Andrew Doyle (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

After four hours and 50 minutes, we are burgered out. I thank the Minister, Professor Reilly and their colleagues for their full and frank engagement. We agreed before the meeting started to proceed along a line of questioning that would try to establish the facts rather than be political or provoke a negative impression of the Irish industry. We are collectively concerned with moving on from this incident at the earliest opportunity. I commend members on engaging in that spirit. It is clear that the process needs to be concluded as quickly as possible and must be evidence-based.

We must all agree that decisions need to be made based on evidence rather than on anything else.

Towards the end of the discussion, the Minister touched on something in which I firmly believe - namely, the importance of labelling. If there is an issue with establishing the source of this problem - it seems from the investigations on our side that it is Polish - there is a role for proper labelling. In the case of any labelled product that has been certified through another EU member state, either the European people with responsibility for safety or the Directorate General for Health and Consumers has responsibility to take some ownership of it, because we cannot cross legal or policing boundaries. This may not be a police issue for Poland. It could affect some other country. The problem is that we do not know. Therefore, we must use the authorities responsible for labelling. We must go after the label if it is the labelling that is wrong.

The issue of the relationship between cheap ingredients and price has been raised. Input costs are increasing and there is significant competition between multiples and retailers. We had an agreement to bring in a number of the multiples over a period beginning in two weeks' time but, unfortunately, in light of this issue they have said they want to defer these meetings, although we cannot see the rationale behind that. Competition is something that drives people, despite the best will in the world, to see if they can cut input costs. If the input costs can be cut by doing something that does not compromise food safety but does cut standards, they face that temptation constantly. It is important to point out that nothing that has happened in this regard has threatened, as far as we can establish, food safety. That must be commended. We should also emphasise that this problem was self-diagnosed and was determined within the State. As the Minister and others have said, while ongoing investigations were being made, it was our systems that discovered it.

Senator O'Brien put it well when he said the beef industry is something of which we should be proud. The likes of Silvercrest and secondary processors add value to the industry. We have said for years that we want to move from primary production and from just selling slaughtered animals to the UK or elsewhere to adding real value. Therefore, it is in our interest, if Silvercrest is the most modern plant in Europe, that it be put back into commission as soon as possible. That is the sum of my observations.

I thank all Members who attended and I thank the Minister, Professor Reilly and all the team for engaging with us today. Unfortunately, this engagement was delayed, but it was worth waiting for.

I remind members that because next week's meeting clashes with Question Time, it has been deferred to the later time of 3.30 p.m.