We have received apologies from Senators Boyhan and Collins. Senator McCormack is substituting for Senator Collins. We will begin with a note on privilege. Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to a committee, and this means that a witness has full defence in any defamation action for anything said at a committee meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on the issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard, and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are to give evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts, and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by a witness outside of the proceedings held by the committee of any matters arising from the proceedings.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Parliamentary privilege is considered to apply to the utterances of members participating online in a committee meeting where the participation is from within the parliamentary precincts. Members may not participate online in a public meeting from outside the parliamentary precincts, and any attempt to do so will result in the member having their online access removed. All members taking part are present in the room, as are all of the witnesses. There is no online participation at this point.

The agenda for this meeting is the potential for loss of confidence in the Irish beef sector. It is a resumed meeting. The witnesses for today's meeting are, from the Irish Farmers Association, Francie Gorman, president, Alice Doyle, deputy president, and Damian McDonald, director general; from the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmer’s Association, Sean McNamara, president, Edmond Phelan, rural development chair, and Hugh Farrell, general secretary. Tá fáilte rompu.

I caution witnesses and remind members that, in accordance with the Supreme Court judgment, the committee must remain within its remit and within the topic of the invitation. I emphasise that the committee does not have the authority to inquire into the affairs of any other party, including Mr. Murrin and Dawn Farm Foods. Both Mr. Murrin and Dawn Farm Foods are entitled to the protection of their good name and reputation. They are not here to defend themselves. Furthermore, this meeting cannot deteriorate in to a commentary on Mr. Murrin's evidence here last week, but must focus on the general issue of confidence in the beef sector. Mr. Murrin was thoroughly cross-examined by the members of this committee last week, and the committee does not need advice. I confirm that I will intervene if I feel that the answers given by witnesses stray outside the permitted parameters of the hearing.

We have been given opening statements from the two organisations, and they have been circulated. I ask for the opening statement from the Irish Farmers Association.

I thank the Chair and committee members for inviting the IFA to address them today. I am joined by our deputy president, Alice Doyle, and IFA director general, Damian McDonald.

Since this controversy with Bord Bia started, I have been conscious of the need to carry out my fiduciary duties as a director of An Bord Bia. I sought a Bord Bia meeting, and expressed my views there. I was very clear that farmers had lost confidence in the chair of An Bord Bia because he imported Brazilian beef. Mr. Murrin confirmed in this forum last week that he also imports substantial amounts of Brazilian chicken. He said last week that it was the appropriate forum to confirm this. While I acknowledge the importance of this forum, the appropriate forum to disclose this information was the board of An Bord Bia.

For the avoidance of any doubt, the chair did not disclose this at the emergency board meeting on 22 January. Arising from questioning at this committee last week, a number of issues were brought to light. The IFA has set out ten questions to be answered by Mr. Murrin and An Bord Bia. However, since the committee hearing last week, another significant issue has arisen. The Irish food and drinks website, which is curated by An Bord Bia, stated that Dawn Farm Foods was accredited under the Bord Bia meat quality assurance scheme. When we questioned this, it turned out that Dawn Farm Foods is not part of this scheme. The website has since been amended by Bord Bia. The appropriate Bord Bia quality assurance standard that will now apply to Dawn Farm Foods is the food processor standard. According to Bord Bia’s website, there are currently more than 500 food and agribusinesses who are members of this scheme or similar schemes in Ireland. Dawn Farm Foods is not one of them. This list is available on the link included in our in our opening statement.

Many of Mr. Murrin's competitors, who, similar to Dawn Farm Foods, operate on a business-to-business basis, are certified as members of the food processor standard. In our view, it is extraordinary that the chair of a Bord Bia company is not a member of the relevant Bord Bia quality assurance scheme. Indeed, when appearing as a witness in front of this committee as chair designate in April 2024, Mr. Murrin said "all stakeholders have to be on the bus and we need the maximum number of people engaged" when speaking of An Bord Bia’s quality assurance schemes. Some 55,000 farmers and more than 500 food and agribusinesses are on this bus. However, Dawn Farm Foods either did not apply to be part of the standard, does not meet the criteria or did not pass the audit. Whatever the reason, it is a total contradiction of what An Bord Bia stands for. It is also very unsettling that it would state on the website curated by Bord Bia that the chair's company was accredited under a scheme it was not a member of. This is on top of the fact that, following questioning last week, Dawn Farm Foods amended its own website to reflect that it is no longer is an Origin Green gold member.

