Martin Ferris (Kerry North, Sinn Fein)

In respect of the compensation package for the pigmeat sector, I am sure everyone is pleased that production was resumed relatively soon after the all-clear had been given. The compensation package agreed also seems to have addressed the concerns of the processors. However, another issue that must be addressed is the entitlement of workers in processing factories to receive compensation for wages lost while they were temporarily laid off. Several thousand workers in different factories, all of whom suffered loss of earnings, were affected.

The fact that €180 million has been made available for compensation means that there are adequate funds available to ensure that the losses of earnings to which I refer will be made up. I calculate that the actual sum involved would constitute a small proportion, perhaps only 1%, of the €180 million. One of the companies involved seems to be implying that the terms of the compensation deal agreed with the Government prevent it passing any of it on to its workforce. This appears to be a weak excuse for the company to fail to look after its employees, who were, after all, affected more than the owners of the factories. Not too many working families can afford any major loss of income for even a week and particularly at this time of the year. Even if the terms indicate that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that workers obtain their fair share, as I have already stated the amount involved represents only a small proportion of the overall fund.

Now that the immediate issues relating to the crisis in the pigmeat industry have been or are in the process of being dealt with, a number of important questions remain to be answered in the context of how the dioxins in question came to be passed to the infected animals and with regard to the regulatory procedures that apply. One aspect that has struck many people, particularly farmers, is the apparent lack of rigour applied in monitoring certain sectors of the agricultural industry in comparison to the huge resources dedicated to farm inspections and subsequent investigations, often, it seems, in respect of trivial matters or on quite dubious grounds.

My office is dealing with one farmer who has been threatened with deductions to his single farm payment on the basis of an inspection supported by, of all things, evidence in the form of satellite photographs. He claims, and would appear to have proof, that the parcel of land in respect of which he was found negligent does not even belong to him and that the inspector involved changed the reasons for his negative report.

The contrast between the level of inspections for individual farms in respect of animal feed hygiene and companies such as that at the heart of the crisis is stark. On average, approximately 850 farms are identified, on a risk-assessment basis, for inspection each year. This illustrates that the level of attention paid to individual farmers is in contrast, it seems, to the monitoring of the plant, Millstream Recycling, which is at the centre of the pigmeat crisis. Said plant was not inspected at all in 2008 and only once in 2006. The only other plant involved was also inspected on one occasion in both 2006 and 2008. However, it was not inspected last year. As already stated, this contrasts with the level of on-farm inspection, particularly in light of the relative place in the scheme of things of an individual farm and a plant such as that to which I refer.

Even if an inspection had been carried out this year, it would not have examined the oil responsible for the contamination. This raises a number of serious issues in respect of regulatory procedures. Even though the contamination in this case was not sufficient to present a serious threat to public health, it is crucial that in the future this aspect of processing should be monitored in order to prevent any recurrence of problems such as those to which I refer or a more serious contamination of the food chain.

As already stated, a number of questions remain to be answered. A number of these questions have been tabled by Deputies Ó Caoláin, Creed and I with regard to the use of the oils concerned. We inquired, in particular, as to the origin of these oils, how they were supplied to processors and the position with regard to their destruction. In reply to a parliamentary question tabled yesterday, the Minister stated that up to now the oils used have not presented any problem and that, therefore, a specific regulatory procedure is not yet in place in respect of them. The latter is something which must be addressed immediately.

We need to know where the oils to which I refer originate, where they were manufactured and bought, the procedures governing their use and how they are disposed of after use. We must also ensure that mineral oils, including those that have been used in electricity transformers or which have been contaminated with such oils, are not used in the drying processes for animal or human foodstuffs in any processing plant. We must be presented with a full report on any circumstances where the use of those oils has been detected.

I asked the Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources if he has engaged in discussions with the ESB regarding the traceability, sale, use and disposal of oils that have been used in its electricity transformers, particularly in light of concerns that such oils may have been responsible for the contamination of the Millstream Recycling plant. We also need to know the extent to which the ESB ensures that when oils are removed from its installations, they are kept under proper control and properly disposed of as per its agreement with the companies charged with responsibility in this regard. There are only three such companies licensed to carry out this work and only two are actually involved.

