JOINT COMMITTEE ON ENTERPRISE AND SMALL BUSINESS díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 21 May 2003

Vol. 1 No. 11

Scrutiny of EU Proposals.

Chairman

We will deal with the items in the order set out on the agenda, starting with the Commission's proposals on COM 2003/33, 33(i) and 33(ii) - an amended proposal by the European Parliament and Council for the regulation of the hygiene of foodstuffs. Members are reminded of the parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members who wish to make a declaration in relation to any matter being discussed may do so now or at the beginning of their contribution.

I welcome Mr. Bert O'Reilly and Ms Paula Barry-Walsh from the Department of Agriculture and Food. They are very welcome to the committee. The representatives will have ten minutes to explain the likely impact of the proposals on Ireland and members may ask questions following their presentation. I draw the attention of the witnesses to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but this same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. While it is generally accepted that witnesses would have qualified privilege, the committee is not in a position to guarantee any level of privilege to witnesses appearing before it. I thank the witnesses for being with us and ask them to make their presentation.

Mr. Bert O’Reilly

Briefly, what is proposed is a package of five regulations, two of which the committee is examining today. It is a recast of food hygiene rules in the European Union and it essentially involves reorganising 17 existing directives into five regulations - the fifth one will be a housekeeping type regulation repealing existing legislation.

The four regulations involved are colloquially known as H1, H2, H3 and H4. The first one is a horizontal regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs. It will apply to all food business operators operating in the Community. The second is more specific in that it will apply hygiene rules to food of animal origin. The third will apply official controls on products of animal origin intended for human consumption. The fourth will provide regulations for animal health governing the production, marketing and importation of products of animal origin intended for human consumption. Although the intention is to provide the highest possible food safety regulation in the Community, the recast now affords the opportunity to reorganise legislation in respect of the various food sectors, which has gone its separate way over the past 30 years.

The underlying philosophy of the Commission's proposals is that food producers will bear more responsibility for the safety of the food they produce. This is made possible by developments such as the introduction of HACCP - hazard analysis and critical control points - principles. These principles take into account a variety of different operations and HACCP principles can be tailor made to the size and scale of the operation being carried out. Although it is proposed that the general hygiene rules will be extended to cover hygiene at farm level, farms will operate on a risk analysis basis. Farmers, primary producers, will not be required to introduce HACCP principles.

Under the new proposals, the emphasis will be on achieving food safety objectives rather than concentrating, as heretofore, on prescriptive rules. The advantage of this strategy is that it dovetails neatly with HACCP principles and allows the development of a more structured regulatory system. I will briefly outline the key points of H1, the regulation on the hygiene of foodstuffs.

Key points in H1 are that all food business operators will be registered. This means that we need to know that they exist. Their existence will be recorded. Depending on the element of risk involved, food business operators may need to be approved, but the second regulation on food development origin will cover that aspect.

Under H1, all food business operators will have to be registered so we can be aware of their existence and their type of business. All food business operators will have prime responsibility for the safety of the food they produce. This is a philosophical shift in the way the regulations have been enforced up to now. H1 will require the implementation of HACCP systems to all food business operators with the exception of primary producers, such as farmers, hunters and fishermen. The regulations in the proposal require the establishment of guides to good practice by the food sector so as to give food business operators guidelines on food safety and on the implementation of HACCP. The proposal provides flexibility for food business producers in certain areas, such as geographically remote areas, artisan type producers, traditional methods of food production, and there is some flexibility in relation to the implementation of HACCP.

H2 deals with hygiene regulations for food of animal origin. This proposal applies to unprocessed and processed products of animal origin such as meat, poultry meat, milk, eggs, fish and composite products made from those items. The key provisions are that food business operators may not market products of animal origin produced in the Community unless they have been processed in establishments registered and, depending on the level of risk, approved by a competent authority. The competent authority shall not approve establishments unless an inspection prior to the commencement of operation shows that they have satisfied the hygiene requirements. Food business operators shall not place a product of animal origin on the market unless it has a health mark or an identification mark. We can distinguish between a health mark and an identification mark later in the meeting. Again, there is flexibility built in for premises which are in geographically difficult areas or serving a localised market. The proposal will not apply to retail unless it is specifically indicated to the contrary.

