I thank the acting chairman for her co-operation and Deputies for their constructive contributions to the debate on this important legislation.
Food safety and the protection of the consumer are very much the issues of the moment. In recent years there has been a justifiable increase in consumers' awareness of their legitimate rights and their expectations of assurances as to the safety of the food they eat. This is particularly the case in the beef sector. In my opening address I outlined the background to the introduction of this legislation, which is a direct response to the BSE crisis, and the importance of the beef industry to the Irish economy.
The purpose of the national beef assurance scheme is to provide reassurances to consumers and customers regarding the safety of Irish beef. At the same time, the scheme will help to safeguard the multi-million pound Irish beef industry from the adverse effects of the inevitable food scares and help to maintain its competitiveness on domestic and international markets.
The importance of providing systems of independent controls and assurances was underlined by the decision late last year of the Russian authorities to lift the ban on the import of beef from five counties in Ireland. This decision was made possible because of the high level of controls in place on the production of beef in Ireland, including the traceability system, which is a central element of the national beef assurance scheme. The scheme is clear evidence of the Government's commitment to safeguarding public health by ensuring the highest standards of food safety beginning with the beef sector. It is also evidence of the Government's commitment to the beef industry, which is of vital importance to our economy, and the resolve to provide the necessary regulatory framework to underpin its continued viability and capacity to trade.
The State has already invested a large amount of money in the development of the computerised animal traceability element of the scheme. Some £4.2 million was expended last year in establishing computer links at marts and factories and in the supply of computer equipment and training. An additional £9.1 million will be spent this year in the further development and maintenance of this system and the associated development of a fully integrated animal health computer system. This expenditure, which is very significant by any standard, is a clear signal of the Government's commitment to delivering regulatory systems dedicated to ensuring the production of safe food products and the maintenance of a viable industry.
By enhancing the cattle traceability system and by introducing a mandatory registration and approval process, the Bill will deliver the additional assurances which will enable us to say Irish beef and beef products are safe to eat. The registration and inspection system will involve individual producers and processors in a very concrete way in the delivery of a safe product. It will ensure that all persons involved in the primary production and beef processing chain know their responsibilities and are actively involved in fulfilling their functions in this chain. The proposed legislation will be an important marketing tool in the promotion of Irish beef and it will also provide a solid foundation upon which quality specifications tailored to individual customer needs can build.
A number of Deputies have expressed concern regarding the scope of the Bill, particularly the fact that it does not apply in full to food businesses. Such businesses, which include supermarkets, grocery stores, restaurants and retail butcher shops, will not escape the net of the national beef assurance scheme because they are already covered by existing legislation on food hygiene and because their sources of supply will be controlled by the NBAS.
At present these businesses are strictly regulated by the various health boards which, like my Department, are agents of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in the delivery of food safety across the food chain. These existing provisions are very comprehensive and provide enforcement officers with powers of seizure, detention, withdrawal of product and the suspension, closure and prosecution of businesses. Accordingly, such businesses have been excluded from the registration, inspection and approval processes under the Bill. To include them would have been an unnecessary duplication and could lead to a two-tier, anomalous process of inspection and approval.
However, by controlling primary production and processing, the NBAS will regulate the sources of supply for such businesses. Under the scheme they will be obliged to source their supplies only from approved participants. Failure to comply with this provision will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties will apply. Furthermore, provision has been made in the Bill for the appointment of authorised officers by the health boards for the precise purpose of checking whether this provision has been complied with.
Deputies have expressed concern regarding the non-application of the Act to imported beef, notwithstanding its application to imported animals. The purpose of the scheme is to provide additional assurance about the safety of Irish production. Thus, it would be contrary to the purpose of the scheme to include imported beef. It could also constitute a barrier to trade in contravention of EU legislation. However, animals imported into the State would have to be covered since they would be subsequently traded, slaughtered and processed in the same way as domestic production.
Deputies can be assured, however, that all meat imported into the EU from third countries is subject to strict regulation. Meat may be imported only from third countries and establishments which have been specifically approved by EU veterinary officials. In addition, the meat may be imported only through approved import points and it must be accompanied by animal and public health certification conforming with EU requirements. The list of countries and establishments exporting to the EU is subject to continuous monitoring and review.
