I welcome Mr. Robert Madelin, director general, Office of the Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection, European Commission, to discuss with the joint committee the standards and control of Brazilian meat imported into the European Union, a matter about which the committee has expressed its concern on a number of occasions. During a recent presentation to the committee on its visit to Brazil the Irish Farmers Association highlighted a number of issues of concern. I hope Mr. Madelin, whom we are honoured to have with us today, can update the committee on the matter. I advise him that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not extend to him. Members 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 Houses or an official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. I now invite Mr. Madelin to make his presentation.
EU Meat Imports: Presentation.
Mr. Robert Madelin
I thank the Chairman and members of the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to address them on behalf of Commissioner Markos Kyprianou and to clarify the issues raised with him concerning imports of beef from Brazil. I want, first, to assure members that the European Commission is committed to protecting the health of European consumers and livestock and to maintaining its high sanitary status. With the support of member states, the Commission has always taken the administrative measures necessary to ensure and maintain its high health status.
The Commission ensures its approach towards animal health and food safety issues is consistent both with the rules and approaches applied to domestic production in Europe, as well as the requirements imposed on imports. The Commission's record in defending member states' interests in these areas speaks for itself. To give just one example, I point to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Ireland in 2001 when it proved possible to ensure trade within Europe in beef from the unaffected regions of Ireland remained open with minimum disruption to production.
As regards imports from Brazil, Mr. Colm Gaynor and Mr. Andrew Wilson of the Food and Veterinary Office who accompany me today have during the years carried out a number of audits in Brazil across a range of food products exported from Brazil to the European Union, namely, poultry meat, beef, honey, apples, nuts and so on. Where significant problems have been found, action has been taken by the Commission to address them. For example, in 2003 when nitrofuran residues were detected in imported poultry meat, the Community immediately imposed a 100% testing regime on operators at point of entry to the European Union. This was subsequently relaxed to a figure of 20% as the Brazilian authorities took matters in hand. To give another example — outside the animal meat area — last week we imposed fish product testing for histamines and delisted certain fishery establishments which had been found to be in breach of EU standards.
The Chairman, in his letter of introduction, mentioned significant flaws in the beef industry system that he had found to be consistently highlighted by reports of the Food and Veterinary Office. The area of immediate concern to us all is the current status in terms of foot and mouth disease in Brazil. There is also the question of the residues report. I will return to these later.
I wish, first, to outline our assessment, which is that, in general, successive Food and Veterinary Office reports in regard to beef show that the situation is, from an animal health point of view, acceptable and that the Brazilian authorities are continuing to make improvements. For example, our mission to Brazil on beef in July this year has found that in the public health area great efforts have been made to correct deficiencies to which attention was drawn in previous FVO reports. The general and specific hygiene standards, traceability systems and veterinary controls and supervision were acceptable in all establishments visited. We were visiting establishments in areas of Brazil authorised to export to the European Union. Some shortcomings were identified in certification procedures, in particular concerning salmonella certification for meat intended for two member states, Finland and Sweden. However, already the Brazilian authorities have begun to correct some of the shortcomings identified and in an immediate reaction provided guarantees in regard to the problems.
It is important to bear in mind that the EU requirements relating to the export of beef are applicable only to those farms and animals that are intended for the EU market. We cannot insist that the Brazilian authorities apply a European Union regime to the entire Brazilian herd. That would clearly be in their interests but it is not a requirement for export to the European Union.
In regard to foot and mouth disease, the EU policy on imports of animal products has proven to be effective in protecting the animal health status of the European Union. In the past 40 years the FMD outbreaks reported in the Union were never linked to the import of beef. It must be stressed that the European Commission only authorises the imports of deboned and maturated bovine meat from areas that are officially free of FMD in accordance with OIE standards and comply with certain additional health requirements.
As to the current position regarding foot and mouth disease in Brazil, the Commission acted immediately the disease was confirmed, by blocking imports not only from the affected state but from other states with traditional trade links to the affected area. We have been more than precautionary. As a result, the Commission has restricted imports to six unaffected regions in Brazil. To put that in perspective, if one thinks of Brazil as comprising 100 times the surface area of the Republic of Ireland, approximately one quarter of Brazil is open and the area that was suspended in 2005 amounts to ten times the area of this country and approximately 50% or 60% of its export potential. The closures we made were not cosmetic. Our closures, together with monitoring on the spot, are keeping the risks firmly under control. We engaged in a mission in July which updated the situation and this week a Commission inspection team, accompanied by the director of the World Reference Laboratory for FMD, which also happens to be the Union reference laboratory for FMD, is again in Brazil to examine the serological monitoring programme for FMD in Sao Paulo. If there is any evidence in that report that the situation in Brazil is deteriorating, additional firm action will be taken.
In regard to the concerns about FVO residues, past reports identified deficiencies in implementation and enforcement of the EU import conditions. These reports refer not only to beef but also to a number of other commodities and we have taken action on the basis of them. We have withdrawn the approval of the residue plan for honey and game meat so that the importation of those commodities is no longer permissible. We are also withdrawing the approval of residue plans for pigmeat, sheepmeat, goat meat, milk and milk products. These products cannot be imported because of other sanitary blockages. Meanwhile, for beef, horse meat and aquaculture, we received guarantees from the Brazilian authorities that we judge to be adequate to address the deficiencies identified in the report published this summer.
In terms of the future, there will be a follow-up inspection on residues to verify the implementation of further corrective measures by the Brazilian authorities. This is scheduled for the first quarter of next year. Another animal and public health mission is scheduled for the beginning of next year. With these two additional missions, we will be able to keep a certain tension in the system. Contrary to some of the press reports I have seen, including reports from the Irish press, FVO missions have not found any evidence of the use of growth promoting hormones in cattle in Brazil.
The Commission considers that throughout the years its measures concerning imports of animal products from Brazil have been effective in ensuring the European Union's level of protection. They are proportionate to the risk and consistent with the measures taken by the Union in the event of the appearance of comparable risks within the Union and in other third countries.
I would be happy to hear the views of the committee and to engage in discussion.
I thank Mr. Madelin for his presentation. I will now take questions from members.
