Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Feb 2000

Vol. 514 No. 1

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

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

Live exports are extremely important, especially those to Libya and Egypt because of the type of animals they buy. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, and the new Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Cowen, were very vocal in Opposition about having those markets opened. The Minister, Deputy Cowen, in his new position, must do what he said the former Minister, Deputy Spring, should do, namely, go to Libya, Egypt and Iran to try to open the markets. I spent seven years on the board of CBF and, together with An Bord Bia, it has done a good job in promotion, but neither is involved in direct selling and direct efforts to provide quality beef to quality markets.

The Minister must examine the possibility of using a base such as An Bord Bainne, which has marketing powers, to make sure that our quality beef reaches quality markets at a price that will maintain an income for farmers. There is no doubt that a cartel has existed. I congratulate the re-elected president of the IFA, Mr. Tom Parlon, Raymond O'Malley and the ordinary farmers of Ireland on helping to break that cartel. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, has a major job to make sure the activities reported in this week's Farming Independent are not allowed to continue. It is reported that the prices promised to farmers are not being paid by the factories. The Minister must make sure that efforts are made to regulate this matter.

Without proper income, farm families will not be able to adhere to the new regulations. Without proper staffing, the Department cannot make the scheme work. Bovine TB and brucellosis are out of control and in many places, such as County Monaghan, this is because of lack of staff. A good Bill was introduced in 1989 by the then Minister, Deputy O'Kennedy, to deal with the problems of offal and meat and bonemeal. That legislation was not adequately enforced and six years later the industry was badly damaged by BSE. There is no point in introducing regulations which are not enforced. There is no point in passing legislation banning drink driving if the Garda Síochána do not check drivers. We must ensure that this legislation is enforced in a sensitive and reasonable manner. We do not wish to see officials of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development acting as overseers in a militant way. They must act helpfully and encourage farmers to do things properly, to ensure that our beef is traceable and to provide the highest quality beef for markets in Ireland, Europe and wherever else we send it. We must make sure that never again can a situation such as was reported to the beef tribunal exist when meat other than beef was sent to our marketplace and destroyed the prospects for our industry. The farmers of Ireland will produce the best if they are given the opportunity.

The Minister, with the help of a strong and powerful Department, must make sure that our beef gets into markets at the right quality and the right price and brings a proper return to the primary producer, for whose benefit this legislation is to be enacted.

This is a red letter day for me because it is the first time I have addressed the issue of agriculture since I laid down my responsibility as Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry more than eight years ago. Because of the purpose of this Bill those of us who have had some experience and responsibility in this area should make a contribution and it is in that light that I speak.

The beef industry is the single most important industry in Ireland. This is so often said that it hardly needs to be underlined again. It is a £1 billion pound industry on which many producers, workers and others depend and is inexplicably associated with Ireland in the export markets. I recall doing many promotions – even one with Luciano Pavarotti in Italy – when we tried to promote the idea that quality beef is synonymous with Ireland. Ireland's natural advantages of climate, soil and tradition should enable us to compete with and beat the best in any market. Because it is the most important single industry in Ireland, those engaged in the beef industry, whether as primary producers or processors, should ensure, in their own economic interest, that the standards required by consumers are maintained and enhanced. For that reason there should be no need for a Minister to police an enterprise that has the primary responsibility for satisfying consumers and for protecting the reputation of this country. There should be no need for a Bill of this kind. Those charged with responsibility should discharge that responsibility. There should be no need for supervision of the activities of those involved in the beef sector. Ireland's name and Ireland's beef should always be recognised by the consumers of Europe and elsewhere as being of top quality.

I support this legislation. It has to be introduced because over the years, those who have had the primary responsibility, particularly processors but also primary producers, have not respected that responsibility. They have transgressed their responsibility and brought the name of Irish beef and of Ireland into disrepute. Can one imagine people in the information technology sector, in which Ireland is so successful, having to be supervised and regulated to ensure that they do what is required in order to place their products in the world markets and maintain their reputation? Can one imagine this happening in any other sector of our economy? I regret it has proved necessary for the Minister to impose such supervision on the beef industry. Nevertheless, I welcome this legislation and I will support it vigorously.

I have some experience in this area. Deputy Crawford was kind enough to mention that I introduced regulatory legislation in 1989. When the BSE crisis occurred we took immediate steps to ensure that the reputation of Irish beef would be protected. We introduced special slaughter premia at the highest level. We cleared out herds where even one case of BSE occurred. We had to do this to ensure that there would be no shadow of doubt over the Irish product on external markets when Britain was suffering an outbreak. As Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry and as president of the Council of Ministers for Agriculture, I insisted that all European Ministers adhere to the same high standards. When so much was being done to protect Irish agriculture, it was regrettable that some people within the sector, because we were paying the top price for infected herds, saw the opportunity to make a quick killing by introducing infected animals into their herds.

Is that not a terrible reflection on the nature of those who engaged in this activity and on their lack of awareness of their responsibility? I am glad only a very small minority were involved but it should not have happened and we should not have had to depend on inspectors of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to exercise control.

This was followed by another outrageous distortion known euphemistically as 'angel dust', a term I did not use. I called it what it was – 'devil dust'. Those who engaged in this nefarious trade were a disgrace to Irish production at every level. It will not surprise the House to learn however, that when I introduced restrictions and penalties in 1990 to control veterinary medical products people said to me, "Michéal [as I am known in my county] are you trying to commit political suicide by taking such strong action against those engaged in this nefarious activity?" to which my response had to be, "Don't worry about my pol itical career, much more important is the success of this vitally important industry." Again, only a small minority of primary producers were involved but they did untold damage to our reputation and the quality of our beef. This had to be eradicated and another reason those concerned, if they did not take responsibility, had to be regulated and controlled. For the first time I provided for terms of imprisonment but unfortunately the courts held that the heavy penalties prescribed which reflected my total revulsion for this activity could not be imposed in the District Court. As a consequence my successor introduced the 1993 legislation. Fifty seven people were convicted in 1996; 68 in 1997; 37 in 1998; 26 in 1999 and 1 so far this year in a industry which we all describe as our most important. This is unacceptable.

I had to promote the name and reputation of Irish beef wherever I went on promotions in the knowledge that some of those prominently engaged in the beef processing sector were encouraging farmers to use ‘devil dust'. That was a disgrace, a let-down and a repudiation of any sense of national responsibility. On one occasion I called the entire sector together. They assumed that I wanted to talk to them about a new intervention protection mechanism but that was not what I wanted to talk to them about. What I wanted to tell them – this did not emerge until some years later and I feel free to say it now – was that they were not fit to be involved in the promotion of such an important sector. Ministers should not have to run a politburo or a police investigation for a sector which has a responsibility to itself. From time to time a Department and individuals within it may fail but the vast majority took their responsibilities very seriously. I vigorously support my successor who perhaps could not say what I have just said which is now history from which I hope we have learned. The vast majority of producers are honourable, genuinely concerned about transgressions and dependable in terms of the pride they take in what they do on their farms but there are others – when one lives in a rural constituency like the Leas-Chean Comhairle, Deputy Deasy, the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, and I do one hears anecdotal evidence – who have no place in this important sector which they are seeking to undermine.

Given the natural advantages we enjoy of climate and soil our beef sector is potentially the most cost efficient. We should be able to ensure the product we produce dominates every sophisticated consumer market in Europe and elsewhere, if necessary. Because of harsh winters the input costs of the Dutch, Danes and Germans are much higher, and they do not enjoy the same reputation or natural advantages. For this reason we should always be at the top of the league with the product we produce in constant demand.

From what I had to say privately to the beef processing sector within the closed doors of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry about six months before I left it when I had to dress down in the strongest possible terms those responsible for our single most important industry, one can imagine the constraints under which I was operating. I hope they have learned from it and we will never again hear about the need for a beef tribunal. Although investigations were being conducted at the time and there were consultations with the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors, someone somewhere had to find a political target even though everyone knew that was not the real target and despite the cost we are not very much wiser after the event. I was not in favour of the tribunal. I had my speech drafted in response to the motion tabled by Democratic Left in which I indicated the need to control, regulate, sanction and penalise, if necessary, and what we were doing to improve the position. About fifteen minutes before I went into the House I received a signal that if the Government was not to fall it was essential that there be a tribunal. I left my speech as it was but added two or three sentences, the first of which was, "Nonetheless, lest it be suggested that I, as Minister, or the Government are in any way complicit in trying to cover up irregularities in the beef industry we have reluctantly agreed to accept this motion."

My second sentence stated ". reluctant, because tribunals have a habit of turning out very differently to what people expect of them" which certainly proved to be the case. My third sentence stated, "They last a lot longer and they cost a lot more.". I stated that I did not mind what costs were incurred provided the end result was a guarantee that the beef industry, of which we should all be proud and which many producers and some processors have worked hard to enhance and promote, would be vindicated.

There is an old Irish saying, "Go mbeadh toradh do shaoradh agat", that you may have the rewards of your efforts. Old Irish sayings often tend to be double-edged. If those efforts were positive, worthwhile and principled, the rewards would be great but if they were not, the rewards would be negative. I believe the majority of people in the sector, particularly at primary producer level, deserve to be treated better. I hope those engaged in the processing sector have learned a lesson. I am happy we now have a necessary level of transparency in the sector as a consequence of the Minister's intervention with the beef factories. If we are to have a healthy beef industry from primary producer level upwards, we must ensure producers are paid a fair and proper price at all times for their honest work.

I am also prone to contributing to debates on agriculture, probably for the same reasons as those outlined by Deputy O'Kennedy. I feel I inhibit some of my predecessors and current spokespersons when I say we should take a more active part in these debates. It is unique to see two former Ministers for Agriculture speaking in succession and to see a Minister of the future sitting on the Government benches. Deputy O'Keeffe has a wide experience of agriculture and is one of the most incisive individuals in the House. Doubtless, he will make the grade in the near future. I stated on local radio some weeks ago that many of the old hands should be dropped but that was not to be.