I do not wish to take up too much time but I have outlined the two elements of the hygiene package, H1 and H2. There are other elements, particularly H3, which provide the detailed rules for how the controls will operate. However, I have covered the points regarding food hygiene and regulations for food of animal origin.

Chairman

Has a regulatory impact assessment report as mentioned in Sustaining Progress been prepared on these regulations? Who will be the competent authority for the purposes of these regulations? Was the Food Safety Authority of Ireland consulted about these regulations? Is it satisfied with them or has it any observations?

Mr. O’Reilly

No impact report has been done on this. I omitted to say earlier that many of these proposals are already in existing legislation.

Chairman

Can this report be prepared for the committee or is it, in Mr. O'Reillys opinion, of such importance that it should be?

Mr. O’Reilly

I am sure it can be prepared. We can certainly look into it and refer back to the committee. The FSAI has been involved. It attended the working party meetings at working group level in Brussels. It and the Department of Health and Children have been involved with H1, the general regulation on hygiene and foodstuffs. The FSAI also attended meetings about H2 and it is attending meetings in relation to the proposal on controls. The question of the competent authority has not yet been decided. The Department of Agriculture and Food is, for the moment, servicing the meetings but, because there is such a disparate range of agencies involved, the question of a competent authority will have to be examined at a later date.

Chairman

Who was consulted about these regulations? Were the Small Firms Association, ISME, Teagasc, Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland, BIM or Shannon Development consulted about them?

Mr. O’Reilly

Not that I am aware. We dealt with it at departmental and Government agency level. The Department of Agriculture and Food, the FSAI, the Department of Health and Children and, where required, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources were involved. Our view was that these regulations were essentially a restructuring and reorganisation of existing rules. The various food sectors over the past 30 years had developed their own regulatory arrangements, sometimes moving in almost diametrically opposite directions from each other, and this was an opportunity to restructure that in a more harmonised way.

It was also an opportunity to introduce new thinking on food safety. The opportunity was taken to put the emphasis for safe food production on the shoulders of the food business operator rather than having, for example, an army of departmental vets in and out of premises checking day to day operations. The regulations now provide for a more stand back approach by the Department of Agriculture and Food and a more audited approach to ensure compliance with the regulations. It will assess on a risk analysis basis rather than being involved in the minutae of the day-to-day operations of the premises.

Chairman

Will these regulations impose any additional costs on small or medium sized enterprises?

Mr. O’Reilly

Businesses will be required to introduce various degrees of HACCP. We are not sure that this will impose a significant extra cost on businesses. Many of these businesses already operate quality control systems and, my colleague will correct me if I am wrong, I doubt that extending it to HACCP will impose significant additional expense. However, these regulations have come from the point of view that consumer safety and protection are paramount. This is the collective thinking of 15 member states on food hygiene regulations.

Chairman

However, there has been no consultation with organisations such as Teagasc, Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland, BIM, Bord Glas or Shannon Development.

Mr. O’Reilly

No, not directly with those organisations.

Deputy Hogan

I agree with the Department's view that food safety is hugely important from the point of view of consumers. There has been a general lack of enforcement and inspection at health board level, perhaps due to the lack of recruitment of environmental health officers. How will the system work in relation to traceability? Regulations were to be imposed on Irish producers by the Department of Agriculture and Food in relation to traceability of beef. There was a limited introduction. What progress has been made towards the objective of proper traceability from birth to death of the animal?

Concerns have been expressed by many consumers about the traceability on non-EU imports. Many Irish companies are allowed to import, as a result of WTO agreements, beef and other products from outside the EU. How can the Irish consumer be reassured that the traceability and hygiene requirements being brought forward can be fully implemented with regard to products coming from outside the EU?

Mr. O’Reilly

As regards beef labelling and traceability, there are separate EU regulations on beef labelling which are applicable in all member states. Those regulations require operators marketing beef in the Community to label beef with four compulsory indications - the batch code enabling the beef to be traced back to the animal or the group of animals from which the beef was derived; details of the slaughter house and the country in which the slaughter house is located; details of the deboning hall and the country in which it is located; and, since 1 January 2002, details of the origin of the animal. This applies equally to Irish beef and imported beef. It applies to beef which has been marketed, not produced in the Community. The requirement is that all beef sold in the Community should be labelled with those four indications. There are additional arrangements for voluntary labelling where certain labelling claims, which cannot be verified at the point of sale, must be approved by the Department.