I thank Mr. Madelin and his staff for attending. We very much appreciate it. I compliment the staff in the EU Food and Veterinary Office in Grange, County Meath, on their work. They have produced very comprehensive reports of their inspections. However, the committee believes that while the reports are being produced and submitted to the Commission, they are not acted upon. The report produced in 2003 stated that many veterinary medicinal products not permitted for use in food producing animals in the European Union were freely available in Brazil. The control of residues in live animals and animal products cannot be considered to be complying with or to be equivalent to EU standards. The EU Food and Veterinary Office report in 2005 stated that many of the deficiencies it had highlighted two years earlier still had not been addressed by the authorities in the European Union. In the light of that fact, how can Mr. Madelin say he believes the measures that have been put in place three years after this issue was highlighted will be adequate to satisfy the needs of consumers in the European Union? Has the issue regarding the laboratory network been addressed? There is no point in setting standards if the laboratory network is not available in Brazil to enforce them. In 2003, 2004 and 2005, the FVO team found large stocks of hormones and antibiotics on different farms. Such items were freely available.
The 2004 report highlighted the lack of animal identification and certification. That is still the situation in Brazil. A regional policy was introduced in the European Union when foot and mouth disease broke out here. We have a very effective tagging and traceability system. How confident is Mr. Madelin that the partial ban is being enforced in Brazil? Given that the latter does not have the type of certification in place in the European Union, is it possible to guarantee that all animals within the restricted area remain within that area and do not move into herds in an area where animals are approved for export to the European Union.
When representatives of the Irish Farmers Association visited Brazil earlier this year they interviewed a world expert in the control of foot and mouth disease who is working with the Brazilian authorities. He stated that the current foot and mouth eradication scheme is doing more to spread the disease than to eradicate it in Brazil. It is difficult for farmers in Ireland to believe the European Union is enforcing the legislation and ensuring that high standards of production are adhered to in Brazil. Farmers in Ireland must deal with layer upon layer of bureaucracy, while an expert working with the Brazilian authorities questions the management of the disease in that country.
The authorities in the United States, Australia and Japan have banned the importation of Brazilian beef because of the risk of foot and mouth disease. The question of residues is of concern to consumers in the European Union. Can Mr. Madelin assure the public that no risk attaches to imported beef, with regard to animal disease or human health?
Would Mr. Madelin like to answer members individually or a few at a time?
Mr. Madelin
Perhaps since I have been asked five questions I should start with those.
Deputy Naughten asks if we believe the reports are being acted on. What we see in each report is one part of a phase. We have the report, we have the action plan from the authorities, which we approve to resolve any deficiencies in the report, and then we check. In the case of residues, we found problems in 2003 and the Brazilians gave us a satisfactory plan of action. When we went back in 2005 we found they had not fulfilled the plan of action. That was a moment of crisis. As I described in my initial presentation, in several other areas the trade was suspended or is being suspended as a result. The further work done since the end of 2005 has, in our view, dealt with those problems. In the case of beef, as I said in my initial statement, we have no evidence of growth promoting hormones being used in cattle in Brazil. We have evidence of hormones for veterinary medicinal purposes being used in areas where they would also be used legally in this country and in the European Union, but they are not being found in feed lots and in quantities which would lead to use for growth promoting purposes.
In the laboratory network, the plans the Brazilians are now putting in place for upgrading equipment and technical training and methods are accurate and realistic. In a country twice the size of the European Union of 25 member states they have a big problem providing enough laboratories. We must be honest and say that in Europe we also have a problem having enough laboratories. I have visited some of the national reference laboratories around Dublin. In every EU country we have a problem funding sufficient control authorities. We believe the laboratory network is being brought up to scratch.
The slaughterhouses which sell to Europe have more high-tech traceability systems than those in Europe. Each slaughterhouse for Europe has on-line control back up the line for 90 days to check that a beast coming in for slaughter has been traced for the previous 90 days in a disease-free region in conformity with our requirements.
Deputy Naughten referred to an expert whom Irish farmers met in Brazil. There are many experts in the world. We rely on the professionals of the Food and Veterinary Office, the national control authorities and on an accredited system of community reference laboratories. In the case of foot and mouth disease, we have the world expert on that disease who comes on our missions. I rely on the evidence base which comes from those experts. I do not wish to comment on anyone else's experts.
There is no risk whatsoever from legally imported meat to human or animal health. The last big outbreak came from what we believe to be illegally imported meat. That is always a risk. Illegal trade is the biggest threat to animal health in Europe today but I believe we have the legal trade under control.
A 90 day trace-back is not the same as the system we have in Ireland. We have traceability from birth. The Brazilian system cannot be compared to the Irish system, which is the same as that in other European countries.
What steps are being taken at Commission level to protect consumers? The FVO continually highlights the problem of the use of unauthorised medicines. The testing regime is not sufficient. The Commission highlighted a problem in 2003. The Brazilians gave a commitment to address that problem but they have not done so. What has changed? What is now happening to make a difference in the future which was not happening in 2003?
Mr. Madelin
The traceability regime we have chosen in the European Union is 100%. We have chosen a system which goes beyond animal health requirements in order to boost confidence and to help with controls related to CAP subsidies. That is a choice we have made for ourselves. In respect of what we require from others, we impose equivalent animal health guarantees. Foot and mouth disease having a certain gestation period, we do not need to go back to birth; we need 90 days. Some would argue even that is unduly precautionary. The choice we have made within Europe concerns more than mere animal health; thus, it is a more onerous burden. Ministers for Agriculture and the Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development have decided what is good for consumers and the farming chain in Europe. That is beyond my remit. I cannot but agree that our requirement is more onerous but it is more onerous for reasons not to do with animal health. What we have in Brazil gives us the guarantees we need regarding foot and mouth disease.
The reason we have more faith now than when we made the critical findings in 2005 is that the Brazilians have got their act together. This is natural. We are a big importer of Brazilian beef. They have no choice but to want to comply with the requirements. In the public health area, the report we are now finalising with the Brazilians finds they have made great efforts since 2005 to correct all the deficiencies we detected. In 2005 we did not find effort but in 2006 we did. I am not paid by the Brazilians but by the European public. My job is to protect the health of European citizens and European livestock. I have no interest in making things up. Our inspectors found the situation to be satisfactory.
I welcome Mr. Madelin and his colleagues and thank them for coming to give us an opportunity to raise these issues with them.
The two major concerns are consumer protection and the protection of the Irish trade. The two go hand in hand. The issue of traceability has been raised. I acknowledge the work of the FVO, which has been very thorough. The reports available to us give us quite an alarming insight into what has been happening.
