Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Feb 2013

Vol. 791 No. 1

Leaders' Questions

It is now 25 days since the public was told by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Coveney, that the Tesco Everyday Value beef burger contained 29.1% horsemeat. The chief technology specialist of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland said at that time that he was stunned by the outcome of that particular test last October, which had been an outside of the box type exercise. It has now been revealed that a burger produced at another processing plant contains 75% horsemeat, which makes a mockery of the Minister's theory at that time that this equine DNA was perhaps caused by something in the air. We can now dismiss that earlier assessment by the Minister.

I put it to the Taoiseach that the primary instinct of the Government and Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine has been to protect the industry as opposed to vindicating the right of the consumer who eats the burger in the belief that it contains what is stated on the package. The customer has been profoundly let down by these revelations. This drip feeding of revelation has sapped confidence in the industry and the capacity of the system to bring clarity to the situation. The Minister's approach to this issue has been tardy and has lacked coherence, clarity and certainty.

It is worth recalling the initial response of Tesco to the revelations of three weeks ago, namely, that this was either the result of illegality or gross negligence. Perhaps the penny should have dropped then.

Thank you, Deputy.

Why is the specialist investigative unit only now being brought into the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to investigate this matter? Why is the Garda Síochána only now being brought into this situation? This issue has been ongoing since last October, yet these two units are only now being brought in.

On the previous occasion I raised this issue, I asked for transparency and that all documentation be revealed to the House. It was not. I also asked who was heading up the investigation. We still do not know that. A request was made today to the Department for a report on the matter. The Department said no report will be published following the declarations of last weekend by the Minister.

I put it to the Taoiseach that what is required now is a full, transparent, comprehensive and independent inquiry, at one remove from the industry and Department, to get to the bottom of this issue once and for all. That is the only way to protect the customer and the industry.

Deputy Martin is aware that the Minister has been at pains to point out that there is no health issue involved for the consumer. That was his first comment. The requirement is to get to the bottom of this issue and to ascertain the facts and truth.

Studies and tests carried out by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland have been exceptionally competent. It is because of the nature and the accuracy of these tests that this came to light in the first place. Tesco, as a major company, had a number of people dealing with this but it was the evidence from the FSAI test and Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine investigation team which sourced an element of this product from Portugal-----

Deputies

Poland.

The Taoiseach said "Portugal". He might want to correct this.

The Deputy is aware tests showed 75% equine DNA in Polish-labelled raw material at Rangeland Foods in Monaghan. The Minister has requested a special investigation unit at the Department to pursue this along with the Garda. Obviously there is information which leads the Department and the Minister to make this decision. The focus is on the full supply chain involved. The Minister has been before the committee since 3 p.m. dealing in a full, transparent and comprehensive fashion with all of the questions which need to be asked and answered to ascertain the truth about this. He has also been in contact on a very regular basis with the Polish authorities and has invited a Polish team to visit Ireland to assist in the inquiries on how this could have gotten into the system in the first place. The FSAI is liaising with the Northern Ireland food safety authority.

It is important not to prejudice the outcome of any investigation in any way by jumping to conclusions which might not be accurate. The FSAI has indicated there is no reason to suggest there is any food safety concern involved. I heard statements about that this morning. Rangeland Foods itself notified the Department. The Department inspectors entered the plant last Friday and took samples, as the Deputy is aware, which confirmed 75% equine DNA in a Polish-labelled raw material ingredient. In this case the Polish-labelled raw material was imported through a meat trader based in Ireland. Production has been voluntarily suspended at Rangeland Foods pending the outcome of the investigation. The company has indicated that none of this product has entered the food chain and that only Irish ingredients are used for product here. The special investigation unit is investigating this serious issue in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the FSAI. I would not like to prejudice the outcome of this.

As Deputy Martin is well aware, the FSAI has an exceptional name in terms of its independence, the way it does its business and the very high level of testing which now applies here. Changes will apply from this situation but it is necessary in the interests of the consumer, the industry and the jobs in the industry that the veracity be established, the truth be known and that action be taken quickly, conclusively and comprehensively. This is the situation being dealt with by the Minister.