Traceability is an important issue. If complaints arise about a product's origin, it is desirable that it can be traced. There is a raft of issues which must be addressed in the beef industry. This matter is complicated by the fact that Ireland is a major milk producer. Dairy herds create difficulties which are not readily recognised. With so much milk being produced, it is only common sense that the strain which enters the beef chain is often not a fully qualified beef strain but is intermingled with Friesian and Holstein breeds which do not produce optimum quality beef. We must recognise our shortcomings if we are to progress. I understand that only in the region of 30% of the beef produced in this country comes specifically from a wholly beef line. The remaining 70% is obviously of varying degrees of quality. That is a real difficulty.

It is extraordinarily difficult to grade animals in Ireland. However, even where grading is in evidence, price differentials are not paid. People producing top grade beef cattle do not receive the bonus to which they are entitled. There are very few cattle in the U grade but even producers of the higher R grade do not receive the price differential. Until such time as we recognise the need to reward people for producing good quality beef cattle, we will continue to experience difficulties.

The outcome of the recent dispute between the IFA and the meat processing plants may not be as clear-cut as it seems. The grading issue will become increasingly clouded. I envisage a situation whereby those with lesser quality animals will receive 90p per pound but producers of higher quality cattle will not receive any more than that. I fear meat factories will employ devices to ensure they retain the same level of profit by equalising the prices for various cattle grades. That is the type of activity of which the Minister and the Department should be cognisant. They must ensure there is no skulduggery when it comes to paying different prices for various grades of beef.

There are many shortcomings in the beef industry and in farming in general. In many cases, these shortcomings have not been addressed. There is a high level of irregularities in the system and we failed to correct some of those when the opportunity existed to do so. I refer specifically to the beef tribunal.

The beef tribunal cost Irish taxpayers £40 million and resulted in a few managers and sub-managers of a meat plant in Rathkeale in County Limerick being brought before the courts and fined. I believe one person may have been imprisoned or may have received a suspended sentence. Major figures in the beef industry should have been severely penalised for the irregularities which were discovered during the course of that tribunal. The tribunal's outcome was unsatisfactory as far as the public and many Members were concerned in that its findings were not decisive. Many of the ills currently besetting the industry could have been eradicated had the tribunal carried out the task it was supposed to by virtue of the motion tabled in this House.

I recall a tribunal which followed the explosion of an oil tanker off Whiddy Island in Bantry Bay in 1979. The tribunal's chairman was Mr. Justice Declan Costello. After months of hearing evidence, Mr. Justice Costello concluded that the people who were supposed to be on duty protecting the terminal in case of accidents were not on duty, they were miles away. Mr. Justice Costello deduced that they had committed perjury. A number of them were convicted on that ground and one received a jail sentence. That was a decisive result.

Such decisive action was lacking in the beef tribunal, which went to the core of the abuses occurring daily in the industry. There were no recommendations for prosecutions. There should have been prosecutions and long jail sentences, which would happen in any other country, but in Ireland we have the brilliant solution of getting away with it. That should not be the case. I hope that as a result of the McCracken tribunal, the Flood and Moriarty tribunals will be decisive and the guilty will pay the penalty. The issues should not be swept under the carpet. The public is fed up. The beef tribunal sickened most people and they will not stand for it again.

The illegal practices to which I referred inhibit the proper organisation of the industry. These include the illegal of movement of cattle from infected herds, the switching of tags – which is commonplace – and shoddy testing. One of the most hurtful things I had to do when I was Minister for Agriculture – although one has to do one's duty for the general good, similar to a garda serving a summons – was to fire vets from the TB testing scheme because they were not testing properly and were arrogant. Occasionally they or members of their families would abuse me for the sackings. These matters must be kept under control. Officials in the Departments and vets are, by and large, brilliant. However, there is an element which bring practices into disrepute. Last week a veterinary official was convicted of malpractice. We should not tolerate anything which affects the quality of the herd. Such events are publicised and reported abroad. Embassies have attachés who report activities which are not above board to their ministries for agriculture and consumers.

We have enough trouble with the countries with whom we are competing. Our beef industry has suffered considerably because of the BSE scare which began four or five years ago. Australia, South America and the United States have benefited enormously from our misfortune. Our markets in the Middle East have, by and large, been taken over by these countries. There should be more of a public debate on this. We have been unjustifiably tarred with the same brush as others. The prevalence of BSE in our herds is so slight that it does not constitute a danger to the food chain, particularly to those eating beef. However, our competitors have taken advantage of this. We seem to have lost the four big Middle Eastern markets – Libya, Iran, Iraq and Egypt. I do not hear much about them. We are occasionally told they are being reopened.

Poor quality livestock needs to be eliminated because it does not make the grade. It is also a serious problem for our beef industry. Another serious problem is the removal of export refunds and intervention – the two traditional safety nets. It is no longer as simple to sell meat to third countries which were once our major markets.

Hormones are another area of abuse – angel dust has been referred to. The public will not appreciate the contradictory, and from our point of view, unsatisfactory, position. In the United States of America there is widespread use of hormones which are banned in the EU. These hormones, which naturally occur in cattle, particularly in bullocks and bulls, produce leaner meat. They can also be synthetically manufactured. The US has no quibbles about using such hormones, thereby producing much better quality beef than we can do naturally. It is unfortunate that because of the abuse of hormones on the Continent in the 1970s and 1980s, there is an antipathy towards them. I remember a German minister saying we could use them at our peril because he would tell his people not to eat our beef if we did so. They knew the US was using them but that was not their problem, they were in the EU. If we used them, our beef would not be welcome in their country. In Italy in the 1970s and 1980s, people were deformed because of the use of hormones.

Beef treated with hormones is being imported into the EU. It is competing with our beef and we cannot use the same hormones which produce better quality beef. Where is the justice in that? The recent World Trade Organisation talks, which were known as the GATT negotiations, in Seattle were abandoned. Those talks mean we will be more susceptible to competition from world markets – beef from the United States, South America, Australia and New Zealand. They farm ranches of tens of thousands of acres and can produce huge quantities at a lower price than us. When the WTO talks conclude and we have, as I suspect, a level playing pitch, towards which we have been gradually moving since the talks in Uruguay ten years ago, we will be competing with people selling quality beef to Europe at 50p or 60p a pound. That is not readily recognised here.

At Question Time about two months ago, I said that the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should have attended those talks to fight our corner. If any country in the world has freedom of access to import goods we produce and upon which we depend, we should not be members of the EU. Our one major advantage is that we have access to an enclosed market. We export 80% of the beef we produce. If there is open competition, we will be at a serious disadvantage. It will suit the British, French and Germans who produce consumer goods and will be able to sell more on world markets. They will not have any embargoes or tariffs but we will. We are not producing consumer goods.

We will suffer because our agricultural products will be under siege from producers who have huge areas of land, produce huge amounts of beef and who are using hormones we are prohibited from using. This is very difficult. I read recently that the Department was sued for millions of pounds – it had to pay millions more because of its ineptitude – by a trading company in Dublin called Emerald. The High Court ruled against the Department which decided to appeal the case rather than pay the compensation. As a result the costs accumulated. Imported beef does not have to undergo the stringent tests our beef must undergo. We talk about the traceability of Irish beef but is there traceability of imported beef? I believe this traceability is nil, it does not exist.

We have many inhibitions about our beef, much of which is too fat because of interbreeding of dairy herds. Many people will not eat fat meat. On the Continent people resist having any fat in meat. That makes it difficult to sell. There is the additional factor of heart disease and the medical profession advises people not to eat red meat, particularly beef. This makes it very difficult for beef farmers, therefore we need to ensure the skullduggery and malpractice is stamped out, whether within the factories, by jobbers, people who are moving cattle illegally and not testing cattle or by people who are selling low quality meat under the guise of good quality beef. There were many examples of this during the beef tribunal. Boxes of rubbish were being sold as prime beef, giving Irish beef a bad name. These are difficult times for the beef industry, therefore we must ensure that everything is done by the book and that there are not shoddy practices.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Coughlan.

It is timely to have a debate on this Bill which gives us an opportunity to discuss the beef industry in general. Over the past 15 or 20 years the beef industry has gone through a difficult and turbulent time. In the past we made a fatal error in that we depended too much on intervention and live exports. We are now suffering because we did not have a proper policy in place.

A number of factors must be borne in mind. We are mainly a dairy producing country and, by and large, the dairy cow provides the vast majority of animals taken into the beef farming sector and thereafter into slaughtering or for live export. This cannot continue in the same vein as at present. Dairy farmers must make a profit and one means of increasing their yield per acre and ensuring they are efficient is to introduce the Holstein breed. This is beginning to happen throughout the country, particularly in the south. For this reason, we must be aware that a large percentage of our raw material is not suitable as high quality beef which the European consumer demands.

We have been encouraging live exports and dumping beef on Third World markets. This is why we are in the present dilemma. The Bill will go a long way towards restoring confidence within the beef sector. However, if we do not have the proper raw material to market and sell abroad, this Bill will be just aspirations. There is an urgent need to address the problems of the basic raw material entering into the beef industry. Great efforts were made some years ago to increase the suckler herd. By and large, that has assisted, particularly in the western seaboard and midland areas where there is not large-scale dairy production, in ensuring that there is a raw material for dairy farmers. However, this is not enough. We must look at our breeding policy and address how we can get prime quality cattle. Deputy Deasy mentioned that up to 70% of the finished product comes from dairy herds. There is no doubt that the vast majority of that 70% would have a trace of Holstein type blood. This is one area which must be addressed, but it will be difficult. Perhaps we should have a slaughtering out policy or something to ensure low quality beef is not entering the market at the top end of the scale because this undermines producers of top quality beef.