A lot has been made by Mr. Murrin’s supporters that he has done nothing wrong. Since this controversy started, we have now had two instances where Dawn Farm Foods or an Bord Bia have had to correct their websites to reflect the fact that the chair’s company was not achieving certain Bord Bia standards. This is further undermining confidence in an Bord Bia and Mr. Murrin. These issues must be formally investigated as a matter of urgency.

Furthermore, the 1% contingency explanation given by Mr. Murrin as the reason for the importation of Brazilian beef has not been verified in any way. Last week, when Mr. Murrin was asked to provide the exact tonnage to support this, he declined to do so on the grounds it was commercially sensitive. It was actually Mr. Murrin who put this figure in the public domain as his defence. Yet, he has refused to expand on it in the Official Report. While farmers regard the chair importing Brazilian beef in any quantity as a conflict of interest, those who have supported Mr. Murrin have relied on this 1%. This now needs to be investigated and substantiated by an independent party, along with clarifying how much poultry he is bringing in.

The IFA has set out ten questions for Mr. Murrin and Bord Bia to answer arising from Mr. Murrin’s performance at the Oireachtas joint committee last Thursday, which was, frankly, high on style but low on substance. The ten questions are as follows. The code of governance for State bodies states that all board members, including the chair, must disclose any conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest to the board. At the Oireachtas joint committee, Mr. Murrin said that he considered this himself and he decided he was not in conflict. Can he say why he did not disclose these matters to the board in line with the code of conduct? At the Oireachtas joint committee, he confirmed that his company, Dawn Farm Foods, DFF, was also importing significant quantities of poultry. Did he disclose this to the board at the emergency meeting on 22 January? When did he inform the Minister of this? Why did the chair not excuse himself from the emergency board meeting, as set out in the code of practice for the governance of State bodies?

On the Dawn Farm Foods website, it says that his company’s products have complete farm to fork traceability. At the Oireachtas joint committee, he accepted that cattle in Brazil were only tagged after ten months. He justified this by saying that the quality assurance people of Dawn Farm Foods were happy with it. It certainly would not meet Bord Bia’s quality assurance standard for traceability. How can he stand over this farm to fork commitment? The Dawn Farm Foods website clearly implied that Dawn Farm Foods was a gold member of Origin Green. At the Oireachtas joint committee, he accepted his company was no longer meeting this standard. The website was changed the day after the hearing. Is it acceptable that the chair of Bord Bia, which awards these standards, would not have the website fully accurate on such matters? At the Oireachtas joint committee, he stated Dawn Farm Foods was part of Origin Green. How much Bord Bia quality assured product does his company purchase? Based on his comments at the Oireachtas joint committee, it appears to be less than 50%. Can he please clarify this? Could the board clarify what percentage of Bord Bia quality assured produce is a company required to use as part of Origin Green?

At the Oireachtas joint committee, he refused to give the exact tonnage of Brazilian beef he imported in 2025. He said it was commercially sensitive information. It was Mr. Murrin himself who put the 1% figure in the public domain to try to dismiss farmers' concerns. Yet, when asked to give details on the record to support this claim, he refused to do so. Will he now put the exact quantities of beef he imported in the public domain, along with where he sourced the rest of his beef in 2025? On poultry, rather than giving an exact amount or a percentage, as he did for beef, he used the percentage of the overall imports of poultry into Ireland. Based on this, we estimate it could be as many as 70 million breasts. Will he confirm the exact tonnage of poultry he brought in from Brazil and other countries outside the EU in 2025?

