JOINT COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD debate -
Wednesday, 26 Jul 2006

Transportation of Animal By-products: Presentation.

Chairman

I welcome Mr. Tom Loftus, principal officer, Department of Agriculture and Food and Mr. Cecil Alexander, superintending veterinary inspector, who will update members on the transportation of animal by-products and how that activity is controlled.

Before I invite Mr. Loftus to make his opening remarks, I draw the attention of witnesses to the fact that while members of this committee have absolute privilege, this same privilege does not extend to witnesses. The members of the committee are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the House or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I invite Mr. Loftus to make his presentation.

Mr. Tom Loftus

The Department is delighted to have this opportunity to make a presentation to the committee on the subject of transportation of animal by-products. I propose to introduce the presentation by examining the definition of animal by-products, the background to current arrangements, the legal basis, activity levels, the structure of the industry and recent developments. I will then hand over to my colleague, Mr. Cecil Alexander, who will speak specifically on the transportation of animal by-products.

Animal by-products or ABP are defined as the parts of slaughtered animals which are not directly consumed by humans and also animals that die on a farm. The background to the current regulation of the handling and transport of ABP is that it has been driven to a large extent by developments relating to BSE. While members have just heard a presentation on BSE, I wish to give a brief recap of it for our purposes. BSE was first identified in cattle in the UK in 1986 and in Ireland in 1989. It is now accepted that the main route of transmission to cattle was through the consumption of meal and bonemeal, MBM, contaminated with the BSE agent. In November 2000 as part of control measures designed to deal with BSE, the EU introduced a ban on the feeding of MBM to farmed animals. The ban transformed MBM from a feed product with a commercial value to a product with a significant disposal cost.

Regulation EC No. 1774/2002, which came into effect on 1 June 2003, provides the legal basis for the production, transport, storage and disposal of animal by-products to prevent these products from presenting a risk to public and animal health. The regulation classifies ABP into three risk categories, for transport and other purposes. Category 1 material includes BSE carcasses and suspects, specified risk material including the skull, brain, eyes and spinal cord of specified bovines, carcasses containing prohibited substances and catering waste from international transport. Category 2 includes fallen animals, condemned meat, manure and gut contents, and milk and colostrum. Category 3 ABP includes catering waste generally, former foodstuffs no longer intended for human consumption and parts of slaughtered animals which have been passed fit for human consumption. The EU legislation is transposed into Irish law by way of S.I. 248 of 2003 — the European Communities (Animal By-Products) Regulations 2003, as amended by S.I. 707 of 2005 — the European Communities (Animal By-Products) (Amendment) Regulations 2005.

With regard to activity levels, the annual slaughter and processing in Ireland of approximately 1.6 million cattle, 2.6 million pigs, 3.3 million sheep and 80 million poultry, and the deaths of some 230,000 animals on farm, result in the production of a sizeable quantity of animal by-products amounting to some 550,000 tonnes. Animals and poultry are slaughtered under Department of Agriculture and Food or local authority supervision at approved slaughterhouses. Most unprocessed animal by-products are then transported to approved and supervised rendering plants for processing into MBM, of which 143,000 tonnes was produced in 2005 and tallow of which 88,000 tonnes was produced in 2005.

Fallen animals are collected under the fallen animal collection scheme and delivered to approved knackeries, where all bovines over two years of age are tested for BSE. Subsequently the animal by-products — in most cases the carcasses — are transported to approved category 1 rendering plants.

With regard to the structure of the industry, at present there are 186 Department-approved meat plants in Ireland, including 51 slaughterhouses, and 269 abattoirs approved by the local authority veterinary service. The animal by-products generated by these plants and the 34 approved knackeries go to nine approved rendering plants for production of MBM and tallow. There are eight approved MBM stores.

Recent developments have seen Ireland move closer to the European norm in this area. For a number of years, because of concerns about BSE, national legislation went beyond EU legislation and prohibited the use of category 3 MBM in pet food or fertiliser. During 2005 the situation in this country was reviewed having regard mainly to the EU legislation, the declining number of BSE cases and also the need to provide productive outlets for the disposal of ABP where there was no risk to public or animal health. Following this review the use of category 3 MBM in the manufacture of dried packaged pet food, and incorporation in organic fertiliser for spreading on non-pasture land, was permitted. In November last SI 248 of 2003 was amended by SI 707 of 2005 to introduce these changes. Strict conditions and controls in both manufacturing processes apply.

As that concludes the introductory part of the presentation, I will hand over to my colleague Mr. Cecil Alexander who will focus on the transportation of animal by-products.

