Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 28 Feb 1995

Vol. 449 No. 7

Adjournment Debate. - Abattoir Hygiene Standards.

Mr. M. Ahern

I wish to raise a matter which is causing grave concern to many employers in the domestic abattoir business.The extension of the Fresh Meat Directive 64/433/EEC is intended to ensure that the hygiene standards in all abattoirs, irrespective of throughput, are directly comparable and of a high level. That is an entitlement of the consumer throughout the Community and is to be applauded. It goes further by including suitable measures to protect the environment.

Ireland has a long tradition of local abattoirs meeting the fresh meat needs of both rural and urban communities. Many of those abattoirs have closed since the introduction of the Abattoirs Act, 1988 and many more may be forced to close if they do not upgrade their premises by 31 December 1995. If that were to happen the losers would be the consumers because those businesses are a source of employment. Abattoirs, in both urban and rural communities, tend to recruit their operatives from within the local community. In some cases not only has an abattoir been owned by the same family for a number of generations but the staff have a family tradition also.

Abattoirs provide continuity of slaughter. The pattern of beef and sheep production in Ireland is based on the availability of grass as the major source of nutrients. Consequently, the slaughter pattern in a large industrial abattoir reflects that seasonality pattern. A large number of animals is slaughtered within a short period of time, placeing a strain on slaughter facilities and storage capacity. It is also reflected in the employment patterns in such plants where staff can be unemployed for long periods and dependent on social welfare payments. In the domestic abattoir trade employment is continuous throughout the year. This continuity of employment arises directly from the fact that all the product is sold either directly or indirectly to consumers.

The domestic meat trade at all levels has been developed by private funding without any official support or assistance.The provisions of the Abattoirs Act have led to a significant increase in investment by the individual butcher. Inability to source the funding necessary to meet the standards of the Abattoirs Act is one of the principal reasons cited for the closure of local abattoirs.

Abattoirs are a local outlet for the livestock producer. Rural communities are dependent on individual livestock producers, who tend to purchase their needs directly in the local area. The presence of a private locally-based abattoir or cutting plant provides the livestock producer with a ready outlet for his product, the live animal. Also, it provides business for haulage contractors, local tradesmen, fuel suppliers, etc. Concentrating animal slaughter in a limited number of large industrial abattoirs will result in the creation of a virtual monopoly on slaughter and cutting, detrimental to the interests of both the consumer and the livestock producer. It could also be construed as contradicting the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty of Rome.

Abattoirs provide viable employment.The large domestic abattoirs and cutting plants employ approximately 1,200 to 1,300 people. Since the premises involved are spread throughout the State, the closure of one or more plants can be lost within national statistics, but the impact of such a closure at local level can be very significant. While it may make sound economic sense to concentrate production in a small number of large industrial plants, the closure of domestic abattoirs will generate a ripple effect throughout local communities in which they are located. The closure of small and medium-sized family businesses is a major factor in the depopulation of rural areas. The establishment of a rural wasteland cannot be one of the aspirations of the Government.

The consumers of Europe are entitled to the highest quality fresh meat. That can be assured only at Community level by hygiene standards which are applied throughout the Community. The Commission and the Council of Agriculture Ministers recognise that such standards can be maintained while providing for structural derogations under the directive.Where abattoirs wish to continue to supply traditional outlets and customers on the national territory, they should be in a position to do so, subject to the constraint that by applying simplified structures to their premises they are excluded from the larger Community market. The argument of Community access to those premises which meet the standards of the directive is offered as a carrot towards compliance. In a market which is already over-supplied by both EU and third country products, access other than for niche products is not realistic. What is realistic, however, is the maintenance of family-owned and operated businesses which form part of the local community and provide real employment in rural society.