Much of the commentary in the 2005 report of the FVO suggests to me that the laboratories carrying out the tests are not competent or capable of delivering the kind of testing and analytical methodology one would expect. For example, none of the four LANAGRO laboratories is accredited. According to ISO 17025, "The LANAGRO laboratories have not participated in international proficiency testings to date. There are few and infrequent scientific contacts to EU or American residues laboratories". Significantly, the validation file for the analysis of anabolic substances in urine was reviewed. The file is comprehensive and a lot of data have been collected. However, the method was not fit for the purpose of confirmation. Laboratory accreditation of proficiency testing takes a long time and will not happen in a week or a month. In some cases, it could take as long as one year. Is Mr. Madelin confident laboratory facilities and services and testing methodologies are adequate to ensure there will be no unacceptable residues in meat imported from Brazil?
Mr. Madelin
It is an embarrassment that the use of all these illegal substances will not necessarily leave detectable residues in the meat that arrives at an EU border inspection post. That is why it is important that the laboratory and control system on the spot should detect illegal use because the meat will not necessarily reveal such use. It is clear that ring trials and the assurance of capability in a laboratory constitute one of the greatest challenges we face in Europe and beyond. It is also clear that in the 2005 report the residues capacity of laboratories was one of the black spots but we are confident the ongoing work is clearing this up and we will return in January to check. It is like asking a policeman, "Are you sure that no crime is being committed around the corner on another street?" and he or she replies, "When I was there a moment ago, madam, everything was quiet." As a policeman, the key is to go back around the corner and check and we will do so.
If tests are not conducted or they are inaccurate or incorrect, we cannot have confidence in the result of the testing programme, which was the case at least until 2005. By not having confidence in the test methodology, the laboratories and the results, we will always be unhappy because we will never have the positive results one might expect under different conditions.
Mr. Madelin
On what to expect, we made unannounced visits to facilities during the last mission. If such visits were made to an American feed yard where hormones are used, evidence of their use would be found. My veterinary inspectors say if such hormones are used, they cannot be hidden. One will always find a discarded box or container somewhere and we did not find evidence. We have no reason to believe growth promoters are used in cattle in Brazil. What is the risk we are guarding against? We have no evidence of a crime and are not looking for evidence of a crime we know to be taking place. We are looking for a system in the laboratories that will keep production clean. We send laboratory experts as part of our inspection teams. As I am not one, I am advised by my experts that the Brazilian scheme is realistic and on the right track. The experts will return to check in the next six months.
That is not what the 2005 report stated regarding being happy or confident about the laboratories.
Mr. Madelin
Absolutely. That is the reason there are reports. The report stated we had a problem and that it was a moment of crisis. We then had to work hard with the Brazilians to ensure there was a good response to those deficiencies. If my experts say that is a good credible answer, we give them a number of months before returning to check. It is not an act of faith or a diplomatic act. It is a fact-based process.
The bottom line is, in the meantime, while the process is under way, Mr. Madelin and the European Union are happy to permit the importation of Brazilian meat without having confidence in the laboratory system. As recently as 2005, this was happening. I accept Mr. Madelin's statement that a process is in place but it is slow.
Mr. Madelin has stated he has no evidence of the use of growth promoters. If the withdrawal period has expired, can it be guaranteed that hormones have not been used? Can Mr. Madelin prove hormones were used if the period has expired?
Mr. Madelin
That is a good question. One will not find evidence in the meat. One must test the viscera, urine, blood and the entire carcase. We have found no evidence of the use of growth promoters in feed lots or on farms in Brazil. There were no discarded boxes or piles of growth promoting doses of hormones. The Chairman is correct that at the other end of the production chain if one takes a piece of meat or a muscle, one will not find out if it is being used appropriately.
A farmer who is using an illegal substance will not leave evidence behind him or her. I am very concerned about this. Cowboys in Ireland used growth promoters and I am sure the same is happening in Brazil where the problem could be much worse. Using discarded boxes as evidence is seen as a lame excuse.
Mr. Madelin
One of the bastions of freedom is that authorities do not act without evidence.
I welcome Mr. Madelin and his team to discuss this important topic. There is grave concern about Brazilian beef imports into Ireland. Mr. Madelin used two words — "acceptable" and "adequate" — which probably sum up the position in Brazil. Our farmers are subject to a strict regime of testing as they rear cattle and if Mr. Madelin used those two words in discussions with them, he would not be given a good reception. I accept, however, that he has a difficult job and that Brazil is a big country. I also accept the entire country is not subject to a testing regime and that, therefore, it is difficult to control but I was a little alarmed by the use of the words "acceptable" and "adequate". Such a system would not work in Ireland. Will Mr. Madelin elaborate on the system in place in Brazil?
Ireland was threatened by an outbreak of foot and mouth disease a number of years ago and if the disease ever struck, the agriculture industry would be wiped out. Our location on the periphery of Europe dictates that everything must be right to command a market. We are trying to promote green, clean food production. When our farmers read and hear what is happening at the source of the imports, it certainly does not inspire much confidence. I refer again to these two words "acceptable" and "adequate" which are not used here and ask Mr. Madelin to elaborate. Here it is yes or no, black or white.
Mr. Madelin
I am neither a lawyer nor a veterinarian, but it is clear that matters can be more black and white for lawyers than for those who are in science. For example, I was asked whether there was zero risk and of course there is never zero risk of anything — that is to say it can never be excluded that something scientifically possible will arise. When I say our tests are adequate or acceptable, I mean that it is a test applied in application of the law that the member states have voted through and the legal test is whether it poses a risk to animal health.
Zero risk does not exist in this country or in any other. We, therefore, must have a rule of reason. When the FVO inspectors inspect in Ireland or in another member state, they apply that rule of reason, as well and when we are making the law we apply a rule of reason. I will give one example which is not about meat but which relates to this country. The climate in Ireland makes it impossible to meet the safe standards set by Europe for nitrates in lettuce and spinach. An unreasonable approach would be to say this is a black and white matter, and no more spinach or lettuce shall be grown in Ireland. In practice the European Union has allowed a derogation because it is climatically inevitable if you grow spinach in Ireland that there will be rather more nitrate than is ideal. Similar rules of reason apply in many products around Europe.
