JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN SCRUTINY díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 12 Feb 2008

Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals: Discussion.

Chairman

It is proposed to note the following adopted proposals: COM (2007) 201, COM (2007) 441, COM (2007) 464, COM (2007) 713, COM (2007) 715, COM (2007) 742, COM (2007) 796 and COM (2007) 868. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the following proposals which do not require further scrutiny: COM (2007) 778, COM (2007) 151, COM (2007) 154, COM (2007) 245 and COM (2007) 268. Is that agreed? Agreed.

In regard to COM (2007) 325, it is recommended that this proposal does not warrant further scrutiny. However, it is proposed that the Department be requested to keep the committee updated on the outcome of the discussions on whether to amend or terminate the existing bilateral agreement with the US on foot of the new agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 366, COM (2007) 497, COM (2007) 623, COM (2007) 664, COM (2007) 665, COM (2007) 667, COM (2007) 677, COM (2007) 701, COM (2007) 705, COM (2007) 712, COM (2007) 718, COM (2007) 719, COM (2007) 736, COM (2007) 743, COM (2007) 753, COM (2007) 761, COM (2007) 768, COM (2007) 772 and COM (2007) 779. Is that agreed? Agreed.

On COM (2007) 783, given that the decision is already adopted and has no budgetary consequences for Ireland, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that the following proposals do not warrant further scrutiny: COM (2007) 802, COM (2007) 813, COM (2007) 818, COM (2007) 822, COM (2007) 834, COM (2007) 835, COM (2007) 837 and COM (2007) 838.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

We are looking at further scrutiny on genetically modified products. One of those proposals deals with the placing of feed produced from genetically modified products.

Chairman

Which proposal is that?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

COM (2007) 813. Although the briefing note indicates that this pulp would be produced mainly in Norway, Sweden and such countries and it is unlikely to be sold on the market in Ireland, I suggest that we deal with that proposal when we deal with the proposals set aside for further scrutiny.

Chairman

The Deputy refers to the proposal for a Council decision authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato and the adventitious technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Do you want scrutiny on that?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Yes, as we have already decided to have further scrutiny on two other aspects of genetically modified maize and something else. The briefing note indicates the reason we are examining that proposal is that Ireland has changed its position. I presume it is related to the debate on genetically modified maize.

Chairman

We will exclude that proposal and take it with the other file.

Deputy Joe Costello

This proposal is for potato pulp for paper use, not for feed.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The residue is used as animal feed.

Chairman

We can exclude that proposal from the agreement and include it in the file dealing with genetically modified products.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 838 does not warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is No. 3 where no further scrutiny is proposed. It will be sent to committees for information.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 37 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information and that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment should keep the committee informed of any developments on the cost of the national administrations. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 194 and COM (2007) 292 do not warrant further scrutiny but should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

COM (2007) 303 does not warrant further scrutiny but in view of the anticipated benefits to the Irish consumer of the proposed directive and the need to revoke or amend the secondary legislation, it is recommended that the proposal be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information and that the Department be asked to keep the committee informed of all important developments. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 340 does not warrant further scrutiny, but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 510 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the adopted measures and note that COM (2007) 560 does not warrant further scrutiny but given the objective of improving the level of safety for all vulnerable road users, this proposal should be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Transport for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 560 does not warrant further scrutiny, but in view of the significance of these measures and the likelihood that new legislation would be required to transpose this framework decision into domestic law, it is recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the adopted measure COM (2007) 710, but given the Department's concerns about the cost for producers, it is recommended that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed that COM (2007) 748 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Communications, Energy and Natural Resources. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 751 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is proposed to note the adopted measure COM (2007) 759 and to forward it to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Given that the decision on COM (2007) 786 has already been adopted, it is proposed that it does not warrant further scrutiny. However, given the implications of this decision for the Exchequer, it is also proposed to forward it to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 787, COM (2007) 788, COM (2007) 789, COM (2007) 790, COM (2007) 792, COM (2007) 793 and COM (2007) 797 do not warrant further scrutiny but that they be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

It is recommended that COM (2007) 857 does not warrant further scrutiny but that it be forwarded to the Joint Committee on Enterprise, Trade and Employment, the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for information. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is No. 4, CFSP measures. It is proposed to note CFSP (2007) 720, CFSP (2007) 749, CFSP (2007) 750, CFSP (2007) 760, CFSP (2007) 788, CFSP (2007) 805 and CFSP (2007) 806, CFSP (2007) 807, CFSP (2007) 809, CFSP (2007) 871, CFSP (2007) 887 and CFSP (2007) 38. Is that agreed? Agreed. There are no Title IV measures.

It is proposed that the early warning measures, EWN: L 312/12, EWN: L 320/23, EWN: 2006 C 67/05, EWN: 2007 C 308/07, EWN: 2007 C 192/12, EWN: L 337/42, EWN: 2008 C4/08 and EWN: 2008 C7/12 do not currently warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item is No. 7, which I must read into the record. COM (2007) 637 is a proposal for a directive of the Council on the conditions of entry and residence of third country nationals for the purpose of highly qualified employment. COM (2007) 638 is a proposal for a Council directive on a single application procedure for a single permit for third country nationals to reside and work in the territory of a members state and a common set of rights for third country workers legally residing in a member state. These proposals are regarded as a major initiative launched by the Commission on 23 October 2007 as part of EU efforts to develop a comprehensive emigration policy. These are properly known as the EU blue card system. The ultimate aim of the proposals is to make the EU an attractive labour market for highly-qualified workers from third countries who, at the moment, prefer to emigrate to locations such as Canada and the USA.

The proposed directive COM (2007) 637 would establish a fast-track procedure for the admission of highly-qualified, third-country workers, based on a common definition and criteria, namely, work contract, professional qualifications and a salary above a minimum level set at national level. Workers admitted will be issued a residence permit — the EU blue card — allowing them to work. This permit will endow on them and their families a series of rights, including favourable conditions for family reunification. The proposal also includes the possibility for an EU blue card holder to move to a second member state for work under certain conditions and after two years of legal residence in the first member state. Control on the numbers who are admitted will remain at the discretion of the member state.

The proposed directive COM (2007) 638 provides for a single application procedure for third-country nationals seeking to enter a member state. If granted, the permit to stay and work should be issued in a single act. There is a general obligation on member states to provide for a one-stop-shop system and to comply with certain safeguards and standards when handling an application. The proposal would also grant rights to third-country nationals legally working in a member state by defining particular employment-related fields where equal treatment should be provided in the case of own nationals. Equal treatment with own nationals would, in principle, apply to all third-country workers legally residing and not yet holding long-term resident status.

With regard to the proposed directive COM (2007) 637 on the EU blue card, the Department indicates that Ireland already has a national policy and schemes for attracting highly-skilled workers from outside the EU, tailored to the particular characteristics and conditions of the Irish economy. However, while the proposal aims to supplement national measures, it envisages granting rights which are not currently available to migrant workers residing in Ireland.

On the proposed directive COM (2007) 638, the Department indicates that Ireland currently operates on the basis of separate permits for residence — Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform — and access to employment — Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment. Moving to a single process, or one-stop-shop system, and a single permit both for residence and employment as envisaged in the proposal, would require a different approach in Ireland. This suggests that the system proposed by the draft directive would result in a major reform of Ireland's residence-work permit system for migrant workers. In addition, the Department indicates that while some of the common rights for third-country workers envisaged in the proposal are already in place in Ireland, in other instances the proposed rights are greater than those currently afforded by Ireland to third-country workers. These proposed directives fall under Title IV of the treaty establishing the European Community, TEC. Therefore, Ireland's opt-in protocol applies meaning that Ireland retains the right to opt-in or opt-out of these directives.

It is also worth noting that a draft directive proposed by the Commission in 2001, on the conditions of entry and residence of third-country nationals for the purpose of paid employment and self-employment economic activities, was withdrawn in 2006 as it was not possible to find agreement on it within the European Council. Ireland was one of the member states to oppose this draft directive. ICTU has been critical of the Government's position, along with a number of other member states, in blocking EU measures aimed at improving employment rights and conditions of migrant workers in Ireland. On the other hand, IBEC is in favour of retaining a more flexible approach to labour market policy on migrant workers.

Given that this EU initiative could have major implications for how Ireland manages its labour market as regards migrant workers from third countries, and given the concerns raised by the Department and the views of some social partners, it is recommended that these proposals, taken together, warrant further scrutiny. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Terry Leyden

This is a very important issue. When will we get results or returns from the Departments and interested parties? Does the Chairman expect to take evidence in that regard?

Chairman

In four weeks. It is also recommended that to assist the committee in its detailed examination of the proposal, the following will be invited to attend to offer their views and highlight their concerns: the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform; the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment; ICTU; and IBEC. They will be invited to attend within four weeks. Are there any other proposals?

Senator Terry Leyden

Has the unemployment group gone out of business due to the fact Fianna Fáil policy has been so successful? Has it become obsolete? Has it been abolished?

Chairman

I am totally apolitical in this job. I could not comment on that.

Deputy Joe Costello

The unemployment action group, which is quite active, could be invited along. There is no unemployment west of the Shannon.

Chairman

Is that agreed?

Senator Terry Leyden

I have no objection. I thought it was abolished due to the success of the economy.

Chairman

It might be reactivated.

Senator Terry Leyden

We could always ignite it.

Chairman

Seriously, does Senator——

Senator Terry Leyden

I have no objection.

Deputy Joe Costello

There is another aspect to this. There is quite a large number of people in this country who are highly qualified and seeking asylum. This makes provision for conditions in respect of entry, residence and so on. We need to ask the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform about the existing pool of people who are highly qualified and who are among the 6,000 or 7,000 people whose applications have not been processed, whether the provisions of this directive could be extended and what type of amendments might be required in that respect.

Chairman

There are many people with expertise in the granting of visas and residency permits in the Department.

Deputy Joe Costello

We could let the Department know this is a matter on which we would like clarification.

Chairman

Somebody from Davitt House would deal with the granting of visas.

Deputy Joe Costello

It would be a great way to speed up the processing of some of these asylum applications.

Chairman

That is a very good point because as it stands, people must leave the country to get a permit and get their passport stamped.

Deputy Joe Costello

They can only do this from outside the country.

Chairman

That is a big problem at present.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

Would it be useful to invite somebody from the Immigrant Council of Ireland because it deals with these visa issues all the time? I may have missed it but perhaps we might invite somebody from the business sector.

Chairman

IBEC will come in. We can certainly invite the Immigrant Council of Ireland.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

It has certain expertise.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

In the same vein, another group we might invite is the migrant rights centre which does much work with migrants here and their rights to work. It might have the expertise needed to clarify some of the issues.

Chairman

Is it based in Dublin?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Yes. I do not know if it is as active as it used to be but another organisation I mention is Emigrant Advice which was part of the Catholic Church group that worked with Irish immigrants abroad and which has now taken on a greater role in regard to migrants here. It was tied to the Pro-Cathedral.

Chairman

It would be a mistake to invite in too many people. Which group is the Deputy's preferred choice?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

The migrant rights centre.

