already comply with the relevant legislation and any additional costs will be minimal. The position is that the environment in which beef is now being marketed has changed radically. We have to provide independently-backed guarantees that Irish beef is safe if we are to remain competitive and maintain or increase our market share. Of necessity this will impose some extra obligations on all elements of the beef sector. However, we have sought to keep these to a minimum while still delivering a credible scheme which will address the very real concerns of consumers and customers of Irish beef.

One of the main aims of the Bill is to ensure the origin and history of all cattle and beef entering the human foodchain can be verified. This is a mammoth task which involves recording details of all the events in the life of the national herd, together with tracking the millions of cattle movements each year. The system that has been set up in meat plants, livestock marts, and so on, will ensure this can be done. The obligations imposed on the retail sector under the Bill, together with the legislative provisions already in operation for this sector, will provide guarantees on the safety of beef right across the foodchain. The national beef assurance scheme is comprehensive and credible and will deliver the additional assurances which will enable us to say that beef and beef products produced in Ireland are safe and wholesome to eat. I commend the Bill to the House.

In principle, Fine Gael welcomes this Bill but I am concerned about some matters which I hope will be debated on Committee Stage. Irrespective of how the Minister may phrase it, Irish farmers will farm under licence for the first time from now on. However, I support the Bill as it will reassure customers about the safety of Irish beef and, in so doing, will assist the commercial trading of a product which is so important to Irish farmers.

The beef industry is going through a terrible time and, unfortunately, there is little profit in beef farming. Through no fault of the Minister or anyone else, this is a bad time to introduce a beef assurance scheme. The Minister will know we are introducing this Bill at a time when the industry is doing very poorly. There has been some recovery from the BSE debacle of 1996 but the scars of that horrible period are to be seen all over the country. We are finding it exceedingly difficult to reclaim market share, particularly on continental markets, and this is one of the reasons I wholeheartedly support the Bill. We are finding it very difficult to convince continental consumers of the quality of Irish beef and that is why the measures included in the Bill will be of immense help from a marketing point of view.

It is important for an exporting nation such as Ireland to be able to stand over its products and we must do so in a professional manner. I hope the Bill will be one of the best marketing tools available to us internationally. Having said that, I do not like some aspects of this Bill which I will outline in greater detail later.

The success of the National Beef Assurance Scheme will be measured on whether farmers will eventually get more for their produce. There has been a great deal of hype about this overarching legislation and the 140,000 beef farmers have already been promised much of what is contained in the Bill. However, once it is put into law it will be a different kettle of fish. This will inflict endless bureaucracy on them and they can only hope they will be rewarded financially. The worst case scenario will be if, after the introduction of this scheme, the prices Irish farmers receive continue to fall.

There will be opportunities for niche marketing and, hopefully, we will be able to dramatically change our breeding policy so our product will be desirable worldwide. As I have said on many occasions, we will have to produce seven or eight different kinds of animal for seven or eight different markets. We are not used to this. However, if we are to be successful, it is what we must do. It will mean that a buyer of Irish meat or live cattle will be in a position to check with the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development that an animal was reared under certain environmental conditions, on a certain farm at a certain time. This traceability is very important. The criteria will be that the conditions were environmentally friendly; the animal was well looked after and that if it had to be injected – as often happens – that will be noted and the proper withdrawal period adhered to; and that the overall environment for feeding and breeding will be in keeping with market requirements. If we are able to pull this off, it will be important for the image of Irish beef.

If, after the imposition of a costly scheme on the beef industry, we do not achieve what we hope, we will have major problems. At this point the profitability of beef farming is so small that I do not know how many acres a farmer would need to have to make a decent living. The financial package of Agenda 2000 trumpeted by the Minister may pale into insignificance if farmers have to take the proposed intervention price of as low as 50p per pound. If that day comes, there will be serious trouble. I hope it will not and the introduction of this scheme will keep our beef price at a level which will not require intervention. If intervention is introduced under Agenda 2000, we will be rearing and selling cattle at below their value and the cheques in the post will not make much difference. If we are unable to obtain a premium payment on our beef world wide – hopefully the National Beef Assurance Scheme will assist in that promotion – and the base price is reduced to intervention level, we will have a huge problem in getting farmers to participate in the scheme.

