Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Oct 1987

Vol. 117 No. 5

Abattoirs Bill, 1987: Committee Stage (Resumed).

SECTION 16.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 12, between lines 18 and 19, to insert a new subsection as follows:—

"(2) For the purpose of hearing appeals under subsection (1), Abattoir Licence Appeals Boards (hereinafter referred to in each case as `the Board') shall be established in each local authority area. The membership of the Board in each case shall be on a voluntary basis and shall not exceed eleven and shall consist of members of the County Council concerned, the Irish Domestic Meat Trader's Association and the Department of Agriculture."

Amendment No. 4 in the name of Senator Michael Ferris has already been discussed with amendment No. 3. Is amendment No. 4 withdrawn?

Amendment No. 4 is not withdrawn. Although we have discussed this with amendment No. 3 which deals with the concept of an appeals board as opposed to an appeal to the Circuit Court which I was not ruling out, if the Minister is not prepared to accept amendment No. 4, I will be obliged to put down a differently worded amendment on Report Stage which will give us the concept of what I am looking for outside of the statutory forum of the Circuit Court. Since we adjourned discussion on this amendment and the previous amendment the Minister may have had an opportunity to examine the concept I was talking about which would allow some interim process to take place before appeals would have to go to the Circuit Court.

Acting Chairman

Is amendment No. 4 withdrawn?

I will reword a new amendment for Report Stage and if the Minister wants to give a further commitment — the Minister has shaken his head for the record——

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5, to 9, inclusive, not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That section 19 stand part of the Bill."

On section 19 in reply to Senator Ferris, when section 5 was under discussion I may have given the impression that meat from public abattoirs was not required to be stamped under the Bill. Such is not the case. Meat from public abattoirs will come under the very same provisions of this Bill and will of course require to be stamped.

I presumed that was the case.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.

Acting Chairman

Amendments Nos. 10 and 10a are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 15, subsection (1) (c), line 5, after "place" to insert "having regard to good business practice and such times as are customary in the particular area except in the case of the slaughter of sick or injured animals".

The thinking behind this amendment is that, whereas the section deals with the Minister's power to make regulations for the reception of animals which are to be assembled and penned and rested prior to slaughter and all the normal requirements of that section, I suggest at section 20 (c) the times at which slaughtering may take place. The Minister is taking unto himself the times at which slaughterings may take place. I am quoting a reference being used in South Tipperary from by-law regulations already submitted to the Department. Whereas legally the Department have not accepted the by-laws we are still operating within them. I realise the Department have raised two queries with the sanitary authority in South Tipperary on the by-laws submitted but the section in question has not been raised by the Department as creating any problems.

I suggest the use of the exact wording in the South Tipperary by-laws in respect of licensing and registration of slaughter houses for sanitary operations and the prevention of cruelty to animals, and that some flexibility be available to the butcher and to the local authority through the veterinary surgeon to arrange suitable times. In my opinion suitable times are the normal times that a butcher would use for slaughtering purposes. Of course I am excluding from that amendment the destruction of animals for humanitarian purposes or sick animals. There are times when the norm would not apply in these cases; any veterinary surgeon would be obliged under their code of practice to destroy a suffering animal to take it out of pain. If an injured animal was submitted to a slaughter house or a butcher for destruction naturally there would be some dialogue to arrange when a vet could be available and when the animal could be put out of its pain. My amendment seeks to ensure normal, good business practice.

The whole trade would accept that as being an effort to have a dialogue between the veterinarian and the butcher; if not we would be faced with the dilemma of nine to five veterinarians not being available at the normal slaughtering times for rural butchers in towns and villages throughout the country.

They cannot all kill their animals between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. as the Minister will appreciate coming from a rural constituency like myself. I am concerned because in parts of Cork where they have legally operating by-laws that are not flexible the veterinarians are not flexible and are advising butchers and small abattoirs of the time in which they will be required to kill. I want to make sure that the legislation I have welcomed and I have been involved with becomes operable on the ground. If the Bill should prove inoperable, then all of us, including the Minister, are wasting our time. It would be a tragedy.

The Bill is trying to raise standards, and people's awareness of the standard of meat for human consumption. That will have a spin-off effect for all of our export trade and everything else. Where butchers do not have the facility of a resident veterinarian surgeon as a factory would have, it is imperative that they would have some regard for the normal customary killing times and that the veterinary surgeons or their back-up staff — if they happen to be private veterinary surgeons — will be flexible in their operation of the times that slaughtering could take place.

The by-laws in South Tipperary prove that we can operate at present in consultation with the veterinary surgeons who are employed part-time by the county council to operate this section on slaughtering times worded in accordance with the amendment. I feel that this legislation should reflect the type of dialogue that can and must go on between veterinary surgeons and the butchers; otherwise I feel we will be heading for trouble with the 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. public servant who will feel that it would be inappropriate for him to be present at any other time because his job would not permit it. Certainly that would not be applicable to the normal rural butcher who in the normal course of events would not be killing at those times anyway.

The section would also allow for other such circumstances that might arise outside of the normal killing times. The section would allow for dialogue on the matter to take place between the butcher and the veterinary surgeon. There are a limited number of hours in which a veterinarian can properly decide if an animal is fit for human consumption and has been slaughtered in accordance with humanitarian standards. The period is about four hours from the time the animal is actually slaughtered and blooded until such times as the meat is hung and is ready for stamping.

To accommodate all the rural butchers in the country we will have to have some sort of flexibility. I suggest the words outlined in my amendment as are suitable, having regard to good business practice and such times as are customary in the particular area, except in the case of the slaughter of sick or injured animals.

My colleague has left me with very little to say because his submission was very comprehensive. I do not like to be repetitive but I take it that you are taking the amendment to section 20 and my amendment to section 39 together. This section presents enormous practical problems on the ground in getting a veterinary surgeon. Normally the veterinary surgeon in a rural area has a large general practice. He has to attend to sick animals, he has to carry out testing under the animal disease regulations and so on. He will have relatively little time to carry out these ante- and post-mortem examinations of carcases in abattoirs. Nevertheless the law lays down that it must be done. Also we have to consider the effect on butchers. The ordinary High Street butcher usually has no set pattern of demand. One week he may have demand to sell four or five carcases and another week it may be down to one or two; it may oscillate very much. Therefore, he does not have a set work pattern.

What the Minister envisages in this Bill means that every butcher must have a set demand pattern. That means that on a Monday morning at 9 a.m. he is ready to slaughter his four animals and that the veterinarian can be there on time for the ante-mortem and be back on time again for the post-mortem examinations. Alas, it does not work that way because of the fact that at various times of the day and at various days during the week butchers may need to slaughter animals. These times will not necessarily be the times that veterinarians can attend and this can lead to enormous problems.

Although I have my name to this amendment, I recognise the practical problem and I recognise the fact that there are two interests. We cannot come down too much on the side of one interest over another in this. Above all, this Bill is about improving standards. We appeal to the Minister that in making the final arrangements under these two sections the interests of both parties — the butchers have come to us and have expressed their fears — be taken into account, that they would not be dragooned, if you like to call it that, into carrying out their slaughtering operations at a time of the day or a day of the week that is totally inconvenient to them.

I support the amendments of previous speakers on section 20. I think we have to take into account that we are dealing with family businesses where the family are directly involved in the sale of the meat over the counter. One cannot expect that in a family business they will be in a position to slaughter animals at particular times of the day and also sell meat at particular times of the day. There is enough strain on them in order to carry out their duties in the shop without having them confined to particular times of the day for slaughtering. As well as that, animals are 30-day tested; they are bought from marts by and large and the necessary regulations in relation to tuberculosis and brucellosis and diseases of that nature have been largely complied with or else could not be sold at marts. In a family business most butchers kill either early morning or late at night in order to meet their requirements. To have a situation where they would be compelled to kill at particular times of the day and wait for a veterinary inspector to look at the animal before it is killed and look at the animal after it is killed would be impracticable. I appeal to the Minister to amend this section.

These amendments are interlinked in that they would limit the power of the Minister in fixing slaughtering times and, as a consequence, the times that veterinary inspection of animals and carcases could take place. It is important that the Minister should have power to fix slaughtering times. Uncontrollable slaughtering at abattoirs throughout the country leading to loose veterinary examination of animals and carcases would seriously undermine the provisions and the intentions of the Bill.

In the export meat plants, for example, the Minister has regulated the times at which slaughtering may take place under the power granted to him by section 26 of the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930. For domestic abattoirs the intention is that the regulations to be made under section 20(1)(c) will establish core times during which slaughterings may take place. These regulations will also provide that the actual times of slaughter will be settled upon by the local authority in consultation with individual proprietors.

I would like to stress that there will be flexibility for local butchers in local towns and the times will be fixed in consultation with the veterinary inspectors. Of particular relevance is section 36(2) which clearly provides for such consultation. There will be sufficient flexibility to satisfy the needs of local authorities and in the ordinary course having regard to business practice in particular towns and parts of the country. In this connection where fixed slaughtering times are currently in operation the Department and not aware of any problems having arisen. I must be losing my touch a little because Senator Ferris has had some communication that there are difficulties in the Cork area. As a public representative for the area I would be concerned if my grapevine were slipping up a little bit because I genuinely have not had any such difficulties brought to my attention.

I want to give a commitment that there will be nothing in the regulations on slaughtering times which will prevent good sensible adult attitudes in relation to working arrangements being arrived at locally. However, there will have to be some give and take and, as Senator Connor said, there are two sides to the matter. It is a question of having a rational attitude to this matter. This will be done through the process of consultation by and with the local authority and the local inspectorate. This matter is well covered and will be catered for in the regulations which are to be made. I give a commitment that that flexibility will be there. If a problem should arise on the Government regulations there will be no problem about the ministerial order being extended, modified or amended to suit local situations.