We realise there have been difficulties not only in Ireland in ensuring compliance with these regulations, but also in other member states in relation to beef labelling. There was a meeting in Brussels a fortnight ago on the issue. Under the beef labelling regulations, the Commission is required to report to the European Parliament and the Council by 14 August. In preparing that report, it has taken account of the views of member states, as expressed at that meeting a couple of weeks ago. It has also taken account of the views of the industry. It will bring forward this report on or before 14 August. If it sees fit, it also has the option of introducing new regulations to try to ensure better compliance.

The way we set about beef labelling in Ireland was that the Department of Agriculture and Food veterinary service, which was already looking after the larger volume plants and EU approved premises, would continue to look after beef labelling in those premises. The local authority veterinary service would look after the low capacity domestic type abattoirs and environmental health officers would look after the retail level. We had certain difficulties in that the Department as the competent authority did not have the extension or reach to deal with environmental health officers. We have tried to address that problem this year by introducing the beef labelling regulations into the service contract the Department has with the FSAI. That will give the FSAI a full co-ordinating role in ensuring compliance across the board.

The issue of imported beef has been a thorny and controversial one. While the volumes have not been large in terms of our production of beef, they still have caused some concern. The Minister convened a food labelling group last year to look at all labelling issues. I was not involved in it, but I understand the group reported to the Minister in December and made a number of recommendations regarding the origin not just of beef, but of meat of all species. My understanding is that the Minister has now set up an inter-agency group to progress those recommendations and work is proceeding on that basis.

Deputy Hogan

Mr. O'Reilly has given us a lot of important information about traceability. I am interested in the report to the Minister in December 2002. I do not think anyone outside the Department knew that report was being done. Has any non-EU or imported beef, which has been the source of controversy, been sent back?

Mr. O’Reilly

I cannot answer that because that is not my area. As regards imported beef, there are arrangements to import beef into the country under various WTO tariffs. The importer can pay the tariff and bring in the beef. However, hygiene requirements must be met. Unfortunately, I cannot give the Deputy the details of that because that is not my area.

As regards EU labelling regulations, the EU recognises that not all third countries have the same traceability arrangements that may exist within the Community and that it cannot be used as a barrier to third country beef coming into the Community. In situations where all the information required by the labelling regulations is not available, there must be an indication on imported beef that it is non-EU and the country in which the animal was slaughtered must be indicated. They are the minimum requirements. They may not have the wherewithal to meet the four conditions I mentioned earlier, but that cannot stop beef coming in. The beef labelling regulations cannot be used as an impediment to trade. At a minimum, where those requirements do not exist, the beef must be labelled within the Community as origin non-EU and the country in which the animal was slaughtered must be stated.

Deputy Howlin

I acknowledge the presence of my colleague, Deputy Upton, who is a distinguished academic and has some expertise in this matter. I am glad she has joined the committee debate on this issue.

I amplify and wish to slightly develop the point made by Deputy Hogan. Food safety is a huge issue. The labelling of food to give consumers a choice is extremely important. I would like to know the Department's attitude to processed foods coming into the country. I am thinking of chicken from south east Asia, for example, which comes into the EU, is processed in the United Kingdom or Germany and then arrives here as pizza or ready made food and is labelled as an EU product. Are there any plans to require the labelling of the contents as non-EU when the prime meat product might not be an EU product?

I and others have some concerns about the responsibility resting with the Department of Agriculture and Food. Many of us believe that the Department's prime focus is on the production and development of agriculture. It is not, therefore, the most appropriate body to have responsibility for the food division and for the monitoring of food quality. It seems from Mr. O'Reilly's answers that there are some difficulties in terms of the reach of the Department to do the type of monitoring which will be increasingly required. A franchised job may be better done by a more structured agency in its entirety.

Under H1 all food business operators must be registered. What is the definition of a food business so we know how narrow the focus will be? As regards the hygiene rules on foods containing animal product, people in a county such as mine, which has a huge number of small fish markets and cheese manufacturers, constantly point to the availability in towns and villages in France, for example, of farmers' markets which sell all types of products, but there does not seem to be any regulation. It is becoming increasingly impossible for farm products to be sold in Ireland without increasing bureaucracy. The new regulations state that member states may adopt some requirement to accommodate the requirements of establishments situated in regions suffering from geographic constraints. I do not know if County Wexford suffers from geographic constraints or what that means. What is the thought process within the Department in terms of the transposition of this regulation? Will it allow scope for farmers' markets, organic markets, which many people want, and the sale of products at the farm gate to prevent them from being squeezed out of existence? I know primary producers are excluded.