There was a reference to the grading of cattle. We must ensure there is a large discrepancy in the price paid to those producing top quality beef and those producing beef for the sake of it because they have the raw material on their farms. Grading and pricing of top quality beef must be addressed. I have noticed looking at the various grades from U to R to O, that very often the discrepancy is not large enough to encourage a beef farmer to pay the premium amount for a weanling or yearling, because they know they will not recoup the money when the product is finished.

On marketing, if we are serious about obtaining a higher price for our beef farmers, we must go aggressively after the European markets. For too long our policy has been dependent on the third world market and on exporting on the hoof. Up to 80% of our steer beef currently goes to Third World markets. The projection is that beef consumption in the European Union will increase by between 1% and 1.5%. This is a golden opportunity for us. We will have the national beef quality assurance scheme in place. We will be able to guarantee traceability. We will be able to guarantee quality for a certain percentage of our product. The large conurbations of Europe are the markets we should be targeting aggressively where we will be able to convince these people that we have a quality product. If we are to differentiate between ordinary and quality beef in the market, we must ensure there is a large-scale discrepancy between the price of U, R and O grades of beef.

On the issue of traceability, at the end of the day we can have all the regulations and precautions in place but farmers have the ultimate responsibility in this regard. In the past we did untold damage to farmers as a result individuals being involved in illegal transportation of animals from herds infected with TB and brucellosis. They removed tags and sold the animals. There was the debacle in relation to ‘angel dust'. I appeal to the farming community to report rogue elements to the relevant authorities, because until such time as we have stamped out any rogue elements within the primary production sector, there will always be headlines in the national papers about ‘angel dust', BSE, TB and brucellosis. Farmers and farming organisations have a responsibility to ensure that they adhere to the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill when it is enacted. If necessary, they should educate some of their members in this regard.

We must look in-depth at the issue of slaughtering facilities. I have been of the opinion for a long time that we must rationalise, streamline and ensure there is an efficient slaughtering system in place. There are too many plants for too few animals.

There is much leakage there and, at the end of the day, the primary producer picks up the cost of this inefficiency. There is much work to be done to ensure there is confidence, proper marketing and that beef farmers who produce quality beef have an opportunity to make a living from it.

I wonder about the level of traceability in the rest of the European Union. I am deeply concerned that beef is coming from countries outside the EU into the United Kingdom in particular. What level of traceability exists in that regard? This issue must be addressed at EU level and at the world trade talks. If we are serious about protecting consumers and guaranteeing quality beef, irrespective of its origin, the primary option of anybody involved in the beef industry is to encourage people to eat beef. The market can be fought over among ourselves afterwards. If beef is coming in from the States or Argentina and its quality and traceability cannot be guaranteed, some consumers will always have concerns about beef. This will undermine confidence. This issue must be taken on board and addressed to ensure the origin of beef on European shelves can be traced. It must be possible to trace from where it came and from what type of animal and that no feed additives or hormones were used in its production.

I was in a Chinese take away recently and I asked for a fillet of beef in black bean sauce and fried rice. I was told they did not have fillets of beef because they were too expensive. I inquired further and was told they used only ordinary beef now because the prices would have to be increased if they used fillets of beef. Farmers and consumers cannot understand that. There is still a problem because consumers are paying top dollar for beef but farmers are receiving bottom dollar. Either somebody in between is making lots of money or the system is so inefficient that a large amount of money is being lost. This area must be addressed.

There is much talk about the ability to trace from the stable to the table. However, there is a blockage in the system between the stable and the table. Rationalisation of slaughtering facilities would address some of the problem, but there is a difficulty with regard to the transparency issue that arose recently during the IFA blockade of meat factories. The prices were increased immediately and there were allegations of cartels and undercutting. It was also alleged that beef producers were dumping beef on Third World markets. I do not know the correct position but there is a definite problem with regard to the price paid to farmers and the price paid by consumers.

There has been a large increase in the number of live exports, particularly yearlings, to Spain and elsewhere in recent years. At the final stage, their price is 10% to 15%, and in some cases 20% to 30%, higher than what farmers can get in Ireland for the same animals. The only difference is that their animals may have been fed in feed lots while the Irish animals have been fed mainly grass. However, the raw material is the same. There is much work to do in Ireland. The Minister is trying to develop markets in the European context and that is where he must be particularly aggressive. It is no longer acceptable to depend on the safety valve of live exports and hope a Third World market will take our beef for a reasonable price. We must guarantee quality and traceability. We must also guarantee that the farmer, who ultimately carries the can for everybody else, at least has an opportunity to make a living from this important industry which is worth more than £1 billion.

Regarding the dairy herd, if we are ever to ensure that quality beef is exported to high paying consumer markets in Europe, we must consider some mechanism to get the Holstein type steer out of the equation. They are flooding the market and putting too much downward pressure on the price paid to suckler farmers who are producing high quality beef. Another aspect which will cause damage in the long-term is that the best yearlings and calves are leaving the country. High quality animals that can be taken to the slaughtering stage and onto the European market are not available.

I raise these issues from my perspective as a dairy and beef farmer but also as a consumer and an avid supporter of the beef industry. The problem in Chinese take aways must be addressed because it is indicative of a larger problem.

The Bill is an opportunity to reflect on the industry and look forward to the challenges which face us, particularly in rescuing markets we unfortunately lost and trying to increase consumer confidence in the beef sector. The legislation is crucial to the future of the food industry and it reflects the commitment of the Minister, the Minister of State and the Government to quality and the industry.

I am not a farmer but I represent a constituency with small farms. We have endured major losses in the last number of years because of the inability to export to third markets. This has had a detrimental effect on small farmers in particular. I agree with my colleagues' concerns about the breeding stock. Ireland must consider the future of agriculture. Increasing profits to the detriment of traditional farmers and consumers must stop. The dairy herd is not a beef herd and, therefore, I agree that something must be done to remove the dairy herd breed from the beef industry. It is not good enough to try to sell bad quality beef even to a third country. The industry should develop high quality beef production and sell it on that basis.

The impasse in recent weeks involving the factories reflected the abject frustration of farmers. Obviously, there was not transparency from the stable to the table. As a mother who goes to the butcher every Saturday to shop, I cannot understand how the price of two or three pieces of beef almost equals the price of the animal at the mart. Something is seriously wrong in that regard and it must be addressed from the point of view of consumers and an economic perspective.

The Bill will help credibility and consumer expectations which must be safeguarded. Ultimately, the health of the people must be safeguarded in addition to the economic aspects from a farming perspective. Unfortunately, there was a serious health problem in my county when a woman died from CJD. When one reflects on that, one sees the harm people have done to the industry through greed.

It may not be malicious, but they have introduced hormones and bad feed through greed and people have died as a consequence. That has to be stopped and this is an opportunity to introduce safeguards through traceability and to encourage consumer confidence. This is the first Bill to give such assurance and similar legislation should be introduced throughout the EU, as we must have a level playing field. If the US and South America can use hormones and compete with our farmers we do not have a level playing field. Unless we have a quality mark and can make consumers aware of that quality we will not be able to compete with lower prices, as some people simply see it as a matter of having leaner meat. The challenges are there.

Traceability, safeguarding consumer confidence and the other aims of the Bill will support an industry which will have to take a serious look at itself. It will have to work with Bord Bia and the Department to ensure there is quality control and that there is independence and credibility. Only then will we be able to get a higher price for better quality in the marketplace. Last week I met people from abroad who only buy prime cuts – sirloin and fillet – from Ireland; they are not prepared to buy anything else. We must also look at accessing other markets, particularly in larger stores in the European Community. That opportunity has been lost due to the crisis in the meat factories. Assurances have been given by this legislation, though we need a more aggressive marketing policy and we must also educate the consumer, particularly in Europe. These are discerning consumers who will buy quality if it can be guaranteed. This legislation should be reflected in the other EU producer countries.

I wish to share my time with Deputies Perry and Farrelly. I welcome the general thrust of this legislation, particularly in an era when traditional agriculture, as we have known it for 30 years, is changing rapidly. It is no longer the case with traditional farming enterprises that a producer is guaranteed a solid income across the board in most enterprises. The Minister of State will know well that there are problems with the margins of profitability in most farming enterprises, apart from milk, that will have to be confronted. The beef industry has gone through a very difficult time since 1996, when the outbreak of BSE hit beef producers very hard and it is only now beginning to come back to an even keel. Bord Bia recently published figures showing food and drink exports amounting to £5 billion in 1999, representing an increase of 6.3% in the growth in value in the previous 12 months. However, looking closely at the figures, one notices that our beef consumer product exports to the UK, one of our biggest markets, have not recovered to the same extent in comparison with other continental markets and the 1995 figures. That is a huge consumer market of 60 million people on our doorstep and it is probably the cheapest market for us in terms of transport. We still have a major task to convince them that Irish beef is safe. I do not doubt that when an information campaign about the national beef assurance scheme is launched in the UK there will be a further recovery in exports.

I welcome the thrust of the legislation, as the consumer will be king, whether we like it or not. Producers must face up to that. The process whereby producers could do anything in presenting their product or in sending it to the factory is no longer acceptable. Generally speaking, farmers have realised that in recent years and have been gearing themselves up for change with cattle breeds and in the way they have presented cattle to the factories. Matters have improved enormously in Ireland to meet that consumer demand, but the BSE crisis was an example of how matters can get out of kilter very quickly in terms of consumer confidence, as was the Belgian experience, where consumption of meat products was seriously affected by an outbreak of disease.