I welcome the Minister's commitment to the flexibility we have been asking for and I want to assure him that the comments I made on Country Cork may not necessarily be confined to his own constituency so he should not worry about the grapevine: they may relate to another constituency in the Minister's very large county. I know that the regulations adopted by the Cork county sanitary authority have created some problems for smaller butchers in that area as there does not seem to be the flexibility we asked for in this amendment which the Minister generously said would be forthcoming. I take it from the Minister's response that he has absolutely no problem in conceding the amendment simply because the section now says that the Minister will have the power to make regulations involving the times at which slaughterings may take place. The amendment reads, "...having regard to good business practice ..." which the Minister confirmed he would have "and such times as are customary in the particular area...". The Minister said there could be dialogue between the local authority and the butcher. If the Minister has now committed himself to that there is nothing wrong with having it inserted as a valid section after the section concerning his powers to regulate the times, which the Minister said he cannot and will not regulate without dialogue and discussion. We are asking the Minister to insert this in the Bill so that, while I accept that the Minister will have dialogue and discussion and rapport between the council and himself and between the council and the butchers, the same openness and frankness may not apply in the future. The Minister is a man of the people who knows that he wants to have this legislation operative on the ground. All I am doing is quoting the experience I have had in the local authority area which saw a need to regulate all areas involving slaughter houses before ever the legislation came into place. We had regard to our responsibility as a local sanitary authority to see that some semblance of regulation would have to apply to slaughter houses. The appropriate wording was put in by the then chairman of the council, Senator Willie Ryan, and by the other members of the council. Under his jurisdiction this provision was written in to the by-laws accepted by the trade, found to be operative on the ground and submitted to the Minister's Department for legal approval. The Minister raised other questions but did not refer to that provision as creating a problem for his Department. I suggest it will not create a problem for my local authority because they already operate it. If that is written into the section following the powers this Bill will confer on the Minister, everybody's wishes in that regard will have been met.

I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. It is a fundamental provision. It will reassure the trade that there is give and take on all sides. If Senator Connor who has spoken to people in his part of the country realises that this dialogue has to take place and there has to be give and take, we should legislate for the give and take not removing from the Minister his power to regulate times. Surely no Minister would regulate times without consultation, dialogue or give and take between people. There is nothing wrong with having it written into the Bill that this will take place. The trade would appreciate that kind of generous understanding from the Minister and his advisers. This is a necessary part of trying to ensure that the legislation is operative. I earnestly request the Minister, in view of his response, to allow the amendment to stand. It will create no problem and will reassure the trade that there are people in the Department and in the local authority services who are prepared to give and take.

I can see the Minister's problem in accepting this amendment in that if he does accept it, it may limit his power in relation to the regulation of times for slaughtering. In view of the commitment the Minister has given I am quite happy to accept this section as it is. How is good business practice to be defined? The times which are customary in one area may not suit every other area. I feel that the amendment would have the effect of limiting the powers the Minister is taking here and I do not think that would be a good thing.

I think it is important that the Minister should have the power to fix slaughtering times without the constraint mentioned in the proposed amendments. They are to some extent indefinite. As Senator Hussey said what is good business practice could be debated for a long time or what might be customary in one part of the country might be quite different in another part. Uncontrolled slaughterings at abattoirs would lead to loose veterinary examinations of animals and carcases and would seriously undermine the Bill's provisions. I am going a long way towards meeting the spirit of the amendments in saying that I give a commitment that there will be nothing in the regulations on slaughtering times which will prevent good sensible working arrangements being arrived at locally. However, there will have to be some give and take and there could not be slaughterings at any time people might decide on. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment. The situation is adequately covered in the regulations to be made by the Minister that there will be provision for consultation with individual proprietors and individual situations. That is the best way to carry out the provisions of this Bill.

Is this the old story of the Minister, while legislating in a particular way, wanting to retain the powers unto himself? First let me be quite clear and emphatic. Nobody on this side of the House or indeed on any side of the House wants uncontrolled slaughtering. We will not defend it. The trade does not want it but neither does it want some Minister to define times which are impossible to comply with. There is no question that this amendment means that we will have the same time all over the country. Of course, that would not be possible. We have 27 local authorities which are in themselves responsible as sanitary authorities. Each one of them will have to set down different times. I am quite sure that the killing time in South Tipperary will be different from that in Galway, Cork, Roscommon, Kilkenny and even North Tipperary. Senator McKenna will agree that as separate authorities we will be having discussions and dialogue with all of the butchers in our areas.

The Minister would be very unwise to set down times at national level. He has more or less confirmed that he would not do that. I am asking him to ensure that it does not happen. I am not looking for a blank cheque for uncontrolled slaughtering. Quite the opposite. I want to try to make sure that every small butcher and abattoir that wants to kill animals will do so in the presence or with the permission or knowledge of the veterinary surgeon in the area, whether he is the local authority veterinary surgeon with overall responsibility or the back-up service that is to be given to him by private practitioners. There is dialogue already between private practitioners and butchers to comply with the existing regulations and it is not creating problems, but nobody except the local authority, the veterinary surgeon and the butcher has set the times down.

I am asking the Minister to use the flexibility my amendment allows. I am not asking that any power be taken from the Minister because he will be regulating the times but the Minister will not make a regulation setting down these times until agreement has been reached between the trade and the local authorities. If they reach agreement on times and the Minister is unaware of them, then the Bill will be out of control. I am suggesting that the Minister should retain unto himself the controls but that in making his regulation he should have regard to good business practice and the normal killing times applicable in a certain area. These normal killing times are always subject to discussion and dialogue. What is wrong with legislating in that way? It reassures people who have a dread of bureaucracy. Senator Sean Byrne spoke last week about the dread of ordinary people of bureaucracy and how it might interfere with ordinary everyday practice. The Minister would be surprised at what can happen on the ground. When one puts a uniform on anybody they become a different person. Put a uniform on a litter warden or on a traffic warden and there is a Jekyll and Hyde situation. The minute one gives power and authority to people they tend to operate without having regard to the overall good practice in an area. That tends to be in our make-up. But if the Bill states that they should have regard to this, then there will be some assurance available to people that dialogue will be essential and that agreement will be forthcoming.

I do not want to labour this but I think the Bill should proceed and the amendment be accepted. Even if the Minister considers after accepting it here that it creates problems for him, on Report Stage I will be prepared to listen. I have not heard anything from the Minister to convince me that my amendment is not legitimate and is not warranted and is not desirable. I am not being unreasonable. I am being absolutely consistent. I do not want to push it to a vote but if we have to have a vote on it, then so be it. I certainly did not want to proceed with this legislation along these lines. I hope the Minister is taking upon himself the right to amend the Bill in whatever way he would consider to be right and that he would not have to wait for approval from Cabinet for these incidental amendments which are relevant to the area for which the Minister has responsibility, namely food.

The regulations which will be made under this Bill will provide for the actual time of slaughter and they will be settled by local authorities in consultation with individual proprietors. I want to give a guarantee that sufficient flexibility will be there to satisfy the needs both of the local butchers and local proprietors and the local authorities and, of course, would have regard to local business practice in particular areas. Where fixed slaughtering times are currently in operation, to my knowledge or to the knowledge of the Department there is no problem arising because of them. I think the amendment is somewhat indefinite. Customary times were established before the existence of by-laws. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment and I think there is adequate flexibility provided for under the regulation which would satisfy both the authorities and the butchers concerned.

Is amendment No. 10 to section 20 withdrawn?

Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 17.

  • Bulbulia, Katharine.
  • Connor, John.
  • Daly, Jack.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • Ferris, Michael.
  • Hogan, Philip.
  • McMahon, Larry.
  • O'Shea, Brian.
  • O'Toole, Joe.
  • Reynolds, Gerry.

Níl

  • Bohan, Edward Joseph.
  • Byrne, Sean.
  • Cassidy, Donie.
  • Fitzsimons, Jack.
  • Haughey, Seán F.
  • Hussey, Thomas.
  • Kiely, Dan.
  • Kiely, Rory.
  • Lanigan, Mick.
  • Lydon, Donal.
  • McGowan, Patrick.
  • McKenna, Tony.
  • Mooney, Paschal.
  • Mullooly, Brian.
  • Mulroy, Jimmy.
  • O'Connor, Nicholas.
  • Ryan, William.
Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Shea and J. Daly; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."

On the section as it stands may I ask the Minister, when making these regulations, to submit them to the local authority in particular so that we will be able to discuss the times? Can the Minister confirm that the local authority will have an input into the setting of the times before he makes the regulation?

There will be no difficulty with consultation in relation to these regulations being made and the consultation will take place in the first instance with the trade itself, with the people concerned. I give that commitment.

Will that be between the Minister and the trade or between the local authority and the trade?

The Minister of the day and the trade.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."

This section makes it an offence for a person to sell, offer or expose for sale for human consumption any part of an animal or meat which has been slaughtered in or which has originated in a knackery. In view of the programmes we have seen on television recently I believe this section should be enforced rigidly and that contaminated meat of any kind should not be offered for sale by anybody. I do not know what the fines are in relation to this offence but I believe that whatever the fines are should be applied rigidly to anybody found guilty of an offence under this section.

I agree totally with Senator Hussey and I do not think anybody would suggest that this section of the Bill should not be implemented with all the rigour of the law which we will be conferring on the Minister in the Bill. It will bring us back to another section which deals with the stamping of meat. I presume we will be discussing which part of the meat will be stamped so that it can be identified at any time. This is important power to have conferred in the legislation. None of us would condone the sale by any outlet of meat for human consumption which did not originate either in a butcher's abattoir or a public abattoir under veterinary supervision.