I heard Pat McDonagh on the radio this morning speaking about Supermacs which carried out its own testing which was similar to that carried out by the FSAI. Clearly no equine ingredient was found there, which is reassurance for his very many consumers.

I am no wiser now than I was three weeks ago, only that the situation is far more serious and getting worse. The bottom line is that I do not know who has been conducting the investigation for the past three weeks.

The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the FSAI.

I do not know what role the FSAI has played in the investigation. The Taoiseach is correct that the FSAI has been at arms length. It should be at arms length. It was established under the Minister for Health in the first instance to avoid capture by the industry after previous experiences. Originally we were told the source of the raw material in the ingredients could have been Dutch or Spanish but now it has moved to being Polish. Last night the Minister stated he was confident it was from Poland. This has been nuanced to "Polish-labelled ingredients". Will the Taoiseach identify the meat trader involved?

The real crunch issue is that everyone keeps saying the food is safe. Scientists and experts in Britain have queried this ringing assertion on the basis we do not know the origin of the horsemeat. Let us forget about DNA; this is horsemeat with 75% in this particular burger and 29% in the burger three weeks ago.

It is not 75% in a burger. It is 75% of an ingredient.

In the ingredient.

Through the Chair please. Thank you.

Things have moved on. Look at the latest information.

We cannot have a discussion here.

The point I am making is that the chief technology expert stated the DNA traces are negligible and irrelevant; it is that the burger in Tesco and the burger in Rangeland Foods are, as he stated, baffling and he could not make it out. If we cannot make it out and if the chief scientist involved cannot make out the origins of it and where it came from let us stop the ringing declarations about safety-----

Could we have a question please?

-----and find out where this material came from and what quality it is.

On the last occasion we discussed this matter I raised this point with the Tánaiste. There have been many revelations about the illegal slaughter of horsemeat in this country. Can we be absolutely sure that horsemeat legally or illegally slaughtered in the country is not now finding its way into the food chain? Can we say this with any confidence given what has occurred? I note the comments of the deputy chief inspector of the veterinary body in Poland who stated they are not getting positive results in the tests they have carried out in the facilities flagged to them by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. We need an independent and transparent inquiry into this to give confidence to people, because there have been so many different stories in recent weeks that people do not believe anything at present. They are particularly concerned about the food they are eating because the authenticity of the food is at risk and the veracity of food labelling will be in shreds if something is not done quickly.

I thank the Deputy and ask him to resume his seat. We are way over time.

Deputy Martin is wrong when he says 75% of the burgers were equine DNA; it was 75% of the ingredient as a raw material which was Polish labelled which was 75% equine DNA. This is different to the way Deputy Martin presented it and he should get it right. It is also important to note that in the case of Silvercrest there is a clear paper trail involved which suggests the product was purchased directly from Poland, but in the case of Rangeland Foods a Polish-labelled raw material ingredient was sourced through a meat trader in Ireland. This needs to be authenticated and verified.

Who is the meat trader?

If the Taoiseach knows this then he knows the source.

With regard to who is conducting the investigation, it is the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the FSAI which conducted the tests in the first place. I point out again to Deputy Martin it is because of the high level of professionalism and competency of these tests that this was determined in the first instance.

That is not true. The bottom line is it was an outside the box exercise.

We are way over time. Other Deputies are waiting to ask questions.

The chief technology specialist of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland could not believe the outcome. He stumbled onto something and the system has not followed up on it with the degree of urgency it should have.

If Deputy Martin is now saying the FSAI DNA tests are not up to standard then prove it.

I am not saying that at all. This was not a systemic test. That is my point.

These are the tests that determined equine DNA in the ingredient. Deputy Martin came in here and stated that 75% of the burgers were equine. It is the raw ingredient which was labelled either Polish verified by paper trail, or labelled and sourced through a meat importer here, which now must be determined.

It is "either or" now. A minute ago the Taoiseach said the opposite.

This needs to be done and dealt with.

A number of plants here are approved for slaughtering horses and I am assured by the Department that no horse material is used in Irish burgers-----

-----and clearly this has been the case.

Of course it was used in Ireland.

