I welcome the opportunity to discuss this issue. Traceability is of the utmost importance in providing consumers with the necessary assurance, in relation to the food, which they are offered.
We are committed to increasing the level of traceability of the foodstuffs that we produce, as evidenced by our cattle movement monitoring system, CMMS, and by the introduction this week of the national sheep identification system, NSIS. We play a full and committed role at EU level in advancing this issue and we are very much of the view that demands for traceability must be every bit as applicable to third countries as to EU producers.
Traceability is particularly relevant in the context of the foot and mouth disease crisis, which has affected the agricultural sector and many other sectors of our national economy in an unprecedented way over the past four months.
It is now some considerable time, since the one and only case of foot and mouth disease in this country was confirmed in Proleek in County Louth on 22 March last.
Thankfully we are now approaching a point, when a significant degree of normality can return to the agricultural sector, and the reopening of the marts on Monday last, 18 June, was perhaps the most significant step yet in the phased return to normal business, as far as the livestock sector is concerned.
Our neighbours in the United Kingdom have not been as fortunate as us, however. More than 1,700 cases have to date been confirmed in Great Britain and, even now, they are averaging about three or four new cases every day there. We have not yet reached the stage, therefore, where we can relax our guard completely and we must remain on alert, until we are certain they have had their last case in Great Britain.
We have all seen in graphic detail the trail of devastation left by foot and mouth disease across the United Kingdom and the very significant social, economic, environmental and political fall-out from the disease outbreak there. Equally the consequences of just a single outbreak here helped to place the possible consequences of further outbreaks in perspective.
It is fair to say that here parties of all political persuasion, Government and semi-State organisations, sporting, social and business organisations and individual members of the public across every section of society have made a tremendous contribution to our national success in the combined fight against foot and mouth disease.
As a Government, we owe it to all of those involved in this effort to absorb the lessons of foot and mouth disease and to adapt our policies in light of the events of the past four months. Recent experience has also pointed to the need for tighter legislative controls in certain areas.
My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development has already put through a major amendment to the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, conferring significant new powers on his authorised officers, creating new offences, with significant penalties of fines of up to £100,000, or five years imprisonment, or both and providing for the seizure of assets, including animals, vehicles and buildings used in the commission of offences under the Act. This is very significant and far-reaching legislation and will prove a valuable addition to existing controls.
The Minister has also indicated to the Council of Agriculture Ministers, on a number of occasions, that lessons also need to be learned at European level. On two occasions in the recent past, serious animal disease outbreaks in the UK – of classical swine fever and foot and mouth disease – have been attributed to infected animal based products imported from third countries.
It is undoubtedly time to re-examine the controls operated by third countries in this area to ensure that they are at least equivalent to those operating in the European Union. I do not agree with those who might suggest that we should close our doors to third country produce. As a small, open economy we simply cannot afford to take this approach in dealing with third countries and those who might suggest otherwise are simply not living in the real world.
However, it is clear that our citizens are entitled to expect that food safety and traceability standards in third countries are equivalent to those upon which we quite rightly insist from our neighbours in Europe. A considerable body of regulation already exists in this area.
In the case of the labelling of beef and beef products, the European Union adopted regulations last year to introduce compulsory labelling of beef at all stages of production and marketing, up to and including the final point of sale to the consumer. The regulations in question are the European Parliament and Council Regulation No. 1760/2000 of 17 July 2000, which establishes a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and the labelling of beef and beef products and the Commission Regulation No. 1825/2000 of 25 August 2000, which lays down detailed rules for the application of this system.
Under these regulations, operators or organisations involved in the production and marketing of beef are, since 1 September 2000, required to label it with the following information: a reference number or code, which enables the beef to be traced back to the animal or group of animals from which it was derived; the approval number of the slaughterhouse and member state or third country in which it is located; and the approval number of the de-boning hall and member state or third country in which it is located.
With effect from 1 January 2002, operators and organisations marketing beef should, in addition, indicate on the label information concerning origin, in particular where the animal or animals from which the beef was derived were born, fattened and slaughtered. These regulations, which are fully enforced in Ireland have direct legal effect in all member states of the European Union, which are also required to enforce them in full.
The compulsory beef labelling system also applies to beef and beef products imported into the European Union. To ensure that the labelling arrangements relating to imported beef are of equivalent reliability to those applicable to Community beef, the EU Commission examines notifications received from third countries. Once the Commission is satisfied the procedures and/or criteria applied in the third country concerned are equivalent to those obtaining in the EU, it transmits notifications to the member states. To guarantee the reliability of the labelling system in third countries, the Commission may request additional information, while it may also carry out checks in the third country.
In relation to other animal based products, the country of origin and the establishment in which the product was produced must be approved in advance by the EU Commission. Granting of approval is dependent on such factors as the animal health status of the country, adequacy of its veterinary structures, facilities of the production establishment and employment of good hygiene practices. Third country production plants are inspected by veterinary experts from the Food and Veterinary Office of the European Commission before approval is given.
On arrival in the EU, third country product is subject to official inspection at the first port of arrival. This includes checks on accompanying documents and on identity and labelling, as well as random physical checks on the product itself. If these checks indicate that everything is in order importation is authorised and thereafter the product may circulate freely. It must be borne in mind that particular imports cannot be specifically targeted for monitoring as Ireland, being a member of the European Union, is obliged under EU legislation to allow the free circulation of legally imported goods within the EU.
In addition the products must comply with the packing and labelling requirements laid down in EU legislation. The requirements are that the consignment bears a health mark that includes the initials of the exporting country and the approval number of the consigning establishment on each sealed package. The marking must be with a health mark in accordance with the requirements of Council Directive No. 71/118/EC.
These measures constitute an essential control on the importation of animal products from third countries. However, it is clear that in light of recent events they need to be re-examined in a fundamental way and that the Commission needs to refocus its attention to some extent on the potential threat to animal and human health from third country imports.
I assure the House that my colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Deputy Walsh, has made his views on this issue quite clear to his European colleagues and he will continue to press for a review of all of the controls in this area as a matter of priority.
I trust this puts the matter in perspective for the Deputy who has a very particular personal interest in the matter, which I value very much.