Chairman

I am conscious that meetings do not go on too long and that they are tightly focused. If there are more than five groups, we would need two sessions.

Deputy Joe Costello

Essentially, it relates to those in highly-qualified employment.

Chairman

I presume that would include doctors.

Deputy Joe Costello

Yes, and those involved in the high-tech sector and so on. The majority of people with work permits who come to Ireland seeking employment are brought in by recruitment agencies. As far as I am aware, the activities of such agencies are not regulated.

Chairman

That is a good point.

Deputy Joe Costello

Is there a body that represents the recruitment agencies? If there is, we could invite its representatives to come before us to explain how the agencies operate. The latter, are after all, responsible for bringing the people to whom I refer into the country.

Chairman

Yes, the agencies do all that.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am not sure whether there is a representative body. Perhaps the trade union movement or IBEC might provide assistance in order that we might discover how these bodies that recruit people for employment in Ireland operate.

Chairman

It is important to have as many players as possible involved in the debate on this matter. I refer here to unemployment action groups, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and recruitment companies, which match people up with employers. We will draw up a proposal for our next meeting based on the wishes members have expressed here. We will include as many groups as possible. However, I am conscious of the time constraints that apply. If we invite eight witnesses to appear, we would be obliged to hold two sessions. We will keep matters as tight as possible. If it is acceptable to members, we will invite as many relevant groups as possible to come before us so that every aspect will be covered.

COM (2007) 814 is a proposal for a Council decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council. COM (2007) 815 is a proposal for a Council decision authorising the placing on the market of products containing, consisting of or produced from genetically modified maize, pursuant to Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council. COM (2007) 813 is a proposal for a Council decision authorising the placing on the market of feed produced from the genetically modified potato — EH92-527-1 — and the adventitious or technically unavoidable presence of the potato in food and other feed products under Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

The Department indicates that these three proposals are of some significance. It states that the decisions, if they receive a favourable opinion from Council, will permit the marketing of products containing, consisting of or produced from both genetically modified maizes for food, feed and the same uses as any other maize, except cultivation, within the EU. The proposals are not specific to Ireland.

The committee agreed on 22 January to further scrutinise two proposals relating to genetically modified organisms by inviting the following to appear before the committee: the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. In view of ongoing concerns at political and public level relating to the use of genetically modified organisms, and in view of Ireland's change in position, it is recommended that these proposals warrant further scrutiny and that they be included in the agenda for the meeting at which the two earlier GM proposals are scrutinised. Is that agreed?

Senator Terry Leyden

This is an important issue. What is Ireland's changed position? The position was that Ireland did not favour genetically modified crops. I have an organic farm and I do not use GM foodstuffs or products. To retain an appropriate organic trademark, one does not deal in GM foods. Monsanto is a multinational company, which wants every country to use its genetically modified seeds and to establish a monopoly in this regard. We will never get through this business if evidence must be taken from the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children, the EPA and the FSAI. Written submissions could be made by the Departments to outline their positions but I would like to hear from the EPA and the FSAI.

Chairman

The programme for Government states Ireland should be GM-free. The Department says that Ireland has, in the past, taken a "positive but precautionary" position on GMOs, voting in favour of proposals where it is indicated on a sound scientific basis that the products under consideration pose no danger to human health, animal health and the environment. However, since the Government came into office, and the subsequent reference to seeking "the establishment of an All-Ireland GM-free zone" in the programme for Government, our position has changed to abstention from voting on GM issues, citing political reasons for the change.

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the involvement of the Green Party, which has bolstered my view, as a Fianna Fáil member, that Ireland should be GM-free.

Chairman

That is the position.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I have no problem with the Departments attending but since this involves a political change, would it be appropriate to invite a Minister to appear to explain the change and why the position has only changed to abstention rather than opposition considering the statement in the programme for Government? We are either opposed to it or in favour of it because abstention will not resolve the issue. A Minister should attend so that he or she can be challenged on why the Government will not go as far as it stated in its programme.

Chairman

We can invite a Minister but it was agreed on 22 January that we would invite the Departments of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Health and Children, the EPA and the FSAI. Which Minister would the Deputy prefer to attend?

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I presume the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Chairman

We should invite departmental officials to appear first, followed by a Minister.

Deputy Damien English

It might be sufficient to only invite a Minister rather than bringing in all the Departments.

Chairman

I will be guided by the committee.

Senator Terry Leyden

Based on our work programme, we will have to sit every day.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

It would be advisable to invite departmental representatives to appear so that we can ask questions. A written statement will not be adequate because this is an extremely important debate.

Organic farming is welcome and generates profit, because of the exorbitant price charged for organic produce. However, there is a looming food shortage in the European Union. Food security and supply is an important issue. We must take a mature approach to this matter and I would like to discuss it at this Oireachtas joint committee. This is not a Government committee. We have every right to scrutinise the programme for Government and Government policy on this matter. We are not here merely to agree and implement, but to scrutinise and ask questions. I would like to see the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other Ministers or representatives of their Departments.

Chairman

On 22 January last, it was agreed to invite representatives of three Departments, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Deputy Joe Costello

If we made the agreement we should adhere to it. However, we should revise the mechanism by which we make such arrangements. There will be considerable overlap between Departments. It should all relate to a particular political decision and we would require clarification on the matter.

Chairman

After departmental officials have spoken to the committee we may decide to invite the Minister to discuss the question of the change in Government policy and the abstention matter raised by Deputy Ó Snodaigh.

Senator Terry Leyden

I agree with Deputy Creighton that we have the right to scrutinise Government actions. This is not a matter of protecting a Minister from scrutiny by this committee. However, I am concerned with the question of time. I would be happy to see the entire Cabinet coming here to discuss the changes in policy, which I welcome. However, may I clarify a point slipped in by Deputy Creighton regarding the cost of organic food? The costs of producing organic beef and sheepmeat and of maintaining an organic farm are very high. The returns do not meet the costs of production. The value added by supermarkets and stores is greater than what producers are paid for their produce.

Chairman

That is an important debate. We will not go down that road.

Senator Terry Leyden

The effort needed to raise cattle or sheep organically—

Chairman

That is a matter for another committee.

Senator Terry Leyden

Deputy Creighton slipped in the point that we organic farmers are ripping off the system. We are not.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I did not simply slip in the point. I was making a very valid point. We must address the challenges of high food costs. I am not particularly interested in the programme for Government as a fait accompli. It is an evolving process. If we are to face up to our challenges, in this country and in Europe as a whole, we must consider genetically modified foods.

Chairman

All those issues can be discussed.

Senator Terry Leyden

The cost of producing organic foods are very high.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

GM foods reduce that cost, critically.

Senator Terry Leyden

They might shorten your life.

Chairman

Those questions can be put to the witnesses.

Deputy Joe Costello

Following on the point raised by Senator Leyden that we should get a proper view of the situation, I suggest that we speak to a representative from the organic side of the argument.

Deputy Damien English

Senator Leyden.

Deputy Joe Costello

Senator Leyden may well be that representative. The farming community and representatives of the various farming organisations have strong opinions on this issue. It is one thing to invite the institutional side — the Departments — and another to bring in representatives of the industry itself, including producers. They have a major say because they are the people who have the farms and are involved in production. To what extent can we reflect their views and give them a platform? Producers, whether they are organic or mainstream farmers, have strong views on genetically modified foods.

Chairman

It is important to bring in the key players. It would be useful to speak to spokespersons for organic producers and farming organisations. It would be a mistake to exclude them.

Senator Terry Leyden

That is a worthwhile proposal. We could short circuit the situation by having them all in on the same day.

Chairman

Yes.

Senator Terry Leyden

It would be better to meet them all on the one day rather than separately. The issue could be debated within a specified timeframe with no long presentations.

Deputy Joe Costello

We could have a short debate on the matter.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I agree with that suggestion.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

Perhaps we could ask the delegations to forward the briefing documents to the joint committee in advance of the meeting. This would enable us to frame our questions prior to the meeting. Departmental officials have prepared briefs for Ministers in the past and it should be relatively easy for them to do this.

Senator Terry Leyden

There are a few organic organisations involved. We may have to invite them all in. One of them is located in Moate.

Chairman

I am advised we can meet with up to eight groups during a three-hour meeting. We could split them into two groups and meet with each group for an hour and a half. Is that acceptable?

Deputy Joe Costello

Perhaps we could take up the proposal made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh to request briefing documents from the organisations prior to the meeting. Each organisation could be given five minutes within which to make a further briefing to the committee. This would allow them to make salient points and to respond to members' questions.

Chairman

Would Deputy Costello prefer a shorter meeting?

Deputy Joe Costello

I would prefer if the joint committee were to meet with a greater number of delegations for shorter periods. We could bring all the organisations together around the table and they could listen to what each other has to say.

Chairman

Members would also have to make shorter contributions.

Deputy Damien English

Following on from what Deputy Costello said, we often receive presentations prior to meetings but the delegations read them at the beginning of the meeting and this wastes time. Organisations that forward their presentations to the joint committee prior to a meeting should not be required to make a further presentation but should engage only in a question and answer session.

Chairman

That is true. It is better to have interaction.

Deputy Damien English

There should be no presentations.

Chairman

Organisations wishing to make a presentation could be allowed to give a summary of the key points. In fairness, we must allow them the courtesy of making some presentation.

Deputy Joe Costello

We could give them a page. The previous Taoiseach always had a page.

Senator Terry Leyden

The committee has received a submission from Good Food Ireland which is also interested in meeting with it.

Chairman

We can request that the organisations make brief submissions to the joint committee following which we will focus on members' questions. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Category 8 concerns proposals for forwarding to sectoral committees for observations to be returned to this committee within four weeks, or six weeks at the latest. COM (2007) 670, COM (2007) 671, COM (2007) 672 and COM (2007) 673 form a package of proposals for the reform of the regulatory environment on food additives, food flavourings and food enzymes. The Commission is proposing that existing legislation be simplified and streamlined through greater use of the comitology process. The intent of the proposal is to ensure a high level of public health protection and to help build confidence in the safety of food enzymes, food additives and food flavourings. For industry, the new rules proposed in this regulation for authorisations of the substances concerned will enable operators to avail of clear, transparent, effective and fast procedures for submitting a single authorisation application.

These regulations will have to be transposed into domestic law. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, as the competent authority in Ireland for enforcement of and compliance with food safety legislation, will be responsible for the enforcement of any new legislation. In view of the potential of these proposed measures to impact on the important food sector, it is proposed that these proposals be scrutinised in greater detail. Therefore, it is proposed to forward the proposal to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for written observations to be returned to this committee within four weeks of the date sent and within six weeks at the latest.

We have invited several representatives to present to the committee at 1 p.m. We should conclude at 2.15 p.m. or 2.20 p.m. at the latest.

Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 1.05 p.m.