I am very concerned about this section of the Bill and I dealt to some extent with it on Second Stage. It is fine to say that the meat will be stamped and that in this way we can be assured of its origin. That is fine when it is going through the regular outlets but my concern would be about the other outlets. I know of parcels of meat being sold from cars outside public houses in this city on Friday and Saturday evenings. They are being sold for X number of pounds and people do not know what kind of meat they are buying. That type of trade exists in this city despite the great efforts of the victuallers' association to put an end to it.

There is another outlet about which I am very concerned and where I do not think any inspection whatsoever takes place. That is the mobile shop that pulls into estates in and around the city at night time selling prepared meals, chips and so on. There is meat being sold in these mobile caravans. There is no inspection of these outlets despite the fact that there is a regulation whereby any person trading as a butcher or any other food outlet has to comply with certain regulations. These mobile shops have no regulations to comply with, they do not have running water, they do not have toilets. In a shop the toilet facilities must be separated from the shop by room or other compartment. In other words, one must not be able to walk directly from the shop into the toilet. I totally agree with this but how can that be the case in a caravan?

These mobile shops are an increasing trade and many of them are operated by foreigners who care less than many Irish people. This is particularly obvious in new housing estates in Dublin county where they are awaiting shops but also in estates where there are shops. This is a serious matter and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent these people from trading in the way they are at the moment, that is obtaining meat, not from regular outlets, but directly from slaughterhouses or unofficial premises where it is being processed, or even from knackeries. We do not know where that meat is coming from but the Minister can be assured that it is not all coming through the regular outlets. This area is not covered in the Bill simply because these are not subject to inspection.

This section places an absolute prohibition on the sale for human consumption of any product of any knackery. There will be an absolute and total prohibition on the sale of any meat product from knackeries and this, taken in conjunction with section 34, the regulation in relation to knackeries and section 42, the restriction on the sale and supply of meat, etc., should ensure beyond any doubt that sufficient safeguards will exist to prevent any products from a knackery being offered for sale for consumption. I am glad that the Senators have voiced their concern in relation to this matter because from a public health point of view we certainly want to protect the consumer.

There are very stiff fines for offences under this section. There will be fines of £1,000 or six months imprisonment, or both, on a summary conviction and £10,000 or three years imprisonment, or both, on an indictment. Travelling salesmen, people who visit estates at night or have travelling shops of one kind or another, will of course, have to observe the regulations the same as anybody else. The meat for sale at all outlets for human consumption will have to be stamped.

In relation to premises, the hygiene regulations will apply and the Department of Health will ensure that they will be rigorously applied because the overall consensus of all responsible people is that food, and meat in particular, for human consumption should be of the highest standard and that the cowboys in the business will have to terminate that type of operation. This Bill, taken in conjunction with the food hygiene regulations operated by the Department of Health, will ensure that meat being made available for human consumption at all outlets will be up to the highest standards possible.

I am disappointed with the Minister's reply because the hygiene regulations are there at the moment and as far as the travelling shops that move into housing estates are concerned, they are not enforced. Nobody can say that they can comply with the hygiene regulations in an 18-foot caravan. Firstly, how can the hygiene regulations be complied with in those circumstances? Secondly, the meat they are supplying to the public is processed and all the stamping in the world will not identify where this meat has come from because it is already processed before it arrives at the estate. Nobody knows where it comes from. It is minced meat and whatever else they sell with burgers that they cook on the spot in a caravan and anybody who can say that the present hygiene regulations that apply to ordinary food premises are being complied with in these caravans is just not being realistic because it is impossible to have adequate running water in them, it is impossible to have a toilet which is separate, with a compartment between it and the working end of the caravan. I could name a dozen of these caravans which have not, from the time they started operating, had an inspection. Despite all the regulations, they have not had an inspection. I believe the inspectors are afraid to go near them because they know what the report will be and that little can be done about it. It is time that something was done about this. If nothing is done I dread to think what the outcry would be if there were — and there have been cases though they cannot be proved — cases of food poisoning in some of the housing estates in County Dublin. Doctors have told me that they know, but they cannot prove, that that has come from mobile shops which move in to catch the quick trade between 8 o'clock at night and 1 a.m. or 2 a.m. That is the kind of operator I am talking about.

The Minister would be more honest if he admitted that operators in small caravans cannot comply with the regulations. Those are the facts. I have seen nothing in this Bill which enables the meat they sell to be identified because the meat is minced or processed in one way or another. It would have gone beyond the state where a stamp could be identified. The Minister should admit it is an area that will have to be tackled by some other rule or regulation.

There is nothing in this Bill to prevent food poisoning from happening. I and many doctors and other people are extremely worried about this type of operation. It is increasing. There has been an influx of refugees into this country and this seems to be one of their main lines of business. The hygiene in these outlets is absolutely deplorable. Going home tonight I will pass at least three of them. They are there to be seen by anybody who cares to go into these housing estates after 8 p.m. or 9 p.m.

The Minister may have misunderstood, as I certainly did, what Senator McMahon was getting into. I understood that Senator McMahon was referring to meat being offered for sale from mobile vans but now I understand it is more or less chip shops where beefburgers, etc., are sold. Mobile vans are operating all over the country. I have seen them in my own part of the county. They operate outside dance halls, at carnivals and any place where there are groups of people gathered. They sell chips, beefburgers, bunburgers, and so on.

There is legislation, which is the responsibility of the Department of Health, to control that kind of activity and it should be enforced. If people are being offered food from mobile units, the type of food they are getting and the conditions under which it is supplied should be monitored. I hope the regulations will be enforced but I do not think this Bill should be expected to correct that kind of operation. My understanding is that the regulations are there already but they are not being enforced.

This Bill ensured that the processing of meat and meat as it leaves abattoirs is fit for human consumption. Therefore, the retail sale of meat is not subject to this Bill. Retail operators have to be governed by the food hygiene regulations which are the responsibility of the Minister for Health. Any slipshod methods, deterioration or malpractices are the responsibility of the health inspectorate. In most parts of the country the provisions of Article 28 of the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1950, governing food vehicles and the convenience of food apply. The Department of Health are currently engaged in updating the provisions of the Food Hygiene Regulations. The Department of Agriculture and Food are in consultation with the Department of Health in upgrading and updating those regulations. I take Senator McMahon's point that they need to be upgraded and rigorously enforced.

It has been agreed with the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment that in future the provisions of the Food Hygiene Regulations will apply to the transport of meat and to meat at various outlets. Local authority veterinary inspectors, being the authorised officers under the Food Hygiene Regulations, will have regard in the future for the provisions of these regulations. The inspection and control of meat will be their function. I can assure everybody that those regulations will be rigorously enforced. The amended Food Hygiene Regulations will come into effect within a few months. There is a consensus that we need to tighten up the regulations in relation to meat and food products generally and that we have to have regard for public health. Again I want to say that that is not a function of the Abattoirs Bill. I wanted to give the initial information that the Food Hygiene Regulations are being updated and will be rigorously enforced and will cover the genuine concerns expressed by some Senators and in particular Senator McMahon.

I want to thank the Minister. I am sorry if he misunderstood my first intervention. That was a much more encouraging reply than the one I got a few minutes ago. Will the amended regulations come before the Houses of the Oireachtas or will they just be made by the Minister for Health? I am quite sure the Minister will admit that they are very much in need of updating, considering that the regulations date from 1950 which is——

I appreciate your concern Senator McMahon but I must stick to the Bill before me. The Minister has given a detailed reply but he might like to answer your question.

My advice is that the regulations will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."

The word "knackery" is used often in a slang way about various people, professions and premises. Knackeries are a very important part of the regulated control of dead animals in rural areas. Without knackeries farmers would be unable to dispose of animals that died from various diseases or accidents on the farm. Of course they are an added source of outlet for various hound hunt packs and people who require this kind of meat for non-human use. At present there seems to be a spate of unregistered, unrecognised and unregulated knackeries which have somehow grown up. Sometimes they are adjacant to people living in semi-urban areas. They create a lot of annoyance for people either by smell, or pollution and by attracting rodents and other undesirable things. In this section the Minister precludes anybody from having a premises unless it is licensed. The Minister should in giving licences to knackeries, have regard to the overall level of pollution caused by these unrecognised knackeries.

Large commercial knackeries also create tremendous problems. I am talking about the by-processing meat industry, the bone meal industry or the other larger enterprises which collect dead animals, store them and then process them by cooking, grinding and other processes.

We are absolutely scourged with one in my constituency at present. A well known meat baron — in fairness I will not name him but everybody knows who I am talking about — has got considerable Government support for his business. He has ignored to a large extent requests from the local authority to tidy up his enterprise and to stop polluting the town of Cahir, polluting the environment, and the river. He has been brought to court and fined and he has until next year to put in the proper process that will remove the obnoxious smell that emanates from his by-product factory. The factory gives tremendous employment and everybody appreciates that but there is a price to be paid for anything. The town of Cahir has 100,000 visitors per annum. They come to look at the magnificent castle which was restored at colossal expense to the taxpayer but people are now unable to visit it because of the unpleasantness of the environment in and around the factory. Likewise, sporting activities have almost to be cancelled.

I ask the Minister that in the process of giving licences to people, that he and his Department, in consultation with the Department of the Environment, have overall regard to the problems created by knackeries. I opened my remarks by saying that knackeries are very important. I know they are but surely there must be places where they can be allowed to develop which will not create problems for the people living in the area and to the environment to which we are addressing ourselves these days. I hope this section will not allow people to have an unregistered premises and that the Minister will have regard to the points I have made.