Mr. Cecil Alexander

I will look at the control system for the transport of animal by-products under four headings, namely, the range of animal by-products which is transported, EU regulation, transport controls within Ireland and the ABP transport register. A wide range of raw and processed animal by-products is transported including raw ABP from meat plants and abattoirs to rendering plants, raw ABP from farm to knackery, raw ABP from knackery to rendering plant, movement of poultry litter including that from other member states, MBM going into storage, MBM being exported for disposal, category 3 MBM for use in the manufacture of dried pet food, category 3 MBM for inclusion into organic fertiliser, tallow for export, tallow for burning as a fuel in thermal boilers in Ireland, category 3 tallow for inclusion in animal feed, hides and skins from slaughter plants and knackeries and hides and skins from hide stores for export to EU and third countries. The animal by-products regulation lays down general requirements in relation to the collection and transport of animal by-products. Under the regulation, all receptacles must be dedicated to the carriage of a given category of animal by-product to the extent necessary to avoid cross-contamination. This is important in the context of public and animal health, in particular the need to ensure that animal by-products do not enter the human food or animal feed chain or contaminate food or feedstuffs.

Annex II of the regulation outlines the requirements for the collection, transport and traceability of animal by-products from production to disposal or use and covers the following aspects: identification; vehicles and containers; commercial documents; health certificates; records; retention of documents; temperature conditions; specific rules of transit; control measures; and collection of animal material when treating waste water.

Controls with regard to the collection, transport, disposal and use of animal by-products are carried out under the supervision of staff from the Department of Agriculture and Food. Detailed procedures outlining controls in place are set out in trader notices, which are issued to the owners and managers of the different types of animal by-product plants involved. Corresponding standard operating procedures, SOPs, are issued to enable staff from the Department of Agriculture and Food to supervise compliance with the controls.

Animal by-products, ABPs, are divided into categories, depending on the risk associated with the by-product. The transportation of different risk categories of material must take place separately and in receptacles dedicated for the purpose. During transportation, all such receptacles must have a label with wording appropriate to the category of material being transported. For example, category 1 material has a label with the wording "For Disposal Only". The label for category 2 material reads "Not for Animal Consumption" and for category 3 material "Not for Human Consumption".

The material must be transported in covered leak proof containers without undue delay and be accompanied by a fully completed commercial document, which covers movement within Ireland and the European Union. A fully completed and attested health certificate is required for material being transported to third countries.

Legal provision for the establishment of an ABP transport register is made in SI 707 of 2005. Regulation 9B states at paragraph (1): "A person shall not use a vehicle to transport an animal by-product or processed product unless his or her name and any particulars that the Minister considers appropriate are entered in the register". Paragraph (2) states: "The Minister may enter a person's name and particulars on the animal by-products transport register ... refuse an application or revoke a registration".

Guidelines, application forms and receptacle registers issued in May 2006 to more than 200 potential applicants in Ireland, the UK and other EU member states. To date, 94 applicants and their receptacles have been approved and registered and work continues on the remainder. Applicants must supply details of the registered owner of the business or listed company directors, the fixed business address where the receptacles are located and maintained and receptacles used to transport animal by-products.

Each haulier must maintain an up-to-date register of the receptacles used to transport animal by-products from the point of loading to the point of destination. Each receptacle is to be uniquely identified and the haulier is obliged to clearly display this identification on each receptacle using a combination of letters and digits at least 15 cm. in height. The identification of each receptacle will allow staff of the Department to monitor controls on the movement of animal by-products more closely with special emphasis on breaches which can lead to revocation of a registration. When all this is completed, the details of the transport register will be made available on the Department's website.

Deputy Naughten

I have two brief questions. I thank Mr. Loftus and Mr. Alexander for giving the committee a very comprehensive presentation on this issue. This is usually a seasonal issue and it becomes more topical at this time of the year because of the very warm and dry weather. I refer to Mr. Loftus's contribution regarding the movement of category 3 meat and bonemeal. It is proposed that such meat and bonemeal can now be used in dry packaged pet foods or incorporated into organic fertiliser. Does this proposal only relate to category three meat and bonemeal or does it include other products in category three? Can category 2 products be spread on the land? I refer to belly grass which traditionally was land spread. Is this permitted to be land spread now? What is the reason for allowing it to be spread on pasture land?

My second question refers to Mr. Alexander's contribution. Specific criteria exist regarding the labelling of vehicles used for transportation. I note that vehicles which are used for the collection of dead or fallen animals seem in all cases to have the name of the operator and a contact number displayed on the vehicle, but this does not seem to be the case with other vehicles transporting the product from a knackery to a processing centre. It would be useful in addressing some concerns expressed by the public if a contact or number were displayed on the trailers. Any concerned member of the public could then telephone their local district livestock office or district veterinary office and inform them if the vehicle presented a difficulty such as something leaking out or if the vehicle did not meet labelling specifications.