I am impressed by the performance of Irish EU Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne, in a number of interviews. I support the proposal for a European super food health authority. It is important in the context of a food scare or a debate arising on the quality of a particular food that an independent authority above sectional reproach would have access to the most up-to-date veterinary and scientific information available. If this is what the Commissioner has in mind and if he can get the agreement of EU members, it will be a step in the right direction. As we know from the food scares which damaged us so much, it is not enough for one Government to give its agreement. The National Food Safety Authority is doing excellent work. However, we should have an authority modelled on the American body. I hope the Commissioner gets agreement on what I understand his proposal to be – if I am correct, I support him.

I am impressed by the work of the National Food Safety Authority and some of its pronouncements are sensible. The population is beginning to acknowledge and accept that it is a truly independent body with a modern scientific and professional approach whose views can be trusted – which is important in this business. We not only produce beef but we eat it also. I will never forget the BSE scare, yet three years later we are eating the same type of beef, from the same cattle, bred on the same land and it is totally acceptable. If it is acceptable now it should have been acceptable then. However, people, including me, were genuinely scared because we did not know enough about it. It is important to have a trustworthy food safety authority which overrides those fears and does not have a sectional interest. I highly commend the work of Dr. Patrick Wall and his staff. I hope they will continue in the same vein.

The national beef assurance scheme brings together many facets of the beef industry. One of the most intriguing and difficult problems is to have a foolproof system of traceability based on the eartags of the animals. There are almost eight million cattle in the country. With the cattle movement monitoring system, theoretically it should be possible to know where every animal is at a given moment. This is the aim of the Department. It will be a remarkable achievement if we can implement it. The Minister said 2.2 million cattle are already registered on the system. I have seen smaller scale efforts fail or be changed a few years later. I hope it will not find out in two years that something was wrong with the computer database or the eartags and that the entire system will have to be overhauled. I speak for every farmer in the country who does not want that to happen, although I believe it will not happen.

What is being proposed is mind-boggling – a farmer brings an animal to a mart in Ballinasloe and before it leaves the yard, the eartag number is with the DVO in Galway. We will know who sold the animal, who bought it and where he or she is from. This is absolute traceability and I hope it will work. It is important if we are to have any credibility. About 90 per cent of all livestock marts, as well as the processing industry, are involved in the scheme, and I hope that will be 100 per cent before long. I hope there will be no change, that the scheme has been scientifically and mechanically thought out and it will stand the test of time.

I wish to refer to a number of flaws in the Bill. No matter how one looks at this Bill, it means farmers must have a permit to farm. There will be an on-farm inspection. If farmers do not pass the inspection, their herd numbers will be taken away. This will restrict their ability to farm. I do not know why the Minister has gone to such lengths to say this is not a permit. It looks like one to me and I am sure it will look like one to farmers.

Huge costs will be involved if care is not taken with the inspection process. I am not sure if the type of agreement to which the Minister referred is in place. I hope it is because I would not wish the scheme to fail. The inspection should be carried out on the day the veterinary surgeon visits the farm to carry out the TB and brucellosis tests. The Minister stated this in his speech, but I have heard reports that this will not happen. Some vet erinary surgeons claim it merits more attention and that they must receive more information before visiting the farm, otherwise they would have to visit the farm a second time. I have not heard what this will cost. Given that farmers must carry out a TB and brucellosis test each year, it is only right and fair that farmers should not have to pay for this veterinary inspection. If the veterinary surgeon is on the farm eight to ten times each year, he will be aware of the farmer's capabilities and the health status of the herd. What is being proposed in relation to dairy farms seems to make more sense. Some veterinary surgeons look for dairy records and sale counts before they visit the farm. It is important to stress that the scheme should not be a money-making activity for the veterinary profession. I hope the Minister will give an indication of his thoughts in this regard on Committee Stage.

I want this scheme to form part of an integrated approach under the cross-compliance scheme being introduced by Brussels. Under this scheme, more farm inspections will take place and those who do not pass the inspections will lose their headage and REPS payments. It is important, given the scheme being introduced by Brussels over the next few years and the national beef assurance scheme, that we do not create a police State with employees of the Department going all over the country. Nowadays there are inspections for REPS, headage payments and so on. Cross-compliance inspections will mean additional inspections to find out if farms are environmentally friendly. It seems we are facing an era of inspections. I hope strict criteria will be put in place for these inspections. Farmers must be treated with dignity, particularly elderly farmers who are finding it extremely difficult to keep up with the pace of change. Younger farmers are also finding it very difficult.

