I am sure the Tánaiste will agree with me that people need to know what they are eating. He will also agree with me that the same standards should apply in terms of quality, the ingredients used and the make-up of meat products, no matter what is the price. People's right to food safety should not depend on how much they are able to spend on food.

I was concerned, when listening to or reading reported comments by Professor Alan O'Reilly about yesterday's revelations, that we need to look more closely at ingredients and what goes into this type of product. He was referring to what he termed food products at the lower end of the chain. This implies that we are not looking as closely as we should at such food products.

Yesterday's revelations about the presence of horse and pig DNA in a variety of meat products are truly shocking. Such revelations undermine the consumer's trust and confidence in products. As a result the authenticity of food products is called into question. The veracity of food labelling is now in doubt. The president of the IFA put it well this morning when he made the pertinent observation that the extraordinary rigour that now applies in the food supply chain to the primary producer does not appear to be applied at the processing end. He suggests that there is a weak link in the food supply chain.

I ask the Tánaiste to tell the House when the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine was first informed about the outcome of the tests undertaken by the Food Safety Authority. When was the Minister informed? Why did it take until yesterday for the public to be informed, given that the tests were carried out last November? Will the Tánaiste undertake to ensure the Minister takes private notice questions in the House today so that Deputies can hear a transparent presentation on this issue? Will the Tánaiste undertake to publish a full chronology of all the events that led up to yesterday from the outset and to publish all documentation exchanged among the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, the Food Safety Authority and the companies concerned? We need nothing less than 100% transparency on this issue.

I agree with Deputy Martin that people should know, and have a right to know, what they are eating and the content of processed food in particular. There should be no differentiation in that knowledge between people who purchase expensive cuts of meat and those who purchase less expensive processed meat. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine briefed the Government on this matter yesterday. I spoke with him about it this morning and I am happy to make available to the Deputy the information that his Department supplied. The Minister himself will be willing to make whatever information he can available and will, I am sure, make himself available to answer Members' questions at the appropriate time.

The Food Safety Authority has made clear that the results of the survey do not show a public health risk and that this is not a food safety issue. It is important to clarify that for consumers and the industry. The Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine and the Food Safety Authority are working closely to identify exactly how this situation occurred. On receipt of the laboratory results from the Food Safety Authority, the Department commenced a full-scale investigation. The priority is to ensure that the source of this problem is uncovered and appropriate action is taken to ensure there is no question mark over the quality of beef products from Ireland. The investigation is focusing on the individual ingredients used in the manufacture of the affected batch. A number of these individual ingredients were imported into the State. The Food Safety Authority sampled 19 salami products, 31 beef meal products and 27 frozen burger products in a targeted survey of the authenticity of such products available from retail outlets in Ireland. The findings of the laboratory tests provided by the Food Safety Authority to the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine on 14 January revealed the presence of equine DNA in some beefburger products as well as trace or minute amounts of porcine DNA.

The survey results showed the presence of equine DNA at a high level - 29% of the meat content of one particular sample of frozen burger.

On receipt of the laboratory results, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine immediately initiated an investigation at the plant which had produced the burger and showing the higher level in order to determine the source of the equine DNA. The investigation is focusing on the individual ingredients used in the manufacture of the affected batch, a number of the ingredients of which were imported into the State. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, published the findings of the survey on 15 January and emphasised that there was no food safety risk. It also stated the retailers which sold the products, Tesco, Dunnes, Lidl, Aldi and Iceland, were removing all of the implicated batches from sale.

The detailed results are: 31 beefmeal products were tested, of which 21 showed trace or very low levels of porcine DNA and all of which were negative for equine DNA. Some 19 salami products were tested, all of which were negative for equine DNA. A total of 27 beefburger products were tested. With the one exception mentioned that showed a very high level, there were ten with trace or very low levels of equine DNA and 23 with trace or very low levels of porcine DNA. I can supply the Deputy with the details and the timeline in which the tests were carried out, if he so wishes.

The timeline is very important. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, Deputy Simon Coveney, has just stated on radio that the Department was first informed on 21 December about the outcome of the tests and then asked by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, FSAI, to assist it in getting more samples. What interests me is that in December it was clear that there were disturbing outcomes from the tests started in November and that it was considered further tests were required. What informed the decision not to make the results publicly available, if I am correct in my interpretation of what the Minister stated on national radio some minutes ago? Will the Tánaiste explain what informed the decision-making process that resulted in the issue being published only yesterday? If tests were indicating worrying results in terms of the presence of such material in meat, surely the public should have been alerted much earlier. I appreciate that the Tánaiste has stated he will publish the chronology involved, but will he also undertake to ensure all documentation between the FSAI and the Department from the outset will be published and that we will not have to, as we have had to do in other cases, go through the laborious method of using freedom of information requests to ascertain what is vital information in terms of the public interest?

As I stated, I spoke to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine this morning. He is very clear that he will be very open in providing information both for the public and the House on everything that has happened in this case. I can provide the Deputy with the information I was given this morning by the Minister's Department on the timeline. The FSAI first took samples in mid-November which were tested in a laboratory called IdentiGEN. At the end of November the FSAI took further samples which were sent to a laboratory abroad in December. On 21 December, at the request of the FSAI, the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine assisted the authority in taking samples of ingredients at some processing plants. The results of these tests were received by the FSAI last Friday, 11 January and the Department was informed of them by the FSAI on Monday, 14 January. The FSAI provided the Department with details of the sampling results at a lunchtime meeting on Monday, at which the implications were discussed and evaluated.

Once the Food Safety Authority of Ireland had advised the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine of the details of those sampling results, the Department immediately commenced a full-scale investigation. As stated earlier, the Department is continuing to carry out that investigation.

When was the Minister informed?

The Minister was informed on Monday last, after the meeting to which I refer, and-----

He was not informed in December.

-----he informed the Cabinet of the position on Tuesday.