Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine

Electronic Identification of Sheep: Discussion

3:30 pm

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I remind members and witnesses to ensure that their mobile phones are turned off. We have witnesses from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and Meat Industry Ireland. I welcome Mr. Martin Blake, chief veterinary officer, Ms Paula Barry Walsh, deputy chief veterinary officer, Mr. Martin Farrell, principal officer and Ms Maria Dunne, principal officer from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. I welcome the representatives from Meat Industry Ireland, Mr. Philip Carroll, Chairman and Mr. Cormac Healy, senior director.

I thank the witnesses for appearing before the meeting today to discuss the electronic identification of sheep. We are aware that new regulations requiring that all sheep be electronically tagged are due to come into effect in October. The purpose of today's meeting is to discuss the changes, the background and the concerns raised by farmers and the measures in place to support the changeover to an entirely electronic process.

Before I begin I want to bring to the attention of those present the matter of privilege. Witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. However, if they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and they are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or entities by name in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the House, or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I understand Mr. Blake will make the initial statement.

Mr. Martin Blake:

I thank the Chairman for the invitation and I welcome the opportunity to attend. I am accompanied by Ms Paula Barry Walsh, deputy chief veterinary officer; Mr. Martin Farrell, principal officer in animal identification and movement division; and Ms Maria Dunne, principal officer in meat and milk policy divisions.

I propose briefly to set out the objectives of a sheep identification and traceability system, reflect on the current system in place and set out the rationale for change. In addition, I will describe the proposed new arrangements and outline the benefits and costs that are associated with these new proposals.

The ability to identify and trace animals is critical from an animal health, food safety and animal welfare perspective. Systems like this support the development of and the veracity of assurances associated with animal and herd health programmes; support disease control activities, including trace back and trace forward; support food safety assurances in areas such as food-chain information and trace back and trace forward in respect of biological, chemical or environmental contaminants in the food chain; and bring accountability in respect of animal welfare.

Traceability is, therefore, important from the individual farmer’s perspective in protecting and promoting his or her own within farm interests and at industry and indeed societal level, where the actions of one or a few can jeopardise the industry and, indeed, society as a whole. Good identification and traceability systems support the optimisation of productivity at farm level in areas such as breeding, nutrition, animal health and animal welfare and at industry and societal level in meeting consumers', both domestic and international, and citizens expectations regarding food safety, traceability and quality. It also supports the targeting and optimising the deployment of resources in risk management interventions by both the industry players and also by the State. The advancement of new technologies in recent years provides newer and better tools to support these objectives.

The current system we have in place for identification and traceability of sheep goes back to 2010. It is grounded in Council Regulation (EC) No. 21/2004. The default position is that sheep must be identified using an electronic identification, EID, system, that is, either an EID tag or a bolus set. However, there is a derogation available for member states where they may authorise an alternative system in respect of sheep less than 12 months of age that are intended for slaughter and that are not intended for intra-community trade or for export to third countries. The derogated alternative system is expected to deliver the equivalent levels of assurance regarding traceability.

To summarise, sheep must be identified by the age of nine months, or six months in intensive sheep production facilities, or when leaving the holding; be identified with an EID set on reaching 12 months of age; have an EID set of tags if they are presented for slaughter, irrespective of age; by way of derogation they may be identified by way of a single slaughter tag, if less than 12 months of age, where they are moving directly from the holding of origin to slaughter plant; and by way of derogation, they may be identified with a single mart tag, if less than 12 months of age, where being sold at a mart. That is the current system.

A number of further scenarios play out in respect of the animals sold at marts depending on their future destination. This depends on whether they are going for slaughter, further fattening or breeding. There are also further additional requirements in respect of loss of tags, in differing circumstances, and in relation to imported animals.

With regard to accompanying documentation, the Department provides specific dispatch documents to individual registered flock owners. This is pre-printed with name, address, flock number and flock identifier, which must be used for any movement of sheep off farm. It is necessary that the individual 12 digit number of all sheep being moved is clearly and legibly entered on to the document. This includes the necessary food chain information declaration that must be signed by the farmer.

In addition, all flock owners are required to maintain a flock register in which they record the date of tagging, movements onto and off the farm, replacement tags and on-farm deaths. The system is complex, with multiple and different scenarios associated with the movement and trading of sheep, which gave rise to the Department to produce a 44 page step by step guide, which was provided some years back.

Moving on to the rationale for change, the current system necessitates the manual transcription of a series of individual 12 digit tag numbers at each point of transaction along the supply chain. This provides a significant ongoing challenge in the context of an effective traceability system. The challenges posed have been recognised over years, with a number of instances relating to animal health, environmental contamination and animal medicines, posing particular difficulties for the Department and, therefore, for the industry in tracing back and forward along the supply chain. While the events in question were all dealt with and eventually contained, the system was found to be particularly ineffective and raised specific concerns in the context of the country’s ability to effectively deal with a widespread food safety event or a widespread contagious exotic disease. A number of internal and external audits have also highlighted concerns about the effectiveness of the current system.

Further issues arise in the context of the single farm payment inspections, where numerous non-compliances, potentially contributing to the application of penalties, have been identified due to errors in the accuracy or correctness of data recorded in dispatch documents or flock registers.

The Department has also experienced increased detailed inquiries from countries with which we have been seeking to develop market access for Irish sheepmeat, in relation to identification and traceability of sheep. It is clear to us that the increased focus on the effectiveness and robustness of traceability from a food safety perspective by these countries is informed by systems that other potential supply countries have in place. These issues have informed commitments in a number of strategic documents which all signalled the need to improve the current system. There is a commitment in A Programme for a Partnership Government to strengthen food safety and traceability and maintain at highest standards. The FoodWise industry document commits to underpin and further improve Ireland’s sheep traceability system and the National Farmed Animal Health Strategy commits to further develop and improve the sheep identification system to better support animal health and food safety assurances and controls.