In reply to questions tabled yesterday, the Minister stated that he is satisfied with the annual inspection programme relating to other aspects of the sector. What he must do now is ensure that procedures which will lead to a similar level of confidence in respect of the use of these oils are implemented. That can only be accomplished if this is made part of the overall monitoring and inspection regime.

The Minister also said that the tests carried out by the Department enabled the source of the foodstuff that was responsible for the contamination to be identified. As a result the Department was able to identify and take appropriate measures in respect of the farms that received that feed. The animal foodstuff was confiscated and restrictions were placed on the movement of animals from the farms that were affected. Any other farms which received the same foodstuff were similarly identified and feed was removed from them.

In light of this information and in the context of the entire issue of traceability, which was an issue of central concern when this matter was debated last week, a number of questions must be asked. If the Department was able to identify the source of the contamination and the farms affected — and was able to do so quickly — was it appropriate to impose an overall ban? Does confidence in the existing traceability system not extend to situations where if the source of contamination and the destination of affected products are identified, the farms and products involved could be quarantined? Where confidence exists, as it seemingly should have in this case, that an outbreak has been limited and contained, should the remainder of the sector not be allowed to continue as normal? I raise these matters to highlight an aspect of the situation that should also be subject to departmental review.

There is also the question of whether meat from pigs reared organically should have been subject to the restrictions imposed. A further issue arises in that some of the wrapping that was supposed to be removed at the Millstream plant may have found its way into the production process. In a written reply yesterday, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food avoided answering in respect of this specific point but stated "there is no evidence to suggest that any residual wrapping material that may be present in the product presents any health or environmental hazards to human or animal health". While that is all well and good, I do not think people will be satisfied that animals may have been fed foodstuffs that include plastic bags and wrapping paper. Surely ensuring that does not happen, and that the wrapping material is properly and fully removed, ought not be a huge task?

The article by Sean McConnell in today's The Irish Times addresses some of the issues relating to the contaminated oil thought to have contained the dioxin found in pork. For example, he quotes some of those involved in the investigation to the effect that the oil, believed to have come from electricity transformers, may only be exported by companies issued with a special licence. Also, waste oil from the electricity transformers, and containing high levels of PCBs, is passed to these companies for export and destruction under special conditions, a process that involves incineration at temperatures greater than 1,200 degrees and which is not carried out in this country. I am told also that the same companies are involved in collecting similar oil from transformers in the Six Counties which they are supposed to take to England for destruction.

An even more disturbing aspect of this situation is that it has been claimed by some people involved in the general sector that one of those licensed to export the oil in question has been supplying the plant, where the contamination originated, with oil collected from the electricity transformers. Instead of the oil in question being exported and destroyed as detailed above, it was being used in the processing plant.

This, if true, is a serious claim and one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. I presume it is one of the aspects of the case currently being examined by the Garda. If it is the case that the oil was being sold in this manner, this raises several questions regarding the integrity of the company involved. Is it the case that these companies are being paid twice, once in respect of collection of the oil from ESB transformers for supposed export and destruction and again when they sell it on to the processing plants?

While the actual danger to human health in this instance may have been minimal, a huge question hangs over the supplier in question and his entitlement to hold a licence for the purpose of dealing with this oil. This, if found to be true, should be thoroughly investigated and dealt with. It is particularly important, in terms of the recovery of the pigmeat sector and for the overall image and health of the food production industry, that companies involved in any aspect of food processing is operating in full compliance with the relevant regulations and is in general worthy of trust.

Sean McConnell also highlighted the fact that as yet no satisfactory response, or indeed any response, has been issued by the Environmental Protection Agency in regard to the licensing requirements to export the oils in question. Also, he referred to the fact that the Health and Safety Authority has not yet been requested to conduct an inquiry into any possible negative health issues concerning the workers at Millstream Recycling. It is hoped the level of risk involved is similar to that related to the eating of any contaminated pigmeat. Nonetheless this issue needs to be addressed, if only to put at ease the workers' minds.

See this speech in context