This is the ingredient which was sourced by paper trail from Poland or labelled as a Polish raw ingredient.

Twenty tonnes of the ingredient were imported by Silvercrest alone.

Get on top of it.

We do not even know how long it has been going on. It could have been going on for years.

Get a handle on it.

I have been generous with the time because of the seriousness of the situation. This is such a serious situation that I ask people not to shout across the floor. It is too serious to be dealt with in this way.

I call Deputy MacDonald without interruption.

For most people the term "slavery" conjures up images of slave ships crossing the Atlantic between Africa and the Americas.

What went on in the Magdalen laundries in this State, however, was a very Irish form of slavery. We know that it continued from the foundation of this State until 1996. An estimated 30,000 women were detained in these laundries, which were run by Catholic religious orders. The State failed these women comprehensively. Religious orders used these girls and women as unpaid labour. Women incarcerated in these institutions worked for no pay, whilst the orders ran the laundries on a commercial basis in brutally harsh conditions. Those who tried to escape and were apprehended by gardaí were returned to the institutions.

Disgracefully, the Magdalen women were excluded by the State from the 2002 residential institutions redress scheme. In May 2011, the Government - represented by the then Secretary General of the Department of Justice and Equality, Mr. Seán Aylward - appeared before the UN Committee Against Torture. At that time, the State claimed that the laundries were private institutions, that they were voluntarily occupied and that they were outside the scope of State responsibility, bar one exception. They persisted in this lie that nothing was known about the enslavement and brutality experienced by women in these institutions.

I very much welcome, at last, today's publication of the interdepartmental committee's report on the Magdalen institutions. That report underlines the fact that there was substantial State involvement in these laundries and substantial State negligence in the duty of care to these women. Therefore, the women have been vindicated. After all, they told the truth which is that the State failed them. When does the Taoiseach propose to offer - on behalf of all of us and of the State - a full apology to these women?

First of all, I want to thank Senator Martin McAleese, his assistant Ms Nuala Ní Mhuircheartaigh and the team involved in putting together the McAleese report into the Magdalen laundries. It is important to note that it was only in July last year that this Government initiated action to have such a report compiled and produced.

Clearly, Deputy McDonald has not yet had an opportunity to read this report. The 1,000-page report deals with the facts, as was the mandate given to Senator McAleese and his group. It deals with them in a way that is very different from the impression that many people might have of what happened. The number of people involved was not 30,000 but 10,012. The number of known admission from 1922 onwards was 14,607 which clearly meant that a number of women re-entered the Magdalen laundries on a number of occasions.

The admissions for which routes of entry are known are stipulated in the report at 8,025. The number of those referrals that were made, or facilitated, by the State was 2,124 or 26.5%. The average age at the time of entry was 23. The median age at the time of entry was 20. The age of the youngest known entrant was nine, while the age of the oldest known entrant was 89. Some 35.6% were there for less than three months, and 47% for less than six months. Some 61% were there for less than a year and 68% for less than 18 months.

I suggest that we need to absorb this report and reflect on its findings. It is 1,000 pages long so I suggest that we should take the opportunity to have a Dáil debate on this matter in two weeks' time. In the interim people will have had time to read it, reflect upon it and understand its findings.

The overriding requirement, as identified by Senator McAleese and his team, was to deal with the stigma attached to those who worked in Magdalen laundries and stayed in the accommodation there. It is important to recognise that in many ways Ireland in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s and 1950s was a harsh, uncompromising and authoritarian country. That is reflected in the stories of the women who had the courage to come forward and say their piece.

It is clear from the report that there is no evidence of sexual abuse in the Magdalen laundries. There is one reported case of abuse by one resident on another. The stigma of branding together all 10,000 residents in the Magdalen laundries needs to be removed and should have been removed long before this. I really am sorry, and I regret, that that never happened. I am conscious, however, of the clarity of this report by Senator McAleese and his team.

Residents went into the Magdalen laundries through a variety of ways. Some 26% of them did so through State intervention or State involvement. I am sorry for those people that they lived in that kind of environment. We have seen what happened to the women who underwent symphysiotomies, or thalidomide victims, or those who were in mental hospitals - or lunatic asylums as they were referred to in those days - or many other places.