The main elements of the proposed new arrangement may be summarised as follows: the extension of the requirement for EID to all sheep as the standard default position; the implementation of a derogation in respect of sheep less than 12 months of age moving directly from holding of origin to slaughter, which would require a single EID tag rather than an EID set; marts and slaughter plants to act as central points of recording, CPR, thus removing the administrative burden on farmers to transcribe the individual 12 digit tag numbers of each sheep onto the dispatch documents; and the use of a single colour tag to better enable the upgrading of animals if they are kept for breeding rather than going for slaughter.

The benefits and costs of the new arrangements can be summarised along the following lines. It will definitely simplify the system, with reduced complexity associated with tag types and re-tagging of animals currently. The electronic capture of data will provide readable and accurate records, thus enabling real traceability in respect of the identity of sheep moved. There will be a reduced administrative burden on farmers in completing dispatch documents where they only have to insert the total number of sheep rather than having to transcribe each individual sheep tag number. There will be a reduction in errors for farmers at farm level, which currently contribute to penalties under the single farm payment scheme. There will be a reduced burden on farmers purchasing breeding sheep less than 12 months of age at marts, as the animals will already be identified electronically, and there will be no need for further re-identification when they reach 12 months of age. It will provide a robust on-farm infrastructural tool across the industry that can be leveraged in areas such as breeding, nutrition and animal health to maximise on-farm productivity. There will be a reduced administrative burden on marts in that all sheep arriving will be identified electronically. There will be a reduced administrative burden and errors for dealers purchasing animals at marts for further feeding, as they will all be identified electronically, and there will be no need for further re-identification. There will be a reduced administrative burden for slaughter plants in that all sheep arriving for slaughter will be identified electronically. Critically, it will improve the industry's and the State's capacity to effectively respond in a timely, targeted, focused and accurate way to critical animal health and food safety incidents and events. It will underpin the country’s capability in relation to animal health strategies in the context of animal health programmes, surveillance and control. It will provide the industry with a robust, effective and verifiable traceability system, which can stand scrutiny nationally and internationally from a food safety assurance perspective. It will facilitate the Department, acting on behalf of the industry, in engaging more proactively in seeking and achieving new market access for Irish sheep and sheep products.

In order to achieve these benefits there are, indeed, additional costs for the industry. Farmers will incur extra costs associated with EID tags. For instance, it can be seen in the marketplace at the moment that the marginal cost of an EID tag over a conventional tag is in the region 75 cent. Marts and slaughter plants will need to invest in technology and infrastructure in order to be in a position to act as central points of recording.

Recognising, in particular, the upfront cost to farmers, the Minister has announced a once-off support payment of up to €50 per farmer to assist in the transition from purchasing conventional tags to buying EID tags. It is estimated that this will cost the Exchequer up to €2 million.

In addition, the purchase of electronic identification readers and associated software has been included as a measure supported under the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS. This is budgeted to cost in the region of €1 million. While tag readers are not essential in the management of a sheep flock, they are invaluable if a farmer seeks to leverage the benefit of EID in effective management, be it in relation to breeding, nutrition, health or husbandry of his or her flock. This specific support is additional to the sheep welfare scheme, which provides further targeted direct support to the sheep sector in the region of €19 million which falls to be paid in respect of 2017. I mention in the context of the knowledge transfer programmes under the Rural Development Programme 2014-2020 that 4,000 sheep farmers are participating, with a payment of €750 per farmer for those participating.

The Minister and Department officials have met with and have been in contact with the various stakeholders over recent weeks since the announcement in respect of some specific concerns in order to work through practical issues that still remain.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Blake. We will take Mr. Carroll's statement now.

Mr. Philip Carroll:

I thank the Chairman and members for inviting Meat Industry Ireland, MII, to address this committee and to have an exchange of views on electronic identification in the sheep sector. The announcement by the Minister last month that electronic tagging will be extended to all sheep is a necessary step to further underpin our sheep traceability system and will put the sector on a sound footing for future development. Our breeding ewe flock has been electronically identified now for many years, as has a proportion of lambs from certain producers. From 1 October this year, the full picture will be completed.

The extension of EID to all sheep ensures that Ireland keeps pace with our competitors and with developments in other major sheep producing member states in the EU. Northern Ireland has had full electronic identification in place for over a decade and France, England, Scotland and Wales have all moved to full EID several years ahead of us. It is important that we make this move now. Furthermore, our national cattle identification and traceability system is recognised internationally as world class. It is, therefore, imperative that our sheep identification and traceability system should also be of an international standard. Bringing it to that standard will profoundly increase Ireland’s prospects of opening up access to new international markets.

The move to full EID of all animals in the sheep sector will undoubtedly reinforce our national traceability system, which is based on one tag for life and individual animal identification. Certain aspects of the current regime require improvement. To the extent that the current systems falls short of best international practice, it is imperative that any deficiencies identified, which could undermine full and complete traceability, must be corrected immediately. MII strongly believes that the electronic identification of sheep is the best remedy to these deficiencies.

Using electronic identification tags and technology has many advantages. One is that it offers another form of identification for each animal. Sometimes conventional tags get lost, dirty, covered by wool or hair, become snagged on a fence and so on whereas EID tags are small and are designed for high retention rates. Another benefit is that an animal can more easily be identified by scanning the tag with a reader rather than needing to have the animal completely still to read a conventional tag number. Scanning EID tags, rather than writing down conventional tag numbers, is a tremendous benefit to farmers in saving time and minimising errors. Electronic identification means individual animals can be monitored through their entire life cycle via an electronic ear tag. Performance of animals and flocks can be better monitored, measured and responded to and the input of resources can be better managed to ensure profits are maximised.

Electronic sheep identification, therefore, has both identification and traceability benefits as well as management benefits. Apart from overall flock performance monitoring and improved information for breeding decisions, more routine weighing and sorting tasks can also be made easier.

MII is firmly of the view that this underpinning of our sheep identification and traceability system, through EID, is critically important to the positioning of Irish lamb in the market place and to competing for key customer accounts. In the first instance, it is important in respect of maintaining our existing customer base for Irish lamb. Systems of traceability and processing operations are continuously audited by major customers and by independent third parties and as we export over 80% of our overall sheepmeat production, we must ensure that our traceability regime is of international calibre and can stand up against our competitors who will be competing in the same international markets that Ireland is targeting.