We are all familiar with such instances. I acknowledge the regulations and their enforcement have become stricter in recent years. However, instances still occur. These may be inadvertent in many cases. It would be useful to have some way of identifying a vehicle so that it could be reported to the local offices of the Department of Agriculture and Food and immediate action taken to address any problem. I just make this as a suggestion.

Deputy Upton

I thank Mr. Loftus and Mr. Alexander for the presentation. This is the time of the year when we hear complaints about smell but I do not have a particular problem in my constituency, which is Dublin South-Central. Abattoirs produce offensive smells, as do the lorries used for transportation. From a technical point of view, is there any better system available or any new technology to help alleviate that problem? It is a real problem for those who live in the immediate vicinity of these factories or knackeries.

When driving in a car that gets stuck behind one of these lorries, the smell is not a very pleasant experience. I wonder about the technology. I have had the experience of being trapped behind a lorry when I could not overtake and the smell was quite obnoxious.

What is the technical difference between a slaughterhouse and an abattoir? How much of the animal by-product goes to third countries as mentioned? Are there any particular concerns or considerations when exporting such material? The Department's guidelines and application forms have been issued to more than 200 plants, of which 94 have been approved. Why have the others not been approved? Has the administration not yet been completed? Are they carrying on without approval? Are they in the net or have some of them indicated they are no longer interested? What is the reason for the gap and the delay?

Deputy Crawford

I thank the Department officials for giving such detailed information on the transportation of animal by-products. Deputy Upton has mentioned one of the issues I wanted to raise, which is the export of by-products such as meat and bonemeal to third countries. What percentage of meat and bonemeal is being utilised here by the means suggested by Mr. Loftus? Up to recently I believe 100% of it was exported for use in biomass plants in Germany etc. What is the cost per tonne of disposing of that product?

I ask Mr. Alexander to elaborate on what he said about the movement of poultry litter in other member states. Has the Department investigated how this can be handled? In the UK, much of that product is used for the production of electricity. At a time when the cost of electricity is so high in this country, perhaps we should do something in this regard. It also has major implications for the nitrates directive.

I concur with what my two colleagues have said about travelling behind lorries. In some cases, in addition to the smell, the material is leaking out of them and there is no name or number that anybody can contact to query the matter. I raise this matter with some trepidation because I do not want wide-scale media coverage of it. Some products from poultry, etc. can cause death to animals if they get mixed with feed or spread on land. I recently came across a serious case resulting in massive loss in a herd.

The testing regime to establish the cause is very cumbersome. We need to get some of the product tested in Northern Ireland. A week after the sample is taken it is often not yet sent to the testing laboratory. I understand legal technicalities are involved. These delays cannot be allowed to continue and are causing very serious problems to farmers.

Senator Callanan

Page five of the presentation outlines a number of categories for transportation. Category 3 refers to tallow for inclusion in animal feed. Into what animal feeds is tallow permitted?

Chairman

I thank the officials for their presentation. I requested their presence following many representations I receive on the problem every year and especially at this time of year. The situation has not improved. The Environmental Protection Agency has responsibility inside the gate of rendering plants or knackeries. The Department of Agriculture and Food has responsibility regarding transportation. The local authorities disown responsibility. Whenever they are contacted they refer us to the EPA or the Department of Agriculture and Food, which is why we asked the officials to appear before the committee today.

I want to make it clear that the transportation of fallen animals does not cause the problem. I have had no complaints about the transportation of an ordinary dead animal from a farm to the knackery. We all know that every town in the country is congested with traffic. In some cases these lorries are tied up in such towns for 15 or 20 minutes, leading to people getting sick on the street and forcing shopkeepers to close their shops for the day because the smell gets in and they cannot get it out. One can imagine a restaurant, coffee shop or butcher's shop. In this day and age and with all the new technology, it is deplorable that there is nothing to restrict smell when transporting this material. Something is seriously wrong.

Does the Department of Agriculture and Food have full responsibility for the transportation of this material? Some rendering plants are not happy that the committee is raising these matters. However, when people get no satisfaction from the EPA, the local authorities or the Department of Agriculture and Food, we must raise the issue. It is no laughing matter when people out shopping, elderly people on the streets and visitors to our towns start to get sick at the smell emitted when this material is being transported. It is not good enough.

Is it true that because of the testing of some animals, particularly in the factories, they must be left for a period of time prior to being moved on? Rendering plants blame the rules and regulations of the Department of Agriculture and Food requiring that these animals be left for a period prior to being moved. At the same time, with all the new technology, I do not understand why something cannot be introduced to restrict the smell, especially as these vehicles go through towns and villages. Can the material not be transported at night rather than during the day? It is much easier to get through the towns and villages at night. It is a serious problem, even though it might not be a problem for some. If there is a rendering plant in a particular part of a county, this material will be brought to it from far afield, thereby causing a serious problem. My office receives at least ten or 15 telephone calls each day about this issue. I am sure other politicians hear similar complaints from the general public. Shopkeepers in some towns are losing considerable sums of money because visitors and ordinary shoppers are choosing to avoid certain areas. It is not good enough that coffee shops, butchers' shops, restaurants, sweet shops and ice cream shops have to close down as a result. Is the practice I have mentioned being allowed to continue? Are officials turning a blind eye to this ongoing problem, about which nothing is being done? I am fed up of being blamed for the decisions of paid officials who should be overseeing the transport of the material in question through towns and villages. Does anyone else have anything to say before I call Mr. Loftus?