Chairman

Before we start, I would like to deal with COM (2007) 36, a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council on the continued use of genetically modified micro-organisms. It will be included in the agenda for our next meeting in two weeks as it was omitted for the last meeting. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The next item on the agenda is a discussion of COM (2007) 90, a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and the Council amending Regulation No. 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions in the implementation of Article 79(3) of the treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs. On behalf of the joint committee, I welcome Mr. David Maguire, assistant principal officer, from the food unit at the Department of Health and Children; Ms Siobhán McEvoy, acting chief environmental officer, from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; Mr. Joe Shortall, principal officer, and Mr. David Lynch, senior veterinary inspector, from the same Department. From the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, I welcome Mr. Jeffrey Moon, chief specialist in environmental health, and Dr. Lisa O'Connor, senior technical executive. Mr. Peter Ward is chairman of the TASTE Council, while Ms Una Fitzgibbon is director of marketing services at Bord Bia. Ms Margaret Jeffares is managing director of Good Food Ireland, while Mr. Kevin Sheridan is a member of that body.

I draw attention to the fact that while members of the committee have absolute privilege, the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. There will be a five minute presentation by each of the representatives, which will be followed by questions and answers. I call on Mr. Maguire to make his presentation.

Mr. David Maguire

I thank the joint committee for giving me the opportunity to make a presentation on this issue. Policy matters on food safety and hygiene fall within the remit of the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Representatives of both Departments are present. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, is the competent authority charged with enforcing food safety legislation and is also represented.

I understand the committee wishes to focus upon the section of the proposal relating to conditions, rather than transport. At a meeting of EU food attachés on 29 October 2007 neither this proposal nor a compromise text was accepted. However, an amended version of the proposal was adopted by the European Parliament. With the Chairman's agreement, I propose to outline the main points of the regulation, the background to the proposal, Ireland's position on it and the current situation. I will then hand over to Dr. Jeffrey Moon of the FSAI who will speak on the technical issues in regard to this proposal.

Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs is one part of the five-part EU legislation "hygiene package". It was introduced in January 2006, its main aim being to ensure a higher level of protection for the food consumer. It requires food business operators to put in place, implement and maintain a permanent procedure based on hazard analysis and critical control point, HACCP, principles. This involves analysing all potential hazards, identifying critical control points, establishing a critical limit for each point, and monitoring, correcting, verifying and maintaining records.

In developing this legislation, consideration was given to the ability of businesses, large and small, to put in place the measures necessary to implement this legislation. The regulation allows for flexibility in regard to compliance with the HACCP requirement. This arrangement is generally referred to as HACCP flexibility. It accepts that, in food businesses undertaking low-risk activities, the prerequisite hygiene requirements are sufficient to control food safety without the need to develop a full HACCP-based system. In addition, the regulation allows for businesses to follow recognised guides to good practice where typical hazards and controls have been identified.

In November 2006, the Commission presented a proposal, entitled Strategic Review of Better Regulation in the European Union, which included a proposal to reduce the administrative burdens on businesses by 25% by 2012 and listed 10 "fast track actions" aimed at accomplishing this. One of these action proposals relates to Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004. The proposal sought to exempt micro-enterprises from the HACCP principles. This was proposed on the understanding that the enterprise would implement all other provisions of the regulation. This proposal was designed to apply to micro-enterprises that are predominantly selling food directly to the final consumer. "Micro-enterprises" were defined in the proposal as having less than ten employees and an annual turnover or annual balance sheet total that does not exceed €2 million. The proposal was examined by a Council working group on a number of occasions.

The Department of Health and Children, following consultation with the FSAI and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, outlined its opposition to the proposed changes to the European Commission as follows. First, the system proposed would not be risk-based and there may be a danger of some companies dividing into smaller companies to avoid being subject to HACCP. Second, a micro-enterprise is defined as an enterprise with an annual turnover not exceeding €2 million and that employs fewer than ten persons. Many Irish owner-manager retail and food service establishments will fall into this category. Thus, if the proposal is adopted, HACCP will no longer be necessary in many food businesses producing and preparing categories of food that have previously been demonstrated to be potential risks to health. Third, the proposal is not consistent with the general objectives and principles of food law in the attainment of a high level of protection of human life and health and the protection of consumer interests. Fourth, the regulation already includes flexibility provisions for smaller businesses which have facilitated the practical application of workable food safety management systems by food business operators. These provisions permit the adaptation of a generic guide and so forth. Fifth, the proposal is possibly premature given that these provisions have only been in effect since January 2006. Sixth, the Codex Alimentarius recognises the HACCP system as the most desirable means for controlling food safety in food businesses.

Almost all other member states expressed opposition to the proposal for similar reasons. The Presidency proposed a range of amendments, none of which was acceptable to the majority of member states. At a meeting of attachés on 29 October 2007, the proposal was rejected. An amended version of this proposal was adopted by the Environment Committee of the European Parliament in January of this year. Ireland retains its concerns about this proposal and has this week arranged to notify these concerns to Irish MEPs for their information.

I will now hand over to Dr. Jeffrey Moon of the FSAI who will speak on the technical issues in regard to this proposal. Following this, we will be pleased to address any questions members may wish to raise.

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

I thank the committee for the opportunity to present on this matter. The hazard analysis and critical control point concept is the international standard for establishing food safety management systems in all food businesses. The system allows for a proactive, risk-based approach to identifying and controlling hazards to ensure food safety and protection of consumers' health. The HACCP system is now the foundation stone of ensuring food safety is an integral part of food processing and marketing. The system is recommended by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and international standard setting bodies such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission, an intergovernmental body of the United Nations.

With the support of Ireland, the concept of the HACCP system has been the basis of European food safety legislation since 1993. We have many examples of where the absence of a risk based approach to ensuring food safety puts consumers at risk. This was memorably demonstrated in 1996 when 18 people died and more than 400 became ill in Scotland due to an outbreak of e.coli 0157 associated with products from a butcher's shop. The United Kingdom Government report on the outbreak recommended the adoption of the HACCP system by all food businesses as a means to ensure food safety and prevent a recurrence of this type.

The principles of the HACCP system were included in the revised European food hygiene regulations in 2004. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland fully supported this measure. Within these new provisions, flexibility is provided in how food businesses can meet the HACCP system objectives. In 2005 the European Commission issued guidance on HACCP flexibility, particularly in respect of small businesses. The guidelines advocated a risk based approach to implementation of the principles of the HACCP system and did not advocate the systematic application of a formal system in all cases. This is consistent with the approach taken in Ireland thus far. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland considers this the way forward and has produced a guidance note for enforcement officers to facilitate this flexibility.

The European Commission proposal to exempt micro-enterprises from the HACCP requirement in Regulation 852/2004 is part of a strategy to reduce the administrative burdens on businesses by 25% by 2012. We understand the enterprises in question will be defined as those employing fewer than ten people and with an annual turnover of less than €2 million. This definition of micro-enterprises would include many of our small owner-manager retail and food service establishments, as well as artisan manufacturers and many small food manufactures. Hence, if this proposal is adopted, the HACCP system will no longer be necessary in many food businesses producing and preparing categories of food that have been consistently demonstrated around the world to pose risks to consumers' health. At retail and catering level many of these businesses are identified as high risk by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. A total of 37 closure orders were issued under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act in 2007 and many of these food businesses would be classed as micro-enterprises, including manufacturers, retailers and caterers. Closure orders are issued to food businesses on the basis that they pose an immediate danger to human health.

European food regulations place the onus of producing safe food onto food business operators. These operators should be aware of the risks associated with their activities and take measures to ensure the food they produce is safe. The way in which the proposal has been worded places extra responsibilities on the competent authorities to assess the activities of each food business and prove that a food safety management system is required, which is against the intent of the framework regulations.

In the last few years the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has worked closely with the food industry in implementing a HACCP strategy designed to assist food business operators in meeting the obligation to have systems based on the HACCP system in place. This strategy has targeted high risk operations and has been successful in increasing the level of compliance. For example, in large hotels the level of compliance improved from 23% to 45%, among butchers from 27% to 48% and in nursing homes from 22% to 60%. Of those businesses not deemed compliant, the majority had commenced compliance at the time of assessment and have been followed up on an individual basis.

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland has developed a range of support material to assist catering businesses in developing a HACCP based system in a stepwise fashion. Food business sectors have also been active in developing Irish standards for the catering and retail sector, IS 340 and IS 341, which provide food business operators with a guide to compliance with the food hygiene requirements, taking into consideration the flexibility offered by the existing regulations.

In summary, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland does not support the current proposal by the European Commission to amend Regulation No. 852/2004 and considers it to be a backward step. The HACCP flexibility provisions for smaller businesses provided for by the wording of the current regulation facilitate the practical application of food safety management systems based on a risk assessment approach and provide the best system for the protection of consumers' health, while achieving a reduction in the administrative burden on small food businesses through consistent enforcement.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Moon and call Mr. Peter Ward of the TASTE Council.

Mr. Peter Ward

A Chathaoirligh, a Theachtaí Dála agus a Sheanadóirí, Dia dhaoibh agus go raibh míle maith agaibh as ucht an cuireadh chun teacht anseo inniu agus labhairt mar gheall ar an riail seo.

Sa gcéad dul síos, tá sé fíor-thábhachtach dúinn go mbeimid ar an intinn chéanna ar an riail seo. Tugann sé seans iontach dúinn fás agus forbairt na gcruthaí beaga bia a cothú agus béim mór a chur ar beatha agus sláinte ár gcustaiméirí.

I will introduce myself and the TASTE Council. The council is an industry group set up by the then Minister, Mr. Joe Walsh, to represent and promote all aspects of the Irish traditional and artisan sector. It includes members such as Ms Darina Allen, Mr. John McKenna, Mr. Kevin Sheridan, Mr. Ross Lewis and Mr. Raymond O'Rourke, a European food lawyer, as well as other food writers, journalists and producers. Its members see it as a parliament of food supported by Bord Bia. It feeds strategy to Bord Bia and works closely with the board and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to influence the implementation of Government strategy. The council has made submissions before the Oireachtas previously in respect of the case for better regulation of Irish artisan and speciality food. Moreover, in recent years we have been in a position to respond to all Government calls for consultation in respect of food. Our responses have been well accepted in all areas and we have worked closely with the FSAI in the past.

As for my own business, I have been a food practitioner for 25 years. I am a volunteer chairman of the TASTE Council, I am based in Nenagh, County Tipperary, and have extensive industry experience in Ireland and abroad.

This sector is very important for us. We consider the artisan and traditional food sector in Ireland to be the flagship of the food industry. What it lacks in volumes, it makes up in importance. We refer to it as the food for the ambassador's table and believe it must be protected, fostered and encouraged at every level, if an innovative and exciting food culture, comparable with those in Spain, France or Italy, is to be developed in Ireland.