In this regard, MII and its members are working actively with the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine to progress access to new international markets such as the US, Japan and China. The move to full EID, which reinforces our traceability system, is an important enabler to progressing these applications and, ultimately, delivering new international market access opportunities for Irish lamb exports.

I wish to emphasise that full electronic identification of sheep will bring significant benefits to the sheep sector. These include: facilitating farmers in their flock management, performance recording and improving flock register accuracy on the farm; full EID will greatly enhance the accuracy and flow of information to Sheep Ireland for its important work in sheep breeding and genomics; it will assist in bringing greater efficiency to handling sheep at farm, livestock mart and processing plant level; and, critically, in bringing the benefits of modern technology to the sector, it will contribute to far greater robustness to the identification and traceability of sheep and improve our prospects of securing new international markets for Irish lamb.

As I said at the outset, MII believes that the move to full electronic identification of all sheep later this year is an important step forward for the sector and will see the completion of a very comprehensive animal identification system for the sheep sector in Ireland. I thank the committee.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Carroll. We will hear members' views now. I call Deputy Kenny who will be followed by Senator Mac Lochlainn and Deputy Cahill.

Photo of Martin KennyMartin Kenny (Sligo-Leitrim, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank both contributors for their statements. This is a good thing and it is the direction we need to go in. It is a move in the right direction in terms of opening up new markets, helping to sustain markets and ensuring we have correct and full traceability.

As we know from recent reports from Teagasc on farm livelihoods, many in the sheep sector are on the lower end of the scale and are making the least amount of money for the efforts they are making. They see this as an additional cost and the question is whether that will provide an additional return greater than the cost. That is the issue most farmers have. I know from speaking to sheep farmers that none really has a problem with this other than the cost. It will be an extra cost on them and they fear they will not get the full return. That is really the issue.

Mr. Blake said the Department has been in contact with the stakeholders since the announcement. Deputy McConalogue and I met the Minister almost a year ago and he told informed us this was coming down the road. Were the stakeholders not kept informed prior to the announcement? Was there no consultation up to that point? I would like confirmation in that regard because some of the farm organisations have said they have not been kept informed as well as they would like to have been.

The issue seems to be that, in general, lambs have relatively short lives. The cost of the tag for the time it is on the farm if it is going straight to slaughter is an issue. I would like to have clarity on that issue. As far as I can see, this is good and the way forward. The best answer is the sheep scheme. If it was made an additional action under the scheme, it would compensate farmers who would know they were getting something back from it. It is regrettable. The Minister will be here later. While we are not talking about that issue now, it is part of what we are talking about. It would at least show some sense of trying to do something for the farmer. There has to be recognition that the sheep sector is under pressure. It has one of the lowest levels of profitability in farming.

I thank the delegates for their contributions.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a very good submission from the IFA. Other farming organisations have expressed concerns. This submission deals with the concerns expressed and makes some practical proposals. The IFA asserts that the main beneficiaries of this decision are the meat factories. It has brought to our attention a number of non-statutory charges imposed on farmers. I reaffirm the points made by Deputy Martin Kenny about the very low incomes of sheep farmers across the State. Some of the non-statutory charges are a scrapie levy which is 80 cent to €1.05 per ewe and an SRM levy of €1.27 to €1.30. These charges are additional to the departmental vet charge of 50 cent per head, the Bord Bia levy of 25 cent per head and the Sheep Ireland levy of 7 cent per head. What they are calling for is an instruction to the meat factories to abolish the non-statutory scrapie levy and the SRM levy imposed on sheep farmers at the factories. I would like a response from Mr. Carroll and Mr. Healy on that matter.

One of the big criticisms of the Department expressed by the farming organisations and sheep farmers is the lack of consultation. It is alarming that the Department announces something like this and consultation takes place afterwards. Why was there no consultation? Why did the Minister feel he had to invite the IFA and other farming organisations to make submissions and be involved in this matter?

The submission raises additional issues such as the underspend under the sheep welfare scheme. The submission asks about its reallocation. I assume Mr. Blake and Mr. Farrell have seen the submission. What is their response to it? The IFA also raises additional issues, including market access and animal welfare. Apparently, there is an issue for hill sheep farmers when it comes to EID tagging. The submission also states the Department has confirmed that it has no plans to introduce a full individual database for sheep identification purposes. I would like a response on that issue.

Photo of Jackie CahillJackie Cahill (Tipperary, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the representatives from the Department and Meat Industry Ireland for their submissions. It is the old story. If something is good for farmers, it will be good for the industry and the cost will be thrown back on farmers to bear. We are talking about a very low income sector. It is the imposition of a significant cost on farmers. Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn referred to the IFA's submission. If one considers lambs coming off the hills, they vary in price from €35 to €50 per head. It is, therefore, a very significant part of the sale price. It is probably the lowest income sector in the industry. We are talking about 3% to 4% of the value of the output being the cost of the tag. Monitoring flock performance was mentioned. This is a flock tagging system. There will be no ability to identify traits that could improve the genetic performance of the flock. This is to identify lambs going to slaughter and will mean far greater traceability. We then have the arguments about keeping pace with our competitors. What are the New Zealanders and Australians doing? What traceability systems do they have? Every time we feel we want to secure greater market access, we go back to the primary producer, on whom we place a greater onus and extra cost. Unfortunately, the margin of the primary producer is shrinking.

No one can argue about the benefits and our customers will love it. In the past few months we have secured access to the market in China. There are conditions attached to that market access. When it arrives there, our food produce can be left in unrefrigerated conditions, but that does not mean that China does not want our meat plants to be seven star, all of which cost comes back to the primary producer. As Deputy Martin Kenny said, one cannot argue against the benefits, but one can definitely argue against how the primary producer will carry the cost. Imposing this extra cost on the primary producer is not practical or sustainable.