Deputy Naughten

It is hard to follow that.

Chairman

Whether it is, it is a true reflection of what is happening.

Deputy Naughten

I accept the point made by the Chairman.

Mr. Loftus

I propose, with the agreement of the committee, to address the general issue of odours before referring the technical questions to my colleague, Mr. Alexander.

Chairman

It does not matter. Mr. Loftus can deal with the issue in any way that suits him.

Mr. Loftus

I will speak about how we deal with problems of this nature. There is certainly no question of officials turning a blind eye to problems. The Chairman has rightly stated there is a problem and the Department takes it very seriously. It follows up on all complaints. However, it is important to put the problem in perspective. As I said in my presentation, some 550,000 tonnes of animal by-products move through the country each year. Given that the average load of each truck carrying such material might weigh approximately ten tonnes, it seems approximately 55,000 journeys per annum, or over 1,000 per week, are made. The number of journeys is much higher than this estimate because some material is moved on more than one occasion. The Department of Agriculture and Food receives approximately 20 complaints per annum about such material. I appreciate that additional complaints may be made to other authorities. The Department receives approximately one complaint in respect of every 3,000 journeys. I do not want to belittle the problem, as the Department appreciates it is a serious one. However, it deals properly with the various issues involved.

I would like to speak about the Department's approach to the complaints it receives. As the Chairman said, the Environmental Protection Agency deals with large plants and issues integrated pollution control licences in respect of them. Smaller plants are dealt with by local authorities which are responsible for issuing waste permits. As the Chairman said, the Department accepts that it has some responsibility in respect of the transport of materials of this nature. Under the prevailing animal by-products regulation, 1774/02, such materials must be collected, transported and sealed in new packaging or in covered leak-proof containers or vehicles which must be clean and dry before use. They should also be cleaned and disinfected after each use and maintained in a clean condition. As Mr. Alexander said in his presentation, a label clearly indicating the category of animal by-product being transported must be attached to the container during collection and transport.

It is important to note that the transport of animal by-products is monitored by the Department's veterinary staff on an ongoing basis. The Department has a permanent presence in the larger animal by-products plants, in particular. Its officials are present at all rendering plants, for example. It monitors and keeps an eye on the trucks which pass through these plants. While there is an onus on each plant to ensure its hauliers comply with the regulation mentioned, the Department always reacts promptly to the complaints it receives. It generally advises management of plants to warn hauliers about their responsibilities, including proper cleaning, covering and leak-proofing of containers. It contacts hauliers directly when identified by complainants. It is important to bear in mind that it needs identification and specific information if it is to follow up the reports it receives. Its approach has generally proved to be effective. It expects that the introduction of the transport register will make its system twice as effective because it will add traceability to it. Deputy Naughten spoke about the ability of the public to make complaints. The new register will allow people to identify hauliers to the Department when making complaints. The Department will then be able to follow up the cases in question.

I would like to speak about some of the practical difficulties faced by the Department. It received a complaint last year about three trucks passing through a certain village on their way to a particular rendering plant. It was given specific details about the trucks to enable it to track them. Its officials learned that one of the trucks went into the rendering plant but two of them did not. There can be a perception that animal by-products are being moved when that is not the case. I have a given a general summary of the Department's role in this regard. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Alexander, to speak about the technical issues.

Deputy Naughten

I would like to ask about a point made by Mr. Loftus. Is he saying that when the new register is in place, each trailer will have a clearly marked and distinctive number that can be cited when reports are being made? Are we still working off number plates? If so, does the Department know to what the number plates relate?

Mr. Loftus

It is intended that there will be a clearly distinctive register. If I were a haulier, I could have the number "TL123", for example.

Deputy Naughten

Will the numbers be highlighted like the yellow "how is my driving" labels found on the back of vehicles with contact numbers?

Mr. Loftus

Mr. Alexander mentioned in his presentation that each letter will be 15 cm in height. The register will be highlighted in that way.

Deputy Upton

Mr. Loftus has said the Department receives 20 complaints per annum. The Chairman seems to have received many more complaints recently. What follow-up action has been taken on foot of the 20 complaints received? What sanctions, if any, have been imposed? Are the people in question forced to apply any standards? Are they allowed to continue about their business as usual? What action does the Department actually take? Has anybody ever been banned from transporting these materials after being found to have breached the regulations?