Pollution is a matter for the Minister for the Environment and I do not like to stray into another Minister's area.

You are right, mind your own corner.

This section provides that any premises used for or in the collection, delivery, supply, slaughter, storage, skinning or cutting up of animals or parts of animals which are not intended for human consumption will be required to have a knackery licence granted under this Bill. In my speech on Second Stage I acknowledged the important contribution which these premises make to agriculture. I am aware of the concern of the general public about pollution. I recently visited Cahir and it was quite unpleasant to travel alongside the River Fee. The smell from the river was absolutely horrific. I am fully in accord with what Senator Ferris has said. I am sure that the Minister for the Environment and his Department will ensure that waste from these premises will be handled properly so that pollution will be eliminated.

The regulations should be enforced to ensure that these knackeries carry on their business in a manner that will not be injurious to any other section of the community. I am glad that both the Minister and Senator Ferris recognise the service that the knackeries give. Last year or the year before many animals in the west died of starvation and they were not taken to the knackeries. The animals were left on farms to decay and that was far more unpleasant than anything that emanates from a knackery. The animals were not taken to the knackeries because the farmers did not want it to be known that their animals had died.

I am not sure that the smell from knackeries is so objectionable. It may be to people who pass through towns and who are not used to it. Many years ago we got medical advice which said that it was harmless. Many knackeries have operated for years in Dublin. There is one near the Coombe Hospital. Many thousands of people were born and have lived all their lives there and they were not harmed by the smell that came from the knackery. It is not the smell that causes the harm: it is the pollution in the water or the grounds around the knackeries. We did not have that problem in the city of Dublin because all the polluting liquids were taken away and disposed of properly. In knackeries in rural areas there may be inadequate provision made for the disposal of the drainage.

The regulations should be such that they will not put out of business anybody who is prepared to make a reasonable effort to ensure that there is no pollution. I hope that the regulations will not be so strict that there be fewer knackeries. They give a very important service. If they are not there the problem might be far greater. Knackery owners will only travel a certain distance to take in animals. There will be no such thing as travelling from Galway to Limerick or even half-way between either city to take in an animal. It will only pay them to travel so far. It is important that we should keep the small knackery in business. The problem will be far greater if the regulations are so strict that they put knackeries out of business.

With regard to section 23 (2), does a person have to be the owner of a premises before he is granted a knackery licence? It states:

A person who is not the occupier of a premises, shall not use such premises as a knackery unless the occupier of the premises is the holder of a knackery licence in respect of such premises.

Should one of those have read the "owner" of the premises?

Section 23 (2) is necessary to ensure that the knackery premises may be either leased or rented. Therefore, it is the occupier who gets the licence.

With regard to a point raised by Senator McMahon, that is a matter for the Minister for the Environment. There is no need to have objectionable and unpleasant smells from such premises. The regulations should be rigorously enforced. I have made representations to the Minister for the Environment in relation to the transport of offal. Sometimes when one is travelling along a road one can come upon a truck with offal without a cover on it. From an animal disease and aesthetic point of view it should be absolutely necessary to have those vehicles covered so as to reduce this objectionable smell

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 24 to 27, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 28.
Question proposed: "That section 28 stand part of the Bill."

Section 28 (2) deals with situations where the holder of a knackery licence dies. I want to ask the Minister if he would bring forward in this section the amendment he suggested in relation to abattoirs, which might also apply to knackeries, so that the time limit on the licence would last for two months or the lifetime of the licence, whichever is the longer. This would be a help to some widows who, because of the traumatic period they go through, may not remember to apply for a licence. Perhaps the Minister would bring in an amendment on Report Stage.

As I indicated in relation to section 13, I propose to bring forward on Report Stage an amendment to section 28 which will provide that on the death of the licences, the licence will continue until it expires or in two months, whichever is the longer.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 29 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
Question proposed: "That section 36 stand part of the Bill."

This is one of the reasons I thought the Minister might have allowed my previous amendment without a vote. I did not use this against the Minister because in debates on legislation I want to be fair to the Minister as well. Section 36 (1) provides that:

A local authority shall allocate one or more veterinary inspectors to carry out the duties conferred on a veterinary inspector by this Act to each abattoir and its functional area but may allocate any particular veterinary inspector to two or more abattoirs.

That is acceptable because it may not be possible for some local authorities to have more than one vet and he will have to have a back up service. However, section 36(2) states:

A veterinary inspector shall attend at each abattoir to which he is allocated at such times as the local authority, after consultation with the holder of the licence, may determine....

That is all I was asking for on the other section. The Minister has legislated for it in this section yet he refused to legislate for it in that other section. Either I and the Minister are on different wave lengths or the parliamentary draftsman took a rest in between one section and another. The power conferred by this section is what I required on the other section. Now that it is written in here I am satisfied that there will have to be consultation between the holder of the licence and the local authority and that that consultation will arise at the time the veterinarian will be sent out and that any other times the Minister may lay down will have to have regard to that. I want to bring to the Minister's attention and put on the record of the House that the parliamentary draftsman has conceded in this section what I was seeking before. For that reason I thought it would be appropriate to have the legislation consistent throughout. I am not a parliamentary draftsman but I do see the desirability of what I was seeking to have included. In order to keep the Bill consistent, perhaps on Report Stage the Minister might tidy up the previous section to keep it in line with this one.

Section 36 (2) provides that the veterinary inspectors will be present in the abattoirs at slaughtering times. These times will be predetermined for each abattoir in consultation with the licence holder.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 37 and 38 agreed to.
SECTION 39.
Amendment No. 10a not moved.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."

I did not put down an amendment to this section because it is important that it remains as it is so that the carcass can be identified by a mark. I welcome the Minister's commitment that particular abattoirs and butchers might have an identification mark on their meat. This would enable people to trace carcasses back to the source where they were killed under veterinary supervision.

I just want to tidy up, for my own benefit and for the benefit of those who will need to stamp meat, where the stamp will be put and what substance will be used in the identification mark. I know from experience that meat is stamped with a blue mark which can look undesirable and may lead to consumers sometimes requesting butchers to remove it. I am not sure what substance is used in that mark but I presume it is non-toxic. It should be possible to identify a carcass without having to look at the ear and tuberculosis tags which are the overall identification marks, so long as they have not been removed before the animal is killed and that is not beyond the bounds of possibility either.

It is more presentable to hang a carcass without the head so we must decide what portion of the carcass the mark can be put on and at what stage that mark can be removed by the butcher. If the portion of meat that has the mark on it is sold or if the mark has been removed at the request of the customer, how can a veterinary inspector or any public health inspector who calls later confirm that the meat was ever marked. When can the mark be taken off, where is it to be put on and what substance will be used in the dye?

The design, type and composition of the mark has not yet been decided on. Furthermore, with 32 individual local authorities and up to 180 veterinary practitioners in some 850 private abattoirs the global or individual nature of the stamp will have to be considered. However, the likelihood is that in order to ensure a tracing facility something along the lines of an individual abattoir stamp will emerge. In anticipation of this, section 11 (3) on abattoir licences already provides for the assignation of a distinctive number or letter or both to each licensed abattoir. This is the standing system that obtains in the export plants where it has worked satisfactorily. I will take the views of the trade into account in coming to a final decision on this matter.

I appreciate that the Minister has not decided on the type of mark but has he decided where the mark should be put?

I assume that the mark may be put in one of a number of places. When people buy meat they could buy the portion that bears the mark. For that reason it would be necessary to put the mark on a number of parts of the animal, for example, the hind quarter, flank, shoulders or the strip loin. This will be decided when the regulations are make. The stamp used will contain no residues and the public need have no fears in this regard. The public are becoming increasingly concerned about colouring matter and additives. The mark will be edible and will not contain toxic residues.

This is a misleading discussion because it is impossible to put a stamp on a carcase of an animal, say, cattle or sheep that is going to carry right through to the consumer. More and more meat is being processed behind the shop and is offered for sale in a pre-packed condition. I agree with the Minister on the four positions where the stamp is put on a carcase. You can do no more than that. I do not think it is intended that the stamp should carry right through to the consumer. First, the trade would not stand for it and many consumers would object to it. The removal of the stamp will not be at the behest of the consumer, it will be at the behest of the trader because no trader would put meat on display showing a stamp on one part of the cut and no stamp on a cut beside it. The consumer will always go for the piece that is unstamped. Let us be frank about it.

It was never intended that an inspector would inspect every slice of meat. All traders will have a carcase lying by and that is the carcase that will be inspected and he will take a reasonable inspection of the cut up or processed meat. I do not think it is possible to have a stamp and if we go to the extent that a local authority would insist on the stamp being put on every square inch of the meat then it is tantamount to putting a man out of business. We must be reasonable about this. The stamp on the carcase or the half carcase or quarter carcase in the cold room should be sufficient. These inspectors will be intelligent enough to know whether one is held for the purpose of an inspector calling and the rest is being traded otherwise. That kind of operator will be quickly caught up with. We are labouring too much on this stamping aspect. It is essential to identify where a carcase comes from but if I buy a pound of round steak I do not think an inspector should look for a stamp on that and no trader will offer that piece of steak for sale. I am in the business for years and I know exactly what happens. The stamp is removed before the quarter is cut up unless it is being processed and the stamp would not be identifiable after processing. I think that the stamp being at the four locations, as is the practice to date, is sufficient to carry through to ensure that and the rest should be left to the inspectors.