There is a significant underspend under the sheep welfare and other schemes. The Minister has to step up to the plate. The underspend under the sheep welfare scheme is significant. Funding has to be found to underwrite the cost this will impose on sheep farmers. The hills are being abandoned in sheep farming. The sector is on a knife edge and very few young farmers are entering it. It will be to no one's benefit, from a sustainability point of view or when the preservation of the landscape is considered, if the hills do not continue to be farmed. Imposing such a cost on this extremely low income sector cannot be allowed. We cannot just say it is for the good of the industry and that the primary producer will carry the cost, although we cannot argue about the benefits. Our customers will love it, but they do not care about the extra cost they place on us. The attitude is that it will be done by the industry and that it will carry it. We saw the same happen in the case of quality assurance measures. The cost is placed on us and we are told that it helps us to sell in the marketplace, but a primary producer sees little extra in his or her pocket for it, if anything. We can be told that we will lose market share because of it. As a result of Brexit, will these requirements be placed on the New Zealanders and Australians entering the European market? In the beef industry we do not see this pressure being exerted on imports from South America. They can be imported with virtually no traceability, even though we have to measure up to the highest possible standards. It has been said there will be benefits from a flock point of view in increasing productivity, while from a cost compliance perspective, it will probably reduce the margin for error. However, I think the Department will find a way around it.

Leaving that aside, there are benefits, but expecting the primary producer to bear the costs is not acceptable. There is an underspend under the sheep welfare scheme. The Minister has to step up to the plate to carry the cost of tagging. It is for the good of the industry. Meat Industry Ireland is adamant that it will give us greater access to markets, even though some of our competitors can bring in produce without any traceability and seemingly gain access to lucrative markets. That is a battle about which we could argue all day. It is a high percentage of the sale price. If this was happening in the beef industry, we would be talking about €20 per tag for a calf. That is the comparison and the context in which we have to consider it. If we want to move the industry forward - we will not argue that there are no benefits - the primary producer cannot be expected to carry the cost.

Mr. Martin Blake:

Deputy Martin Kenny, among other members, raised the issues of costs and stakeholder engagement. I shall deal with these two matters first.

Nobody disputes that there is a cost involved. It is not the Department's intention to just add costs to the meat industry; we are actually looking to support it and make it more efficient. We are looking to modify the current system because it does not work. We are trying to underpin it in dealing with food safety and animal health issues. This not for the good of the Department; the expectation is that if we have a new tool to support the industry, it is good to be able to support it and the food chain with food assurances.

We have made some calculations of the cost per farm. Based on the current pricing system, a 100 ewe lowland flock, for example, will incur an additional cost in the region of €75 to €78. In recognition of this, the Minister has announced the provision of support for farms of €50 during a transition period. There is no doubt that there is an additional cost and this is a policy decision on the part of the Minister to provide support during the transition.

The process of engagement started at the end of 2015 and into 2016. During that period there were ongoing intensive meetings, with a number of additional meetings during 2016 and 2017. Once the announcement was made, it raised practical issues which needed to be worked out with the industry. People were invited to bring forward issues of particular concern to them to see how we could overcome practical issues such as the supply of tags; transitioning from the old to the new tags; and how to have a central point for recording at marts and slaughter plants. People made representations in the context of costs and a number of issues were raised. It is not the case that there was no consultation prior to the announcement.

On market access, I shall hand over to my colleague Ms Paula Barry Walsh who has had engagement with some of the countries involved.

Ms Paula Barry Walsh:

Currently Ireland can export sheep to 45 countries, pigs to 55 and beef to 70. There is an active wish to increase access for sheep in prime markets such as Japan, the United States of America and China. For some of the markets with which Ireland has engaged, it is not a question of asking them if they prefer Ireland to have an electronic identification system for sheep; it is the case that they look at what we submit to them and they are questioning it. There are two markets, in particular, to which we are seeking access and in one case it has put some quite hard questions to us about how it wants Ireland to ensure traceability in cases of recall. That was at the end of last year and we have not yet been able to answer the questions. In another case, in which we have made a market access application, it has been acknowledged by the country in question that Ireland has traceability issues and it has asked us to resolve them as we progress the application. As has been said, the current system is not working because it does not deliver the assurances third countries ask for, especially on animal health and food safety risks. The Minister's announcement is particularly opportune in helping the sheep industry to capitalise in gaining market access for the future. We hope to continue to gain market access and increase the numbers of countries to where sheepmeat can be exported.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I will take up some of the points raised. Deputy Martin Kenny asked if the system would give an additional return, while Senator Pádraig Mac Lochlainn quoted from an Irish Farmers Association submission that the meat factories were the only ones to benefit. I shall address the two points together. Meat Industry Ireland believes the entire sheep sector will benefit from this measure. The entire sheep sector is dependent on traceability which underpins food safety in the system. If there are shortcomings that lead to an issue, we all know from previous examples that the entire sheep sector, every stakeholder and all actors in the chain, including the farmer, the livestock mart and the meat plant, can be impacted on. This solidifies our approach to traceability in the entire sheep sector and it is of benefit to everybody.

There are other issues, on which we have touched, such as the unfortunate reality that gaining market access is a challenging task. It is a time consuming and lengthy operation to gain international market access, but this measure is one we have to take in taking the next steps to achieve a number of target markets.

Without question, a system in which all sheep are electronically identified has certain management benefits at farm level, no more than at mart and meat plant levels, as opposed to the system in operation in which the entire ewe breeding flock and rams are electronically identified. A number of other flocks of individual producers have taken the electronic identification route and seen certain advantages. Some of these producers may be involved more in breeding programmes or on the pedigree side of the business, but other large commercial sheep farmers have also taken the step. There are benefits across the board.

On the overall returns, market access and ensuring the recovery of a premium price from the market, it is all about ensuring there are no slip-ups in the existing customer base and markets we already serve. As Mr. Carroll said in his opening statement, the meat industry is constantly audited by customers and independent third party auditors who look at every facet of the system. In the past some shortcomings in the traceability arrangements were identified and they will not be overlooked forever. We must retain our customer base and then expand into international markets.

