I watched the press conference just given by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was relieved to hear him state it will not be necessary to withdraw beef products based on the examination that been done of 11 of the herds that have been inspected. However, we still have a major problem with pork. I agree with the comments that have been made that the critical issue to all this now is consumer confidence. When I went to my local food market yesterday evening, the shelves where the rashers and sausages used to be were bare and there was a big black notice explaining why. As long as the pork products are not on the shelf, consumer confidence will continue to diminish.

Three things are critical and urgent. First, we need to get pork products back on the shelves again. Second, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food needs to make a clear statement that it is safe to purchase and consume pork again. Third, that statement needs to be backed up by a similar statement by the European Commissioner. Can the Taoiseach tell us when pork products will be back on the supermarket shelves? When will the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food be in a position to give the assurance to our domestic consumers and consumers abroad that Irish pork is safe to purchase and consume? There is not much point in having our diplomatic service and our food promotion agencies working night and day to promote Irish pork products if the pork products are not available to be purchased.

I remember the BSE crisis, which arose because of a problem with the foodstuff fed to cattle. I was a little surprised that this problem arose, again, from a problem with the foodstuff fed to livestock and which is, therefore, entering the food chain. I was doubly surprised to read that the feed plant at the centre of this issue had not been inspected for a year. Is it true no inspection was done on the Bunclody plant for a year? Even if it had been inspected by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the problem might not have been identified because the problem with the fuel does not come under the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but is in the EPA's remit. Is there an inter-agency problem?

I was also surprised that a report in one of today's newspapers said the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food explained this on the grounds that it was low risk. We are about to pay a very high price for the low-risk approach that was being taken to the inspection of this foodstuff recycling plant. I would like some explanation of what inspections were carried out and if the results of the last inspections will be published or made available.

The Deputy is correct that we want pork products back on the shelves as quickly as possible. An assurance can be given that, post-recall, all Irish pork products on shelves at home and abroad will be proper and appropriate products. Those ten production units on the nine farms identified as being in receipt of the contaminated feed are restricted and no product from those farms will find its way onto the food market. It is correct to say that as soon as we can get processing back up and running we will be able to give that guarantee. That is the reason the discussions we are having are so urgent and are ongoing. That assurance can be given. The source of the contamination, the feed, and the pork fat which was contaminated as a result, will not come on the market because of the restriction on the units concerned.

The place that manufactured this dough, which was fed into a composition of a crumb that was part of the feed of pigs and cattle on the 38 units, 45 herds of which are being examined, was inspected in 2007. It was an annual inspection. The EPA would deal with the question of the oil. The manufacturer was obliged to use suitable oil for that purpose. It is clear at this stage of the investigation that it was an unsuitable oil product and this seems to be the source of the contamination. The FSAI has said that is the likely source, and those investigations continue. The owners are being spoken to about that to get to the bottom of it. The oil should not have been used by the owners of the plant. It has had this outcome. The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the FSAI have reacted to that and we are in this position as a result of it.

The Taoiseach says the owners of the Bunclody plant are being spoken to in an effort to get to the bottom of it. Has the Taoiseach got to the bottom of it? Does the Taoiseach or the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food know exactly what happened here? When can a statement be made setting out what caused the problem?

With regard to the return of pork products to the market, I understand discussions with the processors are ongoing. Does the Taoiseach agree that with every passing day and hour that pork products are not back on sale, consumer confidence both here and abroad is being diminished? There is an urgency about getting pork products back on the shelf not only to restore consumer confidence, but to secure the industry and people's jobs by getting things moving again. The longer this is delayed, the more damage will be done. We understand that what happened happened. There will be time to go back over what happened in Bunclody. Action had to be taken to recall the products, but I am not seeing a sense of urgency — although I do not want to be critical in this regard — about getting the product moving again. I would like to offer the Taoiseach a second opportunity to give the House an indication of when we are likely to see pork products back on the supermarket shelf.

Of course there is an urgency to this, but it is also necessary to show a degree of calm and demonstrate the comprehensiveness of the Government's response as a means of bolstering confidence. We should not project beyond the scientific facts of the situation, because people will start to add two and two and get six, and that is not a good thing, particularly when one is talking about consumer confidence. I have been anxious, from the time this came before us for a decision, to establish the facts, take the relevant advice and decide the action to be taken based on that advice. That is what we have done throughout this process in order to ensure clarity and prevent a fog of confusion from building up around the matter. People often head off on tangents that lead them away from the central issue.

The central issue is that we have identified the source of the contamination and the units that received the feed. We have restricted those herds from going into the food chain. We then had to apply the precautionary principle with regard to the products that were already on the market. A product recall was carried out. Confirmation was given that there was no risk to public health. This was verified by the Food Safety Authority and the Department of Health and Children. People may take strong reassurance from all these facts, which have been communicated. Everyone, including the media, is to be thanked for the responsible way in which this matter was reported and communicated to the public, because this is important. I acknowledge that and I am grateful for it.

With regard to the cattle herds affected — the number is now 45, as has been explained by Mr. Rogan — it must be worked out from the database whether any of these cattle has gone from one herd to another. Mr. Rogan explained the reasoning behind this at the press conference. Again, there is an emphasis on a comprehensive approach and zero tolerance of any suggestion of contamination. The swiftness of these actions and the comprehensiveness of the approach has been recorded and responded to internationally, and this has won us support in places whose markets we wish to retain. These are important considerations. Had we not taken that approach, unilateral decisions would have been taken by individual EU member states and other states regarding the banning of pork products, with all the difficulties that would entail. Thus, markets remain open on the basis that we issued a product recall.

Deputy Gilmore also mentioned the need for urgency in getting the matter resolved on the processing side. We are now dealing with secondary processors and the risk analysis by the European Food Safety Authority. The authority will come to a conclusion on the matter either this evening or tomorrow and will, it is to be hoped, verify the safety of a range of products that are not yet on the market, but are in the process of going to market.

The issue of contingent liability is an important matter about which processors might be worried. This is one of the considerations being dealt with in the discussions. We are trying to put in place a scheme with three simple elements. These are first, the question of destroying those herds, either beef herds or pig herds, which have been contaminated. Second, dealing with the issue of secondary processing through the risk analysis procedure of the EU which will give immediate scientific clarification of a range of products which are regarded as being non-problematic, safe and marketable. This would be important in terms of third, ensuring we get to the position of restoring activity in processing plants, achieving the necessary throughput into the production line as pigs become available and ready for slaughter, and onto the shelves in a matter of days, very soon thereafter. These are the three areas of activity in which we are engaged.

I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and colleagues and all the State employees. There has been a lot of talk in other contexts about the public service. I thank public servants for their expertise, for the clarity of the advice we are receiving and for their ability to implement those advices once the decisions have been taken by the requisite Ministers.

I have been engaged on this matter from last Saturday afternoon when the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, informed me about the situation on Friday evening coming back from Brussels. Since Saturday afternoon we have been on top of this situation to the greatest possible extent. I am also grateful to Members of the House who have shown reticence and responsibility in the interests of accurate information being made available to the public so that we can overcome this real challenge to important aspects of our food industry which employs many people, some of whom are personally known to me. I am anxious to restore that employment in those processing plants as soon as is possible and feasible. Those discussions are ongoing. I can assure the House that I regard this as a matter of the utmost urgency.