Finally, Mr. Murrin stated in his written opening statement to the Oireachtas joint committee meeting that an Bord Bia operates voluntary quality assurance schemes. This shows an alarming lack of understanding of the reality for farmers on the ground. Dairy, pig and poultry farmers will not have their produce processed if they are not quality assured. Beef farmers face penalties of up to 30 cent per kg, and more, depending on some of the schemes. Suckler farmers risk losing €150 per cow under the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP. Retailers will not purchase potato and vegetable from growers if they are not part of the quality assurance schemes. Will the Chair write to the Oireachtas joint committee to clarify this point?

I apologise for reading out the ten questions but I know the statements were submitted late today. At short notice, I greatly appreciate the invitation of the committee to allow us to address it today and we will take questions in due course. I thank the committee.

I thank Mr. Gorman. There was a great number of questions in the statement. They are not appropriate for the committee. As neither Mr. Murrin nor Dawn Farm Foods is here to answer them, they are not questions that will be addressed by the committee or that we will be answering. We will move on to the next witness. The Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ICSA, has circulated an opening address. Before we begin, there is a paragraph that will not be part of it.

We know, yes. That is okay.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for the opportunity to address this committee. The ICSA’s position is straightforward. The credibility of Bord Bia with farmers has been badly damaged and it cannot be restored with Larry Murrin remaining as chair. When Mr. Murrin appeared before this committee last week, he answered questions as the CEO of a multinational food company, not as the independent chair of Bord Bia. That is at the heart of the problem. At a minimum, the chair of a State body must be beyond any reasonable perception of conflict and that clearly is not the case here. The chair of Bord Bia should not be importing beef from Brazil under any circumstances. There is a clear conflict and farmers see it very clearly.

The anger on farms is real. Farmers are expected to meet ever tighter quality assurance rules. There is no flexibility. There are penalties if they fall short. Yet, they watched the chair of Bord Bia defend production systems and traceability standards that would not be acceptable on Irish farms. Farmers are being held to one standard, while others appear to operate under another. That hypocrisy has done serious damage to Bord Bia’s standing. Bord Bia is supposed to protect and promote Irish produce, not defend practices that undermine it. When Bord Bia fails to uphold these standards, it is not just farmers who lose trust - consumers do too, which damages the reputation of Irish food at home and abroad.

The ICSA also believes this is not just about one individual. There must be wider change at board level. Beef farmers are not properly represented on the Bord Bia board. The ICSA has been promised a seat on that board on a number of occasions but it has never happened. That absence is now more serious than ever. As it stands, the ICSA does not believe Larry Murrin’s position as chair of Bord Bia is tenable. The Minister must now explain how he can continue to stand over that position and Bord Bia itself must undergo a full re-evaluation of its governance and board structure. Anything less will leave farmers with no confidence that Bord Bia is acting in their interests. The ICSA also wants to see another two seats for farmers on Bord Bia. I thank the committee.

Can I add an additional bit? I know it was not sent in but is that all right?

No.

That is okay. I will get a chance later.

The focus of today's meeting is a potential loss of confidence in the beef sector. That needs to be the very focus of it - not any individual person's business or any company's business but the loss of confidence in the beef sector.

I draw the members' attention to the submission circulated to them by the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA. It is not participating in the meeting. It has circulated that directly to members through the committee. I am glad that an avenue has been opened for discussions. As far as we know, the Minister has issued invitations, and it opens up options to advance things.

When is this supposed to happen?

We now move to the members. They have seven minutes each for questions and answers.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for their opening statements. I welcome the confirmation from all of the organisations that they are open to the dialogue process that was announced by the Minister during the week. That is a really important stepping stone because the most important thing is that a resolution is found to the current issue that is there and the best way to get that is by sitting around a table. I acknowledge the openness and willingness of the organisations in the room to take part in that process. It is very important. I also welcome Mr. Gorman's comments on the radio about the issue we spoke about last week being between the board and the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. That is important. Motions in the Dáil and statements in the European Parliament are secondary. They are non-binding. This has to be dealt with in a proper manner.