We are acutely aware of the importance of food hygiene. It is critical and not an area of compromise for any of our businesses. It probably constitutes the most important aspect of policing in our business. In recent years, however, a number of our members and associated organisations have experienced considerable difficulties with the implementation of the HACCP system and, possibly, the variation in the implementation of HACCP systems in different industries and geographic locations nationwide. This is a matter of great concern. Consequently, the introduction of flexibility and a derogation in the proposed legislation constitutes a very exciting moment for the council. We envisage tremendous possibilities if the measure is treated carefully and properly by us and the statutory bodies. We are pleased that Ireland's former Commissioner, Mr. David Byrne, fostered this legislation. I wish to quote him to give members a sample of the sentiments he was expressing while fostering this legislation in the European Parliament. We can then consider whether we are joining him today in the expression of those sentiments. He said:

I am particularly grateful that the need for flexibility has been ... endorsed [in these new food hygiene rules]. Throughout the Union, there are longstanding cultural traditions with regard to food and food preparation that I am keen to protect and encourage. [This is a particularly important point for us]. Producers of such traditional food[s] make an enormous contribution to our cultural diversity, through enabling us to enjoy a wide variety of food and flavours. The rules on food hygiene agreed today are flexible enough to ensure that these traditions are preserved.

The word "tradition" is extremely important to us. He also intended this derogation for flexibility to cover artisanal and traditional foods.

We urge the committee to carefully consider this issue and request that the Irish interpretation of this rule specify the need for a derogation to cover artisanal and traditional produce. The Commission recommendation refers to micro-enterprises with a turnover of less than €2 million. Flexibility would allow these businesses to utilise good hygiene practices rather than the HACCP system provided that food safety was not undermined. Such a derogation would maintain the standard but simplify the system for very small food businesses. The rule that applies to a scone maker who supplies a farmers' market in Ireland also applies to the owner of the AIBP meat plant in Nenagh or a 40,000 sq. ft. Tesco store. The spirit of Mr. Byrne's comments presents us with a mechanism to reconsider the issue.

We view this legislation as the basis for collaboration between enforcer and producer in order that a win can be achieved for the small artisan and the traditional food industry. Competitiveness would benefit from high standards and true simplification of business processes. If one of my customers has an idea to start a table-top food business but, because of prohibitive entry costs, cannot even prototype his or her product, the legislation in that instance is anti-competitive in that it does not provide a level playing field for the small operator trying to compete with established producers. Derogations for micro-food enterprises would assist small producers who sell directly to consumers at the farm gate, farmers' markets and in independent delicatessens and restaurants.

I wish to speak about new food supply systems in the Ireland of the future. Are we happy to let four or five major supermarket groups and a similar number of meat factories be the key suppliers of food to the nation? Should we not give consumers some mechanism to engage with producer-farmers? In regard to the 10,000 to 12,000 farmers working in Leinster, do we not have an obligation to devise a mechanism which would allow the 1 million people living in the greater Dublin area to access seasonal, regional and local products without always being at the mercy of large supermarket groups? They could pass the supermarkets along the M50 as they travel to the countryside to make their purchases at the farm gate. This legislation will enable such practices, with good economic results for producers and competitive purchasing for consumers.

Flexibility for artisanal and traditional food producers needs to be related to the use of HACCP procedures and the structural requirements of food establishments. This is of paramount importance to, for example, cheese makers and fish smokers. I could develop a unique product by coating the inside of my fish smoking room with oak, whereas I would not if I coated it with stainless steel. If we were to tell every winemaker in France that we require them to use stainless steel because we are worried about oak shards appearing in the wine and damaging something, how would they reply? We are seeking similar flexibility for our unique products, in particular those made along traditional lines.

I cannot emphasise enough the importance of structure. It causes problems for very small businesses when an inspector arrives and asks for an investment of €100,000 for a producer who might make an income from a microproduct of €200 per week from farmers' or country markets. We need to be very careful to ensure that the derogation on flexibility does not compromise food safety at any level.

Foods with traditional characteristics may be exempt from HACCP procedures once the Commission is notified. This is of tremendous benefit to countries such as France, Italy, Greece and Spain. They have a large number of traditional foods they have formally protected under the protected denomination of origin and protected geographical indication schemes, the PDO-PGI schemes, such as Parma ham or Milano salami. Regrettably, Ireland only has a handful of PDO products — maybe three. It is an area we have not exploited to anything like the same extent as have our European partners for the protection of their traditional foods. I do not know why that is the case but the TASTE Council, with the assistance of Bord Bia, is preparing a strategy that aims to enhance the number of PDO-PGI products in Ireland. For example, Carrageen moss, collected all around the coast of Ireland and produced to a specification enabling us to get a particular European registration, black puddings made with fresh blood as opposed to dried, white soda cakes or stoneground oatmeal could all qualify for a special derogation under PDO-PGI. The mechanism was presented to us by the EU but we have not taken advantage of it, though it is not too late.

Mr. Moon mentioned the FSAI guidance notes. While we welcome guidance notes to support food safety we advocate that there be no confusion between the legal requirements and the guidelines. As I mentioned, we do not advocate undermining food hygiene safety but we demand that food producers are not hindered by an incorrect interpretation of the law. I will give one brief example. An EU regulation, in what has become a contentious issue in farmers' markets all over Ireland, states that an adequate supply of hot and-or cold water is mandatory at a food stall. The FSAI guidebook notes classify food stalls as falling into three categories, such as medium-risk or high-risk and so on. Depending on which category a foodstall is in, it is necessary to have washbasins, hand-drying facilities and instantaneous hot and cold water at a farmers' market. That is completely different from the European legislation. If members have visited a hospital in recent times they will be conscious of the various epidemics and infections that have arisen. It is now acceptable to use a spray hand wash when going into a surgery or a clinic but to sell scones at a farmers' market one needs handwash basins, drying facilities and instantaneous hot and cold water. The cost of such measures could be €500.

My last point is on the principles of inspection and enforcement. The TASTE Council's submission to the Government's better business regulation forum, a copy of which was given to members, highlighted a number of things that could be introduced as a means of assisting the artisan and traditional food sector. One critical recommendation was for food inspection authorities, such as the FSAI, to establish principles of inspection and enforcement in the food sector. I hope that comes about as it is particularly important in the development of a collaborative approach, which is very important to us in the industry. We aim for high standards and the simplification of processes and systems and that is what we seek today.

We are very conscious of the value of our sector. We make an economic contribution to the State of €475 million. We are an instrument of food promotion for Ireland — The Food Island — and we are a key component in destination markets for tourists, as well as an instrument for regional and local development. Nobody could say there was a better instrument of regional and local development than the small artisan food industry in Ireland. We are local employers of local people and create local food for local people. We need the support of this committee in achieving our aim to get over the punitive obstacles placed in front of us in recent years with the irregular implementation of HACCP. We welcome this legislation.

Chairman

Ms Margaret Jeffares, managing director, and Kevin Sheridan will both make a presentation on behalf of Good Food Ireland.

Ms Margaret Jeffares

I take this opportunity to briefly outline what Good Food Ireland is and what we do. I will then hand over to my colleague, Mr. Sheridan, who is a member of Good Food Ireland and has experience of implementation of HACCP within the industry.

We agree with the submission by Mr. Ward from the TASTE Council. In Good Food Ireland we feel we must follow the spirit and flexibility within European legislation guidelines to ensure a commonsense approach by all regulators if we are to grow Ireland as a food tourism destination.

More than 9 million visitors come to the island of Ireland each year, with in excess of €4.3 billion spent, and there is a potential target market of 66 million all wanting to or expressing an interest in holidaying in Ireland. The largest market segment is sightseers and culture seekers, with this segment accounting for more than half of Ireland's holidaymakers. One of the key motivational and behavioural characteristics of this segment is that these people want to learn about a country and its culture, and what is culture but food and its people?

With regard to tourism in Good Food Ireland and tourism within the domestic market, 20% of people within Ireland are classed as food and luxury seekers, with 20% also classed as country ramblers. These are in the over-50 age group and are all looking for good food, so there is a market for this.

Good Food Ireland was established in November 2006, when a major gap in the development of a strong food and tourism industry for the whole island of Ireland was identified. Various bodies promoted individual aspects of the Irish food industry but no single body offered an integrated view of providers of all food and tourism industries on the island of Ireland. Effectively, Good Food Ireland is a unique, all-island food tourism co-operative marketing network, made up of operators who make, sell or serve local and artisan foods.

The body is driven by the industry in a bottom-up approach. We are a network simply guaranteeing good local food from and for people who really care. Our network of members is made up all the way through from the local artisan food producer on the ground and at source through to the accommodation sector, from a bed and breakfast to a five-star hotel, a restaurant, pub, café and cookery schools. These are all tourism products in the hospitality sector with food at the core.

There are three principles to Good Food Ireland, starting with our vision. We want to grow Ireland as a genuine food tourism destination, with the purpose of providing both the visitor and domestic consumer with access to a tangible organisation where quality is controlled by agreed standards, so the customer is fully informed on exactly where to go to find good food here.

Our philosophy is that we prioritise the core indigenous ingredients of Irish cuisine and promote local and artisan producers. We collectively market this good food network of members, with our regulated criteria, to the international and domestic tourist, in collaboration with Tourism Ireland, and use the Good Food Ireland brand as the consumer-facing endorsement of consistency and quality.

Good Food Ireland provides knowledge and high standards. It is the link between artisans, the hospitality sector and consumers. We guarantee engagement with farmers, fishermen and food artisans at the highest level as set out in our operating criteria. We ask members to use artisan butchers and actively support small abattoirs, which play such a fundamental role in the Irish food industry.

We encourage sourcing partnerships and share information that is of benefit to the whole Good Food Ireland network. We provide opportunities for artisans to supply locally and directly, and we create facilities within our operating protocol to gain access to our share of the tourism market. We encourage the hospitality sector to promote its Irish food and market it on menus, websites and through promotional materials.

Good Food Ireland has a website with more than 1 million hits per month. We work in collaboration with the NITB, Fáilte Ireland and Tourism Ireland. We attend trained consumer shows all over the world and do food showcase events to market Ireland as a food destination. We carry out e-marketing and direct marketing campaigns, as well as journalist visits. We also provide all-island gastro-tours around members and producers, bringing the source and hospitality sectors together.

We offer an amazing amount of tourism-marketing opportunities for farmers and food artisans in hosting groups, food tastings and direct selling on farms. The member guarantee for producers of exposure on menus will provide unexplored possibilities to sell locally. There are many key drivers behind Good Food Ireland. We have established a steering group chaired by Redmond O'Donoghue and includes people such as Peter Ward from the TASTE Council, Darina Allen, Bill Kelly and others in the travel industry, such as Sean Boland from Hertz. These individuals all feed on strategy and drive Good Food Ireland as a food tourism marketing group. We have an executive committee and regional committees and sector committees all feeding into the overall strategy of Good Food Ireland. There is huge potential to grow Ireland as a food tourism destination. Emphasis must be placed on delivering tourism experiences whereby the visitor can visit food producers after tasting their product on a menu in a nearby hotel or restaurant. We must help create an overall visitor experience which is authentic, enriching and memorable, an experience that will encapsulate our country and our culture and meet the main market segments' motivational characteristics.

However, there are challenges to the growth of food tourism in Ireland. Under our interpretation of EU legislation, can we bring visitors to see Ireland in the manner they now see Italy or France? Do we have a mechanism, as they do in Italy, to encourage a similar number of artisan producers, for example? In Good Food Ireland we believe that we must develop a culture in our interpretation of EU legislation that will assist and encourage rural artisans. We must have a streamlined approach from all agencies, from county council at planning stage, through to enterprise boards and Leader programmes with responsibility for food or agri-tourism, to ensure a protocol across all departments for the speedy advancement of small business. Every engagement with a regulator should be about removing obstacles and should not be discouraging.