I do not think there was ever any suggestion from me that all cuts of meat and bits of round steak and T-bones should be individually stamped. This section talks about the Minister making regulations about where the stamp is to be applied. Surely then it is appropriate to ask the Minister where he considers, in discussions with anybody, that the stamp should be applied because it would be an offence to remove a mark if it is so applied. The reason I am asking the question is because people in the trade have asked me where this stamp will be put. They have had customers asking them to remove the stamp because it looked unsightly on particular cuts. I am less concerned about meat that comes from a small domestic butcher which is hanging up in the butcher's shop and visible to everybody and is usually stamped than I am about cuts of meat that are pre-packed and sold at supermarkets. Nobody that I am aware of at the moment knows the source, the quality, the standard or the hygiene that that has acquired or what disease status that particular meat might have had. Because it is going through a big chain store is one of the reasons I am extremely anxious that we should have the regulations for everybody. I know that meat which is sold into a factory for export, if it is sent in as animals that have reacted particularly to tuberculosis and to a lesser degree brucellosis, is precluded from being exported unless it is pre-cooked. The only outlet for factories then are the supermarkets. It is important that we know about that pre-packing and all the butchering that goes on behind the scenes before it appears on the actual stand of the major supermarket chains in this city and in other larger towns. I am more worried about the source of supply of that meat than I am about the source of supply of meat from a small butcher who will have had the meat examined from a disease eradication point of view and from the human consumption point of view. It will have a stamp where the customer can see it and somebody actually identifies where they want the piece cut from. That is how the rest of the country outside of Dublin survive in the provinces. That is how a normal butcher survives on the high street of any of the towns.

I realise that Senator McMahon has a professional experience in the business and his experience is invaluable to us but I do not want it to be insinuated that we want marks on every piece of meat. I want to ask if the Minister has decided where he is putting these marks. Now the Minister has spelled out for the record where he hopes they will be put and no doubt the trade will have consultation with him to know whether that is practicable or impracticable and when it can be removed so that no inspector can arrive afterwards which would still be possible, because this Bill confers certain powers on various inspectors to come at the source of selling to ensure that the meat is a proper sale. I have a further amendment dealing with that in another section of the Bill. That is the only reason I raised the location of the mark.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 25, lines 35 to 38, to delete paragraph (b).

I was requesting that the Minister remove that paragraph altogether which would then mean that the regulations in subsection (2) should not apply and all the rest of them which would make it obligatory for them not to apply would exclude meat from an animal slaughtered in a place situate on a farm which is used for the occasional slaughter of animals kept on such farm and which meat is intended for consumption only by residents on such farm. The Minister has, in the initial stages of the Bill, confirmed that he had a worry about this particular section. It is accepted that we do not want to preclude the right of the occasional killing of animals on farms for their own personal use. If that is the case then it is appropriate that we should remove that provision from the regulations that apply to subsection (2). The subsection would then read as follows:

(3) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply to——

(a) meat which is in an abattoir and is awaiting the application of a health mark in accordance with this Act;

(b) meat which the person in whose possession it was found can establish was acquired by him in good faith and he did not know that it required to be marked with a health mark.

This would mean that anybody who kills animals privately would be subject to the regulations in the earlier part of subsection 42.

As mentioned in the discussion on section 2 of this Bill it is proposed to bring forward on Report Stage an amendment to the home slaughtering concession contained in the definition of "abattoir" in that section. The purpose of this amendment is to confine the home slaughtering concession to a pig or an animal injured by accident where slaughter is necessary to prevent suffering. This amendment will therefore considerably restrict any home slaughtering and should also allay the trades concern about the abuse of such a facility. Arising from the amendment to section 2 a consequential amendment will be required to section 42(3)(b) of this Bill. Here the provision allowing home slaughtered meat to remain unmarked will be amended confining it to a pig or an injured animal. The amendment to this section will also be brought forward on Report Stage. The inspection of meat derived from home slaughtering would be extremely difficult to implement on the ground and would represent an overkill in bureaucracy and red tape. There would be a serious danger that where home slaughtered meat bore a health mark such meat could readily find its way onto the open market. Thus controls on the home slaughtering concession — and that concession could be restricted by amendment to a pig or an injured animal — could be seriously undermined and perhaps the whole Bill could be put at risk.

We are saying that home slaughtering will be allowed for a pig or an injured animal for use in the household and that that meat will be unmarked. The suggestion that it should be marked would cause a lot of bureaucracy and would enable that meat to find its way onto the retail market. In giving a concession for home slaughtering we are confining it to household use. If it is unmarked it cannot end up at retail outlets. I cannot agree to this amendment because of that.

I accept what the Minister has said. When I put down this amendment he had not conceded the other one. Time has passed it out, so to speak. One of the reasons I wanted home killed meat to achieve a certain status as well was in the interest of the consumer. I am concerned — but I suppose that concern is now lessening with the regulations we have introduced in connection with the use of hormones — that, even with our best efforts, a certain amount of illicit hormones will still be on the market. If people in their innocence used hormones for their own animals at home to improve the texture in heifer meat in particular and if one of those got injured within the stipulated time lag between implantation and destruction if that meat was used by the female members of the household it would confer a major health risk. I was concerned that even if people were doing it for private purposes the overall good of the individual cannot be ignored by us with responsibility in the area.

If the Minister is confining himself, as he has committed himself, in the slaughtering of animals in the home to either a porcine animal or an injured bovine, or any other animal that might be injured on a farm and he is removing the obligation to have that stamped, so be it. I was presuming he would allow it to be done and I wanted him to apply the same standard of health regulation to the meat killed at home. In the original section there was a risk that meat killed at home, purportedly for private use, could find its way on to the market. Perhaps this is the source of supply to which Senator McMahon referred. It is appropriate that there should still be some consultation between the veterinary surgeon involved and people who may want to kill at home. This should probably be done in the presence of or by the herd owner's private veterinary surgeon because there must be regard for the humanitarian destruction of the animal also. I do not mind whether it is marked but I worry about the need to ensure that some veterinary control is there in connection with implanted animals in particular over the next period of years until we get people to move away from the concept of requiring implanted animals to achieve weight gains they felt they could never acquire if they did not use hormones. That was my only concern. However, I accept that the original amendment tightens up the section and removes the necessity for this. Therefore, I will not press the amendment.

I should like to have a point clarified. The Minister said the slaughtering of animals for home consumption would be confined to a pig or injured animal. Does he mean by that that the pig need not be injured, that one can slaughter a pig without notifying anybody but in, say, the case of a lamb it must be an injured lamb? If that is so I do not understand the difference between the risks involved in slaughtering a lamb for home consumption and the risks involved in slaughtering a pig. Why make a distinction between the two?

I do not think anybody would object if there were a requirement to notify the local authority that slaughter of an animal was taking place. It might not be any harm if the Minister considered putting that into the Bill. The local authority would notify the veterinary inspector and, though he would not have to pay a visit, he would at least know how many slaughterings were taking place in his area. This would control slaughterings to some extent. I know many of the animals could be injured at the weekend or even on a weekday and it would not be possible to notify the local authority, but there should be a requirement on that person to notify the local authority, but there that the animal was killed. If the veterinary surgeon felt that he should make an inquiry as to the health status of the animal that had been slaughtered or was about to be slaughtered, he would be free to do so.

I would be opposed to the elimination of the slaughter of animals for home consumption. If a man is rearing 100 sheep or 1,000 sheep he should be entitled to slaughter one for his own use. It is ridiculous that he should have to sell the sheep to a wholesale or retail outlet and then buy back again. If people are producing an item of food surely they are entitled to use it themselves. The vast majority of people would not use meat that was chancy in any way. I know there is a risk there and some people would not realise that there was a risk. For that reason it would be no harm if in future legislation, the Minister, put in a requirement that the local authority should be notified of all killings. They need not take any action but it would be open to them to make some inquiry. In ignorance a person could kill an animal for home consumption that would be injurious to his own health and that of his family. There are not many farmers or producers of animals who do not know the difference between an animal that could harm them and one that could not, but there might be the odd one. There should be some regulation to tighten that up.

I would be inclined to agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator McMahon. I know that in recent years we have seen a growth in the deep freeze business. In rural areas, in particular, farmers tend to kill an animal and put it into the deep freeze. Whether it is one, two, three, four or five lambs does not matter. The same applies to a beast. That is a regular feature of rural Ireland at present. There should be some way of allowing that to continue because I do not think there is any health hazard. The farmer knows the beast he is killing. He knows he is free of all disease and would not kill him otherwise.

This happens on a fairly regular basis at this time of the year. Farmers kill a few lambs at this time of year and put them into the deep freeze. They kill a bovine and do the same thing and they know the type of meat they are using for their families. They do not have to be afraid of contaminated meat or any other kind of meat where they might be at risk. I hope that some way can be found to get around the problem so that people would be allowed to slaughter.

The purpose of this section is to allow the tradition of killing a pig or an animal in the home for home consumption to continue. In consultations the trade wanted this practice outlawed altogether but in deference to the tradition, in particular in outlying areas, we allowed this concession. However, I suspect it is not a very widespread activity now. Many people who want an animal of their own killed and cut up go to a local butcher or to the local abattoir to get it done because people do not have facilities on farmyards for doing this. At the same time we felt that as a concession——

Can they still do that?

Yes, they can still do that. The position in relation to the section is that it is confined to a pig or to an injured animal. The reason for that was that in most parts of the country the tradition was to kill a pig.

Not in recent years.

Perhaps in recent years in parts of the country people did have other animals such as lambs or bovines killed. I suspect that a lot of that was done by a farmer's local butcher and it was cut up and prepared for him for the deep freeze.