Mr. O’Reilly

There were quite a number of questions but we will try to keep the replies as brief as we can.

Ms Barry-Walsh

The Deputy mentioned, in particular, the definition of a food business operator. The legislation we are dealing with - which is the consolidation of other legislation we referred to and which all came from the White Paper - also has another regulation, 2002/178, which sets down general principles of food law. Within that, various important aspects are defined. I draw the Deputy's attention to what is a food business operator. It means the natural and legal persons responsible for ensuring that the requirements of food law are met. A food business means any undertaking, whether for profit or not, whether public or private, carrying out any of the activities related to any stage of production, processing and distribution of food.

Deputy Howlin

So a cake sale for a local school is covered?

Ms Barry-Walsh

If I could go on to the second point?

Deputy Howlin

No, that is a question - just amplify it.

Ms Barry-Walsh

Yes, a food operator is anybody undertaking those activities. That is right.

Deputy Howlin

May I clarify this point? Ms Barry-Walsh is saying that if these regulations are introduced, any bazaar or hoop-la selling cakes or jams must register with the Department of Agriculture and Food as the competent authority.

Ms Barry-Walsh

The Deputy asked for the definition and that is why I gave it. As regards to whom it applies, Article 1 covers the scope of general hygiene and food law. The regulation does not apply to the primary production of foodstuffs for private domestic use and that is as it always was.

Deputy Howlin

For production?

Ms Barry-Walsh

For production, yes, and it is exactly the same for the domestic preparation of foodstuffs for private consumption. As regards the direct supply by the producer of small quantities of primary products to the final consumer or to local shops and restaurants, such operations shall be subject to national rules. This legislation was drawn up with flexibility in mind and all the artisans, as well as local geographic conditions, including remote areas, were taken into account. The Deputy asked me what the definition of food business operator is, but the regulation does not apply to that particular clause. The direct supply in a local area to shops shall be under national rules.

Deputy Howlin

What are the national rules?

Ms Barry-Walsh

National rules will be drawn up by the member state itself to deal with the particular circumstances, in this case, the local country markets to which the Deputy referred. In other words, the consumer will still be looked after by the sovereign state drawing up its own rules, taking into account whatever risks are involved in whatever is being sold at that local market. That is flexible.

Deputy Howlin

What are the national rules in question?

Ms Barry-Walsh

This legislation, including H1 and H2 - the whole package - eventually will be finalised, perhaps during the Irish Presidency of the EU. It will then be signed and it is envisaged that there will be a one-year phasing-in period. It may be longer or shorter but we have heard that one year is being discussed. We are not in a position to say because that decision will be made at a different place. People will then know that the legislation will apply following the phase-in period after the signing. At that stage, I imagine that governments who wish to apply to draw up national rules will have an opportunity to do so.

Chairman

The exemptions are explained on page 44.

Deputy Howlin

It has been explained that it is possible for us to have national rules and that European law will not apply to a domestic producer who is supplying directly to a consumer. Has the Department considered what national rules will apply to Ireland, or is it premature to ask that question?

Ms Barry-Walsh

It is premature.

Deputy Howlin

Basically, I want to know where we stand.

Ms Barry-Walsh

Yes. The existing situation is that those local markets will be dealt with by environmental health officers under the Department of Health and Children. If there is a change in that, so be it, but that Department would presumably look after that particular consideration.

Mr. O’Reilly

The important thing for Ireland, and certainly for the Department of Agriculture and Food, at these meetings was to ensure that the possibility for flexibility was built into the regulation. Once that is recognised in the regulation we can look at where we might extend that flexibility, but we have not actually examined the possibility of implementing national rules at this stage. For us, the important thing was to have flexibility built into the regulation.

Deputy Hogan

The less one puts down on paper, the better.

Mr. O’Reilly

That may be the case in point; that is exactly it. Otherwise it would have been prescriptive and would have applied across the board. Although I cannot put my hand on the provision right now, one-off occasions, such as bazaars or church fetes, do not really come under the full sway of these regulations. A food business operator is somebody who is providing such a business over a consistent period of time. While we would all like to ensure that hygiene prevails at charity and other one-off events, they do not come under these regulations.

