Martin Browne (Tipperary, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

In March of this year, there was severe disappointment among farmers’ representatives in regard to the beef price developments over the previous month and unhappiness at the explanation provided by meat industry representatives at the forum on this issue. In April, members of the committee expressed disappointment at the market transparency studies, and the reports failed to identify the division of price among those in the supply chain. In June, at the next meeting of the task force, there was dissatisfaction with the contribution of the meat processing industry, particularly in regard to the sudden drop in base prices in February of this year.

It is precisely because of inconsistencies such as this and the lack of transparency that our farmers want this task force to work properly. Is it not true to say that when it comes to the level of transparency that farmers want, we are not much further along the line? In the Grant Thornton conclusions on the demand for in-spec bonuses, it pointed out that several customers referenced developing market requirements and the fact demands may change over time. When something is being reviewed, we have to look at the weakest point, which may be the most problematic. What is Mr. Dowling's view on this level of ambiguity about the market demand? Does it indicate to him that there are shortcomings in regard to the demands that are placed on farmers by the processors in regard to in-spec bonuses?

Is there not a fundamental problem with the fact the price paid by the end consumer is not within the scope of the report, and neither were processor-to-processor sales?

Why was that excluded? Does Mr. Dowling believe that omissions such as these serve the best interests of small family farmers?