Senator Callanan

What is the nature of the complaint?

Chairman

I came across one of the trucks under discussion last week on the road between Kells and Mullingar. I had the car windows up, even though it was a hot evening, but I still had to put my shirt across my nose. There was no number plate on the back of the truck.

Mr. Loftus

I hope the transport register will address such instances.

Deputy Upton

Is it possible that some of the so-called cowboy operators who move in, collect and move on are not registered anywhere or with anybody? Is there any way of pursuing them? Who, if anybody, has responsibility for pursuing such operators? Do abattoirs have a role in identifying them? Are abattoirs obliged to ensure such operators are not allowed to collect material from them? What happens in the case of a total breach of the regulations?

Mr. Loftus

I will answer the question about sanctions by outlining what the Department has done on foot of well founded complaints. It has tended to contact plants and hauliers to insist that they comply with the regulations. This approach is generally effective. When people acknowledge they have been caught, they tend to start to comply. It is obvious that extreme sanctions are built into the legislation which provides for a penalty of a fine of up to €3,000 and six months' imprisonment. Although we have to strike a balance between the needs of the trade and the need to avoid public nuisance, we do not want to use such severe sanctions. The introduction of the transport register will offer real prospects. It will improve the level of traceability considerably. The Department anticipates that it will improve the situation significantly.

Deputy Upton

Has anybody ever been fined? Has a fine ever been imposed? I do not suggest people should be flung into jail for six months for a first breach of the rules but has anybody ever actually been fined?

Mr. Loftus

Not at this point. The Deputy should bear in mind that implementation of the animal by-product regulation which is of relatively recent vintage is being ratcheted up. She has asked where the transport register now stands now why just 94 of the 200 applicants have been dealt with. Approximately 30 have ceased trading. Therefore, there are just 170 remaining. We have just started to introduce this process this summer. It is a work in progress. We anticipate that tougher action will be taken in time if we encounter cowboy operators as we step up implementation of the regulation.

Deputy Naughten

Does Mr. Loftus believe a fine of €3,000 is a significant deterrent? The reality is that the value of the load is substantial when one considers the cost of disposing of it. Does Mr. Loftus consider that the imposition of a fine of €3,000 would be seen as significant by the cowboy operators who are disposing of loads illegally? I am sure other measures could be taken and other legislation used in such circumstances. Given the value of the loads and their environmental impact — there can be problems with smell, run-off and pollution — is it adequate to provide for a maximum fine of €3,000?

Mr. Loftus

That is a fair point. It may or may not, depending on the circumstances but we have increased our options by introducing the transport register. The Minister can, if a situation arises, remove somebody from the register and so make it impossible for him or her to function in the business. We are improving our capacity to deal with the problem.

Chairman

Does Mr. Alexander wish to contribute?

Mr. Alexander

I will begin by replying to Deputy Naughten's question about the uses and movement of category 3 material. Until sometime last year, all meat and bonemeal, categories 1 and 3, had to be disposed of abroad because there were no incineration facilities here. The cost to the Exchequer of disposing of this product was high but I cannot quote a price per tonne.

Deputy Crawford

Will the figures be provided?

Mr. Alexander

Yes. We have figures on total costs for a particular quantity which can be divided into tonnes.

Chairman

Mr. Alexander can give those figures to the clerk.

Mr. Alexander

We have moved on from there and the SI 707 that came into force last November catered for other uses of category 3 meat and bone meal because it can be included in organic fertilisers and feedstocks. A cement company is running a pilot project between now and the end of December to co-incinerate this product in the cement industry. It is envisaged that it will take approximately 6,000 tonnes of the product. If the pilot is successful and meets the EPA's approval it would have a long-term future using approximately 50,000 tonnes of meat and bone meal per annum, approximately one third of our annual production.

This company is using category 1 material at the moment which is significant because the procedures in place seem to have allayed the fears of the general public regarding the perceived dangers associated with this product. A couple of years from now we will not produce enough meat and bone meal to meet the requirements of some of the energy, foodstuff and organic fertiliser companies which is good news for the economy.

We have no category 2 rendering plants so all of that material must go to a category 1 rendering plant. Some category 2 material such as manure, digestive tract contents and colostrum can be spread on land, although it is covered by the regulation, provided the competent authority does not deem it a risk to animal or human health. Manures can be spread on land. There would be a major difficulty if animal manures were ever to pose a serious animal or public health risk.

We have had to create the transport register because heretofore we used registration numbers but much material is now moved in bulk and we no longer use rigid trucks. Therefore the same tractor unit might haul five different trailers in one day and one loses control. If we call someone and say a certain registration number was going to such a place the driver may say he was not. The new register makes it possible to identify each container with an alpha numeric combination of digits, and shows the size of the containers. We instruct people to place the identifying digits on the sides of each container but, as committee members say, it might be more obvious on the back of the container, and we might consider doing that.