I welcome the role of the Irish European Com missioner, David Byrne, as he can help this country when addressing the food and health authority issues with which he is charged. We are fortunate to have a Commissioner in that position, as we are an agricultural exporting country in which producers and others employed in the industry are very dependent on our huge amount of exports. The Commissioner can play a leading role in ensuring we find further markets and this legislation will be of assistance to him in saying that Ireland is leading the way in traceability from calf to the finished product – we will know exactly where the product has come from and how it has gone through the process. The roguery attached to a minority of cases over the years, whether at producer or meat factory level, is gone once and for all and we now have legislative teeth to deal with people effectively. The rogues in agriculture who gave the industry a bad name will no longer be with us and there will be penalties to deal with people effectively. A small number of people cannot be allowed to damage the good name of the beef industry or other agricultural product in the way some have tried to over the years.

I welcome the transparency that will be required in all aspects of the industry. It is a price we must pay to keep the consumer happy. One matter that bedevils all of us is the question of why the price of beef in the butcher's is relatively high when the producer's price is going down. That matter should be fast tracked to the committee established to deal with the difficulties farmers had with the meat industry and a proper explanation should be sought. There should still be a margin of profitability for the middleman, and butchers in particular, but consumers are not benefiting to the extent they should.

The provision whereby non-compliant farmers must go to the Circuit Court is a very draconian measure, as 99% of those in farming will want to do the right thing. The Circuit Court may ultimately just be a threat, but there should be an appeals system independent of the Department. I do not have great confidence in the manner in which the vets who operate for the Department will deal with an appeal by a farmer. They all know each other in the business and will not let down colleagues. Farmers will not be happy with a system whereby an appeal is decided by a Department vet in respect of a decision made by another Department vet. Effectively we are talking about putting a farmer out of business if he does not comply with the regulations and the law applicable under this scheme. We are talking about a licence to farm and it is a serious issue. If we are going down the road of putting a farmer out of business due to non-compliance with this legislation we must be satisfied that no collusion takes place in any sector of the agriculture industry, whether in the Department or in farming. There must be fairness and independence in the application of the decision. In the case of an appeal, that should be decided outside the Department.

I support Deputy Connaughton who said animal inspections under this scheme should be carried out on the same day as TB testing. Farmers cannot have a Department vet carry out TB testing one week and a few weeks later be expected to do likewise in relation to compliance with the national beef assurance scheme. The Department should take that matter on board.

On the question of traceability under the scheme, there is a huge problem with tags on animals. All public representatives dealing with various premia schemes come across a problem with tags. I hope a proper tagging system can be provided, otherwise the current tagging system will cause problems in regard to traceability.

I welcome the thrust of the Bill, the purpose of which is to improve transparency in the scheme with a view to keeping the consumer happy. I hope the national beef assurance scheme will do that. I hope the Minister will take on board a few reservations on Committee Stage.

I wish to share time with Deputy Farrelly. I welcome many aspects of the Bill. However, recent events have undermined public confidence in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Minister's words alone are not enough. There must be a real effort by him and his Department to relaunch the image of the quality of Irish beef.

I wish to make a few remarks from the point of view of the retailer, an area in which I have some expertise. I employ three butchers in our supermarket in Ballymote. Retailers are at the cutting edge of the meat trade. We meet the customer and have to make considerable investment to meet the ISO standards which the customer expects. We are acutely conscious of the need for consistency and quality in one of our main export products. There is also grave inconsistency. Due to the dairy based nature of the breeding herd, for whatever reason, the number of cattle achieving high grades in meat factories is appallingly low. This is reflected on the meat shelves abroad. We are dealing with a major wholesaler who has a niche market. He does not go to the cattle marts but has nominated suppliers. The feed which farmers give to their beef stock is totally regulated. On the question of fillet raised by Deputy Kelleher, in a 550 lbs carcase there would be about 10 lbs of fillet at most. Perhaps that explains its price.

The low level of grading, particularly in factories, was part of the reason for the IFA protest over prices. I strongly urge the Minister to implement immediately a quality breeding programme to enable us promote the product the Minister tells the world we can produce.

During the recent IFA protest it was alleged that farmers were being ripped off by meat factories and retailers alike. I cannot speak for the meat factories who are ably represented elsewhere but I wish to make it clear that retailers operate on a modest margin given the amount of wastage and overheads which they carry. It may come as a surprise to the House that the average gross margin on meat for most retailers – from an opening stock and a closing stock at a meat counter weekly – would be very successful at 27%. That would be a satisfactory margin on a retail operation of any butcher outlet. There is a view that butchers are ripping off the system and that they are getting double the margin when beef is sold at 95p per lb. How can one equate that with sirloin steak at £3.99 per lb? It is very simple. Let us take the various cuts, from the cheapest at 99p per lb up to £3.99 per lb. On an opening and closing stock – I could show my books – we operate on a margin of 27% – many have a much lower margin. It is a very expensive business to run when one has to pay butchers from £300 to £350 per week. A major investment is required to run an efficient well-managed butcher outlet in a supermarket or as a separate stand-alone butcher shop. I am not complaining about the system but, on balance, the customer receives a good service from the victuallers. They are not being ripped off, they get a wide choice of product.

Retail prices in Ireland for fresh meat are lower than inflation and are considerably lower than in the UK and Europe. The mergers review group has recommended the removal of the 1987 groceries order. That would be a major mistake and I appeal to the Minister to retain that order. It has allowed huge investment by butchers and retailers over recent years of £600 million. If we intend to promote the quality of Irish beef we must realise there is a considerable number of retailers who deal directly with farmers on agreed terms. Few butchers go to meat factories to buy beef for resale in this country. Several Deputies referred to the inconsistency. Butchers who want to retain customers do business with farmers on a niche market basis and Deputy D'Arcy will bear this out. A huge number of farmers who give the exact feed have joined buying groups and deal directly with a wholesaler. This ensures a quality product. If that type of control was introduced for meat factories and beef exports, the quality would be considerably improved. An Bord Bia is doing a considerable job but we must ensure the quality of beef heifers going into the factories is what is labelled on the box.

I will be amazed if the Tánaiste's inquiry reveals higher margins than 27% for retailers, whether in supermarkets or butcher outlets.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the beef industry. The introduction of a national beef assurance scheme is welcome. No industry has been spoken about more in the past ten years than this one. As one who has been in the business of finishing cattle, what has happened in the midlands is that the dairy herd owners who commenced finishing cattle in the late 1980s left a shortage of top quality product such as calves and stores for beef finishers. As a result the beef finishers have gone out of business in recent years. If we are serious about improving the quality of beef, some of the following actions should be taken. In the past ten years the Minister and the Department have done nothing to improve it in any respect – I say that sincerely.

The reform of the CAP and the negotiations on Agenda 2000 approving across the board subsidies for dairy type bull animals was the biggest mistake made in the EU. There should have been a subsidy to take those animals out of the system at an early age. The EU subsidy proposals, including the beef cow subsidy and the subsidy available to producers, regardless of whether they produce good or bad animals, are responsible for a major part of the problem we face today. The figure indicating that 70% of animals are exported to Third World countries proves that too many poor quality cattle are being produced and that the incentive is to produce numbers, regardless of the quality of the finished product.

There is no incentive to produce good quality cattle and this state of affairs has left a huge glut on the market. In consequence, farmers get a poor price for their animals. A grant should be available to purchasers of top quality bulls and subsidies should not be paid to Holstein calves. The KK Club quality production methods, which are used in the Kepak plant, are very successful and they should be applied across the country. The producers involved are getting a high price for their top quality products.

What guarantee have we that the beef imported into Europe is certified? We are not being given any assurances in this regard. The playing pitch is not level. Natural hormones, which remove fat, are used in other countries and I have not been convinced that their use in beef here has ever done any serious damage. The Minister should provide the House with a report on the effects of natural hormones if they were to be used here and throughout the EU. This is important, given that the beef produced from their use in other countries and in feed lots around the world is imported into the EU.

There is a huge amount of work to be done. In conjunction with the beef factories and the producers the Minister and his Department should agree on and introduce a scheme that will eliminate a substantial percentage of the poor quality cattle produced in the country.

This Bill was introduced on 29 June last year, yet almost eight months later it has not yet completed Second Stage in the Dáil. That hardly indicates any great sense of urgency. Since last June the full BSE figures for 1999 have been released. Unfortunately, they are the highest ever for a year, while the January 2000 figure appears to be the highest ever for a single month. This does not suggest that the problem is going away.

The convention in the House is to describe Irish beef as of superb quality and a premium product fit for the gods. The truth is more mun dane. There have been numerous rejections of Irish beef in foreign markets over the years, either because its quality was not up to the mark or because it did not meet the specifications contracted for. These deficiencies were, by and large, the responsibility of the processors exporting the meat.

Another more general problem that we fail to recognise is that much of our beef is not of good quality because it is not bred for that purpose. A high proportion of our calves are born as a by-product of the dairy industry and, consequently, they do not turn into quality beef animals. One cannot win the Derby with a horse bred to win the Grand National.

Last October, four months after the introduction of the Bill, what was described as "canned beef in juice" was put on retail sale here more than two and a half years after its "best by" date. I was informed by the Minister that this product was originally produced for the Russian market in 1993-94. It was apparently rejected there and sent back to Ireland. Several years later it was put on the retail market here. When this canned produce was analysed by the Teagasc laboratory it was found not to be beef but in excess of 98.5% pigmeat. The cans, of which I have one here—

It is not in order to display an item in the house.

The can is marked "Department of Agriculture, Ireland, inspected and passed." I quote from the label on the can. This product is described as "canned beef in juice", yet it consists almost entirely of mechanically retrieved pigmeat. In view of this could the certification on it be described as quality beef assurance?

How could anybody rely on a Department that inspected and passed this so-called can of beef to operate a national beef assurance scheme? Apart from the damage to the home market, I invite the Minister of State to consider the damage done to the Russian market. Russia is a very large country with large Muslim and Jewish minorities of many millions of people. They are strictly forbidden by their respective religions to eat pork but they eat beef. If they bought this or similar cans produced for that market and relied on the certificate by the "Department of Agriculture, Ireland" they would have been very seriously misled. They would have been upset, not only from a food or health point of view, but in a far more fundamental way.