In beef, we do not apply such a rule of reason. We could not afford it. We do not want FMD in Europe. For 40 years we have imported beef without FMD. We have had FMD as a result of bone in sheepmeat from Argentina in the 1960s and probably illegal pork from China in the last big outbreak, but legal trading in red meat has not given rise to risk. When I say adequate and acceptable, one could think of it as a cultural understatement but it really means safe.
I thank the Chairman for organising this meeting with the group from the office of EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection.
Mr. Madelin's office does not seem to have a permanent inspectorate in Brazil and gives advance notice of its inspection. For instance, in January next I understand the office will tour Brazil again. It is certainly not a Dr. Hans Blix type operation such as went on in Iraq. It seems to be a hit and miss operation, as far as I can see.
I come from an organic farm in the west. I can assure Mr. Madelin of the standards with which we must comply. We are registered with Bord Bia and we are registered with and members of IFA, which has high standards. We comply with all the standards regarding TB and brucellosis inspections. We do not use hormones. We do not use promoters. We comply, straight down the line. Therefore, it is not a level playing pitch.
I get the impression that Mr. Madelin is complacent about the entire situation. His office seems to have the attitude that if it does not look for it, it will not find it. In his office's reports, for instance, it is admitted that the FVO mission team found a large stock of hormones and antibiotics present in the single cattle farm it visited.
Consider the numbers involved. There are 200 million cattle in Brazil and approximately 16 million are registered in the data bank. Is it Mr. Madelin's policy to encourage the importation of Brazilian beef to the European Union irrespective of health status? Is Mr. Madelin under direction to turn a blind eye to what is happening in Brazil? It is obvious to me that foot and mouth disease is rampant in that country. Foot and mouth disease spreads like wildfire in such situations.
Mr. Madelin's office undertakes these pre-arranged visits for which people are prepared in advance. There is no proper registration of clenbuterol in Brazil. There is no proper control of these drugs whatsoever. There is no control of growth promoters.
As a producer of organic beef which is sold into the British market, with the high standards to which we must comply including complete traceability back to the person who runs the farm and back to the insemination, we can control the entire food chain from the farmer's gate to the table, yet Mr. Madelin is allowing the importation of Brazilian beef of questionable standard into this country. That is totally unacceptable to the consumers and to the Irish producers.
Mr. Madelin
My inspectors have a better record than Dr. Blix's in finding smoking guns and when we find stuff, we close them down. We have closed down honey. We closed down fish establishments in Brazil last week. We are blocking them for game. We are blocking them for sheep, goat and pig meat, and milk and milk products. It so happens we did not find something in the case of beef from the six provinces that are authorised to sell that justified action against that trade, but we are only too enthusiastic to find and to take action. I have no sense that we are being mandated subtly, secretly or even in public to encourage any sort of trade at all. My mandate — that is the beauty of being independent of the department for trade and the department for agriculture — is to uphold the health of the citizen and of the animal population, and indeed the plants, of the European Union. There is no sense of us being under any pressure.
In terms of pre-arranging visits, it is clear that the dates of our visits are known. It is clear that in a country the size of Brazil we cannot, like Dr. Who, tele-transport ourselves from the north to the south without taking a plane. On the other hand, we can visit within a region with less than 24 hours' notice any number of feed lots, and we have done that. We have made surprise inspections and we have not found anything there either. My sense is that we are doing the job we are paid to do and that it is that job which keeps the segment of the European market which is open for good organic beef safe for your production.
I thank my colleague, Deputy Naughten, for insisting on this discussion taking place because we view the situation in Brazil as being extremely serious for Irish industry. Only today we heard the news that the Castlemahon Poultry plant is going under. This is occuring where we have little faith in the labelling of imported poultry and other meat and there has been a failure to deal with this.
The issue that worries me is the point about checking. Mr. Madelin stated that his office undertakes spot checks with 24 hours' notice. Farmers in Ireland are used to that and it is nothing new. The industry knows at this stage that Mr. Madelin's office is visiting Brazil in January next. That is a long time away.
When we, as a nation, sold beef to countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, we could not slaughter one animal unless the personnel from that country were on the line to inspect the product and how it was slaughtered. Can Mr. Madelin advise of the type of daily supervision the European Union undertakes? On whom are we depending to oversee how these animals are dealt with, from when they arrive in the lairage until the process is finished and they are in boxes to come to Ireland?
Mr. Madelin has also stated that he is satisfied improvements have been made, not until 2005 but since. We are dealing with a period of years. However, Irish producers — this is why so many are angry today — do not get days, never mind years, to rectify matters. If anything is found to be wrong, they lose their right to produce or are fined a considerable sum and forced to introduce many changes. We want to ensure not only that Irish and European consumers are safeguarded but also that Irish producers get fair play.
The issue that concerns me most — Deputy Naughten and I continually refer to it — involves labelling and marketing. When we pressed the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, to comment on the issue of Brazilian beef in the Dáil, she emphasised that if beef was scarce in Europe, we would have to take it from wherever we could get it. That is not good enough. We should only import product into this country that can be guaranteed to be produced and handled in the same careful way as Irish product. There was clearly a major lapse between 2003 and 2005. Can Mr. Madelin assure us that the issue is being dealt with in a positive and constructive way? Can we be guaranteed that the product is produced to a similar standard to that produced here?
Mr. Madelin
The Deputy could have taken the words out of my mouth. It is an EU legal requirement that we can only import meat that has had the same careful treatment that we require of European producers and finishers. It is clear, therefore, that the objective is precisely as stated by the Deputy. In the past three or four years the European Union has been a net importer of some cuts of beef and it is clear, if one considers the probabilities of demand and supply, that we will continue to import, although only from countries from which it is entirely safe to do so.
In terms of controls, we in the European Commission are relatively few in number. The Council of Ministers of all the member states of the European Union proposes to reduce that number rather than increase it. Therefore, I shall not be in a position, thanks to the Council of Ministers, to install EU inspectors throughout the world. Even in Ireland, the guarantee the Irish consumer gets is not from European Commission officials but from official veterinarians put in place by the Irish competent authority. The equivalent requirement is imposed in Brazil. Official Brazilian veterinarians check every carcass on the slaughter line in a slaughterhouse approved for sale to the European Union, just as Irish veterinarians impose the same checks on the exports that will go from this country to the United Kingdom or Belgium. It is that equivalence we seek.
The Deputy referred to labelling, an area where the debate is very hot at present. Consumers in Europe are, if not divided, in two minds as to how much labelling they want for food and non-food products. In this country, however, as in others, if there is a trend, it is towards a greater demand for labelling both at the point of sale and the point of consumption.