I suggest to the Minister that an educational programme should be organised during the winter. The Department has arranged such programmes with Teagasc and the farming organisations on a number of previous occasions. Officials of the Department, Teagasc, the IFA, the ICMSA and so on should become involved in these programmes in towns throughout the country between now and next May. It will take a lot of time and effort to explain the changes to farmers. I make no secret of the fact that I find it difficult to comprehend all the changes, given the speed with which they take place. I cannot accept that ordinary farmers will readily understand these changes. This is why the run-in time to which the Minister referred is very important. I do not want farmers to lose a year's income as a result of a small error.

The Bill is somewhat negative in that it places huge financial and psychological burdens on farmers, while the load is not shared equally among other participants. For example, the same traceability procedures will not apply to imported meat or meat products. This will place an enormous anti-competitive burden on producers in this country. In other words, the safety net now being applied to Irish producers will not cover outside producers to the same degree. Another negative aspect of the Bill is that the Government believes that by regulating primary production and processing the scheme it will regulate the sources of supply for such businesses. In addition, under the scheme participants will be obliged to source their supply only from participants who are approved and non-compliance with this provision will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties will be imposed. That will be a difficult matter to oversee given that the imported product from other jurisdictions will not have the same force of law as the primary product. The Bill is extremely weak in this regard

On the registration and approval process for a permit – this is a licence to farm – it is proposed the inspection of farms will be carried out as part of the animal disease test. This is what I wish to see happening. It is important that as many inspections as possible are carried out at the same time. Farmers do not want six or eight inspections of their farms in one year. In the case of an inter-family transfer of a farm or where a farmer decides to dramatically change his farming business, there should be no hold up as a result of the changes under the Bill. We must ensure young farmers are given every opportunity to succeed.

I now want to refer to an important point to which the Minister should give serious consideration before Committee and Report Stages. Where participants are found not to be in compliance with the scheme, they will first be warned and then given a reasonable time to improve their farms. This is as it should be. There will be many seminars on this issue. Having said that, where the Department believes participants are still non-compliant, their herd numbers will be withdrawn. The only avenue then open to the farmer is the Circuit Court. This would be a big decision for a farmer and I am not sure it is necessary. While I accept there is a need for judicial involvement in the reinstatement of herd numbers, involving the Circuit Court would be very costly. Instead of involving lawyers and junior and senior counsel, there should be a simple process where farmers whose herd numbers have been removed could put forward a case. If they are not able to put forward a strong enough case, their herd numbers would not be reinstated. Given the sensitivities of the situation, the Minister will have to be more imaginative in dealing with this issue. However, we will debate the matter further on Committee Stage.

The Minister proposes to dramatically increase a number of the penalties attaching to the scheme. Anyone who defrauds or sets out to defraud the Department should be subjected to the full rigours of the law. No one can deny that this should be the case and it is against that background that stiff penalties must be put in place. We can debate the level of those penalties on Committee Stage.

The most serious flaw in the Bill relates to the appeal mechanism. The Minister has not given adequate consideration to this matter. On a daily basis I hear about penalties being imposed by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development in respect of frivolous matters. Perhaps this runs contrary to the public perception of the Department, but the penalties imposed on farmers do not match their crimes.

I am familiar with the case of a sheep farmer who, when applying for this year's ewe hogget grant, stated that he had nine ewe hoggets. As the Minister is aware, a document issues to claimants a number of weeks after their initial application asking if they wish to make revisions. At that stage, the farmer discovered that the original information he supplied was wrong and stated on the reply form that he only had eight ewe hoggets. The case was referred to an appeals officer and even though it was accepted that the farmer had made a mistake his application for the grant was refused. The farmer to whom I refer only lost £100 but, and I intend no personal criticism of the Minister when I say this, the ewe hogget scheme is badly administered. The farmer did not set out to do wrong and on discovering his initial error he supplied the Department with the correct information.

If we increase the penalties to a point where they might put farmers out of business, we must do three things. In the interests of natural justice, people should be given the opportunity to make their appeal at county level. There is no point in informing farmers in Cork, Glenamoy in County Mayo or anywhere else that their appeals will be held in Dublin. If they could attend their local courts, they would not be obliged to travel to Dublin.