The Department has indicated the numbers in international markets that are open to lamb imports, but they are behind the figures for pigmeat and beef. To some extent, lamb producers might be a little late to the table in the international market arena, but they are very much focused on international markets now because of changes in them, one of which is the increasing demand for lamb in certain markets. Another is the more significant development in the past decade of an increase in the volumes of lamb that previously would have come to Europe from New Zealand and Australia being diverted to China. That has opened up new opportunities which we have to go after. We believe Ireland has an advantage in that regard. As we have said at this committee before, it is all about trying to maximise use of every individual piece of the carcass. In many cases it is about heading into some of the new markets in Asia and so on. There will be an underpinning of returns.

The overall price return in the course of this year to date has been strong. Where the markets and the demand exist, it can be delivered. We need to underpin it and find new markets to follow up on.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A question comes to mind which Deputy Cahill referenced earlier. If Australia and New Zealand are our competitors, are we on an unlevel playing field? Those countries are entering markets we are trying to access.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

Deputy Cahill raised this point and talked about our competitors, as we described them. In the first instance, our primary focus remains the European market. When we talk about immediate competitors, we note that our colleagues in England, Scotland, Wales and France have moved along the electronic identification route. Our first immediate competitor is probably UK lamb in continental markets. We are competing toe to toe with the UK in those markets. As major global suppliers of sheepmeat, Australia and New Zealand do not have a similarly elaborate traceability system. It is a frustration but the reality is that they had market access in Europe and many other international markets, in particular the USA, long before there was any discussion of tagging sheep, not to mention electronic tagging. Unfortunately, and perhaps the Department can elaborate on this point, getting into a market ahead of particular developments or rule changes is one thing, but trying to get market access after those developments have taken place is another. We are confronted with that fact and must demonstrate our bona fides on traceability.

Deputy Cahill also made a point as to whether an identification system delivered benefits for breeding. We understand from Sheep Ireland that there are benefits. There is individual identification of the animals. Breeding flocks and pedigree flocks have probably gone down this route already based on work we have done with them in providing data to Sheep Ireland. If the sheep sector is to get some of the breeding benefits seen in the dairy sector, which are now starting to come through in the beef sector, this system will be of assistance in providing accurate information.

Senator Mac Lochlainn mentioned other charges related to scrapie and so on. Those are completely unrelated to the topic under discussion. They are related to particular regulatory costs that apply. We have worked long and hard to have issues like scrapie testing and the requirements involved on foot of EU regulation changed and dropped. We are all spending money on legacy legislation going back to BSE times.

Photo of Pádraig Mac LochlainnPádraig Mac Lochlainn (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The point the IFA has made is that SRM and scrapie testing are non-statutory.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I understand but they relate to specific regulatory changes that took place at a point in time. No more than the IFA, our focus is to have the scrapie testing requirement reduced so that those kinds of costs can be taken out of the system.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Blake want to address the New Zealand-Australia issue?

Mr. Martin Blake:

Mr. Healy has more or less explained it. From the Department's perspective, the issue is that countries which have had access previously remain in the market. It is when one is a new entrant into a market-----

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is an unlevel playing field.

Mr. Martin Blake:

Yes, but this also has advantages.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is like going for a job where one person is a bit older and has a leaving certificate and the other has a junior certificate.

Mr. Martin Blake:

There are difficulties with historical and legacy issues. That does not make our job any easier. If they have access to the USA and we want to get access, we have to meet the requirements of the USA at this point in time. Deputy Cahill mentioned the flock identifier. The benefit is that we will capture the individual animal identifier. We will be able to use those data at individual animal level, which will take us a step further and allow us to enter into more refined traceability systems and targeting. There will be trace-back on medicines' usage, animal residues and issues like that. Once we have the individual identification, we can refine and target our resources in that regard.

Much of the conversation we have been having has focused on international trade and market access. We must also be mindful of satisfying our customers at home, which I also mentioned in my opening statement. We have our own food safety issues in the context of what we are doing. We have had difficulties with trace-back and what is happening in Ireland, which is of interest to our domestic market as well as our international market. We have found that the current system does not work, which is part of the rationale for change. The new system will give us a greater handle on that and allow us to deploy resources in a better way. It is not just about market access, it is about improving controls and enabling us to better deploy resources when dealing with traceability issues, be it from an animal health or a food safety perspective at home.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Carroll want to make a contribution at this stage?

Mr. Philip Carroll:

I have a brief point on equivalence or the level playing field. If one is trading within the European Union, one has that. It is part and parcel of the mutual recognition of standards. One does not have it when trading internationally, which is one of the difficulties. First, permission is required from the importing country, which sets the standards it wants. We have seen that in the case of beef. It has taken many years to get that over the line and to negotiate those standards to get something that is somewhat equivalent to what one might want to export to other member states. As Mr. Healy said, the tradition of tagging did not exist in the past, but we face that standard now and must reach it. It is also interesting to note that Victoria in Australia, which is a large production area, has actually moved to mandatory electronic identification. A process is commencing there. I do not know precisely why that happened, but it is a clear indication of where they see the requirement in the marketplace.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The next set of questions is from Senator Mulherin.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The case for electronic identification of sheep has been well made. The bottom line, however, is that farmers have been asked to pay and are not happy about it. All farmers have had a tough year, particularly in the sheep sector, which, as colleagues have said, is not one of the high profit farming sectors. Sheep farmers where I am from always face issues and problems, including viability. Someone from Meat Industry Ireland said the whole sheep sector will benefit. I think it was Mr. Carroll. While I accept that, there is only one pillar of the industry being asked to pay along with the taxpayer the €50 being proposed. Some members of the committee were in Brussels to hear about issues around the weak position of farmers in the food supply chain and about how they are always an easy target. They have little bargaining power and, in a case like this, the costs fall to be borne by them. Is that correct? Is the meat industry paying towards this in some way? It is all very well to herald the measure and tell us it is much needed, but farming is all about margins. Something either helps or goes against those margins, whether it is fertiliser or commodity prices. Farmers are making a fair point about who is carrying the cost here.