Chairman

Are you speaking about Article 13.2, Mr. O'Reilly?

Mr. O’Reilly

I am sorry, Chairman.

Chairman

Perhaps we can come back to that later on. I call Deputy Callanan to make a contribution, followed by Deputy Lynch.

Deputy Lynch

Deputy Howlin asked the question that I intended to ask.

Chairman

Thank you, Deputy.

Deputy Callanan

Deputy Howlin also asked some of the questions I wanted to ask but I wish to develop them further. Are the existing guidelines on good practice national or EU? We would want to make that clear because many people say the severe regulations are national ones, not EU ones. At present, are all food interests in Ireland required to be registered? What arrangements are in place, or are required, to ensure that imported foods comply with the proposed regulations? Perhaps the witnesses can expand on those points. Deputy Howlin referred to fish markets but we also have country markets selling cabbages and other fresh vegetables which, the public would say, are the healthiest produce one can consume. The existing regulations - and I want to find out if they are national or EU ones - make it almost impossible for country markets to continue. The public is looking for this type of fresh produce to buy and consume.

The question of traceability of foreign frozen beef was raised earlier but what type of regulations apply in such cases? Breaking it down and being realistic about it, what types of tests take place on the beef? Can it be tested if it is frozen? I know it is easy enough to test fresh beef. It is not imported in small containers, but in reasonably large quantities. The delegation said that an importer may import foreign beef if he pays the tariff on it. I was not aware of that. In other words, he can import all the beef necessary for this country, provided he pays the tariff on it. I understood that only a certain percentage of beef could be imported. It is alarming to hear what was said today because some of that beef can be imported with very cheap tariffs and we are not sure if it is good. The public wishes to know very quickly what the situation is regarding beef.

What will the new restrictions mean to the farmer selling his produce at the farm gate? What extra restrictions will be there that are not there already? He is constricted by a great deal of red tape at the moment. The only element that I welcome in this matter is that there are four regulations covering about 24 which were in force previously. That represents a cutting back of red tape. I have another question on an area which the delegation touched on, animal health and veterinary products. The farmer currently administers the injection or dose to the animals himself. Will restrictions be imposed making that almost impossible? If so, does the delegation realise that it may cause the death of animals? If an animal is worth a certain amount and the veterinarian costs more——

Chairman

The Deputy has asked the question.

Mr. O’Reilly

I may be able to answer some of the Deputy's questions and my colleague can deal with others. There are some questions which we cannot answer because it is not our area. As I said, the idea behind these regulations was, on the one hand, to ensure consumer protection and, on the other, to provide flexibility for small producers and markets, as the Deputy said. The scope in subhead H1 provides the flexibility for markets to continue and for the producer to sell small quantities of produce directly to the final consumer. That type of operation does not come under these regulations and can continue. Large volume producers come under the regulations, but the idea is that small markets and local transactions are not included in its scope. Article 1 clarifies that.

I am not sure that there is a harmonised, co-ordinated set of guidelines and this regulation endeavours to lay the ground to have that at all levels of production so that guidelines are available to primary producers as well as food business operators coming under the regulations. The wherewithal is there for member states to produce national guidelines and that is a good thing.

Ireland is a producer of beef and has to export 90% of the beef that it produces, so it is ironic that we end up importing it. I mentioned that we must allow beef imports since that is required by the WTO. We cannot use beef labelling or the lack of traceability in other third countries to prevent beef imports. This is not my area, so perhaps I should not comment, but I will tell the Deputy as much as I can. We accept the veterinary certification of other countries regarding beef. I am not sure whether imported beef is tested regularly here. As with our beef going to other countries, we issue veterinary certification signed by the official veterinarian. It is a reciprocal arrangement for beef coming into the country. The important issue is that the consumer should be aware of where the beef is from, be it Brazil or Argentina, and not assume that it is all Irish. Ninety per cent of the time it will be Irish, but there is a possibility that it is from somewhere else.