Neither the Minister nor his Department exhibited any great public concern about this matter when it was raised publicly. The company which produced this canned pigmeat and described it as canned beef placed advertisements in the newspapers withdrawing it. As far as I am aware that is all that happened. I then wrote to the EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection in the hope the Commission would do something more about the matter than the Irish authorities. The Commissioner replied to me by way of a letter dated 22 December 1999. It states:

Dear Des,

Thank you for your letter of 17 November 1999 concerning the placing on the market of a special meat product.

Use of mechanically recovered meat is not forbidden in the production of meat products by Community legislation. Of course the product has to be properly labelled so that the buyer has a clear idea of what he is buying and is not misled.

From the account given in your letter, it would appear that the marketing of the product violated the applicable rules and appropriate action should be taken by the Irish authorities. The eligibility of this product to payment of export refunds is also questionable in the circumstances outlined in your letter. I understand this is the subject of investigations by the relevant services in the Commission and that the Irish authorities have been contacted in the matter.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Yours sincerely,

David Byrne.

I received that letter some time in early January. I understand from the Minister that export refunds were paid by his Department in a sizeable sum on these cans of pigmeat. The export refunds were paid on the basis that what was being exported to Russia was beef. I do not know whether the Minister has asked the company concerned to refund the export refunds or whether it has done so voluntarily now that it has been caught. I do not know what other action, if any, has been taken against the company concerned. Going on previous experience, I think it is extremely unlikely that action will be taken as beef processors are virtually immune from either prosecution or civil action by the Department when they break the law. Where the Department and the Minister have been shamed into taking action in a small number of cases, it has sometimes been as long as six years after the event before the action started. Truthfully, can we have any reliance that what is described in the Bill as a national beef assurance scheme will be properly and fearlessly implemented?

Another matter has recently come to light which calls into question one's reliance on a beef assurance scheme of the kind envisaged in the Bill. That is the recent conviction in the Circuit Criminal Court of a senior veterinary inspector in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, who resigned from the Department and finally pleaded guilty to some of the charges against him. These included the fact that he sold, for £3,000, a full pad of signed and stamped blank veterinary health certificates which could be used to prove to a customer that animals exported were of Irish origin and in good health. These certificates were to be used to export cattle of UK origin, the export of which was prohibited by EU regulations. The man concerned received a short prison sentence. The crime to which he pleaded guilty was of the utmost seriousness and was really an act of national treachery. Apparently, at an earlier stage, this man had resigned from the Department to go into the meat processing industry, but that venture failed. The Department was apparently unwilling to take him back, but was forced to do so by a ministerial order.

We have never had a satisfactory explanation from the Minister or the Department about the appearance in a meat factory in Nenagh some time ago of cattle which the Garda were satisfied had come from across the Border. Earlier in the 1990s evidence was adduced at the beef tribunal about the larceny of beef, which was the property of the Commission, in Rathkeale in connection with a canning project on behalf of the Commission for free distribution of beef in Russia. The prime cuts were removed from the meat, which was the property of the Commission, and cheap hearts and other offal was substituted in the cans. The Department has still, apparently, not recovered the amount involved, which is approaching £2 million, that was the subject of this larceny by the company concerned, although almost nine years has elapsed since the time the beef was stolen.

I would love to think that a scheme such as that envisaged in the Bill would actually work, but unless there is a marked change of heart I cannot be very confident. I keep reminding myself of the Department's attitude to the forgery of the Bureau Veritas certificates, their attitude to the forgery of the Hibernia health certificate, the fraudulent changes made in the CBF letter by an official in the Department, the forgeries by the Department in the Emerald Meats case and various other matters which one could set out at some length.

When I consider all these in the context of the Bill I ask if the Minister can assure us that there will, at long last, be a change of heart and a change of policy?

Mr. Coveney

I wish to share time with Deputies D'Arcy and Clune.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Coveney

As a farmer and a Deputy I cautiously welcome the introduction of this Bill which is aimed at ensuring a higher quality product is produced by beef farmers and a proper traceability mechanism is implemented for the industry. The beef industry has been through very difficult times in the past five years. Perhaps beef is the most crucial sector in terms of the survival of the agriculture industry, simply because so many farmers and families rely on beef for their income.

In order for the Bill to be successfully implemented, farmers must accept it as worthwhile and of benefit to them in the medium and long-term. Beef farmers have always been best at the technical side of farming and production – grazing and feeding systems, animal husbandry, methods of production, grading cattle etc. In general, farmers have never been particularly good at considering marketing and its importance. The Bill will attempt to ensure that primary producers, that is, farmers and processors, will play a greater part in making the marketing of Irish beef as effective as possible abroad.

A mechanism is being established which will reassure customers regarding the safety of Irish beef, which will hopefully lead to an increase in commercial trading in the product by opening new markets and expanding existing markets. In one sense it is not a particularly good time to be introducing new quality control and traceability measures as farmers are under enough pressure. However, to put off the introduction of the Bill for that reason would be very short-sighted and narrow-minded. If farmers are to receive more for their product, new and more profitable markets must be found. As the Minister is aware, we export the vast majority of the beef we produce and are, therefore, almost entirely reliant on export markets for the success of the beef industry. In 1996 the BSE crisis resulted in the loss of certain markets, as did the economic problems in Russia which followed. We have yet to recover many of the markets we lost over the past few years, particularly the continental markets where higher margins can be made and the live export trade to the Middle East, particularly Libya and Egypt.

The basic principle around increasing value and sales of a product is to ensure that exactly what the customer wants is produced. Inside and outside Europe customers insist on quality, traceability and consistency of supply. I hope the Bill will ensure that traceability will be accurate and detailed. A buyer of Irish meat or live cattle should, if they wish, have the facility to examine the line of production back to the farmyard through the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. He should be able to look at the conditions of production and ask whether the animal was properly cared for, the environmental conditions in which it was raised, the medication used, feeding policy etc. This is about increasing the professionalism of beef production and building an international reputation for a quality product.

Of course there will be pain before gain for farmers. In real terms the Bill must increase purchaser confidence. Libya and Egypt still refuse to buy Irish beef due to the BSE scare. Perhaps this Bill will ease their concerns. European markets, particularly in France and Germany, are also targets where higher margins can be made.

So far I have complimented the Bill in many ways. However, I wish to point out some limitations and errors in it. First, I wish to stress that the introduction of the Bill effectively means farmers will need a licence to produce beef. If beef producers do not comply with the beef assurance scheme their herd number could be withdrawn. We must ensure, through amendments if necessary, that farmers are not overly penalised in the Bill. There are farmers, particularly those who are elderly, who may have difficulty in adjusting to the new assurance measures, and this must be taken into account by providing an adjustment period for change in assurance requirements. If this does not happen we will be taking away an individual's licence to farm because of perhaps genuine mistakes.

Second, we should not be under any illusions that the scheme will result in a dramatic improvement in beef quality. It is about traceability, not quality, and all of us are aware that to improve quality our breeding policy must be examined seriously and some tough decisions taken on it.

The Bill must have a positive impact on the consumer, and not just on farmers, yet it completely fails to have such an impact. Several provisions and penalties which will be imposed on offenders are outlined. However, these only apply to primary producers. Consumer safety is imperative and, therefore, regulation must also apply to wholesale and retail trade. Regulating farmers and processors cannot guarantee a safe final product, particularly when others products can be imported, thus avoiding regulation, and the consumer cannot be sure about what he is eating.

I very much welcome the Bill. I am little worried, having listened to my good friend, Deputy O'Malley, about the performance of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. However, I have more confidence in it than he apparently does, and I hope that it will implement the Bill fully when it is enacted. Very little time has been allocated to debate the Bill, even though it was introduced last June. I do not relish speaking for only six or seven minutes, but we must operate within Standing Orders.

We cannot lose sight of the fact that 80% of our beef kill is exported annually and we must gear ourselves towards that. Despite the turmoil in the beef industry in recent weeks and a downward spiral in beef prices since the BSE crisis, beef production continues to contribute significantly to overall agricultural production and to the economy. Over recent years Ireland has targeted the more lucrative European markets with its produce to avoid dependence on less stable world markets which also provide a lower return.

However, access to these lucrative markets, particularly in Italy and Holland, places high demands on the beef sector. To qualify for such markets Irish carcases need to grade E, U, R, 1, 2, 3 and 4L. In 1997 21.4% of the national kill met the demands of the European markets. This figure reduced to 17.1% in 1998 and increased to 21.1% in 1999 and that is disturbing. The Italian market requires E, U, R, 2, 3, 4 while the Dutch market requires E, U, R, 2, 3, 4L. While it is heartening that there was an increase in the proportion of the national kill that met market requirements in 1999, the figure is still low. We need to plan to increase it to at least 50%. However, the short-term outlook for achieving this goal is not good because of live exports and flat rate pricing.

Over the past two years there has been unprecedented growth in the export of quality calves, which contributed to the fall in animal numbers in 1999. This export of young stock will hit our ability to supply lucrative European markets in the future. There has also been a gradual shift towards paying for quality, which has resulted in the increased proportion grading well. However, the recent resolution of the farmers' dispute with the meat processors, which concentrated on achieving a minimum price for grade O, 4 cattle, may result in a return to flat rate pricing as factories try to offset the O grade price increase by reducing payments for better grades.

Breed and slaughter weights will continue to be the main factors at our disposal for ensuring the production of lean carcases for the better priced markets in mainland Europe because a major move towards bull beef production is unlikely. An animal will not grade well if it has not got the proper genetic make up. A large proportion of the national beef cow herd is made up of Friesians and rapidly maturing Hereford and Aberdeen Angus breeds. The percentage of continental breeds in the herd needs to be increased.