An underspend of approximately €5 million has been identified at a time when a cost of €50 per farmer has been proposed.

We are all for the modernisation of all sectors and we want to have the best agriculture and be the best food producers in the world but we have to support the primary producers. Some of the sheep farmers I meet tell me they cannot see the next generation taking up the mantle and carrying on with sheep farming. It is the same with suckler cows. This will be a serious issue. Until now people have carried on through family tradition but young people, thankfully, have many more options available to them through education and training and farming is not a very attractive prospect. If we keep hammering farmers bit by bit, at some stage we will have the straw that breaks the camel's back. We are told by the Government and the Commissioner that everything is being done to help farmers but this is a backward step. It might not be the biggest step ever but it has a cumulative effect.

Photo of Paul DalyPaul Daly (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presentation. As has been stated by every previous speaker, it is hard to argue against the positives of the scheme but we are hearing the positives from one side of the fence and we are duty-bound to represent all interested parties. We have had a bit of lobbying from the farm side and points have been made about the cost.

I would like the witnesses from the Department and Meat Industry Ireland to flesh out a few different items. They have been covered to some extent already, but I would still like to hear them being fleshed out a little more. I am not an expert when it comes to sheep or sheep breeding, but improved traceability has been mentioned. How will the introduction of EID help or improve genomics or genetics? Leaving aside the purebred breeders who will do things a hell of a lot differently from the average sheep farmer, I will use the example of combined flocks running on commonage on a mountain. There is a variety of rams of different breeds. Even on lowland farms breeders run their ewes with a ram or two and then, three weeks later, will run them with another ram. I know from experience of old, and from hearing different stories, a badly doctored wether can do as much damage as a ram on any farm. Unless we start recording the parentage, will the witnesses explain to me how EID will improve genomics and genetics in the herd other than it being a box-ticking exercise for potential customers?

It was also mentioned that one of the advantages for farmers of an electronic identification for sheep would be that marts and factories would become central points of recording. Does this mean that if sheep are EID tagged, the sheep farmers can load up their trailers in the morning without doing any paperwork and go to the factory and, down the line, when it comes to flock registering or schemes the Department will accept the printouts received in the mart or factory? If there happens to be a mistake, a clerical error or a typo, who will pay the penalty if it causes issues for the farmer down the line with the Department? The farmers can show the factory printout and ask whether this is how the new scheme is working. What obligation will be on the marts or factories to supply farmers with this information? Will the factory or mart printout or email that is in the farmer's records be accepted by the Department? The question I am grappling with most in basic terms is what will change under EID with regard to lambs produced for Easter in a short space of time and going directly from the farm where they were born to the factory without going through a dealer or any other holding. In simple terms, what will change?

Photo of Charlie McConalogueCharlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the departmental officials and Meat Industry Ireland for coming before the committee to present to us. The issue has been well discussed, and my apologies for having to leave during the presentations but I read them in advance.

As has been well outlined by other members, this move is not something to which people object as such, it is the fact the cost is to be borne by farmers and primary producers. We see this right across the food chain and various sectors. Too often, the farmer must bear the brunt of costs. When margins get squeezed it filters down to the farmer who takes the full whack. This will be the case again with the costs of tagging. As has been outlined, the cost of this move to hill farmers in particular adds up to 3% or 4% of the cost of a lamb. This is too much to ask in what is an exceptionally marginal and, in many cases, non-profitable enterprise.

Obviously, from an administration point of view, there will be a cost saving, in particular, for marts and meat factories. I have a question for Meat Industry Ireland on the level of the cost saving that will arise as a result of reduced administration. Is it willing to make a financial contribution towards it? Has Meat Industry Ireland had conversations with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine in this regard?

I emphasise to the Department something that has been mentioned by other speakers, which is the funding left over from the implementation of the sheep welfare scheme. The Minister's €50 contribution is no more than a sop. It is recognition there will be a significant cost but it is no more than a token from him. It will leave the ongoing costs with the farmers after the initial purchase of tags.

My next question for Meat Industry Ireland is on the opening up of markets. Are there specific markets on which it feels this system will make a very definite impact and might be a clincher with regard to actually getting access to them? Perhaps the Department will also comment on this. The bottom line is we are indicating this will mean more markets for farmers and, potentially, better prices. It is a difficult question but will the witnesses indicate what will be the benefit to farmers in terms of the prices in those additional markets? Ultimately, we are asking farmers to take a hit on their margins and to factor the cost of electronic tagging into their cost base.

Will the Department and Meat Factory Ireland outline exactly the difference the system will make for a batch of lambs going directly from flock of origin to a factory? They will all go into the factory with one flock number. How will this make a real difference to them? Is it really necessary to include this category of lamb?

Is an individual identification animal ID and sheep ID database being considered by the Department? Would this add to the traceability system? Will the move to total electronic ID tags make a significant difference in the absence of a departmental ID system?

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Senator Lawlor who is a new recruit.

Photo of Anthony LawlorAnthony Lawlor (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman for allowing me to contribute. I followed the debate earlier and I welcome the Department officials and the representatives from Meat Industry Ireland. I will make a couple of points. I have to agree with Senator Paul Daly on the issue of the Department accepting readouts. The witnesses state it will save on cross-compliance and administration for farmers. Will the Department definitively state that the readouts from the factories or marts will be acceptable for cross-compliance and later traceability?

This whole system is about one word, namely, "trust". The purpose is to ensure consumers can have trust in where they get their products.

Witnesses from both the Department and Meat Industry Ireland used the word "traceability" a number of times. As a sheep farmer, as far as I am concerned, traceability finishes at the factory floor. If Deputy Cahill buys two lamb chops in a supermarket, he will not know where the lamb came from, what its parentage was, what breed of lamb it was, whether it was a crossbreed or a purebred or anything else. If he wants to find out where his lamb comes from, he could come to me and I would sell him a box of lamb killed in a small abattoir. Then he would know where the two lamb chops he will eat for his dinner tonight came from. A customer in any of the shops or supermarkets will pick up a small pack of lamb featuring a nice picture of a farmer with his few lambs and sheepdog and will believe the farmer pictured is the producer of the two little lamb chops in the packet. However, that will not be the case because the farmer in question will not be able to produce so many lambs.