We depend totally on organised spot checks, which is in a way contradictory. The Brazilians know EU inspectors are due because they receive warning that they are coming.
Mr. Madelin
The equivalent is that when an FVO inspector arrives at an Irish establishment, the latter also knows the inspector is coming. The spot checks will be carried out by the local competent authority — by the Irish inspectorate in Ireland and the Brazilian inspectorate in Brazil. The job of the European Commission is to audit the inspectors in all countries — EU member states and third countries — and to keep them in line.
I extend céad míle fáilte to Mr. Madelin and his colleagues. We have dealt with the issue of the quality of Brazilian beef, its traceability and how it is inspected. I would like to progress the discussion and ask Mr. Madelin about the inspection of beef imports to the European Union at the point of entry. Will he outline the extent of the inspection, whether unsuitable beef that should not be imported has been discovered and the reasons such beef is deemed unsuitable? Will he explain how much beef is involved? It is important that the beef classified in Brazil is the beef that arrives here. There are instances when this did not happen, even with regard to beef coming from European countries.
The second aspect I would like Mr. Madelin to address is the reclassification, reprocessing or minor alteration of beef imported from Brazil to a European or a non-European country. Beef may be processed to some degree and then exported to the European Union as if it came from the exporting country. What steps are being taken to prevent this? Is Mr. Madelin satisfied that this is not a concern for the European Union or a health concern for consumers?
Mr. Madelin
On the import controls for food of animal origin including beef, every border inspection post throughout the territory of the European Union is inspected and approved under EU law. The specification for the capacity to check beef imports is, therefore, a matter of EU law. The frequency of specific checks — whether one opens one box or another — is determined on the basis of the risk analysis by the local authority, either by the inspectors in the border inspection post or by the instruction of the competent authority. There may be particular algorithms or rules as to what to check. For example, if we get one case of bad tuna from Indonesia, a border inspection post will inspect the next ten consignments from that establishment.
The degree of uniformity depends on the problems we encounter at a given time. Under the new feed and food control system, we have stronger co-ordination than in the past but there is a degree of autonomy for the national competent authority as to what it checks. However, we believe that while the border inspection post regime could be modernised and improved, as may be the case with every other part of EU law, the system is good. Every Monday morning, I, with my colleagues, consider any rapid alerts that have been brought to us if an inspection post has found a problem. These are shared among all the other member states to ensure the product rejected at one port does not arrive at another. We try to pull the system together in this way.
On the problem of reprocessing, there is legal reprocessing and there is fraud. We encounter cases, some of which are reported in the press throughout Europe at this time, of product being frozen, unfrozen and refrozen or where the sell-by date or factory mark has been changed. This is fraud. It is a crime. When we find it, we or the competent authorities prosecute. If, on the other hand, Brazilian meat is turned into a meat product in another country and then exported, this is legal and there is nothing we can do about it. However, we are not aware of this as an economically significant trade.
I welcome the delegation, especially Colm Gaynor, with whom I had the privilege to work in the Department of Agriculture and Food. He did an excellent job as senior veterinary officer and has now gone on to greener pastures. I wish him well.
Mr. Madelin stated that the Commission has the legal right to close plants. However, it cannot close a plant in Brazil as it has no legal right to operate in a different jurisdiction. It can, therefore, only refuse to allow imports into Europe. How can an inspection be carried out if the number of animals slaughtered in Brazil in one day is greater than that for Ireland? A team of inspectors would have to travel across Brazil to carry out such inspections, but from what Mr. Madelin has said, his office has limited manpower and expertise.
Can the Commission detect beef that enters the European Union illegally? Most foodstuffs enter through Rotterdam from where they are shipped onwards. Can the Commission identify illegal imports? Can it detect beef entering the Union over land from Russia and other sites?
Senator Coonan has asked whether the Commission looks for hormones and antibiotics in blood, urine or muscle tests. Which has been the most satisfactory way of providing evidence of what is found in carcases?
I understand the position clearly — the European Union wants to do business with Brazil because it wants to export. While the Union must be friendly, people have been put in prison in Ireland for illegally using antibiotics and growth hormones. We must grapple with a situation where we have imports from countries where people are free to use these substances. It is a problem that annoys our farmers and consumers.
While we blame Far Eastern countries rather than Brazil for problems with poultry imports, the quality of Brazilian beef which is considered to be very dry does not match that of Irish beef. I have visited Brazil on a number of occaions and saw feedlots where cane sugar and tonnes of tomatoes, which ensure a different texture and flavour, were being used. Our system is based on marbling. There is, therefore, an issue in respect of quality, safety, origin and imports.
Mr. Madelin
On the Deputy's fourth question regarding which test works best, I am not a veterinarian and will not attempt to answer.
Mr. Madelin has made the point that the Commission carries out physical inspections of sheds and farms in Brazil.
Mr. Madelin
Yes.
Given the large size of feedlots, the size of the country and the amount of livestock, it is not as easy to carry out inspections as it is in Ireland. Here an inspector could enter a farm shed, move an arm along the rafters and find where a farmer has placed a bloody syringe, as Mr. Gaynor would be able to tell me from his days in the Department of Agriculture and Food.
Mr. Madelin
While I will answer that question and the other six points, I did not want to answer the one on whether blood or urine tests work better.
Not only is it clear that the quality of Brazilian meat is different, it is also clear that it must be deboned. One will not be able to sell T-bone steak, for example. Therefore, there are handicaps.
On trade, while people may speak about their desire to export there, no one has ever made representations to me concerning EU exports to Brazil. I have been doing this job for three years, before which I was involved in trade policy. No one has told me, not even covertly, that they sell a lot to Brazil. Even the Brazilians do not tell me this. Rather, they ask me to help them to do better in selling good quality beef.
The Deputy has asked how one goes about closing plants. I should be precise and say the European Commission does not close plants, rather we ask the competent national authority to close them. If it does not do so, we can take safeguard measures to prevent the export of its product to other countries. While we cannot close a plant in a third country, we can delist it, as we did last week in the case of five fisheries establishments in Brazil. In a way, we have more direct powers to save European citizens from the product of a third country than a local plant.
Owing to the number of people we have, it is clear we must carry out many inspections by audit. We do not check every carcase in approved slaughter houses. In Brazil we do what my colleagues do when they go to a slaughter house in Europe, that is, we ensure the official veterinarian is doing his or her job and the line is being run in accordance with our requirements.