Ms Barry-Walsh

I will pick up on some of those points. There may be some repetition. The Deputy asked if all food businesses were already registered. They are, and that goes back to what my colleague was saying. They are registered under 17 different directives. There are dairy farm registers, health board lists, Department of Agriculture and Food meat products lists and all sorts of lists. This is really consolidation and saying that they must be registered in two lines rather than having eight or nine directives dealing with them. In essence, there will not be a great deal of difference in who will be registered.

Perhaps I might give an example of how the guidelines are working. There have been guidelines for food safety management systems in circulation for quite some time. There are many reputable Irish research organisations, as well as UK ones which are used widely by many of our companies. There is also other current legislation dealing with the introduction of HACCP to slaughterhouses. Article 2 refers to good practice, which may be assessed by the competent authority. Teagasc has drawn up three guides dealing with the slaughter of lambs, pigs and cattle. They are an example of the guides to good practice, which will flourish. There will probably be more of them and they will be used by food business operators to assist them in drawing up and refining their own food safety management systems. When I refer to such a system, it is generally HACCP, the food safety management system that will be mandatory under this legislation and is already so under some existing legislation.

The Deputy referred to imports, which are obviously dealt with at the ports. A veterinary section other than our own veterinary public health section deals with it. There are particular border control veterinarians who work in ports in Dublin and other entry points. There are various criteria for importation, the first being that the exporter must apply and get what is called a vet 1 form for legal importation. Not every truck coming into a port is searched because no one has those resources. However, imports from third countries have to pass through what is called a border inspection post. Ninety per cent, or some other enormous amount, of imports into the European Union go through Rotterdam. If that import was meat, it would come with veterinary certification from the third country.

As Mr. O'Reilly said, there are agreements whereby the criteria for importation into third countries are already set out, taking into account WTO rules and animal and public health. This legislation also allows for that. The plants exporting meat to the European Union are on a list with the Commission. They are subject to audits carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office in the same way as our meat plants. It has an international team of people who go round the world doing that. I am not in a position to say with what frequency because I do not know. However, they are subject to and undergo audit. I understand that, if they breach the criteria on public health, they could be deleted from the list or have other sanctions applied against them in the same manner as a plant in a member state.

Deputy T. Dempsey

Deputy Howlin will testify that Wexford is a hospitable county. There has been a practice in the county where food is prepared and served to pensioners twice weekly, usually by women. Another practice is to provide food in community halls after funerals. That has been stopped under current regulations, yet in Spain cooked chicken is sold on beaches while burgers are sold from vans at Croke Park. How can that discrimination arise under current rules?

Mr. Walsh said lack of traceability does not prevent importation of beef. I will be meeting a group of Wexford farmers today who will tell me that meat is being imported from a large country - to be fair to the country concerned I will not name it - in part of which foot and mouth disease is prevalent. Can that happen under current legislation?

Deputy Wilkinson

I am also gravely concerned about non-EU imports and the question of traceability of beef and especially chicken. On a visit to central France a few years ago, we could see bread and meat being sold under canvas on the streets. Although I am not opposed to food hygiene restrictions, rules or guidelines, the different approaches to this issue by the EU member states amazes me. What will be the cost of these new regulations to the producer and the farmer in terms of red tape, paper work and the financial aspect?

Mr. O’Reilly

I am not sure I can answer the questions on the restrictions on food served to pensioners.

Deputy T. Dempsey

It is a non-profit exercise. The food is practically produced privately and domestically. It is almost equivalent to a neighbour dropping in for a cup of tea.

Mr. O’Reilly

I can only assume that a health board regulation is being invoked and I cannot elaborate on that. We believe that the H1 regulation, the hygiene of foodstuffs, provides flexibility for the type of scenario referred to by the Deputy. We were concerned to ensure that flexibility was built in and that the regulation was not entirely prescriptive by confining operators to comply with mandatory requirements.

The question of imports is difficult and is one we are trying to address. All we can do is work on the premise that the origin of the product is clearly made known to the final consumer. We have addressed that in terms of the beef labelling regulation. Ultimately, the consumer, the person in the supermarket or the shop, must know, or at least be assured of, the origin and traceability of the beef purchased. For that reason we have this year included it in the service contract with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The FSAI will in the near future establish a working group to look at the methods of ensuring compliance at that level. It applies equally to Irish produced and imported beef.

With regard to other meats, I do not consider I disclosed a State secret when I indicated that the Minister had formed a labelling group. I understand it reported last December and the Minister has essentially accepted the recommendations on origin and has established an inter-agency group involving all the Departments and agencies concerned to progress them. We are taking it very seriously and are addressing it.