That is so but I want to know if he can still do that? If I have a bovine can I take it tomorrow to my local butcher and have this done?

It would have to be injured in the first place.

There is no problem.

I think people are sensible enough — and certainly Cork people are sensible enough — to get the best animal in the lot for their own household consumption. There is no problem whatsoever in going to the local butcher or abattoir and getting the animal slaughtered, cut up and prepared for a deep freeze.

Do you have a vet to examine them before or after?

The butcher does.

The regulations require that this should be done.

I know the amount in question may be dwindling but, at the same time, there is a tradition as has been stated, not just regarding the pig but also regarding lambs, not so much about a beast because it is not so easy to handle a beast. There are many people — and not too far from this city — who have beasts slaughtered. They normally take them to a slaughter yard and have them slaughtered and taken back and put in their deep freeze. There are many people throughout the country who kill a lamb, or several lambs, during the year. Now they are going to be prevented from doing this. In other words, they must take that lamb to the slaughter yard to have it killed for their own consumption. That is asking a bit too much of these people. No matter what regulation is there the Minister cannot stop it. So we might as well admit it and allow in the Bill that an uninjured lamb or pig could be slaughtered on their own farm for home consumption.

I can assure the Minister that thousands of lambs will be slaughtered up and down the country for home consumption and no regulations of the Minister, or of his successors will stop that until the person himself stops it. I would not have to go too far from this city to be able to point out places where this is being done now. I was in that business up to a few years ago and the offal used to come to me because they had no way of disposing of it. There is a new tannery in my part of the country so they dispose of it now in that way. I know by the individual sheepskins going in there that it is still happening to a great extent in County Dublin. I can assure the Minister that it is happening up and down the country and I do not believe that this regulation is going to stop it.

I think a case is being made for a smaller type of animal. We are still awaiting the Minister's suggested amendment on Report Stage. The Minister has suggested a pig or injured animal but why not meet the wishes of both sides of the House that it be either a pig, lamb or injured animal? That would presume that a bigger animal such as a bullock or heifer that might be injured could be killed at home without the necessity of going to the abattoir or a butcher but that all other slaughterings of healthy animals would be done in a regulated place and would be subject to what is contained in the rest of the Bill such as the health regulation and so on. One should not have to sell the animal to do this. There are exceptional circumstances where people still kill the occasional bullock or heifer themselves even though they are not injured. They do this sometimes and they have facilities. I was anxious that they would retain some standards but if the Minister legislates that that animal must be killed in a butchers' or an abattoir that is fine and I know the trade were looking for that. The exclusion should also include lamb and I think the Minister would meet the wishes of the House. The Minister still has time to do this on Report Stage and he should certainly consider it.

I certainly agree with these sentiments because I know what is happening in my own part of the country. For the past few years quite a number of farmers in the country have got deep freezes. They kill a few lambs or a heifer at this time of the year and as far as I can see this Bill is going to prevent that kind of thing happening. They do that by taking the lamb or heifer to the local butcher and get it slaughtered there. I gather from this section that they will have to have the veterinary surgeon there to examine that animal before it is slaughtered. They will have to have the veterinary inspector to stamp the meat after the animal is slaughtered and that, in itself, is going to create problems, as it is only one animal in the year because that is all most of them kill. One animal will do the whole year. It is going to create problems for some of them as far as I can see, unless I am misinterpreting the section.

A farmer can easily get over this. He can easily break the animal's leg. Many farmers would not do that but this is pushing them into injuring the animal. If they do not want to leave themselves open to acting illegally they can ensure that a lamb is injured. I do not think that temptation should be put in the way of anybody when the lamb can easily be included in the Bill before the provision dealing with the injured animal. Maybe the people go for beef in Cork but we all cannot afford that meat and in my part of the country we go for a smaller animal. The Minister can put ten more sections into the Bill but I do not believe it will stop that trade. We might as well admit this and have it straight in the Bill. If sheep are included with the pig before the word "injured" it would be much better.

The purpose of this section is to allow a farmer to kill a pig or an injured animal for household consumption. There was widespread representation to the Department that this be opposed entirely but it was felt that there was a tradition, in particular of killing a pig. Therefore, we decided to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to allow for the killing of a pig or an injured animal or heifer or whatever for household consumption. We felt that this was going far enough because if it was allowed on a wide scale there could be abuses and we wanted to eliminate or reduce the areas of abuse as far as possible. There is no difficulty for any farmer or any landowner going to his local butcher or his abattoir and having an animal or any kind killed and dressed up for his deep freeze. There is no difficulty there. That is the sensible way to approach this matter. I feel there could be some abuses as the facilities are not on most farms for slaughtering animals.

I have experience of visiting farms where animals were slaughtered or in some cases where somebody tried to slaughter the animal. They were strung up on loaders of tractors and so on. I do not think it would be wise to allow widespread slaughtering of animals on farms because the facilities, plant and equipment are not there. Nevertheless, as a concession the killing of a pig or an injured animal will be allowed for home consumption. If farmers want to regularly kill any animal for household consumption they will still be able to do that and get it prepared for the deep freeze at their local butcher shop or local abattoir.

There are two points here. There is a contradiction because, first, the Minister is permitting the killing of a pig while stating there are no facilities on farms for the slaughter of animals. It is much easier to slaughter a lamb than a pig. I would think if that argument was being put forward it would have been the reverse because any farmer's son can slaughter and dress a lamb but it takes the farmer, his son and his neighbours to do the same operation for a pig, as has been the tradition and as the Minister knows.

We ask that the Minister would allow a smaller animal to be killed than the one allowed to be killed on the farm for home consumption. I could not accept the argument that there are no facilities on a farm. There are far greater facilities to kill a lamb than there are to kill a pig and a lot less harm can be done in killing, processing or cutting up a lamb for home consumption provided there are freezing facilities available. A pig can be dealt with without any freezing because a pig is normally salted. The meat is put into all sorts of baths and tubs and salted although we have passed from that age also because people do not like meat quite as salty as was the case years ago.

I appeal to the Minister to consider if he were faced with the killing of a lamb or a pig which he would choose to do because it is much much easier to carry out the operation on a lamb. It would be a pity to victimise the person who does not rear pigs, because whereas his neighbour could kill a healthy uninjured pig, he has to wait until a lamb is injured or transport it to the butcher or the local slaughteryard. There is the risk that some people, who may not feel as we do, may injure the animal to ensure that they are within the law in killing that lamb and I do not think we should put that temptation in their way. I had another point but it escapes me at present.

I do not think the killing of a lamb is quite as simple as some people think. I listened to a popular radio programme some time ago about the slaughtering of a lamb——

They were trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

We are trying to allow for the tradition while, at the same time, reduce the scope for abuse. Lamb, being fresh meat, would be open to more abuse and would tend to get on to the market more quickly. The situation is adequately covered by the section and we cannot agree to any amendment.

Then I withdraw my amendment which is slightly different. I think the Minister might consider an all-party amendment to include the word "lamb" on Report Stage which would allow us to debate this particular section further. I am sure the Minister will appreciate that we are trying to make it reasonable and operable. I am withdrawing the amendment. I put it down on the understanding that we were still going to allow widespread slaughtering of all animals at home and I wanted to make sure that slaughtering complied with the regulation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 26, between lines 14 and 15, to insert a new subsection as follows:

"(3) In the case of any dispute arising from a determination under this section, the matter shall be referred to any recognised research station for independent arbitration and decision."

Section 43 deals with the rights of veterinary examiners. As I said to Senator McMahon earlier, a veterinary examiner now will have the power to decide whether meat he examines is fit or unfit for human consumption. There is a whole area of disagreement about minced meat: it could be considered to be bacteriologically correct but from the moment it is put through the mincer the heat process of mincing meat starts a new bacteriological process which is then open to question. I am anxious in the interests of everybody that we would have regard to some independent view as to the bacteriological content of meat which is subject to disagreement. I suggest it be referred to a research station, if we have any research station left after the Book of Estimates. I presume AFT and ACOT will have some research facilities available to them. They are capable of carrying out bacteriological tests on meat on whether it is edible or fit for human consumption.

I would like if the trade could have access to an independent view rather than depend on the physical examination by a veterinarian who will be just looking possibly at the colour of meat. At times if you hang meat well and long enough and it becomes slightly discoloured that meat turns out to be the tenderest most juicy piece of steak but in the opinion of some veterinarian it might be considered to have gone off. With the extension of the power to be given to the veterinary examiner they would implement regulations and remove licences and all these other unpleasant things we talked about. I hope the Minister will accept the principle of what I am trying to do: in the area of any dispute, a recognised research station or independent arbitration would give the final decision on whether meat was fit for human consumption. It is an area of wide argument so I understand if there is a problem.

This amendment proposes to allow an appeal against condemnation of meat by a veterinary examiner in the export plants. It is with those plants that this section is solely concerned. Such a provision would make life impossible for a veterinary examiner as every condemnation would be appealed. It would also be very impractical having regard to the volume of slaughtering at such plants and the assembly line nature of the process. Production at the plants would be seriously impaired also.

The absence of such an appeal has not been a problem at the export plants to date. Plant managements recognise that veterinary examiners are best qualified in determining the fitness or otherwise of meat. Perhaps what Senator Ferris is saying is that there should be a provision against condemnation in domestic abattoirs as opposed to export plants. In this connection the domestic trade has contended that the local authority veterinarians should not be the sole judge as to whether meat is good or bad. Then what would apply to the export side would apply to the home front and probably more so given the fact that there are some 850 domestic abattoirs as opposed to 70 export plants.