Several Deputies expressed fears that the additional costs arising from the scheme could impose a burden on small enterprises, particularly abattoirs and farmers. Any additional costs which may arise should not be overestimated. The standards which must be met are based largely on existing legislation. If producers and processors are already complying with these requirements – the vast majority are – any additional costs should be minimal. Any costs which arise, which should not be excessive, must be balanced against the very real gains which will ensue under the scheme in terms of reassuring consumers and customers, thus improving the marketability of Irish beef to the benefit of all producers and processors.
Deputy Upton raised a number of questions regarding the type, format and frequency of inspections of producers and processors. While the details of the inspection process have yet to be finalised, the principles of independent inspections and regular auditing will be applied. Only persons who are suitably qualified will be charged with the inspection of the different categories of participants under the scheme.
As to farm inspections, a query raised by Deputy Connaughton, the rate of inspection fee will be a matter between the inspector and farmer. I understand this aspect is being discussed by the representative organisations with a view to agreeing a system which will not impose an undue burden on farmers. The Department's proposals that farm inspections be carried out by the veterinary practitioner at the time of the annual TB test will serve to ensure extra costs are minimised. There is nothing in the Bill which will prejudice the outcome of these discussions. On a related issue, the Department is always looking at ways to rationalise the inspection process to avoid duplication and the need for multiple farm inspections.
Deputies expressed concern that the penalties provided for under the Bill are excessive and will be implemented in an indiscriminate manner, even for minor infringements of the legislation. The experience of farmers in relation to loss of entitlement to premia has been cited. The penalties provided for in the Bill are the maximum applicable and can only be applied if a conviction has been secured. The Department only enters legal proceedings when there has been a serious contravention of the rules and when all other remedial options have failed. It will not take proceedings against genuine minor infringements of the rules.
The position is not comparable with the situation pertaining to the livestock and headage schemes. In the latter case EU legislation clearly sets out the framework for the payment of premia and also defines the circumstances for loss of entitlement. There are no such automatic procedures under the national beef assurance scheme. The Department has discretion whether to institute proceedings and the courts decide in each case on the level of penalties if a conviction is secured. The courts have a responsibility to ensure the penalty fits the crime and in my experience they discharge this function with due care. That said I consider it essential to provide powerful deterrents in the Bill against the illegal activity engaged in by a minority of unscrupulous operators.
Deputies will be aware that the Government in the context of the recent partnership negotiations has agreed to establish an independent accessible and properly resourced appeals unit to deal with complaints in relation to EU payments, including livestock and area aid premia. The establishment of this unit should address many of the problems raised by Deputies during the debate.
A number of Deputies expressed concern about the system provided for in the Bill against refusal or revocation of approval and sought the appointment of an independent arbitrator or separate appeals system. I am confident that the appeals mechanisms provided for in the Bill are comprehensive and sound. There will be continual dialogue between applicants and the authorities at all stages of the inspection and approval process and decisions to rescind or refuse approval will not be taken lightly. In the event that it is decided that refusal or revocation of approval is warranted the operator or person concerned will have two avenues of appeal – through representations and the courts. In these circumstances I do not consider that the appointment of an independent arbitrator or additional tier of appeals is warranted.
Certain Deputies sought assurances that our newly developed CMMS system would work and that it would be capable of tracing animals and pinpointing animal locations with a high degree of accuracy. I am confident that this is the case. Since the beginning of the year all marts, factories, abattoirs and live export points are suplying information to the CMMS, some for much longer. A request has already been made to the European Commission for recognition of the database as fully operational. To date some three million individual animal movements have been recorded onto the system. This is only a minuscule part of the enormous bank of data held by the Department on computer in regard to Irish cattle. There are more than 40 million individual events on our database regarding animal births and locations. The CMMS will work to fill in the gaps remaining about animal movements, thus providing a comprehensive record of Irish cattle from birth to slaughter. The CMMS can only record movements notified to it. In this connection all participants in the industry have a duty to report cattle movements promptly and accurately. It is only with the co-operation of the industry that we will have a comprehensive and credible traceability database.