We must promote on-farm production and sales for our visitor experience. The Good Food Ireland accommodation sector can be the honey pot for food producers, the visitor being introduced via the restaurant menu, for example, or through a producer event where it is possible to go to a farm, buy the local produce and meet the producer in person. We must be able to promote this package. We did this — and I use this analogy all the time — with golf. About 30 years ago few of us knew one end of a golf club from the other. What did we do? We incentivised golf, we marketed it overseas with the Ireland brand and then we were voted golf destination of the world. We can do this with food and not think we are up a gum tree trying to promote Ireland as a food destination. Agriculture and food are our two biggest economies and we must collaborate to bring them together. Good Food Ireland is the industry organisation that can do this on the ground. We have encountered many artisans who would like to make a small investment of on-farm production but find the current regulatory regime punitive.

Irrespective of whatever legislation we enact we must protect our local butchers and regional abattoirs if the uniqueness of our grass-fed beef and lamb is to be available to our visitors. We must be able to give them Connemara lamb, for example. Those in the hospitality sector must be able to go to their local butcher and be able to buy that lamb. Regulation can place us at a competitive disadvantage if the cost of entry is too high. In a nutshell, to grow Ireland as a culinary and food destination, we must create a climate whereby we speedily implement a food and tourism infrastructure. Otherwise we will continue to be at a competitive disadvantage with our European partners. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hand over to Mr. Kevin Sheridan who will explain HACCP.

Chairman

Thank you.

Mr. Kevin Sheridan

Thank you, Chairman, and committee members. The artisan food community is compliant with EU legislation, wishes to remain so and has no desire, in its own selfish interest, to be perceived as producing, or to produce, what might be unsafe food. It is in our interest to produce the quality of food that we do in a safe way.

Historically there has been a difficulty between artisan food producers and regulators. As a large-scale industry artisan food is relatively new, growing over the past 30 or 40 years, although artisan food has been produced in Ireland for hundreds of years in the form of home-baked goods, home-cured hams, and so on. There is a great tradition of artisan food in Ireland. However, there has been an atmosphere of mistrust between producers and regulators and the artisan food industry has up until recently had no voice and no lobby.

With the advent of some major food scares, particularly BSE, there was a perceived move by Irish regulators to use the absolute promotion of food safety as a marketing tool where risk free food equalled quality. It was perceived that this narrow view of quality excluded recognition of other important benefits of quality food, i.e. nutrition, rural development, taste quality, culture and tradition. This resulted in the feeling, and it was seen on the ground, that food perceived as risk free should be achieved at any cost. This is what we wish to move away from.

It is generally seen that HACCP can be a useful tool to make it easier for operators to avoid unnecessary risk. For this to happen it cannot be implemented as it has been in the past. Flexibility needs to be key. The personal knowledge and skill of individual operators must be acknowledged as a food safety measure. The difference between a small home-based or small employer producing a food product and a large industrial factory operator must be acknowledged. In the case of somebody making jam at home to sell at local markets or to a local shop — and such products are very important to us all — HACCP could be interpreted flexibly in a way such that the only thing the manufacturer needed to worry about was a jar breaking. That could be a critical control point whereby that would need to be recorded and, perhaps, all jars made that day checked. Another regulator might, however, interpret HACCP in a way that meant that same producer needed to have three sinks in the kitchen, to operate a system of goods inwards and outwards, to have thermometers to check the temperature of jars and jam as it is being made, and to visit all the fruit and sugar suppliers to ensure they are compliant with HACCP. That would put that producer out of business in an instant. Interpretation is everything. For regulators on the ground, knowledge is paramount.

Recently there has been a feeling of hope. The TASTE Council, about which my colleague, Mr. Peter Ward, spoke came into existence a few years ago and has begun to give a voice to small producers. The Artisan Forum has been a very welcome part of the FSAI, giving artisan producers a voice and enabling them to engage with the FSAI. Everybody would agree that has been very productive. It is the general opinion of the Artisan Forum that HACCP can be a useful tool if the spirit of the legislation and recommendations by the EU are taken into account and there is real flexibility, supported by proper producer led guidelines and technical support. A new artisan food committee has been set up by the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Deputy Trevor Sargent, which provides another voice for artisan producers.

We need to remove food safety regulation as a barrier to growing the industry. My colleague, Ms Margaret Jeffares, spoke of the great economic potential this offers our country. For this to happen we need to get rid of perceived and real barriers. Priority must be given to the education not of producers but of the regulators so that they understand the industry they are regulating, so that they truly understand the skills, knowledge and tradition of the producers. There needs to be development of guidelines. These guidelines must have regard to and distinguish between regulations and best practice, and they must be producer led.

As important on the ground is perception. Perception must be changed. There are many potential producers who could provide real economic benefit for the country. However, they are not even thinking about going into food production. These are farm based and rural based people whose perception, which has grown in recent decades, is that the barrier of food safety is too high for production to be economically viable. This must be changed.

Artisan producers and the industry believe that the State and the Oireachtas have as much responsibility to protect and encourage quality food production and food service as they have to encourage food safety. This is because of the contribution which this sector can make to Irish society economically through food tourism and its development, local employment, regional, cultural and social development and the health and nutritional benefits which arts and food can bring.

Chairman

Thank you. These were very interesting submissions. I wish to ask one question before opening the meeting to the floor. With regard to flexibility and low risk, how is low risk defined with regard to the discretionary facility? What is the position in regard to the good food image, the perception of the artisan business and the development of small companies? Given the statistics from the public health offices for the incidence of irregularities, will these lower the threshold?

While Ireland has a very good reputation as a food destination, the €2 million turnover appears high for someone who is producing a small enterprise within a small locality. I know from my own experience in the trade that €2 million per developer appears high. There is also the element of flexibility of the threshold, the €2 million turnover and the public health figures driving this and, more importantly, the cost of HACCP. What does HACCP cost? There is a requirement for a small producer and a big producer. There is also the issue of what is required within HACCP. The HACCP is administered by the public health officer who has discretion in regard to its interpretation in different counties. HACCP in Sligo would be different from HACCP in Cork through the offices of public health. There is much uncertainty about what HACCP is and the cost involved.

Mr. Kevin Sheridan

The definition of microproducer is one we did not come up with, it is an EU definition. It seems to be very general. It does not allow us to have regard for producers at risk, those we want to encourage most, those who are just beginning and who are producing local food for local people.A €2 million turnover can apply but it depends on the industry. There could be a small producer in one area and a large industry producer in another area. As Mr. Peter Ward said, a special derogation needs to be given to a newly-defined group, the seed group, which we need to work hard to encourage. We need to encourage the small producer selling at local markets or to local shops because without that there is not the seed bed to go on and produce larger producers. That is how Cashel blue and Uncle Ben’s started. They are famous Irish brand names in quality food. We need to look hard at them.

In terms of the difference in interpretations, I am sure the Food Safety Authority and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would disagree. There are strict guidelines in place. We all know where we are. The feeling on the ground would be that there certainly is a difference in interpretation. In many cases, historically, there has been a difference. If one gets one person it will cost X, if one gets another person it will cost Y. The example of the jam producer may be a tool which in the right hands is very useful and it is neither good nor bad in itself. What has to be taken into account is how it is interpreted by the regulators. We do not need a situation where a regulator, who may be a Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspector, goes to a producer in an atmosphere of looking for compliance at any cost. Instead the regulator should consider how the producer can be helped, how another successful product can be created and how to use HACCP to help producers develop a better product. That is easier said than done, but it is what we need to focus on.

Chairman

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

I wish to make a number of points. We should not confuse enforcement consistency with the requirements of the legislation. We are aware of cases throughout the country where different interpretations are taken of the legal requirements in place. We attempt to ensure all inspectors have the same understanding of the legislation and we have a national committee, the members of which work with the environmental health officers, who largely inspect this sector, to ensure matters of national consistency are dealt with. We also have an artisan forum, the members of which regularly meet representatives of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to discuss matters of enforcement and understanding of the regulatory requirements.

The flexibility requirements in Regulation 852/2004 came into effect at the start of 2006. Therefore, there are flexibility provisions in the regulations. The new proposal put forward at the end of last year did not take from those proposals, rather it attempted to exempt a whole sector of the business community, by reason of numbers of employees or turnover, and that is not a risk-based approach. I sympathise and agree with the point of view that products such as jam are low risk and do not need complicated systems and procedures in place.

A question was posed on how much the introduction of the HACCP system would cost. Much of the cost involved would be the time spent by the food business operator examining what he or she is doing and assessing the level of risk it presents to consumers. From the point of view of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, we were established to be an independent, science-led organisation and to put the interests of consumers first. We cannot differentiate the controls by size or start-up. We are primarily an enforcement agency responsible for enforcing food law. It is right that the inspectors would seek to have food law implemented. We need to ensure that is done in a proportional and consistent way, however, which is what we are working towards.

Senator Terry Leyden

I am impressed by the turnout of witnesses and the recognition they have given to the work of the joint committee evidenced by their taking time out from their work in their Departments and organisations to discuss this issue. From my previous experience of having dealt with the Single European Act, I am aware of the amount of work that goes into the preparation of European legislation.

Having listened to the contributions of representatives of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, the Department of Health and Children, the TASTE Council and Good Food Ireland, and given that an important referendum on the Lisbon reform treaty will be held shortly, one aspect that strikes most people is the number of regulations that emerge from the European Union. Many people are of the opinion that we are much more compliant than most of the other 26 member states of the European Union and that we have enforced all the regulations in such a manner that makes it difficult for artisan food producers to produce quality food in their own location and sell it locally, which is an important issue. We must comply with food regulations. Veterinary inspectors supervise the slaughter of animals in abattoirs, which was not the case in the past. The councils operate those premises. Health inspectors inspect restaurants. However, the proposal to make the system more flexible and the issue of the introduction of a HACCP system is an extreme measure for small indigenous industries.

I am speaking from the perspective of where the worst circumstances prevailed in small shops in the 1960s and 1970s where bacon was thrown on the floor, no refrigeration was in place and oil and bacon were sold in the one store. I have seen the conditions that prevail in different circumstances and the changes that have taken place but we have to draw the line at a certain point. That is why I am in favour of this regulation. I am in favour of the flexibility provided for, as explained by the representatives of the TASTE Council and Good Food Ireland. Farmers' markets are building up again, rightly so, which is important because instead of importing food from faraway places, we are producing it locally. There is no doubt that quality improves as a result. The farm I come from produces its own organic beef to very high standards. The number of inspectors now in the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is unbelievable. In addition, councils will now become involved in inspecting farms. We also have inspectors from the organic group, of which we are members. It is becoming difficult to survive in this environment.

With respect to the submissions made by the Department of Health and Children and the Food Safety Authority, the approach of the TASTE Council and Good Food Ireland is the right one. I will be supporting their flexible approach because the regulations are moving in the right direction. It is one item I would like to be able to sell to the electorate concerning the Lisbon reform treaty. At least, that type of legislation shows some common sense and flexibility.