In the context of meat or offal being condemned at local abattoirs, domestic traders have sought provision for meat to be tested by an independent research body; such a provision would prove to be inoperable, create delays and add to expenses and, of course, these expenses will fall back on the traders themselves.

Adjudication of meat solely by local authority veterinary inspectors has not proven to be a problem in the past. Meat condemnations are and have been taking place at domestic abattoirs and I fail to see why there would a problem in the future. I certainly have not had any complaints about it because either the meat is fit for human consumption or it is not. That is a simple standard and I do not think any butcher would disagree with that. The veterinary inspectors will be qualified and experienced in determining the fitness or otherwise of the meat which is, after all, the primary reason such officers are being conferred with major responsibilities under the Bill. They must follow and can only have regard to the veterinary examination regulations to be made under section 39.

The condemnation in whole or in part of a carcase could deal a heavy blow to a small proprietor and seriously affect his operating margins. For that reason I am confident that veterinary inspectors will prove to be absolutely objective in their determination of fitness or otherwise of meat for human consumption. Indeed, where there may be doubt and further analysis is necessary, sections 36 and 39 allow for laboratory tests to be conducted. For the most part, condemnations will be on visible inspection. Where laboratory analyses are concerned and the bacteriological quality of the meat is concerned, sections 36 and 39 allow for laboratory tests to be conducted.

I did not intend the amendment to apply to the carcase because if we are to have legislation we must determine and agree that somebody is responsible and competent. A veterinary surgeon is trained to make decisions when he examines a carcase on whether it has lesions which can be removed which would not affect humans or whether the whole animal or part of was either ill-bled or had been damaged in some accident that would make it unfit. I would defend the right of any veterinary inspector to make that decision.

I was concerned — but the Minister has now removed some of my concern— about other sections of the Bill relating to meat — not the carcase. A carcase is intact after killing and is visible. I know the mayhem that goes on in factories on the production line and that a veterinary surgeon has to be on his toes to be able to come to grips with the number of animals passing him by. I realise that, but I am concerned about meat because there can be disputes about whether meat is ripe, over-ripe, edible, ready, well hung or not hung long enough. People's tastes vary in this area. If the Minister can assure me that in the two other sections there are facilities for laboratory examination I am satisfied and I accept that there is no need to make the amendment to this section. This deals specifically with carcases or offals, as is stated in the section. I will have to re-read the other two sections to ensure that the Minister is not pulling the wool over my eyes. I do not think the Minister would do that anyway.

I think Senator Ferris is perfectly right. There are customers even still who insist to their local butcher that the carcase is seven days killed. People in the trade have to hold back meat to ensure that it is seven days old because, if some customers were to find out that the butcher had misled them, or had sold them meat which was only four or five days killed, they would go elsewhere. There is the risk that there could be a difference between what an inspector would consider fit for consumption and what, perhaps, a family have been using for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years and no harm has come to them because of it. It is extremely dangerous if pig meat is well hung or over-hung but very little harm, if any, can be done by beef being over-hung. Many people like their beef to smell a little before cooking it. There are people who have been doing this for many years.

Inspectors will be covering a very wide area because of cutbacks on overtime etc. The local authority will have one inspector doing their entire area or, indeed, two local authorities could have one inspector. Apart from that, we must ensure that they carry out their work efficiently. I have the greatest respect for the majority of inspectors. An inspector could have a brother in the business and it might be beneficial to the family to limit or put another person out of business. If it was suspected that a person had meat which was unfit for sale for human consumption, they should have recourse to some other body rather than the decision of the inspector being final, because the country is not that big. There is room for a lot of us here, despite what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said. Our relatives are getting these jobs and, therefore, we must ensure that this does not creep in, where the relative of a butcher down the road was the inspector for my shop. I would like to have the Minister's assurance that this is not likely to happen.

Which sections cover the question of independent laboratory facilities?

Section 36 and 39. I am having another look at section 43 to put beyond all doubt the question as to whether veterinary examiners in the export plants can condemn meat under the veterinary examination regulations of this Bill as intended. The provisions may need some strengthening. I will deal with the matter on Report Stage when Members will have an opportunity to discuss it further to tighten it up.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 43 agreed to.
SECTION 44.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 44 stand part of the Bill."

I discussed amendment No. 13 with the other amendments in the context of indexation of charges as a whole which involved fees. It would be unfair to press this amendment as a previous vote has determined it. I am still not satisfied though, and certainly the trade are not satisfied, that there is a sufficient safeguard in the levy section. To try to meet all the arguments made for and against it, I will be putting down an amendment on Report Stage seeking indexation of the levies, not indexation of the licence fees and all the other areas of recompense that the State will need to do the job properly.

As Senator Connor said we could suddenly run out of money and not be able to do the job properly. People in the farming industry have been worried about levies because they have been subjected to doubling in the past. I will put down an amendment to index link the actual fees or levies being charged in that section, but I accept that we have discussed it and voted on it at this stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 45.
Question proposed: "That section 45 stand part of the Bill."

I understand that fees at present are collected by the local BTE office for various levies under the disease eradication scheme. Can the Minister confirm if that will be the process of collection because there are a number of days here that butchers are supposed to send in money. Our experience is that that will not happen. The only way this could be applied is that the local authority might be made responsible with the Revenue collectors for the collection of fees under this section. If that were to happen, then I would not be worried because the local authority now have Revenue collectors who would be in a position to call to the butchers to collect the money which is the way it is being done at the moment by the BTE offices. If we were to depend on butchers to meet on a certain number of days in the months, like everybody else, it would be put on the long finger or forgotten about. The Minister might confirm if the local authority will be collecting the fees?

The local authority will collect the fees.

That eliminates some of my worries.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 46 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Question proposed: "That section 59 stand part of the Bill."

Section 59 refers to records, that "all records required to be kept pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be preserved for the period of three year after the record was made". What records are we talking about? I referred to this in my Second Stage speech, that I think it is important that records would be kept of animals from a disease eradication point of view. Small abattoirs and butchers should be required to keep those records. What records are the Minister referring to when he talks about records here? I just want clarification. Is it the pink card or the blue card or the ear tag number? Are the records available? Is it local DVOs or who is going to inspect the records?

We are talking here about the records of slaughterings. The maintenance of records is provided for herein in connection with the payment of fees on slaughtering by abattoir licence holders. Already abattoir licence holders have a duty to keep records under section 12 of the Bovine Disease (Levies) Act, 1979, and section 31 of the Central Fund Act, 1939; in effect of levies tabled under these Acts. What we are talking about here is the record of slaughterings and the precise type of records will be the subject of a regulation which will be made under this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 60 agreed to.
SECTION 61.

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 34, subsection (1), line 31, after "knackeries" to add "provided that in making regulations under this subsection the Minister shall give full details of the requirements specified therein."

Section 61, probably worries the meat retail trade, butchers who have slaughterhouses themselves or abattoirs. For the record we might read section 61 (1):

The Minister may, by Regulations, specify requirements in relation to the siting, layout, accommodation and construction, water supply and sanitary facilities and equipment and appliances for premises which are, or are to be used as abattoirs or knackeries.

This is a very general statement and it confers very wide powers in the hands of the Minister. Naturally the people who are involved in the trade are extremely worried as to the full implications of those words. If you take, for instance, the siting of an abattoir; the question arises in relation to existing abattoirs as to what implications this holds for the present sites of abattoirs. Will they have to be resited as a result of this section in this Bill?

We would like the Minister to come out and state exactly what is meant by the wording of this section. The words "layout""accommodation" and "construction" are used. Does that mean the present layout of existing abattoirs may not be satisfactory? If they are not satisfactory, under layout regulations what must be the minimum and maximum size of abattoirs? The same thing goes for the word "accommodation"; what kind of accommodation? What size of accommodation? The word "construction", is used. Is there a particular kind of construction up to a certain specified standard that must be used?

Of all the sections of this Bill which the trade fears, this is the one that most of them feel has the potential to put them out of business because many ordinary butchers in the trade at the moment have their own premises for slaughter, observing the standards, regularly inspected by the health inspectors as it is under the existing legislation. To all intents and purposes they are carrying on their business or they are carrying out their slaughtering to a very hygienic standard and indeed the provisions of this Bill will not or cannot improve the standards under which they carry out this part of the business. They are naturally very fearful of the implication of this section because it may place upon them the burden of replacing their existing facilities which would mean the commitment of thousands of pounds or possibly tens of thousands of pounds for new buildings or finding a new site.

The other words used there are, "equipment" and "appliances". Most butchers nowadays have chilling facilities in the vicinity of their own shop or within the actual selling area. Does the use of the word "appliances" mean that new chilling equipment will have to be provided in abattoirs under these new regulations? The statistic has been mentioned during discussion on this Bill in the House that there are about 850 abattoirs throughout the country. The organisations representing the butchers feel that this has a potential to wipe out half of them. It would remove the slaughter of animals for the domestic meat trade more and more into certain approved large abattoirs or perhaps to abattoirs that are specifically there for the export meat trade.

One of the major factors which keep bottom in the lifestock trade is that there is competition which exists between the domestic meat trade, the people who purchase for the domestic meat trade, the butchers, and the people who purchase for the export meat trade, the export meat factories. Competition keeps a buoyancy in the trade. It is a well established competition. If we were to take out by these regulations, perhaps half of the existing abattoirs in the country, and that might be a conservative estimate, you would also be taking out a very large element of the competition of the trade and that would have a major implication for the farmers. We have already seen too much monopolisation in the slaughter of animals for the export trade. We have got this coming together more and more of large conglomerates controlling huge sections of the Irish meat export trade at the moment and that is not good. If the effects of these sections in this Bill is to take out some of the smaller abattoirs, that has an implication for competition. I ask the Minister — and we feel very strongly about this — that you would come up front and let us know in broad outline what you mean by siting, layout, location, construction applicances and equipment in so far as they are referred to in this section?