Crime is difficult to detect. Sometimes we are able to detect illegal behaviour and crack down on the individuals concerned by seizing and destroying consignments. I am not here to allege that there is no crime in the food chain simply because the European Commission is at work. We are trying to prevent crime by increasing the cost of criminal endeavours. We have no particular fears about illegal beef consignments. We have seen a great deal of illegally imported pork and, recently, poultry. There is illegal trade, but not specifically with Brazil. I understand from the committee that our main problems vis-à-vis Brazil have to do with competition and how Brazilians are putting in place the controls for which we have asked, not criminality.
Competition is not the real issue. There is a need for a level playing pitch which we do not have owing to the products one is permitted to use in Brazil. We recognise that there must be competition and trade, but Brazil has advantages. While I respect Mr. Madelin's position, no Irish farmer or meat processor would agree to this.
Mr. Madelin
I understand, but the allegation concerns the use of prohibited substances. We have investigated——
We are prohibited from using them.
The Deputy should allow Mr. Madelin to speak.
Mr. Madelin
We have investigated the matter, but have found no evidence. If others find it, they should tell me in order that we can go and look in those places again.
It is clear that Irish beef has certain strengths, not least of which is that it can be organically produced close to the market and sold with the bone in. It also has particular qualities in terms of the way it is raised. Brazilian beef enjoys economic advantages in terms of cost and tax rates, but is disadvantaged in the sense that it has to mature, be deboned and processed according to EU requirements. There are also the distances involved. However, it clearly has a place in the market. If it did not, it would not be offered to European consumers.
I welcome Mr. Madelin and our other guests. I know Mr. Gaynor, but not the others.
While there is no doubt that Mr. Madelin and the organisation he represents do their jobs well to the best of their abilities, Mr. Madelin referred to significant problems and continuous improvements in Brazil, as well as the plan of action that was not in place by 2005. Returning to Deputy Wilkinson's references to acceptance and adequacy, the problems lie therein. That there are significant problems and continuous improvements means the improvement process is not complete. It also means the standards of Irish farmers are not being met by farmers in Brazil, despite the continuous improvements. How can anyone, least of all the delegates, say the meat content as it arrives legally in Europe is of a standard similar to that we have here? I know well it is not. Where is the balance of fair trade?
Allied to this, why will the United States not accept Brazilian beef? Is it because of quality or because of trade? I submit that we have a general problem in Europe because agricultural produce, that is, food, is a commodity to be traded commercially. In other words, it is to be sacrificed within the World Trade Organisation. I suggest that the standard of beef and all meats coming into the European Union is lower than we have and it is imported because of trade requirements. Deputy O'Keeffe also referred to this. I am convinced and Mr. Madelin will have to convince me that I am wrong. I would welcome it if he could do this.
This committee has met the Irish Farmers Association. While it has a vested interested, it visited Brazil and returned with a solid and convincing report of what was really happening there. Once standards and requirements are applied equally, we do not fear fair competition. However, in the words of Mr. Madelin, the standard that pertains to beef entering Europe is not equal to the standard which we are required to produce. Hence the question why it is allowed in. Is it because of trade or for some other reason? We are aware of what Mr. Mandelson is doing in the World Trade Organisation talks. Agriculture and food production are sacrificed to satisfy commercial interests.
The Yanks will not accept Brazilian and I have asked why. I expect Mr. Madelin to know. The report refers to clenbuterol. Mr. Madelin says he is not a veterinarian but that Mr. Gaynor is. What is the withdrawal period for clenbuterol from an animal? What percentage of illegal meat coming into Europe does the Commission know of? What is being done to eradicate this trade?
Mr. Madelin
I definitely would not allege that any beef is of similar standard to European beef. I am looking at the safety standard rather than the quality standard. We are imposing a standard of animal health control that is not similar but equivalent.
The Senator asked how we can improve yet be safe enough. We found deficiencies in many areas. In some areas those deficiencies made the trade unsafe and we stopped the trade. That was the case, as I have listed, for honey, sheep meat, goat meat, milk, milk products and game. In those cases, they can improve the standards and when they have improved to the level where they think they are safe we will re-inspect. If they are then safe we will re-open the trade. Even if it is safe, it can still be improved upon.
In the case of beef, while we did find areas for improvement we did not find deficiencies that led us to close the trade. They did not fall below the standard of safety and, therefore, we did not close the trade. That is the distinction. It is possible to be safe enough and have room for improvement.
As to why the United States does not accept Brazilian beef, I daresay an American witness would answer that question. I would only observe that they do not import European beef or pork either, even though we consider it safe for European and world consumers. I can simply observe that the standards imposed by the US Government are different from ours.
Are they higher standards?
Allow Mr. Madelin to finish. The Senator can then ask supplementary questions.
Mr. Madelin
The standards are different. I would argue that any standard that excludes Irish or European beef is disproportionate and I am sure the Senator would agree with me.
The Senator asked about illegal trade. By its nature illegal trade is covert and I do not have any estimate of the volume of illegal trade in the world.
I asked one other question and perhaps Mr. Gaynor could answer it. It refers to the withdrawal period for clenbuterol.
I do not think Mr. Gaynor expected to answer questions today.
Why not?
Mr. Colm Gaynor
The question is a good one, although I do not know why the Senator wants to know. However, I know him to be an honest man. As the Senator well knows, it has quite a short half-life in muscle. However, it has an extremely telling life in the retina. If any animals were to appear from one's farm without eyes, one might question the actual purpose. It is not an easy question to answer. It has a short half-life in muscle——
Is it six years?
Mr. Gaynor
——and it can be detected in the eye for a long time.
I thank Mr. Gaynor.
I compliment the Irish Farmers Association on the report and presentation it made to this committee on all aspects of farming in Brazil. There was one worrying aspect of the video presentation the IFA made that shocked me deeply. An animal got stuck under a bridge and had to be slaughtered. I remember seeing the same thing happening when I was a child. Every member of this committee was concerned and horrified to see animals being slaughtered in the fields and the carcasses hung from trees. Can the delegation give us a guarantee that no meat slaughtered in such a manner gets into the European Union? There is much talk about traceability and animal health, but this incident was appalling. It is important for consumers when buying or eating meat to ask whether it is Irish. Neither I nor any member of this committee would like to see that kind of meat being allowed into the European Union.