There is no requirement in our animal by-products legislation to display names and telephone numbers on the containers. The container being transported may not belong to the haulage company. We can overcome this difficulty by linking the container number to the chassis number of the vehicle, providing a good traceability system to respond to a concerned member of the public who contacts the Department.

We regard the warm weather this summer as a serious issue, as is the fact that the Chairman received no response from either the Department or the EPA. When we receive complaints we write to the hauliers reminding them of their responsibilities. Transport of this material is monitored and overseen by the Department. The commercial document is divided into three sections: first, the consignor certifies some information; second, the transporter declares that he is transporting the material in conformance with the animal by-products legislation; and, third, the consignee confirms that the product which left the consignor has arrived. That closes the loop and minimises the amount of roguery that could go on within the business.

Deputy Naughten

Must the vehicle number or licence plate number be included in that form?

Mr. Alexander

Yes, but until now this has more often than not been the registration number rather than the container number.

Deputy Naughten

When does the Department expect to have the container numbers in place?

Mr. Alexander

It is in place for the date to which Mr. Loftus referred and we are following up on the others. The other difficulty with registration plates is that the rear and front registration numbers are different. Once the system we have introduced is up and running, it should be very effective.

In cases of non-compliance, we have written to transporters informing them of their responsibility and warning them that they may be prosecuted. We have not gone the full distance on that issue yet. We also stipulate that the quality of the covers on these containers should be very high and that they should be buttoned down tightly on the containers. The old fashioned skips are inadequately covered. A loose cover is worse than no cover because it flaps in the wind and creates a draught. We have looked at different types of containers and the well-tied down 40 foot containers are a great improvement.

Under the fallen animal collection scheme, a subvention is paid to the knackery owner for the prompt removal and disposal of the animal, depending on the age of the animal. For the removal of the material from the knackery to the rendering plant, there must be a minimum of two deliveries per week, although there are many more deliveries in the busy knackeries. We stipulated that the frequency of these deliveries be greatly increased during the summer months.

Deputy Upton inquired about the difference between a slaughter house and an abattoir. Mr. Loftus referred to this and it is basically a question of size. Abattoirs are slaughter plants under the control of the local authority, while slaughter houses are plants that have export licences, that is, they trade with other member states. Deputy Upton also asked about the type of ABPs that go to third countries. The most common are hides that go to third countries for leather production and for the manufacture of technical products.

Deputy Crawford also raised the issue of poultry litter from other member states and the generation of power from poultry litter within our own country. The poultry litter that comes from other states comes exclusively from Northern Ireland. The consignment is accompanied by a health certificate which stipulates that the product has come from poultry houses in which the management systems in place ensure the removal of all poultry carcasses. The Deputy referred to this in another question about the relationship between poultry litter and botulism in cattle. The Northern Ireland authorities must also send a traces message — an electronic message notification — to the Department of Agriculture and Food stating that they intend to move poultry litter from a particular consignor to a particular consignee. That gives the Department control over the product coming into the country. The generation of power by poultry litter is being pursued by the industry.

Poultry is a category 2 animal by-product and the incidences of botulism in this country are low, even though in the case of an individual outbreak, the losses for the particular farmer can be very significant. To that particular herd owner, it seems like the end of the world. However, the overall number of botulism cases is very small. The botulism outbreak in cattle is only detected after the poultry litter has been spread and the poultry has been slaughter, so one is working backwards in tracing botulism and recommending better management of poultry litter in a particular farm.

The Deputy also mentioned that the time taken for the testing of feed coming into this country is unduly long.

Deputy Crawford

I was specifically referring to a case that occurred in the last ten days. There seems to have been a difficulty because we cannot test for botulism in the South and the product must go to Belfast. Licences must also be obtained to send it to Belfast. The farmer concerned feels that nothing has happened ten days after the event and he is quiet aggrieved.

Mr. Alexander

I am not up to date on this.

Deputy Crawford

I have been in contact with the Department and I have not been able to get any information. It is very serious.

Mr. Alexander

I will speak to the Deputy about it later. Deputy Callanan referred to animal feed and tallow. Animal proteins have been banned from inclusion in the feed of all farmed animal rations. However, tallow is a by-product of the rendering industry and is not an animal protein. In fact, it is an animal fat and these can and may be included in animals feeds. It is included in milk replacers for calves and a whole host of feeds. It is also used in the pelleting because of the nature of tallow, which has a binding effect — I refer not to category 1 but to category 3 tallow, which is material from animals that have passed both ante mortem and post mortem inspection.

