Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Amendment No. 2 provides what I suggest is a fairly non-contentious definition of a livestock producer, which is "any person engaged in the business of selling livestock to a meat processing plant for slaughter (including the sale of livestock from a meat processor to another meat processor)".

Amendment No. 3 defines a meat processing plant. Again, I suggest this is relatively uncontentious. It means "any plant or premises where the business of slaughtering livestock, of manufacturing or preparing meats or meat food products from livestock for sale or shipment in commerce is carried out". That reference to "in commerce" means a commercial activity as opposed to somebody who is incidentally slaughtering an animal. For example, killing a pig at home was a relatively common practice in Ireland once upon a long time ago, at least, I am told it was. I do not ever recall it happening or seeing it at home but it was very common. Likewise, members of various religious minorities kill an animal at particular times of the year as part of their activities. This amendment rules out those people. It relates to those commercially killing animals for meat products.

On amendment No. 6, this Bill is about transparency. I applaud the fact there is an effort at transparency but a Bill on food transparency in the Irish context that does not mention meat processors lacks credibility. It is not credible to not talk about meat processors, given what we know in Ireland and given farmers' suspicions. I appreciate the Minister may say these suspicions are unfounded but there is a suspicion of price tampering. Right now, a huge number of livestock from feedlots are being slaughtered. It is not coincidental that is happening at a time when there is significant pressure on beef prices.

Is this time allocated to just the first amendment? I have moved on a little but I take it I get time for each amendment.

See this speech in context