I admire the courage of those women for speaking out to Senator McAleese. I advise Deputy McDonald to read the report carefully because there is material there that has never been seen by the public. In putting this report together, Senator McAleese has had access to information, including the financial accounts of the sisters, religious orders and the laundries. The report has been well worthwhile producing and I am grateful to Senator McAleese for so doing.

I am sorry that this release of pressure by, and understanding of, so many of these women was not done before now. They were branded as fallen women and were often referred to as such in this State. It was not until July 2011 that the initiative was taken by the Government to deal with this matter in a comprehensive way. I want to see that those women who are still with us - I understand there are between 800 and 1,000 - are provided by the State with the best facilities and supports they need in their lives.

The report is comprehensive and detailed, and the statistics speak for themselves. Far from jumping to conclusions, everybody should read this report carefully and reflect on it deeply. It refers to an Ireland which was a very hostile environment in the far off past. These women who came forward with their testimonies to Senator McAleese spoke with courage of their involvement in, and the routes they took to, the Magdalen laundries. We should treat this report with a measure of calmness and consideration, which it deserves. We should return in two weeks to debate it in the Oireachtas.

The last of these institutions only closed its doors in 1996, so sadly this is not something that is simply a throw-back to the 1940s or 1950s. The Taoiseach spoke of the courage of the women coming forward to tell their true stories. I join with the Taoiseach in recognising their courage. I only wish that their courage could be matched by some courage on his part.

I have been greatly alarmed by what the Taoiseach had to say in the Chamber today. Everyone understands the report must be studied carefully but let us not forget that a huge amount of historically verified information and testimony was already in the public domain prior to the establishment of the McAleese committee. In fact, the present Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, spoke in 2009 of the irrefutable evidence of State involvement in the running of these institutions. Consequently, the time for the apology is now and one should not try to put some kind of positive gloss on what happened. These people were not residents voluntarily offering their services and labour but were young, vulnerable women who were held in institutions - in their minds imprisoned - and exploited. This is what happened and the figures are stark. Moreover, the Taoiseach is aware that two of the laundries have been excluded from the calculation of the number the Taoiseach put forward in the Dáil today.

Members must reflect on the report and I welcome that there will be a Dáil debate but I am disappointed for the women, that is, for the survivors, that the Taoiseach cannot say the State was culpable and negligent, that the women told the truth and the Government believes their stories and for that, it collectively says "Sorry". The debate will be held in two weeks' time. When then the apology and when then the issue of redress and compensation for these women?

Deputy McDonald should read the report. I have no intention of going down her route of wanting to make some kind of political football about this issue.

What I refer to here is the truth and reality, which has now been uncovered and laid out for everyone to read and to understand, to discuss and debate arising from the McAleese report. It might interest the Deputy that just over 10% of those who attended Magdalen laundries were sent there by families, while 19% of those residents in the Magdalen laundries went in there themselves. As I pointed out to the Deputy, the admission figures of 14,000 include numbers of women who went back to the Magdalen laundries a number of times.

It was because they had no choice. Come on. Stop spinning it now.

As I pointed out to the Deputy-----

It was because they were poor.

As I pointed out to the Deputy-----

And they were slaves.

-----the youngest person to be admitted was nine years of age and the oldest was 89 years of age. This is not a report for any kind of glib remarks but is a report-----

Taoiseach, I do not want glib remarks.

I do not suggest she made such a remark.

I refer to an apology from the Taoiseach-----

The Deputy has not read it.

Sorry, through the Chair please.

-----as Taoiseach, to those women, which is long overdue.

I am not suggesting-----

I have been very liberal here once again. Do not abuse the generosity of the Chair here. We are over time here.

Moreover, when you were on these benches, you were very clear that an apology was needed.

What Deputy Shatter said when he was on the far side of the House in opposition has been proven to be true. There was State intervention in respect of numbers of these residents of the Magdalen laundries.

The wise old man of the Government.