The Irish PD03 products were mentioned and are indigenous, although they include Parma ham and other items. Can we have more such foods listed as being particularly Irish? The Italians and Germans are keen on such products. I would like to see the Departments enforcing good quality food controls to avoid salmonella and e.coli. Flexibility is required. I was impressed by the submissions made by the TASTE Council and Good Food Ireland.

Chairman

I will call Deputies Connick and English before allowing the delegates to reply.

Deputy Seán Connick

Like my colleague, Senator Leyden, I am delighted by the detailed and informative presentations to the committee made by all the organisations represented. I also wish to come down strongly on the side of the presentation made by Mr. Ward of the TASTE Council, in particular, and that of Good Food Ireland. They have brought a dose of reality and common sense to this debate.

I am familiar with the food business, as a friend of mine is involved in food production in New Ross. That family must invest heavily in order to maintain the high standards of its enterprise. As its neighbours, we are aware of those standards which encompass the whole area, not just its business premises. It is an achievement for anyone to start a business and reach the stage where they can acquire the HACCP logo which they wear as a badge of honour on their packaging and vans.

The food market is very competitive but I wonder about the anti-competitive nature of the regulations enforced on some such businesses. There is a broad view that legislation is not enforced as stringently on the Continent, although I do not know if that is correct. I would welcome a flexible and staged approach towards achieving the required standards. It takes common sense on the part of inspectors to allow a business to develop and thus reach the stage where it is capable of making the investment needed to meet the HACCP standard.

As regards the Lisbon treaty, the one thing that annoys most people about the European Union is over-regulation. We are all aware of stories about ladies keeping free range hens or baking brown bread in a village who all of a sudden find they can no longer produce such items when inspectors turn up at the door. Perhaps the delegates can address that point. Would the groups represented before the committee accept that we are over-regulated and that we are applying the laws laid down too rigidly? I am strongly in favour of this regulation which is both welcome and timely and will do what I can to support it.

Deputy Damien English

I find myself in a strange position in that I totally agree with the two previous speakers on this issue. A debate like this is very interesting and many issues have come up today into which we need to look further. We can certainly talk to other members because this is only the start. This directive has resulted in a worthy debate which throws up many emotions, especially for somebody like me coming from the country where I have seen the changes over the past number of years.

There is a perception that regulation from Europe has effectively ruined country living in many areas and has made it boring. People are afraid to engage in activities in which they would have always engaged such as producing and selling eggs and brown bread. People are almost afraid to share their produce with their neighbours because of the fear of what might happen. It is a shame we have gone that way. We all accept there must be regulation but we seem to have gone too far.

I have worked in restaurants, bars, chippers and so on and have seen the way one is expected to try to cover every angle and the cost involved is unreal. I agree with Deputy Connick in regard to Europe. Is it something to do with the way we in Ireland enforce the regulations? Does our interpretation of them go too far? We like having all these regulations in that it gives us something to do and to chase up. We seem to get a buzz out of it.

If one goes into a restaurant in Europe, one might see a chef smoking a cigarette while cooking a bit of meat. I have been around a bit and that is not hearsay; I have seen it happen as has everybody else. One really must wonder. I am not saying we should eat in such places but the interpretation of the law seems to be very different in other countries. Is that true or are we imagining it? We need to get to the bottom of that once and for all. It will affect future voting on Europe in Ireland because there are concerns.

My first impression of this regulation is that it is a sign that Europe is copping on and that there is a bit of common sense coming down the line. Those involved in producing food and on who livelihoods and jobs depend, are in favour of reducing the regulation and they have much more to lose than anybody else. I support them and they have made a very strong argument. They will be affected if Ireland gets a bad reputation as a result of this or if something goes wrong.

What are the costs involved in meeting the current regulations? I accept a small business is at a major disadvantage in comparison with Tesco or a large business because it must bear all the costs on a smaller turnover. What are the costs and what savings will we see if this happens?

Other countries voted against this regulation. What was the main reason they voted against it, especially those countries which seem to be more liberal in enforcing regulations?

The Food Safety Authority of Ireland said that changing these regulations will place an extra burden and extra costs on it. I do not have a problem with that. It is taxpayers' money and more jobs will be created if more checking needs to be done. The cost will be borne by a wider range of people rather than a few small businesses. If that is the authority's only concern with this regulation, I would not count it as one. This aspect took up a fair part of its presentation so perhaps it may want to elaborate on that. Is the authority short of staff? Is that a concern?

The problem areas the authority identified are in micro businesses. Could it elaborate on that? If people are not interested in doing their job properly, that will not change no matter what regulations we have. There will always be a percentage of people who not produce their food properly. That will happen anyway and the authority is required to try to locate them, regardless of any directives or legislation.

The point was made that companies might subdivide to fit into the categories. I do not like the categories of ten employees or €2 million turnover because there is very little difference between ten or 11 employees or €2 million and €2.2 million turnover. I would like more flexibility. We will come back to special derogations. Perhaps a company could apply to opt out of this rather than have set categories and make a presentation in respect of the level of enforcement and regulation applying to it.

I am concerned that if we introduce the regulation in this way, a company with 12 employees will kick two of them out the door in order to fit into a different category and save money. I am concerned about that and how we might get around it.

I have a romantic view of Ireland. We are trying to promote tourism, walking, etc., in rural areas and I would like people to be encouraged to come to the farm gate and see how food is produced before purchasing it. Such activity is quite restricted in this country and we lose out as a result. I refer, in particular, to walking tourism. People should be able to walk through rural areas and visit farms in order to see what is being done and perhaps buy something, even if it is only eggs. It is not really possible to do this in Ireland because practices are so restrictive. The rules relating to farmers markets' represent a step far. Such markets were already under great pressure and I am of the view that many of them will not be able to continue.

If we are intent on introducing stronger rules and regulations, there will be a need to engage with local authorities and encourage them to provide better facilities for farmer markets. The costs attaching in this area are too excessive. What will happen will be that ordinary people will lose out on the opportunity to purchase different types of food or produce that is of a higher quality.

I saw a programme on television recently which centred on a man in Mayo or Sligo who produces sausages containing seaweed. It appeared that his operation was based in his kitchen. People entering business often are obliged to begin in this way. The individual in question would have little opportunity to survive in the market if he was obliged to pay hundreds of thousands of euros in order to put in place a proper kitchen, the relevant cooking equipment, etc. His product appeared to be good but he and others like him will not be able to continue their activities if regulations that will be consistently enforced are introduced.

The proposal before us might help to ease matters. If it is used properly, there will be no danger to public safety, etc. There is an onus on everyone to try to make life less difficult for small businesses, particularly in the context of the cost of entry.

Mr. Peter Ward

I thank Senator Leyden and Deputies Connick and English for their support. I was very impressed by the knowledge they displayed and I compliment them on the amount of research they have undertaken in respect of this matter. We are confident that, as legislators, they will see this matter through to its just end.

We just received a note from our European food lawyer, Mr. O'Rourke, to the effect that there are four PDO-PGI products listed for Ireland, namely, black pudding — not Clonakilty — regato cheese, Clare Island salmon and Connemara lamb. Included on the lists of such products in Turkey, Spain and Greece are honey, olive oils, cheeses and regional hams, while the list for Britain includes various beers. We have been extremely slow off the blocks in comparison with other member states when it comes to PDO-PGI products.

How is it intended to address this problem? Mr. O'Rourke, on behalf of the TASTE Council, is compiling a list of what we decree to be traditional foods suitable for this type of designation. The difficulty in Ireland involves the simplification of the legislation relating to the onerous process of obtaining registration. We are examining a simplified approach to registration. We were involved in detailed discussions with Marian Byrne from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and we will have her support in respect of this matter. We have also been in discussions with the Slow Food organisation, which established an international group — the Ark of Taste — charged with saving food products that are in danger of disappearing. Presidia, the working arm of the Ark of Taste, then takes these to the next level and provides producer group supports in respect of them. We are considering doing something similar in respect of PDO-PGI products. On the next occasion on which we come before the committee, matters in this regard may be somewhat more advanced.

Deputy Connick referred to the continental experience. I took a trip to London last week and visited food businesses and shops, partly as a form of research for my business. The British adopted a flexible approach much earlier than Ireland. For example, there is great flexibility there in the context of the management of food in high profile shops such as Sally Clarke's in Kensington, which is at the cutting edge. The latter and Ottolenghi sell huge quantities of food that is kept at ambient temperatures. No one will keel over and die if they eat roasted courgettes at 4 p.m. that were cooked at noon. There is very delicious food available in these shops.

I went into the cold room of one of the finest food establishments in London — which I will not name — in order to look at some dry aged beef that had been hanging for 45 days. It was covered in a downy mould and my two colleagues would die if they saw it. They could categorise it better scientifically but I categorise it from a taste point of view. The dark part on the outside of the meat is cut off and a king's ransom is paid when it is dry aged for 45 days. Some of that beef could have been Irish in origin and they were braver than we were to add value to it. Any member could visit the Borough Market in London to see wild game, regional lamb from the Cotswolds, as well as cheeses and seafood hanging at the stalls. The British are not as paranoid as we are about food.

I spent ten days in Italy recently working on a Parmesan cheese farm. There were nine incomes on a farm with 150 cows. An Irish farmer would do particularly well to generate two incomes from 150 cows. Not one ounce of chemical was used. The only chemical used on the farm was sea salt — one tonne — in the production of the cheese. In Ireland if we are not closely aligned to the man who makes chlorine, we are outside the fence, which is an important issue.

Deputy English referred to common sense, to which this comes down. The food industry will engage in a sincere collaborative process with the FSAI and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make the flexibility clause work. We guarantee this to the committee but hope a common-sense approach will be adopted. Like the picture my colleague, Ms Jeffares, painted, there will be much more accessible rural and local foods throughout the State and we will remove some of the barriers in place.

Mr. David Maguire

I thank the Chairman and committee members for their comments. I reiterate that food safety and the protection of the consumer are our main considerations. However, when we worked on developing flexibility, we took the needs of artisan producers into account.

Deputy English raised two issues. With regard to using size as the basis, we felt the figure was too high, that it would be fairer to provide exemptions for smaller companies with less chance of achieving economies of scale. With regard to additional work for staff, we want companies to self-regulate rather than have us do it for them.

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

I thank members for their comments. On the issue of the additional burden imposed, the responsibility for producing safe food lies with food business operators, not inspectors. Therefore, by changing the balance, the onus is put on the inspector to ensure the food business is producing safe food, which is not what framework Regulation 178/2002 states.

Chairman

Does it apply from the bottom up?

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

Exactly. The FSAI welcomes the collaborative approach proposed by colleagues from the food business sector. We have demonstrated since implementation of the regulations that we work with food businesses to ensure a rational, sensible approach to their enforcement.

Mr. Joe Shortall

The role of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this context is the promotion of artisan products but the FSAI was set up in special circumstances with a special view to putting the Department at one step's remove. We have established fora for discussions and hope to do more work with interested parties. The Minister of State with responsibility for food and horticulture, Deputy Sargent, established a new committee last week. Very good progress has been made in Teagasc in teaching us to understand artisan producers. I hope we are moving in the right direction.