When selecting a sire for the herd, farmers need information, although they may not realise this. AI sires are genetically evaluated for the important economic traits of growth rate, conformation and calving and some are evaluated for their mothering ability and daughter fertility. This use of AI is essential if we are to rapidly improve the national beef herd and ensure that we have the quality of carcases that EU markets demand. Farmers need good quality dams and sires to maximise beef quality. The dam side has been neglected for years in Ireland, resulting in variable suckler cow quality. Over recent years, it has become apparent that to meet the quality demands of the European markets, the proportion of continental genetics needs to be increased in the suckler cow population. However, this has met with resistance among farmers due to concerns about poor mothering ability and milk production in the suckler cow population.

The introduction of maternally tested sires from France should help overcome these concerns. Such sires have allowed farmers to increase the proportion of continental breeds in their suckler herds without affecting their mothering or milk production ability. Such sires as those available in the beef programme of AI studs, such as Ulysses and Aboukir, have undergone testing in France for their maternal and beefing ability and present an ideal combination to farmers wishing to improve their herds.

When selecting a sire in the suckler herd it is important that farmers pay attention to the requirements of the market. Hard facts were lacking about the genetic performance of available bulls. This is not the case with proven AI sires for which genetic data is available to give farmers the tools they need to breed in response to the requirements of the market. Farmers need to select sires that can improve conformation and growth in the suckler herd. It is only by attending to detail at the planning stage that farmers will be able to fill the orders for the more lucrative markets and benefit from the higher prices that are paid.

There are currently ten licensed AI organisations in Ireland, but 50 cowboys are operating. The Department is careless in allowing such people to sell semen to other herd owners without any testing or inspection. I call on the Minister of State to ensure that when the Bill is enacted it is implemented at primary producer level. While such cowboys operate, it will not be possible to increase the proportion of national kill being exported to EU markets to 50%. It is already the lowest in Europe. The deregulation of AI was a disastrous mistake by the Department.

While most speakers welcomed the Bill and were cognisant of the fact that we need to address consumer confidence and provide support for the beef industry, there has been criticism of its detail and some doubts about the enforcement of its provisions. The Minister and his Department will be responsible for the monitoring and implementation of the Bill, which is aimed at consumers at home and abroad, not farmers, cattle traders, producers or processors.

In March 1996, the BSE crisis exploded around us. Beef consumption fell at home and abroad. Damage was done to the reputation of Irish beef, whether we like it or not, and we failed to convince our major customers abroad that our methods of dealing with the problem were different from those in, say, the United Kingdom. Damage was done, consumption fell dramatically and a number of countries imposed restrictions on EU imports and on Irish beef. Many people will still not eat beef since the announcement of a possible link between BSE and CJD. Indeed, the figures for January saw an increase in the number of BSE cases reported, which is a disappointment for all those involved in the industry.

I want to point out a factor that will not go unnoticed by consumers. The purpose of the Bill is to integrate and strengthen existing controls of our cattle and beef. It aims to ensure that the origin and history of all cattle and beef entering the human food chain can be checked, verified and guaranteed to a required standard. We export to about 57 countries worldwide. Beef accounts for more than 40% of Ireland's agricultural output and I note from the Minister's figures that thein dustry contributes to the livelihood of 250,000 people in this country, all of whom no doubt are consumers themselves.

It is necessary to send out a clear message that we are serious about our beef industry, conscious of consumers' concerns and that we are putting in place a rigorous scheme which will ensure that a calf can be traced from birth, through every farm and movement, and that veterinary care, grass, etc. can all be accounted for. The Bill applies to all persons engaged in the primary production and processing of Irish cattle and beef – cattle dealers, exporters of live cattle, livestock marts, slaughtering premises and establishments which manufacture or trade in feeding stuffs. It aims to regulate primary production and processing as many of its provisions will not apply to food business in the retail sector. I note the Minister's comment that the retail sector is already regulated under the food hygiene regulations, which are under the control of the Minister for Health and Children. Supermarkets, grocery shops and butchers are all subject to inspection by the Department of Health and Children and I am concerned that a gap in control could be created at this point. That point was made by many speakers and I await with interest the development of the Bill as it goes to Committee Stage.

The recent White Paper produced by Commissioner David Byrne is open for discussion and people can make submissions on it. That is a step forward in terms of European integration and food safety, but there has been criticism that the White Paper is not sufficiently strong. We are one of five countries in Europe that has a food safety authority which serves us well. Patrick Wall has always acted in a professional manner and his comments have done a lot for consumer confidence. I am glad that the Food Safety Authority is seen as an independent body, responsible solely for food and food safety. I welcome the message the Bill will send out to consumers at home and abroad. We are serious about the quality of the products we are supplying on the markets.

(Wexford): I wish to share my time with Deputy Michael Ahern.

(Wexford): I welcome the Bill and compliment the Minister on recognising the importance of bringing forward a Bill such as this. The beef industry has gone through a very difficult period over the past number of years as a result of the BSE crisis, which caused a major upheaval in the industry and made us realise we were very much tied to the problems in the UK. Different Ministers found it difficult to separate the fact that there were few, if any, problems in the Irish beef industry from the major problems that existed across the water. I was baffled on occasions because, despite our State agencies and our high powered delegation, we were never able to prove to people abroad that Irish beef was top of the range and that Irish farmers were producing the beef in practically organic conditions.

This debate gives us an opportunity to reflect on and discuss the beef industry generally. Given that we export eight out of ten animals, it is vital that we have a proper traceability scheme in operation to prove to the consumer at home and abroad that our beef products comply with the highest standards. Whether we like it or not, the consumer is king and there are vast markets here and in Europe which present enormous opportunities. We are now part of an expanding EU and major opportunities are available to market our beef products to the European consumer. As a member of the Council of Europe, I visited supermarkets in some of the major European cities but there was no Irish beef on the shelves in many of them. There was beef for sale from all of the other European countries but it was difficult to find Irish beef for sale. Sometimes it was stacked away in a corner of a supermarket.

The Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, travels abroad with representatives from An Bord Bia to promote both the beef and food industries, and he is doing an excellent job, but I wonder about the role of An Bord Bia and its effectiveness in promoting our beef products on the European stage. Are we getting value for money? Is an assessment carried out from time to time of the role of An Bord Bia? I understand the Minister and representatives from An Bord Bia tried to promote Irish beef during the beef blockade when markets could not be filled, but An Bord Bia could do a lot more on the European stage to promote our beef products.

The beef industry has been rocked to the core in recent years due, in particular, to the BSE crisis, and has become entangled in all sorts of complications. There is no doubt that farmers suffered enormously because of the closing of the live trade markets. They had no alternative but to sell their product to the processors and we all know what happened with the cartel arrangements, the price fixing and the ripping off of farmers which brought about the recent blockade. I felt it was about time that the farmers decided to take action against the meat processors because there is no doubt they were not being paid a fair price.

The green image of Ireland is no longer sufficient to sell our food products abroad, hence the need for the Bill. Consumer markets will only respond to the highest quality standards based on traceability, accountability, being hormone free, knowing where the beef products come from, how they are produced, and the legislative frameworks that are in place in other countries to ensure that standards are being adhered to. That is the deciding factor for companies abroad trying to sell their product. I hope we will always retain our green Irish image, but we must lay down stan dards here for the future, and price is always important.

There has not been a problem up to the farm gate because Irish farmers, with the exception of the odd cowboy, produce top quality produce in practically organic conditions. Over the years the farm organisations have condemned without reservation farmers who do not comply with the standards which will ensure that our farm product is of the highest quality. They have given a guarded welcome to the Bill and they were consulted when it was being formulated. They have reservations about some sections and have been in touch with Oireachtas Members to express those reservations. Perhaps the Minister would refer to those concerns, particularly those of the IFA, in his reply.

This Bill is important. It is not over-bureaucratic and will not bog down farmers in regulation, as has happened with so much other legislation in this area. Basically, it informs farmers that if they comply with the regulations, the product from the farms will be easily marketable throughout Europe and further afield. I hope the farm organisations will ensure that when the Bill is passed its provisions are complied with. We can then safely claim that the produce of Irish farmers is top of the range and deserves to achieve the highest possible price. If there is a problem, it can be traced back to find out its origin and how it was produced.

I am a little concerned that butchers, supermarkets and other retailers are omitted from the legislation, although the Minister said there is other legislation to deal with them. We are regularly told that the process from the farm to the plate should be all-encompassing and should be dealt with as one, so I hope the Minister will explain why those areas of beef production and sales are not included in the Bill. I believe it is a mistake but the Minister has other ideas and appears to believe that the existing legislation is sufficient.

I welcome the Bill. It is a step in the right direction and proves beyond doubt the commitment of the Minister and the Ministers of State to ensuring that the good image of Irish food is maintained and enhanced in the future.

I am glad of the opportunity to speak on this important and necessary Bill. Its importance has been outlined by the Minister and other speakers in terms of the importance of the beef industry for the internal economy and for export earnings.

In this day and age, the consumer decides. This legislation is required because the market has so decided. Room for discretion no longer exists. In recent years the beef industry has been hit by a number of exocets. The BSE scare in 1996 hit it severely and had a disastrous effect on the income of farmers and others involved in the industry. Recently, there was a dioxin scare about food in Belgium which had serious repercussions for the beef and food industries there and, indeed, throughout Europe.

The high standards of public health protection proposed in the Bill will apply to livestock marts, abattoirs, slaughter houses and businesses engaged in food production and those which manufacture or deal in animal feedstuffs. This is important for restoring confidence in the industry. The implementation of the legislation can only enhance and strengthen the animal identification and traceability measures already in place.

The provision to make regulations regarding the notification of animal movements is a key component of the Bill. It is particularly important when one looks at what happened with regard to brucellosis and TB in the past 40 years. Millions of pounds were spent in the fight against those diseases but lack of traceability and the abuse of the system by members of the various groups who were involved in trying to eradicate the diseases were among the reasons that fight was unsuccessful. Hopefully, this legislation will contribute to fighting those problems and finally get TB and brucellosis under control.