Ms Barry-Walsh

Deputy Dempsey referred to imports from a country dealing with outbreaks of foot and mouth disease. This is a matter of regionalisation. Where countries have foot and mouth disease in a specific area that may pose no threat, they may, if possible, take advantage by exporting from clear areas. During the foot and mouth disease crisis in Ireland, I signed many certificates which specified that the meat and meat products or milk and milk products did not come from a particular area of the country. This procedure is accepted, subject to controls. A certificate of integrity is what is important.

Deputy Upton

I thank Mr. O'Reilly for the succinct presentation and hand-outs. I agree with these procedures because they consolidate what was a very diverse set of regulations and legislation. It is good to have them consolidated into four main parts. Virtually all my questions have already been raised, but there are one or two points I wish to mention. I understood that the implementation of HACCP was already a legal requirement in all food industries. It is regrettable that the primary producers are excluded from that. The delegation mentioned that an alternative may be put in place. It is important that there is a system which will be enforced because if we get it wrong at production level, it will not improve along the chain.

On the question of labelling and the importation of beef, there is no labelling at restaurants, where, for example, consumers do not know if they are buying Argentinean or Irish beef. I am aware of the document on labelling published in December 2002, which I welcome.

Mr. O’Reilly

The regulations require that all food businesses introduce a HACCP system. I am not sure it is an absolute legal requirement. In some areas the Department of Agriculture and Food has, in relation to meat product plants, required HACCP to be introduced and audits to take place, but this regulation provides for the introduction of HACCP on a formalised basis in food business operations. There was a lengthy discussion on whether it should be extended to primary producers, but the general opinion was that they should be exempt for the moment. However, annex 1 of H1 lays down general hygiene rules for primary producers, which is seen as the best arrangement at present for dealing with them.

Ms Barry-Walsh

It is provided for under the milk, mincemeat, meat products and environmental health legislation. My reference was to COM 2001/471, which is relatively new because it is only newly introduced regarding the slaughter of cattle, sheep and pigs. There was a year phase-in of the legislation so we consider it embryonic. It takes a while for the development of HACCP in a complex plant.

Mr. O’Reilly

The beef labelling regulations which exist in the EU apply only to the marketing of beef. It was not considered to be part of the core business of restaurants, hotels and mass catering so labelling did not apply. The French have unilaterally extended it to mass catering. One of the recommendations of the working group established by the Minister, which reported last December, was that labelling should be extended to mass catering. That is under consideration at present. It also recommended that labelling be extended to meat of all species. The extension of labelling to mass catering is being considered.

Deputy Howlin

Is chicken product from south east Asia being processed into food product in a member state, for example, chicken korma, and then becoming a European product?

Ms Barry-Walsh

There are two distinct issues, one is traceability and the other identification. If one imports a product legally, and the plant where the third country raw material is processed is a legitimate plant with its own health mark, it is entitled to cook it and put it in a can. Obviously, it puts on its own health mark for ease of administration, etc. Were that plant to be audited, it should be on the record that what went into it is, in fact, third country material. However, there is not yet a labelling requirement to specify the produce is either third country material or non-country material. The amount of ingredients in some of these processed goods is quite wide - there are many countries in the globe on them.

Chairman

I thank all those who contributed. The committee wants to send out a message in relation to future regulations being referred to it. These will only be considered after a regulatory impact assessment report is made available to us by the relevant Departments. These are very serious proposals before us this morning relating to what has been the backbone of the country for decades. I ask Mr. O'Reilly and Ms Barry-Walsh if it would be possible to come back to us in three or four weeks with a regulatory impact assessment in this regard. What makes me nervous, and concerns members of the committee, is that the Food Agency Co-operative Council was not consulted, on which the Department of Agriculture and Food, Teagasc, Bord Bia, Enterprise Ireland, Bord Iascaigh Mhara, An Bord Glas, Shannon Development, the IDA, FÁS, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and CERT are represented. This committee is the watch dog for consumers, including small and medium sized businesses. We are sending out this notice to all those who will come before us over the next four or four and a half years.

I thank the officials for coming here and I look forward to arranging a date for their return which will be convenient to the clerk and the officials. I hope they will be able to come back as soon as possible.