The appeal system should be set up at county level so that farmers could have access to oral hearings in their localities. Farmers are not good at putting their cases in writing and there is no reason the Minister could not introduce an appeals system such as that operated by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Appeals officers from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development could appear in designated places and, if necessary, persons appearing before them could be accompanied by representatives from the industry. This would allow a farmer, his wife or adviser to provide a detailed version of events. If the matter cannot be resolved at that point, there should be some form of judicial review which would not oblige people to go before the Circuit Court. A farmer who takes legal action to have his herd number reinstated must employ senior and junior counsel and solicitors and if he loses the case he will incur huge costs.

In the event that anyone might misconstrue the meaning of my earlier remarks, I reiterate that the requisite penalties should be imposed on people who set out to defraud the Department. However, in the interests of natural justice, we should ensure that oral hearings are held locally. If the scheme is to be accepted by farmers throughout the country, action of that sort must be taken.

There is a need to engage in a serious examination of the TB and brucellosis schemes. The beef assurance scheme will be central to such an examination. With regard to badgers carrying TB, is it possible, following the various monitoring initiatives, etc., to definitively state that 24 per cent or 25 per cent of badgers carry TB? I accept that there are large numbers of badgers in the countryside and I am aware of the environmental constraints that apply. Has any further progress been made in terms of developing a vaccine to neutralise this disease in badgers? Will there be a cull of badgers or has the Minister any advice to give farmers in terms of what they should do about this problem? Would it not be ironic, following the investigation and research carried out in respect of badgers in the past, if we discovered that they were major carriers and we sat back for ten years without taking any action?

Will the Minister indicate whether a blood test for TB is under development? I have been informed on many occasions that we were close to breakthrough. I understand that the tuberculin test is only 90 per cent effective and I hope that this matter will be solved before the problems become enormous.

I hope the Minister will take the issues I have raised on board because I will be tabling amendments in respect of them on Committee Stage.

The National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill is important and should be supported by all parties. Following the outbreak of cases of BSE in cattle and the new variant, CJD, in young people in 1996, there has been a substantial reduction in beef consumption within the EU. In addition, a number of markets to which Ireland has traditionally supplied cattle and beef – such as those in Iran and other countries in the Middle East – have imposed full or partial trade restrictions on Irish cattle and beef exports.

The key response to this was to adopt measures to tighten up the conditions of production and processing of cattle and beef in Ireland and to provide assurances to consumers and buyers regarding the safety of Irish cattle and beef. Notwithstanding this, it is considered that further measures are required in the beef related sector to underpin confidence at home and abroad. It is for this reason that the Bill, which, in essence, establishes a national beef assurance scheme, is being debated this week.

Agriculture and the food industry are important to Ireland. Agriculture still forms the backbone of economic development in the vast majority of rural areas. The Government fully recognises the economic and social importance of agriculture in terms of job creation and the maintenance of the countryside. The Government has ensured that the interests and concerns of Irish farmers and their families are fully recognised when any national initiatives are formulated.

A clear example of this is the recent CAP reform negotiations which took place at EU level.

The Agenda 2000 CAP reform agreed by the EU Agriculture Council on 11 March 1999 and finalised at a meeting of EU Heads of Government in Berlin on 26 March sets out the broad policy and production position for the Irish agriculture and food industries over the next seven years. The Berlin Council modified the reform arrangements for the milk, dairy and cereal sectors along the lines which Ireland sought throughout the negotiations. When the European Commission published its initial CAP reform proposals in March 1998 the annual loss to Irish agriculture was estimated at £233 million per year, but the changes negotiated in the final CAP agreement negated that loss. Price reductions in the beef, cereal and dairy sectors will be offset by appropriate compensatory measures. Moreover, degressivity, which is the concept of reducing direct payments by a fixed percentage cumulatively over seven years, is also part of the overall agreement. Between 2000 and 2006 the final agreement will deliver a substantial gain of £395 million in farm incomes.

The Government is also committed to the implementation of initiatives termed "the accompanying measures under the CAP programme administered from Europe". These include the early farm retirement scheme; the installation aid scheme; the dairy hygiene programme; the rural environmental protection scheme; and the Leader III rural development initiative. These programmes must continue if Irish agriculture is to prosper while, at the same time, taking account of the changing nature of agricultural activities.