The future of this industry depends on the confidence consumers have in the food they buy. If this confidence is eroded or destroyed, the industry will suffer. The producers, that is, the farmers, must convince the people of Ireland and in our export markets that they are serious about food safety. This is crucial to the economy and to the incomes of 250,000 people in this country. We can put as many regulations as we wish in place and enact Bill after Bill but unless the people on the ground comply with them, the confidence in the food industry which has been lost will not return.

It is important that inspections are carried out by the Department to ensure the provisions of this Bill are complied with. There must also be scope for people to appeal against decisions which they consider unjust. The Bill provides for a procedure whereby a person can make application for an appeal to the Circuit Court. This should be examined again with a view to putting in place another appeal system. There must be an appeal system that is fair, independent and reasonable. People should be able to afford to make appeals and not be deterred from appealing a decision by its exorbitant cost.

Marketing is vital. The best way to sell goods is to have a product that is easy to sell and, in the case of food, it must be top quality. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe, and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, have travelled Europe in recent months in an effort to improve sales of Irish produce. If we have a top quality product, they will have no problem increasing our sales. Ultimately, it depends on people having confidence in the product being sold. If they are to have confidence in animal products, there must be a strict system of traceability in operation.

That people must now have certificates to produce, sell and buy will help restore confidence and make it easier for the industry to place its goods on the domestic and world markets. We met the Commissioner with responsibility for food safety, Mr. David Byrne, last week and we spoke briefly about the beef industry. He assured us that the highest standards will be put in place and enforced.

We have nothing to fear if the regulations are adhered to and good practice is followed. I welcome the Bill because it gives producers the standards which must be complied with to have a successful export market, and we export 80% of our goods. If people comply with the Bill, the beef industry will attain the high standard we hear daily it has.

I wish to share my time with Deputy Gerry Reynolds. I compliment and recognise the work done on the Bill by the Minister of State and his civil servants. The need for traceability came about after the 1996 crisis. I was Minister of State with responsibility for food in the Department at the time. It was obvious when we travelled to Europe and places such as Sweden that this type of assurance was needed. The process was begun then, and it has taken a long time to produce a Bill. It is a complex area and it was not that simple. People talk about traceability as if it were a simple matter but it is a difficult process. It is very difficult and next to impossible to obtain perfect traceability for every bit of meat consumed. However, we must strive to attain as much traceability as possible. It depends on many factors.

The debate is timely because I noticed that last week the first debate at ministerial level under the Portuguese presidency dealt with the issue. Unanimity was achieved at ministerial level on traceability involving an identification code for beef and another code for slaughterhouses. However, there was disagreement on certain aspects of identification and regarding country of origin and place of boning. Nevertheless, it shows that the Commission is taking this issue seriously. I was involved in a directive on novel foods some years ago but the process was very slow. I urge the Minister and the Minister of State to speed up the process at EU level.

The Bill deals with primary production. I have a letter from Mr. Don McNamara, the chairman of Kerry IFA who is also manager of A Taste of Kerry. He has pointed out what a number of speakers have said already: that the Bill deals only with the primary producer and that it should extend to transport, wholesale, retail, handling, the catering industry, etc. The Minister of State will probably say those areas are covered by other legislation, but there is no traceability in those areas. If I ask a restaurant proprietor from where his meat came, he can tell me if it came from the local butcher but he cannot if it came from a factory or from abroad. How can we then say we have a proper traceability system in the country if we cannot provide that information? We should not be too boastful or exaggerate about our traceability system. We are striving towards a high quality system but it will be hard to achieve perfection.

A Taste of Kerry was one of the first groups to seek traceability when it established a scheme for marketing Kerry beef under the brand ‘A Taste of Kerry'. The organisation ensured farmers did not use hormones or other chemicals to boost cattle growth. The group is concerned about the Bill and I bring this to the Minister of State's attention because the people involved in the group have been active in this area. The Minister of State and his officials should take seriously the flaws in the Bill when it comes to Committee Stage.

The Bill does not refer to the microbiological safety of the primary product. I have seen this in a few reports of hazard analysis and critical control points system, or HACCP. It is a major omission and Deputy Upton also pointed that out. Perhaps the Minister of State's officials might take that into account when he replies.

I am concerned about the recent report launched by the National Food Centre and I bring it to the Minister of State's attention because it is a State agency. The result of this survey shows that quality policy should distinguish more clearly between safety and sensory quality, both of which are important to consumers. Whereas it is essential to have mandatory safety controls, eating quality needs more emphasis in voluntary schemes. Consumers are concerned about safety and concern is greatest in the case of beef. There is a need to provide information on safety testing in clear and attractive forms. Meat labelling is not yet achieving the desired impact as a source of information about product safety or sensory quality. I hope the Bill can address some of the issues which were raised in the survey.

I would outline the results if I had more time to deal with them. The main results of this survey by Teagasc was that the quality policy implemented in Ireland and EU countries fails significantly and falls short on meeting consumer needs in terms of reassuring consumers about the safety and eating quality of meat. We address the issue of traceability and safety in the Bill but we do not address quality. I am sure it is another question and it is something which will have to be addressed. It is fine to be able to trace from where an animal came and what food it was fed, but it is another issue to ensure that animal produces quality meat.

When I was a Minister of State, I was responsible for establishing the National Cattle Breeding Federation specifically to produce better quality beef. It is a slow process to get the various societies to co-operate but it is progressing. Farmers and cattle breeding societies now realise that we must have a quality product and traceability. Once there was resistance to it but people realise now we must have it.

The bureaucratic challenge to farmers is now onerous. Farmers at one time had to get someone else to fill forms and hire people to do what would be seen as a simple job.

Farmers are traditionally not good at filling out forms, although young farmers who have gone through the green certificate and other education courses have changed in that regard. The amount of form filling required of farmers is quite onerous and I fear their frustration will become a reason for wanting to get out of farming. Farmers tell me they are frustrated. I hope this system will not introduce yet another layer of bureaucracy for farmers.

I compliment the Minister and the Minister of State on this important legislation. I have no doubt the Bill will be discussed in depth on Committee Stage. I am sure the Minister of State agrees that the issue of quality must be addressed.

Deputy Deenihan has drawn our attention to the increased bureaucracy associated with farming. If this legislation introduces another layer of bureaucracy, it will have the effect of taking farmers out of agriculture. The current level of form filling is extremely frustrating for farmers. Young farmers who have gone to agricultural college can contend with this bureaucracy but many older farmers who have been in the system for many years find it extremely difficult. They also have difficulty dealing with bureaucracy in the manner required by the Department. The Bill is not concerned primarily with record keeping, but if we wish people to remain in agriculture we must minimise the level of bureaucracy in farming.

I support the proposal in Agenda 2000 to base cattle headage on area rather than on numbers of cattle. If we are to have a proper beef industry we must have quality rather than quantity. A major sea change is required in the agriculture sector regarding cattle breeding. If breeding continues as it is now, we will fail to gain markets in Europe, the UK and elsewhere. This will impact on the profitability of farmers. At present a top weanling, if exported, would make £150 more than an animal of the same weight which stays in the home market. If we cannot make up that difference we will not have a vibrant agricultural economy. The Department must lead by example and provide education and incentives for farmers to breed better quality cattle.

Only 20% of our beef qualifies for the European market. That is an extremely small percentage. If 80% of our beef qualified for the European market it would make a great difference. Since the BSE crisis we have had great difficulty regaining our former markets. We are not succeeding in this regard, and all the legislation in the world will not resolve that problem. Leadership by the Department is called for to improve the quality of our beef. Traceability is important but it will be difficult to put in place a traceability programme. We must increase our markets in the UK and Europe.

I thank the acting chairman for her co-operation and Deputies for their constructive contributions to the debate on this important legislation.

Food safety and the protection of the consumer are very much the issues of the moment. In recent years there has been a justifiable increase in consumers' awareness of their legitimate rights and their expectations of assurances as to the safety of the food they eat. This is particularly the case in the beef sector. In my opening address I outlined the background to the introduction of this legislation, which is a direct response to the BSE crisis, and the importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy.

The purpose of the national beef assurance scheme is to provide reassurances to consumers and customers regarding the safety of Irish beef. At the same time, the scheme will help to safeguard the multi-million pound Irish beef industry from the adverse effects of the inevitable food scares and help to maintain its competitiveness on domestic and international markets.

The importance of providing systems of independent controls and assurances was underlined by the decision late last year of the Russian authorities to lift the ban on the import of beef from five counties in Ireland. This decision was made possible because of the high level of controls in place on the production of beef in Ireland, including the traceability system, which is a central element of the national beef assurance scheme. The scheme is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to safeguarding public health by ensuring the highest standards of food safety beginning with the beef sector. It is also evidence of the Government's commitment to the beef industry, which is of vital importance to our economy, and the resolve to provide the necessary regulatory framework to underpin its continued viability and capacity to trade.

The State has already invested a large amount of money in the development of the computerised animal traceability element of the scheme. Some £4.2 million was expended last year in establishing computer links at marts and factories and in the supply of computer equipment and training. An additional £9.1 million will be spent this year in the further development and maintenance of this system and the associated development of a fully integrated animal health computer system. This expenditure, which is very significant by any standard, is a clear signal of the Government's commitment to delivering regulatory systems dedicated to ensuring the production of safe food products and the maintenance of a viable industry.

By enhancing the cattle traceability system and by introducing a mandatory registration and approval process, the Bill will deliver the additional assurances which will enable us to say Irish beef and beef products are safe to eat. The registration and inspection system will involve individual producers and processors in a very concrete way in the delivery of a safe product. It will ensure that all persons involved in the primary production and beef processing chain know their responsibilities and are actively involved in fulfilling their functions in this chain. The proposed legislation will be an important marketing tool in the promotion of Irish beef and it will also provide a solid foundation upon which quality specifications tailored to individual customer needs can build.