Mr. Madelin
I am delighted that we will be meeting with Irish farmers after this meeting. Sometimes my colleagues in Grange meet without prior arrangement, but this time it is by arrangement. We will discuss that issue.
I agree with the Chairman that Europe wishes to uphold the highest animal welfare standards. I have not seen the video the Chairman referred to. Brazil being a big country, one of the questions that must be asked is if this evidence comes from an area that exports to us or from somewhere else. Since only meat slaughtered in specific slaughter houses can be exported to us, meat from the informal slaughtering process the Chairman describes could not be sent to Europe.
Deputy Naughten wishes to raise a question on a different issue, but Deputy Sargent wants to ask a question on this one.
I am interested to know if Mr. Madelin can tell us the proportions of feed that are involved in producing Brazilian beef. I understand there is a huge soya dependency. How much of the feed is grass? Can Mr. Madelin give us a breakdown of the Brazilian system as compared with the Irish one?
Mr. Madelin
It is clear, in terms of the number of herds eligible for export to the European Union, that a higher proportion of Brazilian herds, as against the number in Europe as a whole, are grass-fed. I do not, however, have detailed figures to show how this compares with that for Irish herds. It is equally clear that Brazil is moving towards feed lot production, specifically destined for export. Thus, the figures are changing. One can no longer state, as one could have 20 years ago, that all Brazilian beef comes from the Pampas.
When I attended the World Meat Congress in Brazil some seven or eight years ago, I noted while visiting feed lots in the Bela Horizonte region that livestock were being fed massive quantities of tomatoes and, in some cases, cane sugar. I am surprised Mr. Madelin is not aware of the ingredients used in feedstuffs there. We should not be concerned about grass-fed animals but about the large quantities of seed such as soya-bean fed to Brazilian livestock. Ireland prides itself on being a grass-based beef producer, one of the reasons for marbling in our beef, which one does not see in Brazilian beef, although I accept a different breed is used. Huge quantities of tomatoes and cane sugar are being used in feed lots in the Bela Horizonte region. I do not know if such places are subject to inspection.
Mr. Madelin
Beef from the Bela Horizonte is not exported to Europe. However, I take the Deputy's point. Brazil is a big place and there are many systems in operation.
Beef from Bela Horizonte is not exported to the European Union?
Mr. Madelin
No, it is not an approved state.
I thank Mr. Madelin for appearing before the committee today. The Commission is dealing with animal medicine regulations and exemptions lists, an issue the committee has dealt with on a number of occasions. Perhaps Mr. Madelin could supply it with an update on the proposals regarding the exemption lists. He might also respond on the anomaly within the system in the advertising of medicines, namely, that under the new regulations Dutch and British agencies are allowed to advertise animal medicines in agricultural journals and the broadcast media while Irish agencies will not be permitted to do so. Given the common border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, this will cause significant difficulties for us. I would appreciate if Mr. Madelin would communicate with the committee on this matter at a later stage. I thank him for his time.
Mr. Madelin
Issues relating to veterinary medicine approval and marketing do not come within my area of responsibility but I will happily pass on the Deputy's questions to DG Enterprise if the clerk supplies me with a copy.
On behalf of the joint committee, I thank Mr. Madelin for attending and participating in what has been a very interesting and worthwhile debate.
Mr. Madelin
This has been an extremely useful opportunity for the European Commission to get one step closer to the citizens. I am grateful to members for affording us this opportunity.
I also thank Mr. Territt, Mr. Gaynor and Mr. Wilson for attending.
The primary producer is under great threat all the time because private sector processors and co-operatives are absconding from the processing of the raw materials produced by farmers. They are leaning towards cheaper imports from non-EU states. Foreign multiples use own brands and more of them are setting up operations in Ireland. Own brands are only a gimmick and represent the lowest quality. Ben Dunne said as much on Newstalk 106 recently. Legislation is needed to address own brand products and multiples. Cheese is imported into my area and it is sold as Irish cheese. This will destroy agriculture. The Government can be blamed regarding the economics involved but it cannot be blamed for everything. If farmers and co-operative boards do not stand up to be counted, there will be no agriculture industry in this State.
I thank the Chairman for the opportunity to discuss this major issue. Castlemahon Foods will close in the next few weeks and it is an indication of the serious difficulties faced by the poultry industry. Costs and cheap imports are factors but the failure of the Government to deal with scaremongering about the avian flu and so on is also a factor. A request was made to Brussels to deal with this issue but, unfortunately, when my constituency colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Brendan Smith, made an announcement, it dealt only with hatcheries and primary producers. Following that scare, significant quantities of poultry meat were put in store but they are overhanging the market and this is causing a serious problem, which was not addressed in a package from the European Union or the Government.
This issue has serious implications not only for Castlemahon Foods, where 300 jobs will be lost. My colleague, Deputy Neville, will deal with that matter in more detail later. At least 100 farmers and their families will be affected by the closure because they will have no market for their poultry. Hundreds of other jobs in hatcheries and so on will also be affected and the local community will lose significant income. The poultry industry was extremely important in the past. The reason I have such a keen interest in it is that two sources of poultry were based in Monaghan. I know more about the industry than most people. Increased wages and energy costs, together with the hidden charges imposed over the past four or five years, have all affected the profitability of the industry. Above all, the issue of the importation of cheap poultry and the lack of labelling has had a significant impact. This has been addressed to some extent in the beef industry but poultry labelling is completely pathetic. Poultry imported from other countries, which is not traceable, can be processed partially in Ireland and classified as Irish. That is completely unfair. If something is not done with regard to the traceability and labelling of poultry, closures will continue and we will soon not have an industry.
I have been trying to deal with this quietly and privately behind the scenes with the Minister and her officials during the past six months. I have been asked by the industry not to talk the issue up because processors are concerned about further damage to their products. However, this has gone beyond a joke, given the impending closure of Castlemahon Foods and the pressure on other companies. The issue can no longer be ignored and it must be addressed. I am pleased that a Government Deputy has raised the issue at this meeting and that he acknowledges the serious crisis faced by not only poultry producers but farmers generally. I have experience of dealing with Lakeland Dairies in my constituency while he deals with Dairygold in the south. These companies branched into other areas that did not pay and, at the end of the day, farmers will pay the price.