Ten questions arose out of last week's statement, and they are all valid questions. They were questions I still had when I exited the meeting. At the time of the last Bord Bia vote of confidence in the chair, were the members of Bord Bia unaware that Dawn Farms had exited the quality assurance scheme?

"Yes" is the answer. It was on the website. To be clear, there was no vote at the board meeting. We were told on the day by the acting chair that we could not take a vote, but that our views would be delivered back to the Minister.

Did the chair declare at the outset of any meeting that his private company was no longer participating in the Bord Bia schemes?

No.

It was never declared. A lot has been spoken about the conflict of interest-----

Are we straying into corporate governance issues within the board?

No, I do not think so. If the lads are okay-----

It is for the Cathaoirleach to-----

I feel that we are moving into an area of corporate governance within the board.

I will edit my question a little bit. I have been involved in various boards, such as Kilkenny and Carlow Education and Training Board. The first question asked at the start of every board meeting is: "Does anybody in the room have a conflict of interest?". Was there ever a declaration or any disclosure by the chair of the board regarding any beef or poultry dealings he had in a foreign country?

Not in my time on the board.

We are now in a situation where there is a bit of an impasse. What do the farming organisations believe is the correct forum to get the answers to the questions we have? A lot of valid questions came out of last week's meeting. Where is the best place to get those answers?

Unquestionably, the board. I have always believed that the solution to this will come from in and around the circles that go around the board and the Department of agriculture, as the Deputy stated earlier.

One of the issues that has come to my attention is the lack of representation from farming organisations. I think a number of witnesses mentioned it in their opening statements. Based on the current circumstances - I know there is a dialogue process starting on Friday, and that is welcome - what changes would the witnesses like to see in the leadership structure and composition of the board of Bord Bia?

I would have no issue with extra farmer representation on the board. I think there should be more farmers on it. The structure of the board, including the number of members on it and how the chair is appointed, is set down in law. I would not have an issue if there was further farmer representation on it.

We need more representation on the board, as was said previously, because a big percentage of the business is run through the agricultural end of it. Furthermore, the structure that is there is controlled by a set grouping that puts it together. As far as I understand, the board has no input in putting it together or selecting the chair. In those ways, there has to be vetting or something has to be done to ensure there are no conflicts of interest similar to the one that has now been identified. It had been kept quiet or not been noticed until recent weeks. We expect that this will be addressed in a different manner and dealt with, as it would be in any other organisation.

What are the main challenges facing Bord Bia under its chairman, or its current leadership?

Farmer confidence, absolutely.

Can the witnesses assess the financial impact on funding and investment from stakeholders and leadership if this persists?

There is a statutory levy to fund Bord Bia that farmers have to pay, irrespective of what they think, when they slaughter their cattle or process their milk. That is a very hard question to answer. I am more worried about the confidence that farmers have in Bord Bia - that is singularly the most important issue - and the confidence they have in the quality assurance scheme. To be clear, as farmers we have always supported that and seen the value in it. That is what I see as the big issue. I took on my duties as a board member to outline this issue - 100% - as it poses a huge threat to the credibility of Bord Bia and the confidence that farmers will have in it going forward. If it does not have credibility or the trust of the 55,000 members who are quality assured under it, Bord Bia is in trouble.

I have a final question about the leadership issues in Bord Bia at the moment. We spoke about farmer confidence and the challenges that are there. In terms of the potential implications for the Bord Bia brand and farmers' pockets right around the country, how do the witnesses believe this issue can be resolved?

I do not believe that farmer confidence will be restored while someone who is bringing in beef and poultry from Brazil is chairing meetings of the meat marketing board. To be clear, Mr. Murrin has not done anything illegal. I believe Bord Bia stands for the very best in standards and the highest levels of excellence. For me, that has not been applied here. That is why confidence among farmers has been shattered. We want to see a resolution to that as soon as possible.

I thank the witnesses for their opening statements and their time. We are talking about the confidence that farmers and consumers have in Bord Bia as an agency of the State, the damage that has been done to that through this controversy and how we can restore that confidence and get things back on track again.