A number of Deputies have expressed concern regarding the scope of the Bill, particularly the fact that it does not apply in full to food businesses. Such businesses, which include supermarkets, grocery stores, restaurants and retail butcher shops, will not escape the net of the national beef assurance scheme because they are already covered by existing legislation on food hygiene and because their sources of supply will be controlled by the NBAS.

At present these businesses are strictly regulated by the various health boards which, like my Department, are agents of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in the delivery of food safety across the food chain. These existing provisions are very comprehensive and provide enforcement officers with powers of seizure, detention, withdrawal of product and the suspension, closure and prosecution of businesses. Accordingly, such businesses have been excluded from the registration, inspection and approval processes under the Bill. To include them would have been an unnecessary duplication and could lead to a two-tier, anomalous process of inspection and approval.

However, by controlling primary production and processing, the NBAS will regulate the sources of supply for such businesses. Under the scheme they will be obliged to source their supplies only from approved participants. Failure to comply with this provision will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties will apply. Furthermore, provision has been made in the Bill for the appointment of authorised officers by the health boards for the precise purpose of checking whether this provision has been complied with.

Deputies have expressed concern regarding the non-application of the Act to imported beef, notwithstanding its application to imported animals. The purpose of the scheme is to provide additional assurance about the safety of Irish production. Thus, it would be contrary to the purpose of the scheme to include imported beef. It could also constitute a barrier to trade in contravention of EU legislation. However, animals imported into the State would have to be covered since they would be subsequently traded, slaughtered and processed in the same way as domestic production.

Deputies can be assured, however, that all meat imported into the EU from third countries is subject to strict regulation. Meat may be imported only from third countries and establishments which have been specifically approved by EU veterinary officials. In addition, the meat may be imported only through approved import points and it must be accompanied by animal and public health certification conforming with EU requirements. The list of countries and establishments exporting to the EU is subject to continuous monitoring and review.

Several Deputies expressed fears that the additional costs arising from the scheme could impose a burden on small enterprises, particularly abattoirs and farmers. Any additional costs which may arise should not be overestimated. The standards which must be met are based largely on existing legislation. If producers and processors are already complying with these requirements – the vast majority are – any additional costs should be minimal. Any costs which arise, which should not be excessive, must be balanced against the very real gains which will ensue under the scheme in terms of reassuring consumers and customers, thus improving the marketability of Irish beef to the benefit of all producers and processors.

Deputy Upton raised a number of questions regarding the type, format and frequency of inspections of producers and processors. While the details of the inspection process have yet to be finalised, the principles of independent inspections and regular auditing will be applied. Only persons who are suitably qualified will be charged with the inspection of the different categories of participants under the scheme.

As to farm inspections, a query raised by Deputy Connaughton, the rate of inspection fee will be a matter between the inspector and farmer. I understand this aspect is being discussed by the representative organisations with a view to agreeing a system which will not impose an undue burden on farmers. The Department's proposals that farm inspections be carried out by the veterinary practitioner at the time of the annual TB test will serve to ensure extra costs are minimised. There is nothing in the Bill which will prejudice the outcome of these discussions. On a related issue, the Department is always looking at ways to rationalise the inspection process to avoid duplication and the need for multiple farm inspections.

Deputies expressed concern that the penalties provided for under the Bill are excessive and will be implemented in an indiscriminate manner, even for minor infringements of the legislation. The experience of farmers in relation to loss of entitlement to premia has been cited. The penalties provided for in the Bill are the maximum applicable and can only be applied if a conviction has been secured. The Department only enters legal proceedings when there has been a serious contravention of the rules and when all other remedial options have failed. It will not take proceedings against genuine minor infringements of the rules.

The position is not comparable with the situation pertaining to the livestock and headage schemes. In the latter case EU legislation clearly sets out the framework for the payment of premia and also defines the circumstances for loss of entitlement. There are no such automatic procedures under the national beef assurance scheme. The Department has discretion whether to institute proceedings and the courts decide in each case on the level of penalties if a conviction is secured. The courts have a responsibility to ensure the penalty fits the crime and in my experience they discharge this function with due care. That said I consider it essential to provide powerful deterrents in the Bill against the illegal activity engaged in by a minority of unscrupulous operators.

Deputies will be aware that the Government in the context of the recent partnership negotiations has agreed to establish an independent accessible and properly resourced appeals unit to deal with complaints in relation to EU payments, including livestock and area aid premia. The establishment of this unit should address many of the problems raised by Deputies during the debate.

A number of Deputies expressed concern about the system provided for in the Bill against refusal or revocation of approval and sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator or separate appeals system. I am confident that the appeals mechanisms provided for in the Bill are comprehensive and sound. There will be continual dialogue between applicants and the authorities at all stages of the inspection and approval process and decisions to rescind or refuse approval will not be taken lightly. In the event that it is decided that refusal or revocation of approval is warranted the operator or person concerned will have two avenues of appeal – through representations and the courts. In these circumstances I do not consider that the appointment of an independent arbitrator or additional tier of appeals is warranted.

Certain Deputies sought assurances that our newly developed CMMS system would work and that it would be capable of tracing animals and pinpointing animal locations with a high degree of accuracy. I am confident that this is the case. Since the beginning of the year all marts, factories, abattoirs and live export points are suplying information to the CMMS, some for much longer. A request has already been made to the European Commission for recognition of the database as fully operational. To date some three million individual animal movements have been recorded onto the system. This is only a minuscule part of the enormous bank of data held by the Department on computer in regard to Irish cattle. There are more than 40 million individual events on our database regarding animal births and locations. The CMMS will work to fill in the gaps remaining about animal movements, thus providing a comprehensive record of Irish cattle from birth to slaughter. The CMMS can only record movements notified to it. In this connection all participants in the industry have a duty to report cattle movements promptly and accurately. It is only with the co-operation of the industry that we will have a comprehensive and credible traceability database.

A number of Deputies expressed concern that the traceability system does not extend from farm to fork. Nobody should underestimate the enormity of the undertaking to provide a traceability system for cattle from birth to the point of entry into the human food chain. It is a mammoth task involving the recording of millions of animal movements annually through 150,000 herds, 110 marts and 440 slaughtering houses and for export as well as monitoring and verifying the information collected and pursuing discrepancies. I am satisfied that the assurances provided under this system will provide very important additional guarantees regarding the safety of all Irish beef entering the food chain. Slaughtering plants will be required to operate a carcase identification system enabling the carcase to be correlated with the live animal. This is standard practice in most slaughtering plants.

As regards informing participants about their obligations under the scheme, it is the intention to conduct a comprehensive information and advice programme for all participants. My Department will work with Teagasc and the industry to ensure all participants are fully aware of the importance of the scheme and of their rights and obligations.

I note the points made by Deputy O'Malley which cover a number of issues. These have been raised and addressed on many occasions in the House and other fora. Specifically in relation to the cans of meat I can confirm that the cans in question were part of a consignment produced for the Russian market. In the event some of the product, including that found on sale in Dublin last year, was not exported and did not benefit from export refunds. The Department has asked the Revenue Commissioners to investigate the appropriateness of the tariff classification applied to the product which was exported. The Revenue Commissioners are the responsible body in this area.

Reference was made to the prosecution of a former Department officer. The officer in question took a career break from the Department and, as is normal under this arrangement, returned to the Department after this. There was no ministerial intervention. As regards the Nenagh incident, legal action is being taken.

In general in any one year more than 500,000 tonnes of beef is exported from Ireland to over 60 countries worldwide. Our record stands up, as we have proven when markets were kept open despite concerns about BSE since 1996. I would prefer to concentrate on the positive aspects of the industry and to look to the future as this very important beef assurance measure does.

Deputies Upton and Deenihan expressed concern regarding the absence of any reference to HACCP, microbiological testing etc in the text of the Bill. The standards to be observed by the various classes of participants, including slaughtering and processing plants, animal feed manufacturers, etc are laid down in the legislation listed in the relevant part of the Second Schedule to the Bill. This legislation includes the official requirements in relation to the monitoring of critical control points, microbiological testing, monitoring of residue levels etc. In accordance with section 10(3) of the Bill only establishments complying inter alia with these requirements will be approved under the scheme. Under section 33(2) any new regulatory requirements introduced in relation to any of these or other matters will be added to the legislation listed in the Second Schedule. In this way it will be possible to continuously update the standards applicable to the various classes of participants under the scheme.

Deputy Connaughton sought information on a number of specific issues in relation to TB viz a vaccination for badgers and a reliable blood test to identify infected cattle. As these matters are not specifically the subject of the Bill under discussion I undertake to take them up with the Deputy outside the House at an early date. Research is being conducted to devise appropriate strategies to reduce the incidence of TB in the cattle and badger populations. In anticipation that these trials prove conclusively a significant level of badger involvement a vaccination strategy has been devised which it is hoped will provide a solution to overcome the wildlife constraint. In this context a major badger vaccination development project commenced last year. A research group incorporating staff from the Department, the TB investigation unit, University College Dublin and University College Cork has been established. As a first step an island population of badgers has been vaccinated. Blood samples were taken at the time of vaccination and further samples will be taken at regular intervals over 12 months to establish the nature and level of any immune response to this vaccine. This project also involves collaboration with the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Weybridge in the United Kingdom.

Deputy Creed requested information on the progress achieved to date by the Irish Cattle Breeder's Federation. While this information is not the subject of the Bill I can state the following: the ICBF was established in 1997 with the objective of leading the development of cattle breeding in a manner which would best serve the national commercial livestock sector. Since its inception the federation has appointed a chief executive with considerable experience in this area and it has also engaged the necessary expertise to deliver efficient cattle improvement schemes for Ireland.

Acting Chairman

As it is now 7 p.m., I must put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the Bill be read a Second Time."

Is That agreed? Agreed.

Top
Share