Deputy Joe Costello

Like other Deputies and Senators, I appreciate the representatives who are giving of their time to the committee and making such eloquent presentations. There has been a mushrooming of small businesses and artisan producers of cheeses and other foods. Suddenly, we have an Irish food industry, as distinct from agriculture. There is a high level of micro activity among producers, which was not apparent 20 years ago. Whatever the regulations are, they do not seem to have interfered unduly with that mushrooming. We are nowhere near the situation in continental Europe where there is a long tradition of producing fine artisan products. Two weeks ago the Irish Small and Medium Enterprises association made a presentation to this committee and told us the sector employs approximately 1 million people. The membership of ISME is not confined to businesses with a turnover of less than €2 million. Nevertheless, small and medium-sized businesses account for a very large quantity of products and operations.

We must always be conscious of the importance of food safety and hygiene. We know the trouble caused by Brazilian beef. We won that argument because we said we had the highest food safety standards in Europe. For that reason, the farming community could not tolerate the importation of Brazilian beef which did not meet those standards. It is extremely important that we retain the highest standards and not do anything to diminish them. If exemptions are to be granted for economic rather than hygiene reasons, we must ensure hygiene and safety standards are maintained. In micro businesses such as bakeries, butcher shops, public houses and restaurants very high levels of hygiene are essential. Most such businesses have a turnover of less than €2 million. I expect the highest level of hygiene and cleanliness in the restaurants and public houses I frequent. Hygiene and cleanliness must be at the highest level in any interface between food and the public. If a blanket exemption is allowed for any business with a turnover of less than €2 million, how will quality and safety be maintained?

I am 100% in favour of examining the situation in large multiple retailers where food is accessed from throughout the world. In my local branch of Tesco one cannot buy the food produced in abundance in the vicinity of the store. These supermarkets stock brands from everywhere but locally and that is bad. There is no doubt that food diminishes in quality the further it travels around the world. I am 100% in favour of seasonal, local, farm gate food and how it is made available. A problem continues to exist in terms of product versus cost. A threshold of €2 million covers a multitude. I would like to know what level of industry this sum represents.

My final question relates to existing provisions as provided for under HACCP. These provisions which were introduced on 1 January 2006 are due for review on 1 January 2009. I understand they have not yet been introduced by many states in the European Union. It will be difficult to amend a provision not yet fully implemented. How soon will the amendment to the derogation be introduced? What has been the response from member countries with traditional artisan industries? Have existing provisions under HACCP imposed such an extraordinary burden on them they are unable to compete or operate?

My experience is that there has been no diminution of trading activities throughout Europe. I have direct experience of Moore Street which has been in operation since time immemorial.

Senator Paddy Burke

Deputy Costello is canvassing.

Deputy Joe Costello

I am not canvassing but I did support the traders when big businesses in the area did their damnedest to get rid of them. It remains the case that relatively big or medium operations do all they can to get rid of stall holders because they do not view them as operations that do justice to their view of themselves. While I fully support what is being done, I would like to see a little more flexibility. I have many concerns, including a diminishing of hygiene standards, if we proceed in the manner proposed.

Senator Alan Kelly

I welcome the witnesses to the meeting. Like previous speakers, I am broadly in favour of the spirit of the legislation. I do not know if Mr. Ward would allow me to return to Nenagh if I did not. I have a couple of points to make and a number of questions to ask.

An issue arises in terms of the form of implementation. There is no doubt that the various artisan producers have been an administrative burden. This will have a long-term impact. I support the promotion of food from a food tourism point of view. It is an area which has not experienced enough growth. At a national tourism level, we need to consider how we can fill the void left by others for various reasons including, success in tourism. The promotion of natural foodstuffs and variants of the food produce available here needs to be facilitated. Overregulation does not facilitate this. We need to address this issue if the food industry is to grow. Farmers' markets will be stymied by overregulation. The previous speaker, Deputy Costello, hit the nail on the head, as usual, when he said that the economic argument is more important than the hygiene argument. It has to be kept at that level. That is the angle from which we should approach it. Perhaps we will make a few comments on that later. We may be able to compromise if a level of compromise is required.

There is a concern that departments in various countries might not be in favour of this proposal. That is possibly due to certain considerations. I agree with previous speakers that such countries might not be implementing the current rules at the same level as Ireland.

We need to provide for flexibility under the HACCP system, which has been in place since 2006. Previous speakers have argued that the system is not working for artisan producers. When it was drawn up, was there any discussion about providing for different levels of the scheme? I know there is flexibility, but that does not always get to the point. If a grading system had been introduced at various levels, without compromising hygiene levels, the HACCP scheme might have had more success.

I was interested to hear the comments which were made about protected designation of origin products. I was aware of some of the facts which were outlined. I was concerned to learn that we are so far behind. Perhaps Mr. Ward, or whoever has the most information in this regard, can give the joint committee details of a timeline for the list that has been drawn up. Such information would be of great use to this committee and other committees.

I was surprised to hear about the levels of compliance with HACCP, although it has only been in place since January 2006. Are there specific reasons the levels of compliance in certain sectors are so low, and the levels in other sectors are so high? The level of compliance in the hotel sector is 45% and the level of compliance among butchers is 48%. Have any issues been raised in respect of certain sectors of industry which have diminished or lessened, in effect, because of HACCP? Perhaps an official from the Department of Health and Children can answer some of those questions.

We have heard the thoughts of artisan producers about the impact of HACCP on them. Has such evidence been brought to the attention of the representatives of the various Departments in the recent past? If so, what has been the outcome of those discussions?

I have some concerns about the ability of the legislation to ensure that large companies do not break up to come in under the threshold. That needs to be addressed to some extent. We need to ensure that people do not use some loophole as a means of avoiding regulation. Perhaps the €2 million threshold, which seems quite high, can be used to deal with this problem. A significant percentage of businesses will not come anywhere near that threshold. If there is a need for compromise, maybe it can be achieved in this area.

The definition of "artisan" needs to be examined and redefined. Does the current definition include all producers? I understand that Mr. Ward is concerned about small manufacturers of various products, including fish products. I would like to get some more information on how "artisan" is defined.

I agree with all previous speakers that we need to embrace this proposal, which definitely has some merit. A small degree of compromise might get us a long way and help us to make progress with this proposal quickly.

Chairman

I will call Senator Burke before calling the final speaker, Senator O'Sullivan.

Senator Paddy Burke

I welcome all the delegates to this meeting. I do not propose to repeat everything that has been said by other members of the committee. I am in favour of this directive. I suggest to the representatives of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that things have gone overboard. Those involved in the food sector are telling me that things have gotten out of hand. Business people, such as those who run restaurants, bakeries and hotels, now have to deal with unbelievable costs and burdens. People I know who serve breakfasts have told me they have to take the temperature of rashers. Is it not beyond ridiculous to tell people to take the temperature of rashers? A rasher is either cooked or it is not.

People are prohibited from making coleslaw. Invariably, one will not see roast chicken in small restaurants; rather, one will just see chicken. One can use potatoes with preservatives but cannot wash them because of cross-contamination with the soil from lettuce, carrots, etc. That is why the vast majority are on the side of this regulation.

There are serious costs from area to area in respect of the HACCP system. We are all in favour of having the highest possible standards. If people do not reach a certain standard, their premises should be closed down or they should be sent on HACCP courses so as to comply with the regulations. This would be better than requiring everybody to do a course. In many cases, well qualified individuals are running businesses and know the standards required but it is not good enough that their staff are required to do them also.

I am in favour of the measure as it stands. It is said the longer one lives, the more one learns. I was in Brussels with the Chairman recently and we learned about the comitology committee which meets at Civil Service level with a view to interpreting EU regulations and legislation. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health and Children interpreted the food regulations. I do not believe the Food Safety Authority of Ireland was in operation at the time in question. Other countries must have had a different interpretation of the directives put in place. Mr. Moon has stated more interpretations could arise as one moves down the line from one region to another. There are inconsistencies.

I am delighted with this debate, which I believe was very good. We have learned a lot. I support the proposed regulation.

Senator Ned O’Sullivan

I am not a member of the committee but I am the Government spokesperson on food safety in the Seanad and, therefore, have an interest in this matter. I compliment the Chairman on arranging such a stimulating debate and thank the participants who elaborated on both sides of the argument.

Like previous speakers, my sympathies lie with the food producers, Good Food Ireland and the TASTE Council. We have gone overboard on regulation in Ireland. I sometimes try to psychoanalyse our national psyche and believe we have an inferiority complex to the effect that we feel we ought to be better at implementing EU regulations than any other country. If one goes to a farmers market abroad, especially in warmer countries, one will note that practices prevail that would not be acceptable in Ireland. Last summer I was at a farmers' market in Norway and discovered a fellow selling raw whalemeat at the same counter as candles made from fish grease. I did not see any EU officials, legislators or regulators present to prevent him from doing so.

A case of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut occurred a couple of years ago when there was a clampdown on small abattoirs. This was a very bad mistake. What better safeguard could there be than to have a local butcher killing either his or her own cattle or those of his or her immediate neighbour? In such cases there is total traceability and no intermediary between the farm gate and customer. I am thankful wisdom is beginning to prevail in this regard.

Naturally, the Department and authorities have responsibilities and are accountable to the public for public health. It is not an easy job but the balance must change. The small operator can carry out safe procedures without being subject to the stringent and pristine demands made on a factory producing thousands of tonnes of goods every day. Taste is as important to the consumer as hygiene but the two are not mutually exclusive. People who eat game birds like them fairly "high". I know people who like to eat their steak when it has almost turned. The taste for them is paramount. We must find a way to bridge the artisan producer's idea of taste and freshness and the standards the Department wishes to impose.

In the United Kingdom much of this business is self-regulating and the farm market group has an organisation called the National Farmers and Retail Markets Association, FARMA, which seems to assume much of the responsibility the Department wishes to take upon itself. The Seanad had a long debate on this matter recently arising out of a statement by the Minister for State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Sargent, who did not appear to have a difficulty with the present regime. Are the Minister of State and the Department on message together? Now that we are running a Green agenda maybe the regulators should stand back and relax a bit.

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

In response to Senator Kelly's questions, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland focused on the high risk types of business activities, one stage at a time. That is why we could present figures on the butchers, hotels and nursing homes. We do not have any direct information on, or idea of, where compliance may have dropped over time because we have not collected it. We focused on risk and on the types of businesses which we expected to have HACCP, and noticed the increase over time through the strategy.

Mr. Joe Shortall

An impression is being created that we are somehow more strict than other member states. I do not know exactly where we fit on the league table but the food and veterinary office in County Meath, the office which conducted the famous inspections in Brazil, checks the implementation of these regulations in all member states. This year Ireland will be subject to 11 separate audits in different areas. The food and veterinary office posts all the reports, on every country, to its website. People can read there about Italian fish exports or whatever. We are as compliant as other member states and the food and veterinary office does not think that some member states get away with things that others do not.