The witnesses were here last week. We had quite a lively discussion in respect of Mr. Murrin's position. He came in with his story and he stuck to it, as any good solicitor would advise you to do when you go to court. That is what he did, and that is fine. That is his position. However, for me and the vast majority of consumers out there, it is untenable for the chair of a board that markets Irish beef, which is quality assured to the highest standards, is also importing Brazilian beef that is not quality assured and is to the lowest standards. That is where the road parts. I do not see it coming back together again.

It is a question of confidence in the system. We had a meeting about the labelling of foods earlier today. One of the things a lot of people are concerned about is contamination and difficulties with labelling when products which do not meet the same standards are brought in from another country and put on the same shelves, in the same boning halls and in the same processing units as Irish products. They are worried about where that could lead us to.

This is what I want to come to. In fairness, representatives from the IFA and the Irish Farmers' Journal were in here some months ago talking about their trip to Brazil and the work they did around all that. What I got from that, and the witnesses can correct me if I am wrong, is that the use of hormones as part of the production system in Brazil is widespread. It is not something just occasionally happening, but almost part of their system. This is what people have this fear about.

I would like to get the witnesses’ comments in respect of this issue. How do they feel we can restore confidence in the marketing of Irish product while we have a situation where we are talking about bringing in product from Brazil and the very person at the head of the board is involved in it?

As I said earlier, for me, the only way it can be restored is by having a new chairman. It is hard to quantify at farm level how much angst and frustration this has caused. A farmer said to me today that this is the very entity regulating us. It is making rules for us, telling us we have to do X, Y and Z on farms and that we have to do this to be quality assured. If we step even a little bit out of line on something, like our animal medicines register in particular, we are in bother. This is rightly the case because antimicrobial resistance is a huge issue. Yet we have somebody chairing our meat marketing board that is bringing it in from Brazil, where it is not produced to the same standards, as we have shown. Mr. McDonald might want to come in at this point.

Maybe Ms Doyle would like to add to that.

I travel this country weekly from Malin Head to Mizen Head and from Galway Bay back to Dublin Bay. I cover 29 of our county executives regularly, and in the last few weeks since this matter arose, I have heard nothing only pure frustration and anger from our farmers. These farmers are well informed. They are not silly, they understand this, and they do perceive a serious conflict of interest. Whether we are talking about an actual conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest, they see that there is a conflict of interest. They cannot understand this in the context of what they have to do daily. I am a beef farmer who has to do a quality assurance evaluation within the next ten days. Whether I will do it or not, we will think about it. Anyway, we have to do it. I know exactly what those farmers have to go through to do it. I can see why they are frustrated.

We will do it. The IFA has worked really hard to get our farmers on board to do those assurance audits. We do it to get them to get that standard, and they have got the standard. Now that they have it, these farmers cannot understand why someone else, who is chair of the board that is guarding the promotion of what they produce, is allowed to do otherwise. He can do what he likes in his private life, but he cannot sit as the head of a board promoting Irish beef that is produced at the standard that we produce it at. It is not just a few people here and there. If anyone is telling the committee that, then they are living in an ivory tower. I live on the ground. I work with the farmers. I live with the farmers. I see it and it affects the pocket in every sense, from their 30 cent per kilo on their beef to their sheep and to their milk. Everything is quality assured. We are passionate about it. We are passionate about what we do and it is unbelievable that a chair-----

I have one more question.

Okay. I will leave it at that. Let me just tell the committee that it is real on the ground, and anyone who does not believe that is living in an ivory tower.

There is a sense that some are trying to say that this is just a few people having a hissy fit and we should forget about them. It is not. That is certainly the experience of all the elected representatives in this room and everywhere else who come from rural constituencies. We feel and understand the anger and frustration there.

Going back to last week, and one of the things mentioned in regard to the first question about Mr. Murrin, he did say that he felt he did not consider himself to be conflicted. That was the real alarm bell for me. I know we do not want to go into the workings of the board, but as for all public bodies, if there is a perception of a conflict of interest, an individual must come forward with it and make a declaration.

I cannot understand, in the context of somebody who has been around this industry for so long-----

Deputy, board members would be expected to make a submission to SIPO.