With regard to the issues raised by the Chairman, I have probably dealt with them in a broad way. I was interested to hear that, by and large, the complaints related not to the collection of the animals from the farms but their transport from the knackeries to the rendering plants. Obviously, the consignments transported from the knackery to the rendering plant would be 20-tonne loads whereas the animals coming from the farms to the knackery would be in consignments of perhaps half a dozen animals.

There are 34 licensed knackeries in the country and most are located outside urban areas, which is not the case for all of the rendering plants, which may be closer to built up areas. The control of the rendering plants with regard to waste water, odours and so on comes under the remit of the EPA. However, the planning permission for these plants comes under the remit of the local authorities and the supervision of the animal by-product going to the rendering plants, the meeting of the processing standards and the dispatch of the products from the rendering plant is the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

The Chairman felt that an issue arose with regard to the animals coming from the factories. Animals are slaughtered in a slaughtering house on a certain day. Those over 30 months of age are BSE-tested on that night and the results come back from the rapid testing laboratories by 6 a.m. the following day. Therefore, the slaughter plants are free at that stage to transport the material to the rendering plants, provided no positive animals have been identified in the tests. So that material——

Chairman

If they are slaughtered today, the test will be back by 6 a.m. tomorrow.

Mr. Alexander

Absolutely.

Chairman

It can then be transported to the rendering plants.

Mr. Alexander

Yes, provided the material is free of BSE.

Deputy Naughten

Is the process the same for fallen animals?

Mr. Alexander

Yes. The smaller knackeries would not have the same throughput of animals and, therefore, when the BSE results are returned the next day, they would not have a consignment to send to the rendering plant. However, some of the bigger knackeries, such as those in Cavan, would have several loads of material per day going to the rendering plants. Such plants turn the material over very quickly.

Chairman

The number of fallen animals at this time of year is small as most deaths occur in the winter and spring. It is not a problem relating to fallen animals.

Mr. Alexander

It was suggested it must be possible to do something to reduce this problem, for example, with regard to the efficiency of the collection from farms and the quick turnover in the knackeries. I understand such products as odour sprays are available but the quantity required to reduce odour significantly would result in a prohibitive cost. Likewise, if we were to insist that the knackeries have refrigerated facilities, the cost to the industry would be significant and might give rise to difficulties.

The Chairman referred to transportation at night. Conditions are laid down for rendering plants by the local authorities and the EPA with regard to opening and closing times. Also, the Department of Agriculture and Food does not have an open-ended budget to provide staff to supervise the material coming into the plants. Therefore, there are restraints with regard to times of delivery.

Chairman

The hauliers should use common sense and not enter towns or villages where there are traffic jams and where they will be held up for 15 or 20 minutes. It is a big problem but it should be possible to resolve it in conjunction with the Department and the rendering plants. This should be simple to achieve. There is a way around every town in the country if one is prepared to take another route. However, the hauliers do not bother to do so.

Deputy Crawford

It also depends on the time of year they do it.

Chairman

The middle of the day when towns are choked with people and traffic is not the right time. Common sense should be used by these people.

Mr. Alexander

I have tried to cover most if not all of the issues raised. If I have omitted any issue, the Chairman might revert to me.

Chairman

Could a telephone number be made available to the general public so they could contact the Department's local veterinary office in each county?

Deputy Naughten

On a related question, what is needed to make a complaint to the Department and what procedure is involved? Should a complaint be made to Agriculture House? Who should be contacted and what information would be required before making contact?

It is critically important that there would be a sign on the back of a vehicle similar to those on the sides of the vehicle. Often, it is after a vehicle has passed by that one realises there is a problem. Part of the reason there is no difficulty with the fallen animal collection is that the vehicles are clearly marked. Many of them are not container lorries and telephone numbers are usually marked on them. One knows who owns the vehicle and the owner can be contacted and a complaint made if there is a problem. It is not in the interests of owners to have complaints made to the Department.

Deputy Upton

My point is broadly on the same lines. It is important that there is a facility to make a complaint. I agree with Deputy Naughten that it would not be a major problem to put the information on the back as well as on the side of the truck. However, to make a complaint is one thing — it is important and may make a member of the public feel better for having done so — but it is wrong that there is an entitlement for a vehicle to drive through a town in boiling hot weather, with smells emanating from it, without being in breach of any regulation. Am I correct in that assessment?

Chairman

It looks that way.

Deputy Upton

It is important to be able to make a complaint and important that people know how to do so. However, the complaint is about a smell and the issue is what, if anything, can be done to contain the smell. The Chairman has put forward practical suggestions. I do not know whether the Department can implement them but practices such as driving through towns at peak traffic times are not very sensible. I had intended to suggest the use of refrigerated trucks but I accept the cost factor involved and I understand their use would not be significant at certain times of the year. However, there should be restrictions with regard to the temperature of the load. There must be a requirement that one would not drive with a load above a certain temperature.