The facts speak for themselves with regard to demonstrating the importance of the food industry in terms of employment. The industry is estimated to account for 38,500 jobs directly, which is more than 15 per cent of the industrial workforce. More than 12,000 people are employed in the slaughtering and preserving of meat; 7,200 in the manufacture of dairy products; 2,700 in the manufacture of poultry products; 5,500 in the baking industry; 4,000 in sugar manufacture; and more than 7,300 in other related industries. The food production sector provides important benefits in terms of indirect employment and in its contribution to the agricultural and wider rural economies.

Following the BSE crisis more innovative measures need to be implemented under the operational sub-programme for the development of the food industry. If employment in the food production sector is to improve initiatives which could be introduced in this regard include the allocation of greater resources to Bord Bia for the implementation of marketing and the promotion activities of Irish food products in Britain and Europe and increased resources for consumer complaints in the area of improving the traceability of food products. Ireland is currently the third largest supplier of food and drink products to Britain with exports valued at £1,800 million in 1996.

A national strategy to redirect food exports to the EU consumer marketplace based on the highest standards of food quality, safety and traceability is also needed. This is only possible in the context of much closer integration between farmers and food processors. I read with interest the recent report, "Opportunities, Challenges and Capacities for Choice" , which was published by the National Economic and Social Council. I agree with the council's interpretation of the challenges facing the food industry. Ensuring that Irish food products are recognised as being of the highest quality means more moneys must be put aside to promote them in different marketplaces.

Since the outbreak of BSE in 1996 consumers' views towards food products have changed substantially. This was recognised by the EU in the Amsterdam Treaty, which was ratified by the people last year. New powers were given to the EU to implement initiatives and policies in the area of consumer protection and public health, with particular emphasis on protecting the health of humans. More recently, the chicken dioxin scandal in Belgium once again put the issue of food safety at the top of the EU's agenda. The new President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and the European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, David Byrne, are working flat out to make sure that EU initiatives are brought forward which will protect the food chain and ensure greater consumer confidence in EU food products. This is also important in light of the World Trade Organisation talks currently taking place in Seattle given that food safety will be put at the top of the agenda as the EU and the US negotiate future trade agreements.

All these EU initiatives will complement programmes brought forward by the Government to protect the image and quality of Irish food products. That is why I fully support the national beef assurance scheme. The legislation is a key response to past food scares in the cattle, beef and animal feed sectors and, particularly, the BSE crisis. It will protect both consumers and producers by providing assurances that Irish beef is safe and underpinning confidence in the industry at home and abroad. It will also consolidate a wide range of legislation in the cattle, beef and animal feed sectors to develop common high standards of production and processing. These standards will be applied through a process of mandatory registration, inspection and approval and will cover all participants in the industry, including farmers, cattle dealers, live exporters, livestock marts, abattoirs, meat processing plants and the animal feed manufacturing and trading sectors.

The Bill will not apply to the retail trade sector but there will be an obligation on it to deal only with participants approved under the scheme. The intention is that only persons who meet the prescribed standards will be approved for partici pation in the cattle, beef and feedstuffs industries. The standards in question are contained in existing legislation and cover such matters as animal identification, health, remedies, feed, health, hygiene and hygiene practices; production and manufacturing practices; construction, maintenance and operation of premises and equipment; and the environment, including pollution and waste management. In addition, the legislation includes a provision enabling the Minister to make regulations in regard to record keeping and documentation of matters such as production, processing and manufacturing practices. It also provides for the Minister to regulate the identification and registration of bovine animals and, in particular, the possession of ear tags and identity cards and tampering with same.

All participants in the scheme will be subject to an inspection, the procedures for which will be determined by the Minister. If participants are in compliance they will be issued with a final approval notice. The period of validity of this approval will be open ended. However, all approved parties will be subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure continued compliance with the scheme. Participants who are found not to be in compliance will be informed of the steps that must be taken to bring them into compliance. If they continue not to comply, they will be given notice of the Minister's intention to refuse or revoke approval and they will have an opportunity to make representations to him or her. In addition, there is provision for an appeal procedure to the courts in the event of the refusal or revocation proceeding.

Section 8 places a duty on existing farmers, feed manufacturers or traders, dealers or exporters of live animals, abattoirs, assembly centres, marts and meat plants and any new entrants to the marketplace to apply for a certificate of approval within 12 months of enactment of this legislation.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share