I concur with most of what has been said about poultry. Deputy Crawford referred to substantial transformation, which has been raised repeatedly by all of us. Product can be imported, a few breadcrumbs added and it can be classed as Irish. It is a European issue, which cannot be resolved nationally. However, we must maintain pressure to resolve the problem. Why is it an Irish product just because garlic is added and it is called chicken Kiev, even though its imported from Indonesia or wherever? The difference in price between imported and domestic products is also an issue. This is comparable to the problems with Brazilian beef in regard to quality and safety, which must be tackled.
With regard to meat production in general, the consumer will buy the cheapest product available and, therefore, if domestic producers want to maintain their share of the market, the quality of the product must be emphasised. It will be difficult to get away from that because the scale of production in countries such as Thailand is enormous compared with Ireland. Their capacity is much greater and overheads are much lower. Importers will continue to import. A serious marketing campaign is needed to put on the table in front of people the merits of buying domestic product. Transparency is required where labelling is concerned and the committee will have to take up this with the Minister again and again so that she can put as much pressure as possible on the European Union to define the term "substantial transformation".
It was with regret that I learned of the problems at Castlemahon Foods. I had heard rumblings about that plant and the industry in general in recent times. I come from a strong poultry area in Cappoquin and in another life I was involved in the industry. I, therefore, know the ups and downs and ins and outs of the industry. Deputy Crawford referred to the good rescue package put together by the Government relating to the avian flu but it was not sanctioned by the European Union.
I refer to the talking down of the poultry industry. A short time ago a chef appeared on "The Late Late Show" and his comments about the industry were shocking. Sales fell by 20% over the following month as a result. Neither Pat Kenny nor the chef were spoken to, disciplined or told, in strong terms, that they were wrong. Such people are doing immense damage to the industry, which is absolutely shocking.
The level of imports in the past four or five years has had a detrimental effect on production methods here. Many farmers in my area are seriously considering their future. All that is holding some of them in the industry is the fact that they are caught with bank loan repayments and that there is no other way of working from these houses but to produce poultry. Poultry production was more or less one of the best alternative farm enterprises in this country but is now rattled to the core. I am sympathetic towards the people involved in Castlemahon. We can only hope that this is a wake-up call for the industry and that other interested parties will take over and get the plant into production again, but these imports of so-called quality chicken are the real cause of what has happened.
I welcome Deputy Neville to the meeting.
Coming from the area mentioned, I am obviously very conscious of two aspects, the contribution the poultry industry has made over the decades in the region and, since January 2005, how it has been removed. In January 2005, 140 jobs were lost when the Kantoher factory closed. The following month 150 jobs were lost in Castlemahon. There are now 300 job losses and the closure of an industry that contributed enormously to an area of west Limerick, which is poorer than most because of land quality and other issues.
There are two issues involved. There is the loss of jobs, the number of which was calculated today at approximately 600, that is, 300 directly and 300 indirectly. A more realistic estimate of the number of jobs lost indirectly is probably 450 approximately, but there is no point in overstating the figure. Taking together the loss of 450 jobs on top of another 450, practically 1,000 jobs have been lost in an area where the number of jobs created is low. The way to approach the matter is to consider if there is any way a replacement poulty industry can be set up. I cannot say how realistic that is, but perhaps the first matter at which the two Ministers involved, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, should look is the possibility of attracting an replacement industry to use the skills, experience and expertise built up over decades.
We know the devastation redundancy brings on a person, his or her family and society. I endured it at one stage in my life when I was working in the food industry. Therefore, I have personal experience of the devastation redundancy can bring to a person's self-esteem and family. When the Kantoher factory closed, there was a guarantee of continuity for suppliers to the Kerry Group. We must receive immediate clarification on whether there will be a guarantee of continuity for suppliers and what will happen to those farmers who have invested heavily in poultry units and who will become redundant if they do not have a source to supply. They will become redundant without any redundancy claim and perhaps with very high levels of debt. This is an issue with which the two Ministers should immediately discuss with local people, those from all sides of the political divide, the IDA, Shannon Development and Limerick County Council to ensure there will be an immediate input to deal with what looks like an extremely serious situation, that is, the end of the poultry industry in an area in which it has made an enormous contribution over decades.
In March I read an article on avian influenza in the Irish Independent and another in the same newspaper on Saturday last. My friend, Deputy Upton, is well up on the issue owing to her degree in microbiology. Avian influenza was first encountered in the growing farms of the Far East, in either Thailand or Cambodia, from where chickens were being imported by a large multiple which operates in this country. It is not that wild birds have avian influenza, as we are being told, but that it is to be found in those vast farms.
On the Kantoher factory closure, my constituency borders that of Deputy Neville. Some of the growing farms in my area supply chickens to Cappoquinn. There is panic among farmers, many of whom have substantial borrowings from many banking sources. They are also finding it difficult in being paid by the processor which has extended credit terms. There is a crisis. I am not here to defend the Government, but it cannot be blamed for everything. Incidentally, the Kantoher factory was a farmer co-operative when it was closed down by a processor.
This is about primary production. The primary producer is being neglected. I share the view of Deputy Crawford about Lakelands and see what is happening there. In my area Dairygold closed down overnight a pig slaughter line. It could happen tomorrow morning, if there was a fire on one pig slaughter line, that we would have to export live pigs.
There are farmer co-operative board members taking daft decisions with psychiatric management who have ideas from business colleges and elsewhere. That is the truth of the matter. Someone has put this stuff into their heads. We have a Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment who lectures people at their conferences to defend the primary producer because working hand in hand with the primary producer is the way forward for agriculture. I can see what is happening around me. That was what the co-operative movement was about. It was not about plcs. It was not about going down the road of seeking institutional investors. The sooner the farmer board members put their thinking caps on and think about where they came from and stop getting carried away by wild decisions and wild investment, the sooner we will have an agriculture industry shared with the Government. I am saying this to my colleagues on the Fine Gael side also.
Could we arrange to have some senior personnel from the Department of Agriculture and Food who deal with poultry production issues come before the committee to go through them because we are being told it is the European Union's fault we did not get a package? It is important to have this matter clarified to reach an understanding because we want to try to maintain whatever is left of the industry.
In the meantime is it agreed that the clerk to the committee will send a report on this discussion to both Ministers? Agreed. We will contact the Department to see if officials can come here as soon as possible. Is that agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that the remainder of the items on the agenda be deferred until the next meeting? Agreed.