Deputy Crawford

My point is slightly different but still relevant to this issue. I received a telephone call this morning from a young man who owns a piece of waste bog on the Border that he did not know he owned. When he looked into it, he found that the bog had been utilised by a local contractor who had taken away material from it without his knowledge. The owner also discovered that material had been dumped in the bog which was now causing serious problems. He has been informed that because he is the owner of the bog, he is now responsible for the material illegally dumped on it, regardless of who originally dumped the material. It could cost him a significant amount of money to rectify this situation. When we hear about fines of €3,000 for someone who is clearly in the wrong, we should think of the significant cost this man may have to bear.

In this context, it is vital that all transportational product is clearly marked and that there is a way for someone to identify who is dumping product legally or illegally. We all informed the relevant bodies about these dumps in the Border area but it is only now that it is coming home to roost in the case of this individual farmer who did not even know that he owned the bog. The bog was traced to him by the deeds. We have a trace on one element of the business, which has no responsibility, but we have no trace on the other element, which is completely responsible for the dumping. We must address this issue and I appreciate the efforts of the Department to do this. We must move towards placing responsibility where it belongs.

Senator Scanlon

I have a brief question. Mr. Loftus stated that there were approximately 20 complaints per annum in respect of this problem. Did these complaints come from a particular area or were they spread across the country? Does a problem area exist?

Mr. Loftus

I will make a general statement about the suggestions that are being made. Complaints are focused in one area. When we investigate them, we tend to find that they are being caused by a particular source. The source tends to be knackeries because of the fact that, by definition, the product that goes through a knackery is decomposed to some extent before it is moved on. We can tackle it on that kind of level.

In respect of the suggestions that have been made, it is important to understand that there is a trade-off between BSE controls, public health and nuisance issues and trade. Logistics then come into play. For example, suggestions have been made about refrigerated transport. Everybody understands that the cost here would be prohibitive. The Chairman mentioned timing of deliveries. We have moved individuals who have been causing problems to a night-time or evening schedule and made particular arrangements for their own personnel to deal with them out of hours. However, a problem arises if one tries to move the generality of traffic out of hours because we do not have the personnel to inspect them as they will be working during the day. A serious problem arises if the traffic is at night. Logistical problems come into it.

Re-routing was mentioned. It is possible to re-route to avoid a city, town or village and we have done so occasionally but the new route must be safe. If we move a 20 tonne truck from a main road which is at least safe although it goes through a town to a by-road which is not as safe, what happens if an accident occurs? There are consequences which must be examined.

Frequency of animal collection is one of the most significant issues. The problem is how one tackles this in a pragmatic way that does not raise costs unduly. The Department is attempting to achieve a balance between all of these considerations. With the Chairman's permission, I will pass over to Mr. Alexander in respect of the technical points.

Mr. Alexander

The case referred to by Deputy Crawford, which involved dumping on a particular piece of land, the owner's lack of knowledge regarding this and the fact that he is now faced with bearing the cost of making the area environmentally friendly again, is the exception rather than the rule for the reason I mentioned earlier. The Exchequer provides a significant subvention for the collection of fallen animals. On average, this subvention is 50% of the cost. It is cheaper to have the animal lifted by a collector than to get someone in with a JCB to remove it.

Deputy Crawford

It may not be animal waste. It may be other waste. I am not fully clear about the matter.

Mr. Alexander

The Exchequer provides a subvention that covers 100% of the cost of rendering and disposal of ruminant material. There is no incentive to dump this type of material. It pays to make the telephone call and get it done in accordance with the regulation.

We do experience difficulty in respect of some counties, particularly in the north west. In these counties, entrepreneurs who would like to enter the business of collecting fallen animals and setting up knackeries have been prevented at all costs from doing so. I am thinking in particular about Donegal, Sligo, Mayo, Leitrim, which do not have knackeries. The committee can see that the minute animals die, it is difficult to get them to the closest knackery. We have been working to try and overcome this hurdle but to date, we have not succeeded.

Deputy Upton referred to temperature control. If temperature control was to be introduced, it would be used further back along the line at either the point of production at the slaughterhouse or the knackery, rather than in the vehicles. If the product is chilled to just 8° Celsius, the temperature would not increase very much after three hours in a truck. Milk is transported from farmers to the dairies in tankers which I believe are not temperature controlled. Temperature control occurs at the point of origin. If temperature control was to be introduced, this would be the direction but there is considerable cost involved.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Loftus and Mr. Alexander for attending today's meeting, for their presentation and for the way in which they responded to questions raised by members. Hopefully, this meeting will bring some common sense into the transportation of this particular material. Is it agreed to suspend the meeting for two minutes to let our witnesses withdraw? Agreed

Sitting suspended at 12.58 p.m., resumed in private session at 1 p.m. and adjourned at 1.20 p.m. sine die.