Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I appreciate that we all had to act in unison last week and take the Minister's statements in good faith as the crisis unfolded. Across the political divide we acted in the public interest. A total product recall was the only way to go to restore consumer confidence and export markets in the long run. This week, however, we are at a different juncture. The Minister is now asking us to stand over a payment of €50 million by way of a Supplementary Estimate. I have serious reservations about it because the Minister has not provided sufficient detail on how that sum will be spent down to the last euro. I agree that the compensation package must be negotiated but the lack of detail shows a certain disregard for Opposition Members who represent all sides, including consumers, farm workers and processors. We should be provided with far more detail of this Supplementary Estimate, given that it is taxpayers' money.

My understanding is that this €50 million payout will cover interim payments to processors, although that is not stated in the Minister's speech. Perhaps we can get some clarification on that. I did not hear anything in the speech to indicate that workers who were left out of pocket through last week's closure of plants will be compensated. If plants such as Rossderragh are not in a position to compensate workers for loss of pay, which occurred through no fault of their own, there is a strong case for the Government to compensate them. That is not an unreasonable request in this instance. I am disappointed, however, that there is no detail of such a scheme in the speech.

I did not write a speech in advance of this debate because I wanted to listen to the Minister before responding. I wanted my remarks to be based on his speech. Over the past 72 hours, I have read a great deal about Millstream Recycling company in Bunclody. The Minister stated: "In regard to the specific investigation into the source of the contamination, my Department is being assisted by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Garda". Why is the Garda involved? Is it the Department's opinion that an illegal or nefarious process was involved? If people are being asked to stand over a payout to the industry of between €50 million and €180 million, it is fair that they ask pertinent questions as to why the Garda has become involved.

The Minister also stated: "The investigations focus on the type of fuel used in a burner which dried surplus food material for animal feed and the appropriateness of this type of oil". He went on to state: "In view of the apparent link to the type of fuel used in the drying process, I am asking the European Commission to consider whether the type of oil to be used by feed business operators can be more strictly regulated". It appears that the use of this type of fuel is not governed by the Department's rules, the hazard analysis and critical control point, HACCP, legislation or EU regulations. Will the Minister clarify this issue and inform the House as to why the Garda is involved? If the Garda is involved, a nefarious scheme is the presumption. If there was an illegal process, will there be a source of redress? Was the Millstream process illegal? It is the reason for this debate. The process will cost the State up to €180 million.

Ironically, anything that I have read about the factory in question suggested that the process was a forward looking venture well ahead of the posse in terms of new industry initiatives. This does not sit well and I hope that we are not hanging a particular individual out to dry. The issue must be addressed transparently. While we agree that compensatory measures must be put in place, we need to know who negotiated the package on behalf of the pig industry. We also need to know when the funding will be divvied up and, in light of the public interest, whether the details of who gets what will become available. If the taxpayers are to cover the cost, it is only fair that they know what is at stake and in play.

There has been a failure of regulation, but I do not attribute it to the Government necessarily. By way of constructive criticism, I suggest that we have a single figurehead — a supremo, if the House wills — to be in charge of food regulation. I am not discussing the creation of a new agency or quango. However, the statements issued by the Department, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, and the European Food Safety Authority could give rise to a certain degree of confusion as to where competencies lie in food safety. It took some 24 hours to realise that competence lay with the FSAI. Rather than a merger of competencies, I propose there be one voice within the regulatory framework so that when the members of the Fourth Estate and the Legislature need questions answered, we will know to whom we should go.

More details are necessary. I will stand over the Department's decision to effect a withdrawal. We stand over the necessary compensatory package, but there should be more detail.

See this speech in context