Vol. 389 No. 2
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether any irregularities have been found over the last two weeks during the increased activity by his Department's inspectors and customs officers at meat plants and ports of exit; whether it is the normal procedure to notify companies in advance of such inspections; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
5.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food whether any advance notice was given to the company(ies) involved of inspections which took place under the aegis of his Department in Foynes Harbour, County Limerick on Saturday 15 and Sunday 16 April 1989; if so, the reason for such advance notice; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
10.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if the European Commission services participated in the inspections that took place under the aegis of his Department in Foynes Harbour, County Limerick on Saturday and Sunday 15 and 16 April 1989; if the EC were aware that advance notice was given to the company involved in the inspections; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the outcome in the case of samples of frozen meat taken at meat factory premises throughout the country in the week commencing 3 April 1989; and the factories, if any, which were proven to have wrongly described the type of meat involved.
24.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the results of his Department's recent intensive sampling of meats in APS storage.
69.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the steps which will be taken in respect of samples taken from a number of beef processing plants in the last three weeks; the tests which will be carried out on those samples; the consequences of any defects in the samples; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
79.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food the progress which has been made to date in ending fraud and illegal practices in the meat trade; if he will give the number of meat plants visited by inspectors of his Department in each of the past 12 months arising from anti-fraud measures; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
93.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food, having regard to the fact that the Goodman Group has publicly called for the meat industry to be monitored severely to ensure ethical operation, the steps which are being taken to ensure that this takes place; whether it is his Department's policy to follow a surprise inspection programme or if local Department officers and meat factories are notified in advance; and, if so, the period of notice which is given to local officers or meat factories.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5, 10, 21, 24, 69, 79 and 93 together.
On a point if order, may I ask for your guidance, it is now exactly one minute to the end of priority questions——
We would not erode any more of the precious time.
I am about to make the point that it would be very unsatisfactory for the Minister to now set out to answer the six or eight questions he has listed. I assume we can extend priority time by five minutes to try to deal with them in some satisfactory manner.
I agree with that, a Cheann Comhairle.
The Chair is obliged to adhere to the Standing Orders as laid out before him. If this House requires additional time for priority questions they ought to take steps towards that end.
If the Deputies allow me to start to give the reply and perhaps complete it——
If you start giving the reply there will be no opportunity for supplementaries. That defeats the purpose of the questions. With respect, I know that is not what the Minister is setting out to do.
It certainly is not.
I am not in any way saying to you that you are trying to avoid the questions which I know you will answer in due course but the situation is that priority time is now over. So I would assume that we will go on to ordinary questions.
A Cheann Comhairle——
On a point of order——
I would much prefer that this matter were resolved in a proper fashion. This House may decide its Standing Orders. It is supreme in that regard. I would wish to adhere to Deputy Spring's suggestion in this instance but it must not be taken as a precedent, otherwise the rules governing this situation go by the board. I would much prefer if the Deputies would take steps to formalise the procedure dealing with priority questions with a view to an extension of the time. I agree with them that more time has now become essential. I will allow the extension if the House so agrees in this instance.
I welcome it.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle.
I am conscious of the fact that when we have priority questions we should be allowed to deal with them in full. I have indicated that I am taking a number of questions together.
In recent weeks my Department have, in co-operation with the Customs, been removing samples of beef from traders around the country for inspection at a Dublin cold store. The meat concerned is from stocks held under the 1988 Aids for Private Storage Scheme. The inspections are part of the programme of monitoring engaged in by the Department in their day-to-day implementation of the CAP which I outlined in reply to a number of parliamentary questions on 12 April 1989. The European Community services were not involved but they were informed of the nature and extent of the operation. They were afforded the opportunity of observing the Department's examination of the samples. They did not participate in the examination of the samples but expressed their satisfaction with the Department's arrangements.
Under the 1988 APS scheme some 133,000 tonnes of beef were placed under contract. Given the scarce staff resources and the large tonnage of beef involved it was decided that the necessarily detailed examination of the samples could be most effectively carried out at one central location. This ensures a standard approach to the examination procedure, protects the confidentiality of the results and enables the operation to be carried out with the beef in the secure custody of the Department. A programme was drawn up under which it was decided in advance which firms and individual contracts would be sampled. This programme was strictly adhered to even where the beef had been removed from store for export. In total seven firms, including all of the APS participants with large stocks, had samples removed from pre-selected contracts. The seven companies from which samples were taken account for 95 per cent of the beef stored under the 1988 APS scheme.
