Mr. Michael Maloney:

Deputy Fitzmaurice asked what Bord Bia intends to do about meat that displays a stamp stating the product is Irish in origin when it is not? If meat origin is being misrepresented in the marketplace then that is an issue for bodies other than Bord Bia. We do not have responsibility for policing how meat is stamped, sold or portrayed in the marketplace. That is not a role for us. Other agencies have that remit. As I said earlier, we have responsibility for the products that carry the Bord Bia quality assurance mark. We promote them and police the system. We police it at farm level and, particularly, at factory level. When we go to the meat processors we carry out extensive audits to ensure that, in terms of traceability and reconciliation, it is only quality assured products that come out of the meat factory that carry the Bord Bia mark.

The Deputy mentioned the beef quality assurance scheme. I think it is the closed-out model for beef. We had a situation in our previous beef scheme whereby, if non-compliances were raised at farm level, then the farm fell out of certification and had to reapply. Last April we introduced a new scheme and changed the rules to have a closed-out model in line with our other schemes. Therefore, if a farmer gets a non-compliance notification, following an audit, he or she gets 30 days to rectify the problem. Provided the matter is resolved within 30 days, he or she remains certified for the 30 days and will continue to be certified.

The Deputy mentioned that farmers are charged a heavy price for carbon navigation. In actual terms, farmers are not charged. There is no fee to be paid by the farmer to be part of the programme. I presume he was referring to the things that farmers have to do to pass the audit. In terms of all of those things, and particularly since we moved to the closed-out model for farms, there seems to be very little negative feedback on the schemes. Farmers appreciate that the criteria for the quality assurance schemes are criteria that reflect good practice at farm level. There is also an appreciation that being part of a quality assurance scheme, and a sustainability assurance scheme, is important for market access and trying to access better markets.

In terms of the movement of cattle and whether an animal aged 30 months and three days tastes better or worse than one aged 30 months less three days or one that has not reached its 30-month birthday. That is an issue for the meat factories and their customers. If their customers demand a product that is less than 30 months of age then that is a specification individual factories must meet in order to meet the requirements of their contracts. As far as Bord Bia is concerned, we have left our quality assurance as broad as possible so as many animals as possible can qualify. We insist on animals spending 70 days on the final farm or farms but they can move a number of times and still be quality assured by us.

The marketplace will dictate in certain markets, and in certain higher spec markets, that the number of movements are restricted and that the age of the animal is restricted. I mention confirmation, the fat score and the weight as well. That would reflect an earlier comment about extra cattle for the same tonnage of beef, and smaller carcases being required in regard to that. Our schemes try to keep it as broad and as open as possible. Then it is really a matter for the meat factories and their customers to work out the details of the contracts and which animals meet particular contracts. I do not know if Ms McCarthy wants to pick up on any other matters.