Vol. 408 No. 9
21 Mr. Finucane asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food if he will outline the number of appeals for reclassification under the beef carcass classification scheme for the years 1988 and 1989 for bovine animals; and if he will further outline the number of appeals which were (a) successful and (b) unsuccessful.
The information sought by the Deputy in relation to appeals under the beef carcass classification scheme is as follows:
Appeals
|
Year |
Number |
Successful |
Unsuccessful |
|
1988 |
13,913 |
3,290 |
10,623 |
|
1989 |
7,307 |
1,713 |
5,594 |
I should also draw the Deputy's attention to the fact that total slaughterings in beef export plants in 1988 and 1989 were 1,223,800 head and 1,146,600 head respectively.
In 1990 appeals were lodged in respect of more than 21,194 animals, of which 5,097 were successful. In 1989 there were 1,730 successful appeals out of a total of 7,307. There appears to be a trend for more appeals and many more are successful. Can the Minister indicate why this is happening? Is he totally satisfied about the beef carcass classification scheme procedures that operate in the factories? Finally, is there any training programme for the people involved in the implementation of those procedures?
The question is essentially statistical dealing with numbers only. Matters of policy do not arise.
I quoted for 1988 and 1989. I did not quote for 1990 as I had not got the figures.
I accept the matter is statistical. In reply to a parliamentary question I got information in relation to 1990 and this is purely statistical information — 21,194 bovine animals, of which 5,097 were successful. All I am asking the Minister is why there is such an upward trend as is evident from the figures he gave.
On the basis of the information I have here there are 28 exporting plants in the State and 38 officers are involved in operating the scheme. They are on the SEO grade and naturally they are people of considerable experience in the operation of the scheme. I understand there is a process of rotation of officers from different plants around the country. I could understand if farmers felt aggrived because the same officer dealt continuously with an area, but I understand there is a process of change of personnel and from the point of view of the operation of this scheme that must be very worthwhile. There is a supervisory tier and there is provision for appeal to the supervisor on an informal basis where there is a feeling of dissatisfaction.