There have been significant developments in the artisan forum for the past couple of years. The regulations are effectively only two years old. I hope the Department and the artisan producers will find better ways of dealing with this in future.

Mr. Peter Ward

We will have no choice but to be compliant because our customers, not the statutory bodies, are the greatest auditors in the food industry. Our businesses will fail on a daily basis if they are not as good as our competitors' and do not respond to our customers. I understand that regulation is clearly needed throughout the industry. Regulation over the last ten years has made wonderful advancements in the management of kitchens and in our approach to food, right across the industry, and we accept the need for it. However, we have a difficulty with certain aspects of its application, sometimes it is applied in an over-rigorous and over-zealous manner, which could endanger some of our traditional and artisan foods. That is the area on which we should very much like to work.

I want to quote the last line of former Commissioner Byrne's statement because, effectively, this encapsulates the spirit of the legislation: "These rules on food hygiene, agreed today, are flexible enough to ensure that these traditions are preserved". That, basically, is what we are all about. I can assure the Senator that no matter what emerges, we shall continue to be compliant with the statutory authorities.

I value Senator Kelly's contribution on the issue of his extensive experience of the tourism industry in Ireland, and his references to the economic area are very important. On the question of PDO-PGI, I should be delighted if the committee would use the TASTE Council as a resource base. At a later date we can make available our research findings on the work we are doing in relation to PDO-PGI, as the committee requires.

Chairman

Are they currently protected and exempt from the HACCP at the moment?

Mr. Peter Ward

No, they are not, but in the European Union they are labelled and listed as being in receipt of more favourable and flexible terms. We do not have PDO-PGI in this country.

Chairman

They are not exempt from the HACCP at the moment.

Mr. Peter Ward

No, but they will be under this legislation.

Chairman

Currently, they are not.

Mr. Peter Ward

They are not because the legislation is not enacted, but that will happen. Should the committee ask us for the list of traditional and Irish foods that we want in the spirit of this legislation, we should have difficulty presenting it with a European accredited list today, under PDO-PGI. So we need to get that in place as well.

On Senator Kelly's point about the sum of €2 million being on the high side, that is possibly true. Many of the key small businesses to which we have referred would very much like to have a turnover of this nature, and ten employees. However, I assure the committee it is process that needs protection in the same way as the plant.

Senator Burke made an interesting point about cross-contamination. This issue comes up all the time in connection with the feasibility of buying fresh vegetables from someone with a local garden who wants to sell some seasonal produce. That is a difficulty under the HACCP system in certain kitchens at the moment. It is certainly much more compliant to buy in prepared vegetables that have been chemically treated. We would look at an area such as that where there is more vibrancy in the purchasing to see whether we could buy much more, possibly unwashed, vegetables if they are a constituent part of a particular process. I warmly welcome the Senator's point on that issue.

I was glad Senator O'Sullivan made the point about traceability. That is something about which we feel strongly, especially as it concerns small butchers.

Chairman

This is about labelling and traceability.

Mr. Peter Ward

That is correct. The small butchers gave just as much traceability before the documentation was ever in place for the meat factories. As we know, the rigorous documentation that has left our industry so successful in the meat factories was in place hitherto in the rural butcher shops.

Chairman

It is of major concern at the moment that chicken from other countries may be sold labelled as Irish. What are the TASTE Council's concerns in that regard?

Mr. Peter Ward

That is a processing issue and we strongly believe the consumer should be aware of the country of origin of the preprocessed product. That is extremely important.

Chairman

Has the Department a timescale within which it hopes this will be corrected?

Mr. David Maguire

Proposed legislation has been notified to the Commission. It is due to be discussed at a general food law meeting on Friday week.

Chairman

I believe it is a big issue.

Mr. David Maguire

It is an enormous issue.

Mr. Peter Ward

On the last point, organoleptics, Senator O'Sullivan mentioned taste. The science of taste is organoleptics. Bord Bia and the TASTE Council are in the process of organising a number of seminars on the science of taste and the factors that influence it. It is our view that Irish and European consumers are prepared to pay a premium price for premium taste. If we want to capture that premium market, as the Senator said, we have to define the core factors that influence the taste of our product.

Mr. Kevin Sheridan

I concur with Mr. Ward's comment on Deputy Costello's input. No producer wants anybody to eat anything which is not 100% safe. To guarantee this absolutely, how far, as a society, are we willing to go? How do we view this risk in relation to other qualities? If we say there will be no food poisoning, what are we willing to abolish to get to that position? Is there an acceptable level of risk? How important are our culture, nutrition and rural development? We all want to minimise the risk. The question is how far we want to go to ensure food safety.

A question was asked about the cost of the HACCP system within a small business and the impression was given that it was only about time. However, if a business is a one-person operation, whose skill involves using a practical talent to produce really good food, he or she might not be too good at filling in forms. An unnecessarily large amount of time can be taken up with form filling, which represents a real cost. Other costs relate to the quality of the product produced. This does not really apply to small producers, but ease of compliance with HACCP requirements is one of the main aspects to be taken into account when a food manufacturing facility is designed. To achieve this, many items need to be sacrificed which might impact on taste. For example, to make sure a product complies with a certain regulation, it may have to be covered in plastic which does nothing for the taste of the product. In this instance, there is a cost related to the quality of the product we consume.

The question of what is artisan is really important. Unfortunately, I do not think anybody can give a definitive answer to it. Both the FSAI and ourselves would love to have an answer because it is a really difficult question. The word "artisan" has come into play in the last few years because we have been trying to get rid of the word "speciality". If I employ 200 people and produce 1,000 products, one for a speciality market, it might be fish fingers with a tarragon sauce. We have encouraged use of the word "artisan" as meaning somebody who is producing a product using his or her own personal skill. My definition of artisan in relation to cheese, the area in which I am most involved, indicates that it has to do with people and place. The product comes from a specific geographical area, reflects the culture of that area and is influenced by a particular individual.

We are in favour of the motion because the way in which the HACCP system is being implemented is neither useful nor positive. Personally, I would prefer to see movement on the flexibility issue. I know that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has agreed with the artisan forum that flexibility needs to be introduced, but we need to move faster and go further. Within the United Kingdom similar issues have arisen in the last five to ten years. I notice they seem to move much more quickly and cut through the system much quicker to come up with solutions. We need to focus more. Whatever way we solve this problem, whether it is by approving this change in legislation or by focusing on achieving this flexibility in a real way down to the level of the artisan forum or the committee of the Minister of State, Deputy Sargent, it must feed down to the environmental health inspectors, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food inspectors and the culture of artisan food in Ireland.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Sheridan. Mr. Moon noted that HACCP compliance in nursing homes had moved from 22% to 60%. It surprises me that environmental health officers are not allowed to inspect nursing homes or hospitals, despite the major problems with MRSA and related deaths. It is extraordinary that State environmental health officials cannot inspect a nursing home on a given day. Is this not a significant anomaly?

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

I can only comment on the food safety aspect. From a HACCP perspective, we recognised that these were high-risk premises and we needed to ensure they were introducing the necessary controls to protect a very vulnerable group. No one would argue that this was not necessary to make sure the food being presented to the people in these institutions was of a higher safety and quality and not just nutritionally balanced. I do not know whether the Department wants to comment further.

Chairman

It has intrigued me over the years that environmental health officers cannot enter nursing homes, even those owned by the State. They cannot even go into the general hospitals. We are talking about hygiene, HACCP and ISO 9000 but State officials cannot enter a premises to carry out an inspection. If they were allowed to enter private nursing homes, not at the food end but with regard to HACCP controls, it would eliminate many of the difficulties with MRSA. Why is this not happening?

Ms Siobhan McEvoy

To clarify, in some parts of the country environmental health officers are part of the nursing home teams operated by the Health Service Executive. We are working with the Health Information and Quality Authority in the development of standards for these residential homes, and environmental health officers are involved in this process. They can enter a premises to inspect under food safety rules and also under the hygiene and environmental standards and the tobacco legislation. Environmental health officers are involved but the operation is different in certain parts of the country.

Chairman

Is it not the exception rather than the rule? The committee is concerned that environmental health officers cannot carry out officially an unannounced inspection in a nursing home whereas they could walk into a restaurant, hotel or supermarket to do so. Would it not be advantageous for private nursing homes that environmental health officers could walk in to carry out a HACCP check, based on the exacting HACCP criteria outlined by Mr. Moon? We have discussed the issue of flexibility in the food area, which is critical, but it is an anomaly that environmental health officers, who are highly skilled and have degrees, cannot perform their duties.

Ms Siobhan McEvoy

These standards are being developed in association with the HIQA and we will see changes in the inspection regimes in nursing homes. It is a matter that is being worked through. Environmental health officers will be part of this, as will other disciplines such as public health nurses and others, as required.

Chairman

Ms McEvoy might come back to the committee on its concerns.

Senator John Ellis

In which areas are inspections allowed at present? Why does this not take place nationally? There have been winter vomiting bugs in many hospitals, which are said to be hygiene related regardless of whether we like to admit it. Something urgently needs to be done by the Department of Health and Children. Whatever needs to be done, I have no doubt this committee will pursue the matter and ensure it is done as soon as possible. The winter vomiting bug issue has remained unresolved for the last ten years.

Chairman

Does Mr. Moon wish to comment on that?

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

From a food safety perspective, the rights of entry of environmental health officers are the same in respect of all food business types with the exception of those operating from a private dwelling. All other food businesses are the same in that unannounced visits are allowed.

Chairman

Have environmental health officers the right to undertake unannounced inspections in State properties? Is that something the Food Safety Authority of Ireland would advocate and encourage?

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

Yes, that is certainly the case,

Chairman

I very much welcome that unannounced inspections can take place in State institutions in which long-term patients reside.

Mr. Jeffrey Moon

Our guidance notes advocate unannounced visits unless it is absolutely necessary to make an appointment as, for example, where there is a person with a particular technical expertise in the food business in question.

Chairman

I asked this question with particular reference to nursing homes. In regard to the other proposal, I am totally in agreement on the importance of maintaining a flexible and discretionary arrangement. Coming from a small business background, I am aware of the importance of encouraging enterprise. From the small acorn the large oak grows. I welcome the indication from the departmental officials that the Department will encourage flexibility. This will facilitate the self-regulatory, partnership approach outlined by Mr. Moon on behalf of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and by Mr. Ward of the TASTE Council.

Senator John Ellis

I asked about areas in which there is an open house in terms of inspection and those areas in which inspections cannot take place.

Ms Siobhan McEvoy

With the Chairman's permission, I will consult my colleagues who deal specifically with this issue and come back to the committee with the information requested.

Chairman

I would be grateful for that. As Senator Ellis stated, it is an important issue.

I thank Mr. Maguire, Mr. Moon, Mr. Ward, Ms Jeffares, Mr. Sheridan and their colleagues for their presentations and for answering our questions. This worthwhile discussion will assist the committee in finalising the detailed scrutiny report we plan to produce. If any of the delegates wish to add to today's presentations, they should forward the relevant information to the secretariat for inclusion in the overall summary. It has been an effective meeting and I thank all attendees.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.05 p.m. sine die.