That is outlined in the details and statistics uncovered by Senator McAleese. However, Deputy McDonald should be aware it is not a single issue story. All 10,000 of the residents arrived in the Magdalen laundries through a variety of circumstances and for a variety of reasons-----

I am aware of that.

-----not the least of which was destitution and poverty, as was outlined starkly in the report. Consequently, as I stated, I really am sorry that it has taken until July 2011 to trigger the initiative by the Government to have a report-----

Many were brought in forcibly by the State.

-----such as that put together by Senator McAleese with his team.

The United Nations forced the Government to deal with it. The Government was forced by the United Nations to do it.

I am grateful to him for doing that and regret very much that-----

The Government was forced by the United Nations to do it.

It is in the programme for Government.

-----that the stigma attached to those residents in-----

This is disgraceful on the Taoiseach's part.

---- those Magdalen laundries was not removed over very many years when something could have been done about it.

Consequently, I look forward to Deputy McDonald's contribution-----

I look forward to the Taoiseach's apology.

-----in the Dáil debate-----

More to the point, the women await the Taoiseach's apology.

----in two weeks' time.

Thank you. Deputy Boyd Barrett, without interruption.

It is more like a blue wash and is disgraceful.

Deputy Higgins, would you show respect to your current leader?

I thank the Ceann Comhairle. I am sure the Taoiseach is acutely aware, and I suspect the Labour Party is even more acutely aware, that tens of thousands of workers and other citizens will be taking to the streets this weekend to oppose the crippling debt that has been imposed on their shoulders-----

They will shortly be followed by the Labour Party.

-----the austerity the Government is meting out to them and to vent their fury at the broken promises of the Government and of the Labour Party in particular that it would all be different. I am sure the Taoiseach also is aware of the anger that now is building up among public sector front-line workers over the Government's plans to savage them even further in a so-called extension of the Croke Park deal. My question to the Taoiseach is to ask whether these circumstances and pressures explain the rather odd goings-on within the Government over the last few days. I refer to the way in which the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade travelled to Latin America and told European Union officials the Government is in jeopardy unless it gets a deal on the promissory notes issue and the way in which the Minister of State, Deputy White, stated on national television that there may be no Croke Park deal unless the Government gets a deal. Is this something of an elaborate charade on the part of the Government to create a bit of drama about whether we get a deal on the promissory notes issue to sweeten the bitter pill of the attacks the Government is planning on workers over the next number of months? Was the game not given away on this little charade by the Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, when he stated that regardless of whether we get a deal, it will make no difference to the level of cuts or austerity that will be imposed in future budgets? Is it not the truth that the Government - and the Labour Party in particular - are treating Members to an elaborate charade to deflect attention away from the cuts the Government now seeks to impose yet again on public sector workers-----

Can we have your question? Thank you.

-----by involving people in this drama of whether Ireland will get a deal on a promissory note when, as the Minister, Deputy Varadkar has indicated, deal or no deal, it makes no difference? Is it not the truth that the Government is not looking for a write-down of the debt, has agreed in principle to pay every cent and that whatever deal it gets will make no difference whatsoever to those who are being hammered and who the Government intends to hammer further with cuts and austerity?

I am not sure what the Deputy will do when a deal is achieved. He gets his weekly fix and his weekly rant.

Will you go away out of that?

Does this mean a deal has been done? Will the Taoiseach provide details to the House?

It is a charade.

In response to Deputy Boyd Barrett, it is important that we achieve agreement and a conclusion on a deal in respect of the promissory notes. I have answered that question in this Chamber 20 times. The Government expects that to be achieved before the end of March, which is the next payment date.

The Taoiseach will put it on his grandchildren and not just on his children.

That is an important element of easing Ireland's exit from the programme in which the country finds itself because of the situation that applied a number of years ago. It is equally important to understand that the public finances must be rectified. This is the reason the Government mandated the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to talk to the trade unions about achieving further savings of €1 billion by 2015, including €300 million in the course of this year. Deputy Boyd Barrett is aware that the public service pay and pension bill represents 35% of expenditure, which is an important element of rectifying Ireland's public finances over the period ahead. It is equally important to follow through on the discussions taking place at the ECOFIN group and the Eurogroup with regard to the European Stability Mechanism, ESM, and the consequences of the decision arising from the European Council's decision to break the link between sovereign and bank debt.