Before the Minister replies, I had gone over this section in my mind to know if this was the appropriate way to amend it. First of all, the Minister when replying to Second Stage confirmed that there will be a uniform set of regulations and requirements and standards throughout the country, that it will not vary from one county to another and that that will be based on the number of animals that are likely to be killed at any given time and the facilities available and that also a period of some five years will be given from the date of implementation of this Bill for the trade to bring their existing abattoirs up to the standards required.

I hope when the Minister is making the regulations that he will come forward with some of the suggestions made by Senator Connor because people are worried in case their existing facilities are unsuitable. They do not know yet what regulations the Minister is bringing in and they are afraid that half of them might be closed down. Five years is a reasonable period for them to achieve the required standards. Perhaps the Minister would outline in broad terms, if he does not want it written into the Bill, his idea of an appropriate area for a slaughter house. In our regulations in South Tipperary we say that it should be located in a place free from conditions that may injuriously affect the sanitary operation thereof; that the slaughter house should be adequate in all respects for its intended purpose; that the lay-out and design of the slaughter house should be such as to facilitate the total physical separation of clean and dirty operations carried out therein and that for that purpose rooms or areas in which edible and inedible materials are handled and/or stored should be physically separated.

Somebody in the Department might consider that a tiled floor was probably the best floor for a butcher's shop. All of us who know anything about butchers' shops will tell you that a floor on which you can sprinkle a bit of sawdust is the best floor because it will absorb pieces of meat that might fall and it can be all swept away cleanly. That is the reason for the widespread use of sawdust in butcher's shops. A tiled floor would have to be scrubbed about ten times a day if you were to keep it as clean as we would all like it to be kept. The Minister might tell us what kind of regulations he will introduce. Will those regulations come before us so that we can discuss them at length in this House to see whether they can be met physically and financially by the trade who have from the very outset intimated their desire to co-operate with the Minister in bringing this legislation forward and trying to make it operable. This was an area about which they were concerned. I assured them that the Minister in making regulations would probably bring them before us for discussion. But at least the Minister has confirmed that he will be making them consistent and uniform throughout the country. At least nobody will be at a disadvantage then. Let us talk about the requirements the Minister might want and then we can argue whether they are achievable or not.

The regulations to be made under this section will set out the standards to apply to premises used as abattoirs and knackeries. They will be uniform and consistent throughout the country. Generally the regulations will seek to ensure that premises are of sound construction, adequate in all respects for their intended purpose and in a state of good repair at all times. As mentioned in my Second Stage speech the emphasis will be on hygiene and the standards will be reasonable and realistic and will be attainable. An adequate amount of time will be given for butchers and proprietors to bring their premises up to standard.

I wish to reiterate that the trade will be consulted on the provisions of the regulations before they are made. In relation to subsection (1) the siting of a premises will be concerned with its location particularly in relation to any adverse environmental conditions which may affect its sanitary operation and the lay-out of the premises will be concerned primarily with satisfactory design so as to preclude congestion and the total physical separation of clean areas and unclean areas of operation. The accommodation requirements will relate primarily to the provision of satisfactory lairaging, slaughtering and storage areas. The construction requirements will specify criteria for yards, ceilings, doors, light, ventilation, drainage and so on. The water supply and sanitary facilities for premises will specify standards in relation to the provision of potable water, sterilisers, washhand basins and sanitary conveniences on the premises. The equipment and appliances for premises will specify requirements in relation to stunning and slaughtering equipment, to rails, books, tables, benches, waste containers and various items of equipment within the premises. I have already given assurances to the trade. They will be fully consulted in advance about the content of the regulations before they are made law. In this connection I hope to be able to forward drafts of the regulations, before the end of the next month, to the trade, to discuss in detail with them the contents of the regulations before they come into effect. The officials of my Department have already had consultations with at least one of the organisations. All representatives of the trades will be fully consulted before the regulations come into effect. It would seem that the aims of this amendment are adequately covered as it stands. The regulations to be made on foot of the section will be specifying the requirements and standards for premises in consultation with the trade. Accordingly there is no real requirement for the amendment because we are already discussing with the trade and their representative organisations the content of the regulations. I again want to give an assurance that the draft regulations will be forwarded to the trade by the end of next month.

I am glad to hear that the draft will be ready for circulation within a month. It is a great pity that the draft is not before us here in this House as it would allay many of our fears or maybe it would heighten our fears. The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill states:

The purposes of this Bill are (a) to provide standards of veterinary control and hygiene at local slaughtering premises providing meat for the home market which will be on a par with those already applying at export meat plants.

There are very high standards at export meat plants which can be well afforded because they are such large operations. Our great fear arises from the intelligence reports on existing slaughterhouses. A report in the sixties or seventies stated that a high percentage were unsatisfactory and recommended that they should be brought up to standard or put out of operation. Could the Minister give us any indication from the information gleaned by his Department of how many of these abattoirs would have to go out of business as a result of this section? In relation to siting, it is obvious that the present siting of many abattoirs is unsatisfactory. I agree that if the siting is unsatisfactory they should be relocated. Nevertheless we would like to know at this stage from the information available on the unsatisfactory siting of a percentage of them, how many of them would have to be relocated.

I agree with Senator Connor that it is a pity the regulations are not before us. I believe that if an effort had been made they could be before us and it would make it much easier to discuss this Bill and in particular this section. I would like to inquire who will make the final decision. Will it be a local inspector? Will it be an inspector from the Department? Again I want to put in a word of warning. If it is a single inspector, even if he comes from the Department, he could be sent to a part of the country with which he is familiar. If so, there is a danger that he could be over exact in implementing the regulations in one instance while he would relax them, while meeting the regulations, in another instance.

Senator Connor has spoken about the location of a slaughter premises. It could be that in the opinion of one inspector the present location is satisfactory whereas in another inspector's opinion it would be more satisfactory to have it moved. In these grey areas an inspector could, if he so wished, for whatever reason, be more exact in wanting the regulations to be implemented and in his interpretation of the regulations and the situation on the ground. Also I would hope that the Minister would give adequate time to allow the operators of these slaughter yards to bring them up to the standard required. I know we discussed this on Second Stage when the Minister dealt with it at some length but I forget if he put a time on it.

Many of the slaughter yards have been brought up to a higher standard in the recent past. Senator Connor referred to a report. Since that report came out many of these slaughter yards have been brought up to a higher standard. They have had their walls tiled. The thinking today is to do away with tiles. In a couple of hospitals I have visited around the country the tiles are left out of the kitchens and other materials put in their place. If an inspector is going to insist on that under the regulations a person who has made an effort in the last ten or 15 years to bring his operation up to a higher standard of hygiene will be penalised. If tiling of walls is out and will not be permitted that could put a heavy financial burden on somebody who has already expended amounts of money on bringing his premises up to a fair standard of hygiene.

In 1980 a survey of abattoirs was conducted by the Department of Agriculture. Of the 854 abattoirs in the country the following was the result of the survey: suitable premises, 19 per cent; suitable with minor modifications, 21 per cent; suitable with immediate modifications, 23 per cent; suitable with fairly major modifications, 21 per cent; unsuitable or requiring total construction, 16 per cent. That was in 1982. The modifications required concerned such matters as equipment, fittings, lair-age, water supply, drainage, storage and sanitary facilities. Following the survey in 1982, which Senator McMahon talked about, each property manager was communicated with a view towards action being taken to raise the standards of premises. Some areas responded positively and improvements were made by the proprietors. The fact of the matter is that there are still a large number of abattoirs where improvements will be necessary. There is a period of five years to allow people to bring their premises up to standard. As can be seen from that survey there is a degree of modification and improvement in buildings, equipment and water supply required. All of this will be done in a responsible way and in consultation with the trade. Five years is an adequate length of time. A number of people will suggest that five years is putting it on the long finger a bit and would prefer a shorter length of time. In relation to these regulations the draft will be available before the end of next month, it will be available to the trade and will not be introduced until full consultation and discussion takes place with the trade. At least one of the representative sections of the trade has had discussions in relation to these regulations. I would hope that they would be drawn up to fully meet the standards which will be required by the party to ensure that meat for human consumption is up to the highest standard and at the same time allow the proprietors of these premises an adequate amount of time to bring their premises up to standard without bankrupting them.

Is amendment No. 15 withdrawn?

In view of the Minister's assurances that the draft details on these regulations will be out within a month and at that stage, with the pace of legislation through both of these Houses, there may be time to discuss them before it has reached any stage of finalisation in the Dáil, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 61 agreed to.
Sections 62 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.

I would like to know from the Minister when he is prepared to take Report Stage?

Is it possible to take it straightaway?

There are amendments.

We have amendments.

I think perhaps a week would be reasonable.

Next Wednesday?

That would give us an opportunity to put down some amendments for Report Stage.

May I thank the Minister for his patience in taking the Bill as far as we have got with it. He realises now that this House deals with legislation in a serious manner and we are thankful for his patience with us. We have not got everything we wanted and we will try further on the next section but we are grateful for the Minister's patience.

May I join with my colleague, Senator Ferris, as Opposition spokesperson on Agriculture in thanking the Minister for his patience and his great knowledge of the Bill as well. While we had our differences about it it was a very satisfactory exercise. The debate itself was very informative and very elucidating.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 21 October 1987.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Wednesday at 2.30 p.m.

Top
Share