There is, therefore, no traceability for consumers from the moment a lamb enters a meat factory to the point at which it is placed on the counter of a supermarket. I would love the packaging for lamb to feature labels such as, "From a crossbred sheep", "From a black-faced mountain sheep", "From a Suffolk sheep", "From a purebred Texel" or "From a Texel cross", as occurs with beef products. A premium is paid for Angus and Hereford beef. This type of premium is not possible in the sheep sector because the industry does not want to keep track of lambs after they have been broken down into their individual parts. Traceability would allow customers to know where the lamb they buy comes from.

As I stated, the proposed system is based on trust. As a producer, I must assume the cost of the new electronic identification tags to ensure my flock will meet the compliance requirements of the meat factories. How much will the factory do to ensure customers are able to identify the lamb that I watched being born and which I reared, tagged, brought to the factory and then lost sight of, as it were, because the customer cannot trace it from his or her plate?

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Mulherin wanted to make a brief point.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I intended to refer to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland's audit report, the summary of which I have to hand. The report identifies cases of non-compliance in the national sheep identification scheme. It notes that no checks are carried out by food business operators or the veterinary inspector at plant level to determine the accuracy or validity of the tag numbers recorded on the dispatch documents. My understanding of this issue, on which some of the farming organisations have made a case, is that the reason for the deficiencies lies with the Department's inspections in some of the factories. This returns me to my question as to why it is only the farmer who must bear the cost of this system. Fairness demands more creative thinking about sharing the cost. As I stated earlier, a flat fee of €50 is not sufficient. I would also support an increase in the sheep welfare scheme payment to farmers, even by a small amount or on an a per animal basis.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the timing of the introduction of the new scheme, how will the transition work for a sheep farmer who bought his annual supply of tags earlier in the year given that the new scheme will commence in October? If a farmer planned to tag 200 sheep this year and has 60 tags left on 1 October, how will he work with the new system? Will the remaining tags be defunct and will he have to start from scratch at such a late stage in the year? Maybe Mr. Healy or Mr. Carroll will start the ball rolling.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

I can certainly start the ball rolling. The Department can also address many of the issues raised.

On Senator Mulherin's point regarding the benefits to different stakeholders, I do not accept that the farmer is the only one who will pay. We have outlined, and people generally accept, that the scheme will have benefits for the overall sector. The industry's role is to ensure the maximum price is paid and we are held to account on that basis every day. If an issue with our traceability system resulted in a loss of market or loss of customers that impacted on price, we would be quickly taken to task. Part of the benefit of the system is ensuring we maximise the return from the marketplace.

It is not only farmers who are investing. The industry must constantly invest in its systems. If marts and factories are to operate as the central points of recording, CPRs, the industry will have to invest further.

Deputy McConalogue asked about cost savings. Unfortunately, I do not necessarily believe the industry will achieve cost savings from electronic tagging. If the industry acts as the CPRs, as is planned under the new system, more readers will be required. We do not expect to achieve staff savings through the reading exercise. What it will do is ensure we know that our reading and recording are done accurately in future.

Senator Paul Daly asked questions about breeding. I will not attempt to speak in great detail about breeding technology and science, other than to say that a fundamental aspect of breeding programmes is to have accurate data at the base. I understand the points the Senator made on individual rams and groups of rams and how one determines parentage. I have limited knowledge of this area. We have a relationship with Sheep Ireland, which is the breeding organisation that forms part of the Irish Cattle Breeding Federation ICBF. We also work with farmers on a Sheep Ireland committee. I understand some flocks are being monitored. There are pedigree flocks and performance monitoring flocks. These are operating on the basis of individual electronic tag identification of the sheep and we are recording that data and feeding them back to Sheep Ireland. I will not comment on anything that reinforces the overall quantity of data and their accuracy as a base line because I do not know the ins and outs of the process. However, the Senator asked some relevant questions on the issue.

Two members asked related questions. Senator Paul Daly asked how the new system will affect Easter lamb and Deputy McConalogue spoke about animals that are brought directly from the farm of origin to the factory. As I stated, a certain proportion of animals are electronically identified at present. The ewe flock in its entirety is identified, as is imported lamb and lamb from a number of commercial farms. Traceability for animals that are brought directly to factories is relatively straightforward, as members indicated. We need to move to a single system. There are issues with many other lambs, however, because lambs brought directly from farms to the slaughterhouse do not for all or even the majority of lambs. If we are moving to electronic identification, it will be logical to have one system.

As the Department outlined, marts and factories would operate as central points of recording. I will allow the officials from the Department to answer the questions on tag readouts, cross-compliance, etc. We are working through the detail of how this will be done because it will require some changes in meat plants and marts.

Senator Lawlor asked a number of questions.

I will leave the question on cross-compliance to the Department. Traceability is not only about marketing and linking to a breed. It is also a regulatory requirement. It is not only factories imposing a specific requirement. Council Regulation No. 21/2004 Brussels lays down specific rules and requirements for traceability and identification. It is not industry's doing.

I do not accept Senator Lawlor's argument that traceability stops on the slaughterhouse floor. Once an animal goes to the cutting plant it goes to a batch phase, as is the system throughout the world. A group of animals is then brought into the cutting plant and dealt with on a batch system. Should there be an issue with product on the retail shelf or with the consumer that requires trace-back, the product is traced back to the batch of production in the cutting plant and then to the individual lambs that were supplied to the plant. There is traceability but, as I indicated, it operates on a batch basis. Unfortunately, we do not take it to the level of a packet of two lamb chops. However, given that 3 million sheep are slaughtered per annum, that is not necessarily doable.

