Mr. Eamon Corley:

I am not sure a question was asked about the first point I wish to address. I refer to the question of the role of Meat Industry Ireland. Deputy Martin Kenny talked about price and contract. An answer was not forthcoming as to price and contracts. If Meat Industry Ireland is not going to answer the questions, are we going to bring meat factory representatives in here to answer them? They are relevant to the debate. Is it the plan to bring meat factory representatives in here to ask them about price and contracts? Maybe before we go, the Chairman can ask the representatives of Meat Industry Ireland who are here what their role is.

Let me address Deputy Martin Kenny's point. We mentioned five steps that we believe could be taken straight away to improve things. One was to get rid of the four-movement rule. One was to get rid of the 70-day residency rule as regards the QPS bonus. Where the animal has been 70 days on the quality-assured farm, the Department either accepts the farmer is doing a good job or it does not. The animal will have been quality assured for the 70 days. If we can transfer the paperwork to the new buyer, that new buyer should be able to sell the animal directly to a factory. Therefore, there is no basis for what is being said. If we get rid of the two rules, it means the finished cattle can go back into the marts, and there will be open competition between the exporters and various factories. It would result in a little bit of competition that does not exist currently. That would be a big help.

Consider the rule on category-1 waste not being allowed to be transported more than 125 km. There was a case in Roscommon where a factory was told that, because it raised the price by 5 cent per kilogram, its offal would not be collected. Consequently, there was a smell in the town for two weeks. We talk about proving anti-competitive practices but there is one proof. The rule gives the dominant player an advantage. It rules against the small independent factories. If we got rid of the rule, it would encourage the small independent factories as they would have an independent means of getting rid of category-1 waste.

If we increase the lairage space in France, we will be able to get more calves away. This would mean fewer cattle when it comes to farmers selling their fit cattle. It would increase competition.

Finally, if we had an export subsidy for weanlings, the money would go directly to the farmer. Rather than paying a suckler cow premium, let us give the money directly to the farmer. It will result in a better price for suckler farmers who are producing the weanlings. It would mean fewer cattle in the country and more competition for what is left among those who finish cattle. I hope that answers Deputy Martin Kenny's question.

Deputy McConalogue asked about anti-competitive practices. I dealt with the four-movement rule. There is absolutely no sign to say the meat will be worth less if the animal has been moved four times. The rule should be scrapped. I have already dealt with the rule on 70-day residency. If Bord Bia is doing its job and there is a trail of paperwork with each animal, it should be acceptable to the next buyer, the supermarkets and everybody else.

I have dealt with the issue category-1 waste. The factory-owned feedlots are definitely used to manipulate the free market.

They are flooded at times cattle are in good supply to collapse the market. They are outlawed in the US; they should be outlawed here as well. Access to farmer data was mentioned. Meat factories knew since last September that there would be a glut of cattle. Did they find new markets for their cattle? They claim they need this information to react and sell supplies. They have not found markets. They allowed the supply of cattle to build up and happily collapsed the price. That does not work.

As regards the 30-month, 16-month and 24-month age limits for bulls, the factories have said that they would welcome a wider specification. They are with us on that one. They look for a wide specification when they go to sell cattle or sign contracts. We have spoken to chefs and hotels that buy food. We have spoken to marketers that sell product and source for hotels. Their biggest concern is not whether the animal is 30 months old; it is the consistency of the supply from the factory. The factories mix all types of cattle and sell them en bloc. Customers do not want that. They want a consistent supply. They want suckler-bred beef in one category and the lesser cuts in another. We have heard the meat industry say that the consumer wants these specifications. Where is the evidence for that? Can they show us the evidence? Is information printed on packets of beef saying that the animal was less than 30 months old or had been moved fewer than four times? We are told these specification are set by supermarkets.If they are a unique selling point, why do supermarkets not print this information on the packet? Top chefs in France have said that grass-fed beef older than 30 months has a better flavour. That does not stack up and I do not believe it. There are three supermarkets in the UK-----