Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 29: To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Food the areas in which there is not real equivalence between Irish standards of traceability, animal health and welfare and consumer protection and those which obtain in other EU and non-EU WTO member countries; and the form which her previously stated intention (details supplied) shall take. [12228/06]

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Common standards in relation to traceability, animal health and welfare and consumer protection apply throughout the EU. These are set out in a range of food safety, consumer protection and veterinary legislation and are subject to inspection by member states own authorities as well as by the Food and Veterinary Office of the EU Commission.

My concern is that producers in some WTO member countries are not required to observe exactly the same requirements and as a result do not incur comparable costs as EU producers. I have notified the Commission of my concerns in this area, in particular in respect of imports of beef from third countries.

The Commission has indicated that the purpose of the legislation is not to impose on exporting third countries a system of guarantees that is equal to the EU system but to ensure the exporting third countries provide guarantees that are equivalent to the standards applied in the EU.

The Doha declaration which provides the political framework for the current WTO round of negotiations states that non-trade concerns, such as these, should be taken into account in the final agreement. As part of the ongoing WTO negotiations I am seeking practical recognition for the additional costs associated with these non-trade concerns.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

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.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The European Union has developed its own systems of traceability and animal welfare. Different systems operate in jurisdictions outside the control of the EU. We demand guarantees that the food products imported into the EU meet the relevant health and safety requirements.

The Minister, Deputy Coughlan, is the only Minister at the Council of Ministers to have raised the issue of the extra requirements for EU producers, to which we fully and wholeheartedly subscribe. In recent weeks, the Minister and I met Commissioner Mandelson on the World Trade Organisation negotiations and raised, in particular, the subject matter of Deputy Upton's question. The Minister, the Minister of State, Deputy Mary Wallace, and I met the French Agriculture Minister in Ireland some weeks ago. I met the Hungarian Secretary of State for Agriculture and the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, also met the Czech Minister for Agriculture in recent weeks.

Among the concerns we highlighted were the WTO negotiations, the issue of standards and the need for continued assessment, diligence and attention to the quality of product entering the European Union. We raised in particular the extra requirements and costs borne by producers due to the systems in place in the EU. At the WTO negotiations the Minister raised the need before the WTO talks conclude to compensate producers in regard to the tariff regime that will apply to agriculture products entering the EU.

In reply to a similar question from Deputy Upton in February last, I stated that as a result of the audit carried out by the Food and Veterinary Office of the EU, a number of recommendations were made by the European Commission to the standing committee on the food chain and animal health. Some of those recommendations were acted upon at that time. The EU was in further negotiations with the Brazilian authorities at that time in regard to certain concerns. In particular, only deboned and mature meat can come from specific areas of Brazil to the EU.

The concerns outlined are ones the Minister has highlighted alone at the Council of 25 Agriculture Ministers. At every opportunity that arises at EU level, in the Council of Ministers or at bilateral meetings with other Ministers for Agriculture throughout the Union, we raise these issues diligently and forcefully. It is an issue we will ensure is kept on the agenda.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will move to Question No. 30.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will make a final point. I am glad this issue has been raised at EU level. However, the Minister of State will agree it is putting Irish producers at a significant disadvantage. The issue with regard to inspection is that it was meant to be a review of promises made the previous year by Brazil. However, despite some improvements, there is a long list of unacceptable practices in Brazil from the perspective of animal health, hygiene and the consumer as well as trading interests.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I assure Deputy Upton, the House and the wider community that the Minister, Deputy Coughlan, has sought at the WTO negotiations a continuation of the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement whereby, if issues arise and the EU feels products are a danger to the health of consumers, it can implement measures and ban them. Ireland is seeking recognition for the additional costs borne by our producers by seeking a discount of the EU tariff reduction commitment. These issues are being pursued by this country in a trenchant and forceful manner. That is the way it will remain.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Question No. 30.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This beef is an unacceptable product. There is a tariff issue and a financial issue in this regard but there is also a health and safety issue if such practices continue. A factory would more than likely be closed down in this country if similar practices prevailed.

Denis Naughten (Longford-Roscommon, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They would be in jail.

Séamus Pattison (Carlow-Kilkenny, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We must proceed.

Mary Upton (Dublin South Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The incidents to which I referred are a small part of the problems that prevail in those countries. There is a significant risk to the consumer arising from those practices as well as to trade.

Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is aware that the Minister last October wrote a formal letter on the issue to the Commissioner for Health and Consumers' Protection, Commissioner Kyprianou, apart from raising it at the Council of Ministers. The Commission response was that it was satisfied with the level of monitoring and controls in place in respect of imports from third countries.