Board members would be expected to make a declaration of interest if there was-----

Irrespective, it is there and it is part of your business anyway.

Yes.

Members here will have done similarly a number of weeks ago.

That is correct.

People’s interests are recorded as registered.

His interest is recorded, but regarding his interest when it comes to the board, my understanding is that, under the code of conduct, at each board meeting people are meant to put forward a declaration of any conflict of interest they may have. That did not happen. That is my understanding. To my reading, Mr. Murrin confirmed that last week at the meeting here. If someone wants to contradict me, please do, but that is my understanding of what happened.

In those circumstances, I think it further lends weight to the position that I do not think we, as Members of the Oireachtas, could possibly have confidence in that person under these circumstances. I think we all need to take stock of that. It is a real situation that we have somebody who has come before an Oireachtas committee and basically said he has not complied with the code of ethics for being a chair of or on a public body. That is-----

He did not say that he did not comply.

He did not say that he did not comply but he did admit-----

You cannot level a charge or accusation in that vein.

Fair enough. I withdraw that charge. He certainly said that he considered himself not to be in conflict and he did not declare that he had any conflict of interest. Everybody in the country can see the conflict of interest, and yet he cannot. That is the issue at the core of this matter.

We will move to Senator Brady.

All the witnesses from both organisations are very welcome. I have a few questions for Mr. Gorman. Regarding the Bord Bia board, when are conflicts of interest discussed? Is there a specific area in the board that the chairman has to disclose it? In the context of the rules of Bord Bia and its governance, has this ever been discussed?

No. In general, the way it is done at board level, and I sit on another board as well, is that it is self-declaration. People are asked at the beginning of the meeting if there are any conflicts of interest, and they say “No” or “Yes”. If there was a conflict of interest, you would identify in the agenda that you have a conflict of interest under item seven and you would step out while that was being discussed. That did not happen during my time on the board of Bord Bia. It has happened in other entities I serve on, where directors or members of the board would be asked to leave and, when the item concerned had been discussed, they would come back in.

Mr. Murrin said here last week was that what he did was to consider it himself, and if it was not a conflict of interest, he did not declare it. In my opinion, what he should have done, if he obviously considered it to be a conflict of interest or a perception of a conflict of interest when he said he looked at it himself, is to have brought that to the board. That is the way it is done. That is the way it should be done.

I think what he said last week was that it was not compulsory for him to bring it to the board’s attention, so-----

If you believe you have conflict of interest or you perceive that you may have a conflict of interest, you are obliged to declare that at the start of a board meeting.

Can I just ask Mr. Gorman the question that is on everybody’s lips but they are afraid to ask it? Did members of the board know that imports of Brazilian beef were coming into this country?

Into the country, yes, but not by the chairman’s company concerning either chicken or beef.

We are going to try to move on, but I would welcome open dialogue. Has the IFA had any engagement with the board since this has taken place?

There has been no official board meeting since 22 January. We have looked for that board meeting. That has not been responded to. A board meeting is scheduled for 18 February. I do not know whether we will have one before that.

I will tell the Senator what I have done in the last week. I had concerns going into that board meeting on 22 January, but I did not contact any board members before it because I believed that, if I did, I could be accused of organising a campaign against the chairman. I was not going to put myself in that position. I think, however, that our views were, or should have been, known going into that meeting, namely, that there was a huge conflict of interest there and a huge possibility damage would be done to the credibility of Bord Bia.

That was my concern going in and is still my concern now. It should be said that while there has been a lot of commentary about this issue among farmers and the farming community, there has also been a lot of commentary about it in the wider community and the political community. Outside the farming sector, while other issues have been cited about how great a company it is, the core issue of Bord Bia's credibility and the confidence that farmers have in it has not been addressed in any of the commentary, be that in the Sunday newspapers or whatever. That is what disappoints me most.