These are three important elements of what it is the Government is about in this regard. I remind the Deputy that the management - on behalf of the Government - and the trade unions entered into these talks freely. That is an important consideration in this regard and I am glad to note the comments from the representatives of ICTU about the position that now applies. While these talks are challenging, complex and difficult, Deputy Boyd Barrett should note that decisions must be made because the position will not be rectified by itself.

As for the Deputy's comments about the consequences of a deal on the promissory note having an impact on our public finances, as I have stated, that deal will ease the exit from the programme in which Ireland is engaged, because the interest rates applying would be lower and there would be access to finance for banks to lend and provide credit for business and therefore stimulate investment for employment and the creation of jobs.

It is not a case of an elaborate charade but rather straight negotiation with a number of different groupings, including the trade unions, the European Central Bank and the ECOFIN group.

The Deputy is aware that the non-core pay bill, including overtime, allowances and premium pay, came to approximately €1.8 billion last year, with another €200 million in increments. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform and his team are negotiating directly with trade unions on the issue. The Government has set out its stall and we want to achieve €1 billion in extra savings by 2015. These choices are not easy but the problem will not rectify itself, which is why negotiations are taking place. This is not an elaborate charade but it is in the interests of the country and sorting out the problem of legacy issues.

The process is certainly not transparent.

If it is not an elaborate charade, will the Taoiseach confirm for the public that the deal being sought will still involve this State committing to paying every cent plus interest of the cost to bail out Anglo Irish Bank? Is that the deal? Is it only a question of spreading that payment over a longer period and paying more interest over the period? It suits the Government, and the Labour Party in particular, to "big up" the discussions prior to doing some kind of sham deal that will make no difference in order to draw us into a drama of asking whether there is a deal. If this is not a charade-----

-----will the Taoiseach comment on the Tánaiste's reported comments in Chile to the effect that the Government would be "in jeopardy" if it did not get a deal? Is that true? Is the coalition threatened with falling apart if there is no deal? The Deputies look very comfortable beside each other now and it does not look like the Government is in jeopardy.

That clouds the issue.

Is this a way of softening public sector workers for the real agenda of the Government and the troika, which is to shove even more austerity down the throats of front-line public sector workers and other citizens in this country at the demand of the troika? If a meaningless deal can be presented as a way of sweetening the bitter pill, the Government will be able to spin its way out of the real agenda.

The Deputy would love to see that.

I am very sorry to disappoint the Deputy again. The only coalition that has been falling apart has been the Deputy's own coalition. He is well used to splits, dissenters and voices from outside.

The Taoiseach should look behind him. Where has the Labour Party gone?

The Technical Group is solid.

He is well able to comment on that.

Where are they all gone? Féach anseo.

I assure Deputy Boyd Barrett that the Government is rock solid and has a very big programme for Government which will take five years to implement. It will run its full term in the interests of the country and in running the country we will not renege on our sovereign commitments, which were entered into by the previous Administration. We want to re-engineer and restructure the promissory notes and put the process much further out at a much lower interest rate.

The Government is not in jeopardy. My hearing might be fading slightly and I cannot go as far as Chile but the Tánaiste, as leader of the Labour Party, and I, as leader of Fine Gael, are absolutely committed to running a full term of this Administration and implementing our programme for Government in the interest of the county. If that disappoints the Deputy and he wants the people on the street every week, he can go on his road. We will go Ireland's way, which is-----

-----to deal with our problems and sort out our public finances. Services and exports have grown at the greatest rate in the past five years according to figures announced yesterday. There are serious challenges ahead and we are not afraid to make these choices, as they are in the interest of our country, our people and our economic prospects for the future. The problem will not go away and much as the Deputy may wish to be on the streets every week - it is his right if he so wishes - the Government has a serious challenge both at home and with our European colleagues.

Being on the streets would be more effective.

The Deputy should look around himself when he is talking about things falling apart.

The Deputy and Deputy Joe Higgins will be banging some drum.

Top
Share