Photo of Anthony LawlorAnthony Lawlor (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If a farmer must provide traceability for an individual animal, why can consumers not be able to trace a product back to an individual animal?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

That would only be achievable if every individual carcase was deboned separately. It is not achievable in a plant that deals with perhaps 3,000 lambs a day. The system operates on a batch basis, as it does throughout the world. The batches could be a batch of Texel or a batch of Suffolk, as is the case on the beef side where one has Angus and Hereford. That is doable. It is not that the sector has an issue with individual traceability, it is that the market has not yet developed specifically in terms of a breed-based approach on sheep marketing.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Are factories making a contribution towards the cost?

Mr. Cormac Healy:

We are making a contribution towards the cost. While the cost of tagging is borne at farm level, the industry is investing all the time in its processing, traceability and boning hall systems. If it is to act as central points of recording, CPRs, we will have to invest further. At the end of the day, the overall investment the industry has to make is in terms of the final price it gets back to the producer.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Healy made the point that the industry is seeking maximum return and best price. For whom is it seeking maximum return? Are the individual companies not seeking it for their shareholders or whoever owns the meat factory? The farmers I speak to say they are price-takers. When they sell animals to one factory they will not get a much different price from another factory down the road. Farmers are being asked to carry the cost. It is not true that the factories are maximising return for the benefit of farmers. The farmer goes to a factory and takes the price he gets.

Mr. Cormac Healy:

If Senator Mulherin looks at lamb prices in recent years, particularly this year to date, she will see the price has been very strong and is on an upward trend. The maximum price is being returned to producers. The performance of meat plants in the earlier part of this year is not one that allows the owners to sleep well at night because it was a very high priced market. One of the problems with this is that it creates a challenge on the retail shelf in terms of whether consumers opt for lamb or not. The price is being delivered for farmers, as is evident from the price this year to date and the upward trend in prices in recent years.

Photo of Michelle MulherinMichelle Mulherin (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Mr. Healy accept that farmers are price-takers from the factories? A farmer does not go to a factory and negotiate. He takes what he can get. I accept that the price sheep farmers have got has increased; that is known. However, across the board there is very little differential in prices between various factories and what they offer on a Monday morning when a farmer brings his animals for slaughter. The motivation for factories is not the farmers. They want to keep the farmers coming in but they maximise prices and returns for the shareholder, not the farmer. That is the reality. As I understand it, that is how the system works.

The complaint we hear from farmers is that they get the same price from each factory. They are not striking a bargain and they do not have equal bargaining power. That is one of the complaints we get about meat factories. I am not damning meat factories because we also hear complaints about the retail multiples all the time. That is why there are so many study groups and efforts to increase the bargaining power of farmers. To argue otherwise is to ignore reality.

Mr. Cormac Healy:I will argue otherwise because what Senator Mulherin said is not the case. The price is clear and transparent. First, the price is not the same for all lambs. Second, there are various levels of discussion around price, whether for producer groups providing a particular lot of lambs or larger farmers with a substantial number of lambs. There is variation in price. The best response on price is to point to how the lamb price is performing relative to some of our competitors in European markets, and it is performing strongly.

Mr. Martin Blake:

I will address a number of issues raised by Senator Paul Daly on how to assist in breeding. The new system provides infrastructure through which people can address breeding issues, which they could not do up to now. This infrastructure will allow people to consciously engage in breeding practices and to plan breeding, which was not possible in the past because we did not have an individual identification system.

Senator Lawlor also raised the issue of how we foresee the system working. A farmer will turn up at a factory with a document and will no longer be required to write in the 12-digit number. He will have a dispatch document from the Department, as is currently the case, in which he will enter the number of sheep he is delivering. He will sign the document, as he does now, and once it is scanned at the factory or mart he will receive a printout of the tag numbers. He could have 20 numbers and he must verify that the printout coincides with his understanding of what he has delivered. That will be acceptable in the context of farm records for cross-compliance purposes.

In the context of what is different between the new system and the old system in terms of animals moving directly from farm to slaughter, we have taken a policy decision to implement an electronic identification, EID, system. This means all our traceability and identification will be based on an EID system which allows data capture. That is the only difference. The animal moving from farm to slaughter will still have a single tag. However, it will be a single electronic tag that allows it to be read into the plant, and that is captured at the level of the individual animal number.

Deputy McConalogue raised a number of issues on the cost of the system to the farmer. We acknowledge that there is a cost to the farmer. The Minister has announced a contribution of €50 on the basis of a 100-ewe lamb flock at a cost of €75 to €78 per year. Our plan for developing the animal identification and movement, AIM, database to capture the individual information is on our agenda. It is intended to develop an AIM database to capture individual animal identification.

Deputy Mulherin raised the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, report. The report is based on a view of the current system. It and other audits fed in to our discussion in the context of where we need to move to. The system is not working and needs to become seamless and frictionless. It is based on paper records and people writing things down. The fundamental problem in terms of introducing a traceability system is the lack of readability and accuracy of manual records. We have plenty of examples of sheets arriving at a slaughter plant that are not readable.

It is very hard to expect someone delivering 300 sheep to a slaughter plant to sit down and accurately transcribe 12 digits 300 times. The fundamental problem with the traceability system is that it is based on such records. We acknowledge that, with the best will in the world, it cannot be done accurately or consistently and be the basis for promoting and developing a traceability system.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

What about the timing issue?

Mr. Martin Blake:

One of the reasons for announcing it upfront and early was to signal to the market, farmers, meat plants and marts that it was coming and that there would be an interim period during which they could plan for it. It was always recognised that there might be a need for a transitional arrangement for those who had bought tags. We need to decide how to deal with that issue. As I said at the end of my opening statement, a number of issues have been forwarded to us. We are considering them and will advise the Minister very shortly on what we think we should do. If somebody invested in 100 tags on 1 October and has 80 left, what is he or she to do? It is a valid question.

Photo of Pat DeeringPat Deering (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As we have addressed all of the issues, that concludes this part of the meeting. I thank the delegates from Meat Industry Ireland and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine for coming before us to discuss the issue which is topical. We will doubtless hear more about it as we approach 1 October.

Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 5.30 p.m.