We looked for dialogue on this and we did not get it. We were forced to go to the doors of Bord Bia but we did not have any dialogue there. To be clear, that is why we entered the building when the door was open. We need dialogue to sort this out and we need people to get real about the damage this is doing to Bord Bia. We are as proud of Bord Bia as anybody. We understand how important the organisation is. We understand how important the logos attached to Bord Bia are and we want to see this sorted out. To be clear, however, it is not going to be sorted out with the current chairman in place. That will not happen with the farmers.

Are the people protesting at Bord Bia's offices going to stay there until this is addressed or, as a goodwill gesture, will the IFA stand them down while talks take place? Bord Bia has to continue and our product cannot be damaged.

I will answer that, as the director general of the association. We have a decision-making structure in the IFA around this. We have a national officers committee which makes decisions within the IFA around protests, when to start them, when to end them and what to do along the way. That will be a matter for the committee. At this point, the position of IFA is that those members who are in the offices of Bord Bia will be there until the chairman of Bord Bia resigns. That is the current position of the Irish Farmers Association, as directed by our national officers committee and supported by the national council.

I hope the witnesses will agree with me that the individuals in question are being looked after and are being fed over there. I want to acknowledge that.

To be fair, it is a matter of public record that there was an issue last weekend when they had no access to food for a period. In fairness, that issue was rectified on Saturday night. The members of the IFA in the Bord Bia buildings include Patrick McCormick, our national treasurer; Richard Moeran, our farm forestry representative from Cavan; Teresa Roche, our farm family chair; Christine Friel, a member of the farm family committee; and Tom Byrne, the former Wicklow chair. It is important to mention them.

The ICSA witnesses are keen to contribute.

Those IFA members are being looked after fairly and well at present. I put on record our gratitude to the staff of Bord Bia who have been extremely courteous.

I thank Mr. McDonald. We must move to the ICSA.

I have one more question before I finish. Has the IFA had any engagement with the Minister in the days or weeks before this debacle?

Next question, please.

I call the ICSA.

A resolution to this issue has to be found very fast because this is a story not only in Ireland but across the world. People from England and the Continent I have been speaking to are wondering what is going on with Irish food. This has to be resolved.

The image of Bord Bia has been built by the staff by Bord Bia but also on the work of the farming community. We find it very strange that the chair of Bord Bia does not see any need for his own company to adhere to the rules imposed on us.

I remind witnesses and members that the chair of Bord Bia is not here to defend himself. We will move on to Deputy Newsome Drennan.

I thank the witnesses for coming in. As I will explain it, what is going on here is a little black and white. If I am at home sitting at the breakfast table with my young lads and they are eating scrambled eggs because I want them to be healthy and have a good diet but I am eating a big lump of chocolate cake for breakfast, I cannot tell them to do one thing when I go and do another thing. I am supposed to be the one in charge, the mother, the one that is trying to bring them up to do the right thing. I see it very much like that, where we have the chair of Bord Bia telling us farmers what to do.

When we have a Bord Bia audit at home, we are up the wall because we are scrutinised to the last. We all need to have quality assurance, whatever it is for. Whether that is for a nursing home or wherever, somebody has to make sure everybody is doing things the right way. We are talking about human food. We want the best quality food. The chair of Bord Bia dictates to us farmers and then does a completely different thing himself. As we have all said, he has not done anything illegal but, in his position as chair, he cannot preach to us and then do something completely different.

Speaking as a farmer, I cannot see any other way but to have the chair replaced, because I have no faith in Bord Bia with Larry Murrin as chair. Speaking to farmers recently, they are furious. We have a Minister who is not speaking up for farmers. That is my view as a farmer, never mind as a TD. I could ask the witnesses what they think is going to sort this out. I do not even want to ask them that because I do not see any other way besides Larry Murrin stepping down. Even if he said to me in the morning that he would not import Brazilian beef or chicken or meat from any other country that may have some issues, he has still done it. The deed is done. Is there anything the witnesses can say? Do any of them want comment?

I may let the ICSA respond first. I do not want to hog this debate.

I do not have anything to add because I know where the farmers are coming from.

I thank the Deputy for her questions. Regarding where this is going, we cannot see what the future will be at the minute because we see no willingness to move or change. There are lots of changes and different issues we need to look at and have addressed. There was not a picture there that was not seen before or has not already come into perspective.