The food subprogramme of the Operational Programme for Industrial Development approved by the EU contains a provision for assisting the upgrading of slaughtering and processing facilities to the standard prescribed by the relevant EU directive. However, the estimated cost of providing the additional facilities required by the directive to bridge the gap between the two standards is £300,000. From the information I have received I do not consider this figure is realistic. The maximum grant will be in the region of £90,000 to £100,000, £3 million countrywide.The former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy O'Shea, announced a total investment of £13.3 million for large factories which was expected to lead to the creation of 119 jobs. The £3 million grant will secure those 119 jobs and if additional money were invested more jobs could be provided.

Are the domestic abattoirs being treated fairly given that they are being grant-aided only to the tune of £3 million, which may lead to the loss of hundreds of jobs? I ask the Minister to review this policy to ensure the survival of wholesale and domestic butchers from the perspective of their place in local communities, their role in offering alternative outlets for livestock producers and their contribution to the maintenance of employment in rural areas.

Mr. Deenihan

Under the Abattoirs Act, 1988 all abattoirs supplying the domestic market were required to upgrade their premises to the standards laid down in the Abattoirs Act, 1988 and (Abattoirs) Regulations, 1989. The licensing provisions of the Act commenced on 1 September 1989 and operators had five years in which to bring their premises to licensing standard under a permit system. Therefore, premises should have been at full licence standard under the Act by 1 September 1994.

Council Directive 91/497/EEC adopted in 1991 came into operation on 1 January 1993. The directive required that all abattoirs operating on the domestic market should meet the same standard of operational hygiene laid down in the directive.

The directive contained modified structural requirements for abattoirs handling under 1,000 livestock units per year which were more or less equivalent to the standards required under the Abattoirs Act, 1988 and (Abattoirs) Regulations 1989.

Those abattoir operators handling over 1,000 livestock units were required to bring their premises up to the full standards of the directive, that is previously export standard only. Those operators unable to comply fully with the directive by 1 January 1993 were given temporary derogations from some of the structural requirements of the directive up to 1 January 1996 provided suitable plans and a work programme for completion were submitted by 1 April 1992.

The grant aid scheme announced in December 1994 was introduced to help those operators who had to go from Abattoirs Act standard previously applicable to them to the full standards required under the directive.

The level of grant aid was based on the level of expenditure required to bring a premises from licensing standard under the Abattoirs Act to the full standards required under the directive and was not meant to cover total expenditure required to completely upgrade a premises. The estimated expenditure involved based on examination of plans for upgrading submitted to this Department was £300,000. Accordingly, an upper limit of £300,000 was placed on eligible expenditure for grant-aid.

Allowing for 5 per cent national aid and 25 per cent EU aid, this would mean a maximum grant of £90,000. Establishments in disadvantaged areas would qualify for 35 per cent of EU aid which would mean a maximum grant of £120,000. Due to limited funding for the food programme under the Operational Programme for Industrial Development approved by the EU, it is not possible to increase the level of grant-aid.

The important contribution of the domestic meat sector to both employment and as an alternative outlet for livestock producers is appreciated.

In relation to livestock slaughtering, we have excess slaughtering capacity which severely curtails our ability to grant-aid investments in slaughtering facilities. The recently introduced scheme of grant-aid for larger domestic abattoirs recognises within these constraints the important role of this sector. The financial package available should make a meaningful contribution to the preservation of jobs in this area. Regarding the smaller abattoirs not eligible for grant-aid, it is regretted that financial assistance, cannot be provided while maintaining the traditional structure of this sector.

As these operators have to comply fully with the Abattoirs Act, 1988 without financial assistance, a financial package to larger operators covering more than bridging the gap between domestic and export plant standard would render the small enterprises unviable. On balance, it is considered that the present scheme best maintains the existing structure.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the objective of the Abattoirs Act, 1988 and the EU regulations relating to meat production is the protection of public health, achieved by ensuring that meat is produced in accordance with appropriate hygiene requirements. To reach and maintain these criteria requires a minimum standard of premises which cannot be subject to compromise. We must not forget that consumers are now increasingly aware of production methods for foodstuffs. Any suggestion that public health may be compromised by accepting lower standards would have devastating consequences in relation to consumer confidence in the wholesomeness of meat.