A number of Deputies expressed concern that the traceability system does not extend from farm to fork. Nobody should underestimate the enormity of the undertaking to provide a traceability system for cattle from birth to the point of entry into the human food chain. It is a mammoth task involving the recording of millions of animal movements annually through 150,000 herds, 110 marts and 440 slaughtering houses and for export as well as monitoring and verifying the information collected and pursuing discrepancies. I am satisfied that the assurances provided under this system will provide very important additional guarantees regarding the safety of all Irish beef entering the food chain. Slaughtering plants will be required to operate a carcase identification system enabling the carcase to be correlated with the live animal. This is standard practice in most slaughtering plants.
As regards informing participants about their obligations under the scheme, it is the intention to conduct a comprehensive information and advice programme for all participants. My Department will work with Teagasc and the industry to ensure all participants are fully aware of the importance of the scheme and of their rights and obligations.
I note the points made by Deputy O'Malley which cover a number of issues. These have been raised and addressed on many occasions in the House and other fora. Specifically in relation to the cans of meat I can confirm that the cans in question were part of a consignment produced for the Russian market. In the event some of the product, including that found on sale in Dublin last year, was not exported and did not benefit from export refunds. The Department has asked the Revenue Commissioners to investigate the appropriateness of the tariff classification applied to the product which was exported. The Revenue Commissioners are the responsible body in this area.
Reference was made to the prosecution of a former Department officer. The officer in question took a career break from the Department and, as is normal under this arrangement, returned to the Department after this. There was no ministerial intervention. As regards the Nenagh incident, legal action is being taken.
In general in any one year more than 500,000 tonnes of beef is exported from Ireland to over 60 countries worldwide. Our record stands up, as we have proven when markets were kept open despite concerns about BSE since 1996. I would prefer to concentrate on the positive aspects of the industry and to look to the future as this very important beef assurance measure does.
Deputies Upton and Deenihan expressed concern regarding the absence of any reference to HACCP, microbiological testing etc in the text of the Bill. The standards to be observed by the various classes of participants, including slaughtering and processing plants, animal feed manufacturers, etc are laid down in the legislation listed in the relevant part of the Second Schedule to the Bill. This legislation includes the official requirements in relation to the monitoring of critical control points, microbiological testing, monitoring of residue levels etc. In accordance with section 10(3) of the Bill only establishments complying inter alia with these requirements will be approved under the scheme. Under section 33(2) any new regulatory requirements introduced in relation to any of these or other matters will be added to the legislation listed in the Second Schedule. In this way it will be possible to continuously update the standards applicable to the various classes of participants under the scheme.
Deputy Connaughton sought information on a number of specific issues in relation to TB viz a vaccination for badgers and a reliable blood test to identify infected cattle. As these matters are not specifically the subject of the Bill under discussion I undertake to take them up with the Deputy outside the House at an early date. Research is being conducted to devise appropriate strategies to reduce the incidence of TB in the cattle and badger populations. In anticipation that these trials prove conclusively a significant level of badger involvement a vaccination strategy has been devised which it is hoped will provide a solution to overcome the wildlife constraint. In this context a major badger vaccination development project commenced last year. A research group incorporating staff from the Department, the TB investigation unit, University College Dublin and University College Cork has been established. As a first step an island population of badgers has been vaccinated. Blood samples were taken at the time of vaccination and further samples will be taken at regular intervals over 12 months to establish the nature and level of any immune response to this vaccine. This project also involves collaboration with the Central Veterinary Laboratory in Weybridge in the United Kingdom.
Deputy Creed requested information on the progress achieved to date by the Irish Cattle Breeder's Federation. While this information is not the subject of the Bill I can state the following: the ICBF was established in 1997 with the objective of leading the development of cattle breeding in a manner which would best serve the national commercial livestock sector. Since its inception the federation has appointed a chief executive with considerable experience in this area and it has also engaged the necessary expertise to deliver efficient cattle improvement schemes for Ireland.