Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)

I thank the Minister of State for his reply but it is the same as the reply I received before. I wish to make two important points. I refer to the significance of equivalence. Ireland imported 6,500 tonnes of Brazilian beef directly and almost 170,000 tonnes of Brazilian beef was imported into the European Union.

I refer to an FVO report on Brazil for the period August to September 2005. I ask the Minister of State whether he considers this to be equivalent in any way to the standards prevailing in Ireland. The report referred to the control of exports to the EU at establishment level. With regard to traceability, the report stated:

In the establishments visited, no particular training on traceability had been provided . . . From holding to slaughterhouse . . . a high number of discrepancies have been found between information in the [animal movement permit and the document of animal identification].

With regard to the process from live animals to carcases, it stated:

In two slaughterhouses visited the official veterinarian did not receive records of the results of checks by the slaughterhousestaff . . . In two slaughterhouses visited there was no link between the individual live animals and carcase numbers.

With regard to the period from slaughter to cutting, it stated:

In all establishments visited, the optional code 0000 was not used and the use of the batch number as instructed does not refer to maximum one day's cutting . . . In two establishments visited, instead of the cutting/packing date, the production date was put on the label . . . In another slaughterhouse visited the FVO team checked the traceability for one specific product . . . and found that the internal certificates for the one day checked covered more EU status product than produced on that day according to production records. The management admitted to having made a mistake by including non-EU status products.

With regard to controls at slaughter, it stated: "For some of the establishments visited no formal documentation could be demonstrated in respect of approval for the different activities." With regard to supervision, it stated:

One cutting plant visited had been suspended for export since June 2002. Since then no official supervision . . . at State level had been carried out and the establishment had changed ownership three times, but it remained on the approved list for export of fresh meat to the EU.

With regard to official establishment control, it stated: "A number of deficiencies were identified in record keeping, which could not be explained, although all records were signed by the official services."

In addition, there were problems with ante mortem inspection, post mortem inspection and foot and mouth disease control in the two states visited. In one cold store visited, there was no clear separation of EU-eligible and non-EU eligible product. Maintenance problems were identified at establishments and deficiencies were identified regarding operational hygiene and flow of products. With regard to certification, a shortcoming noted was the lack of national certificates certifying fresh meat or meat products from non-EU approved establishments as complying with EU requirements. If this is meant to be equivalence in terms of EU requirements, it is a joke.

See this speech in context