Because samples were being removed from stores to a secure central location for examination, the co-operation of the firms concerned was sought without any prior indication being given as to the stores, contracts, or samples involved or indeed to the scale of the sampling to be carried out. Local Department and customs officers were not given details of the contracts or samples selected. The samples were removed from 11 stores around the country and, in the case of one firm, samples were also taken from an export consignment. A total of 75 tonnes was taken and is now being thawed out and examined. Because of the very substantial quantity of material involved, examination of the samples is not yet completed but preliminary indications are that all of the relevant regulations have not been complied with in every case.
The complete results of the examination will be communicated to the EC Commission and where appropriate follow-up action as necessary will be taken strictly in accordance with the practices I outlined in my reply on 12 April.
I should again emphasise that these actions are part of my Department's ongoing control measures to ensure that the provisions of the CAP are implemented in an even-handed manner which safeguards European Community funds. In addition to the permanent presence of Department officials at all meat export plants appropriate checks are of course also carried out in respect of all European Community measures.
Did the inspectors have the full co-operation of the seven firms involved? When will there be a full report in relation to the outcome of these checks, and will that report be available to us in the House?
The co-operation sought was necessary because of the major effect of this examination programme. It was the first time meat was removed from stores to a central location, for the reasons I have given in my reply. The store owners required the authorisation of the owners of the meat to enable the Department to get clearance to take it from the stores. That was the only reason for the prior notification by telephone just 24 hours before in each case, without signalling which stores, which contracts or anything. This will emerge when the final result is out. By and large, we got good co-operation but in any case where we did not we took very effective action to ensure that our sampling programme was complete and comprehensive.
What about the report?
It will be available in a matter of weeks, I am told. There are many people involved but it will be available in a matter of weeks.
Will we get the details?
Sorry, I am calling Deputy Spring.
From what the Minister said, it sounds as if in the operation in relation to the 11 stores and the seven firms 95 per cent of all the APS consignment samples were taken at a certain time. Why was it found necessary to take samples from the harbour side of an export consignment in addition to the comprehensive sampling that had taken place some days previously? Will the Minister confirm now that almost all the samples taken in Foynes had trimmings in them or were otherwise suspicious?
To reply to the Deputy's first question: from the time the sampling operation started, the Department became aware that some consignments were being moved or were about to be moved and some were actually on their way, and the inspectors made arrangements to take samples from the containers at Foynes. In that instance they took many more samples than they did in the other case to which I referred to ensure that there was a very comprehensive inspection. I am not in a position to, nor would I if I had the information, disclose anything in respect of any particular firm as to the consequences of what happened. I am just assuring the Deputy and the House that it is a very comprehensive programme.
In relation to the consignment to be shipped from Foynes that weekend. Would the Minister clarify if samples had already been taken from the stores prior to the consignment going to Foynes?
My understanding is that some samples had been taken but the nature and size of the consignment was such that it was not a complete sample as far as the inspectors were concerned. Hence the decision to complete the examination in the manner in which I have indicated at Foynes.
A final question——
I will allow the Deputy's final question but I want to get on to other questions.
Would the Minister confirm that in normal circumstances, that consignment of meat should not leave the country until the sampling has been completed and the results known? As the Minister has explained, the thawing and the analysis take a considerable amount of time. Would it not be reasonable to expect that the owners of the meat in question in situations like this do not attempt to get the meat out of the country until the Department have finished their analysis?
I assure the Deputy that the nature and extent of the sanctions available to the Department are such that any penalties that may arise in any case will be such as to be a very effective deterrent or sanction as the case might be. The question of holding up all of the consignment for different contracts to different locations, even for one company, would obviously raise very major problems. The Deputy can be assured that if there are any irregularities eventually found in respect of any one case, the group in respect of which irregularities are found will not gain from the irregularities but will be the subject of a very effective penalty.