To go back to Deputy Kenny's contribution, we were talking about different aspects of cross-contamination. If you want a load of organic meal and it was commercial, you could not load it with one shovel or put on one lorry or in one yard. Where is the contamination? It is the same with our food. Are we worried about having this meat on the supermarket shelf or having it alongside ours at the same cold meat counter? Has Bord Bia been doing its job? Where is this going? We are looking at a bigger issue in our marketplace in that people do not know what could be cross-contaminating.

Going forward, the biggest issue is how and when the change can come, as far as the chair of Bord Bia goes, because there is no confidence out there. We were sitting in Buswells Hotel this evening having a cup of tea when a woman came over to us and asked what we were at. We said we were farmers. She asked if we were here for this committee meeting and we said we were, she said he has to go. That is all we hear. It is a regular comment across the board. Mr. Gorman may want to come back in.

Regarding the Origin Green label on the website, do we now from what date he did not have it?

When was that gone but still on the website? How long ago? Do we know for how long he did not have that?

I will let Ms Doyle in first as she wants to make a comment if that is okay.

To continue on from what the Deputy was saying there, I spoke about farmers being very angry but at local level, we also have had councillors, TDs and Senators coming out and stating the very same thing. As well as the regular customer on the ground, they state they cannot understand how this can continue and how a board can have confidence in a chair who has that perceived conflict of interest and who is also putting at risk the reputation of the Bord Bia brand in respect of producing and promoting Irish beef.

In respect of Origin Green is it known when he did not have this status?

That got answered the last day, I think, where we said he had it up to 2024 and not for 2025. That is on the Official Report.

It was still on it for a whole year then.

I do not know but I-----

I call Mr. McNamara.

Farmers have to go through everything and to be Bord Bia quality assured are required to have everything right. He has a food company and is selling food to the consumer. We are selling the food to the parties that has been quality assured. He is coming along and selling the food to the consumer and it is not quality assured as far as he is concerned. It has nothing got to do with quality assured as far as his company is concerned. What are we being quality assured for? If he is coming along and selling our product and it is not all quality assured, what is going on? We have to ask ourselves that question. That is the big thing. We have to think about the consumers. The consumers are our customers. We have to think about them. It is painting a bad picture of our beef to the consumers. I see it. There are people talking about school meals being made from Brazilian chicken and all this sort of thing. This has to stop because it is giving a fierce bad image towards our beef sector and all the rest of it.

I thank everybody for coming in. I really appreciate it. I was at an IFA meeting the other night in Abbeyleix, County Laois, and I can see two different narratives out there. There is a narrative up here in this House that the IFA may be running away with itself, that Mr. Gorman is running away with himself and that he does not have the backing of the IFA. I put on record that every single person I have spoken to in the last number of weeks, be he or she IFA, non-IFA, non-farmer or non-agricultural background, is 1,000,000% behind all the farming organisations here. Mr. Gorman has stood up and been counted here. He has done everything right. He noticed a problem, he addressed it straight away and he looked for the Minister for agriculture to stand up and be counted and take someone out of a position when there is a conflict of interest. This is where we are at. Right now, everybody sees the situation and-----

The question has been the appearance of it, not any conflict.

Yes, so there we have our question. There are talks about dialogue and a meeting on Friday but all those I have spoken to have said there is no dialogue or resolution that will fix this; there is only one simple answer. I ask for the simple answer because everyone there in front of us has confirmed they are open to dialogue with the man in question. Does Mr. Phelan see any way forward but a new chair?

It is very hard to see a way forward at this stage. It is not in my gift to replace the chair. That seems to be the Minister's job. Is it another year the chair has to run? I am not quite sure. I do not think we can wait the year.

We are talking about the potential for loss of confidence in the Irish beef sector. We are thinking about the damage this is going to do to the Irish beef sector. I am thinking of myself as a young girl, when I was on the farm watching my father, God rest him, when someone was coming in to audit him and he could not find a prescription for something and he was up the walls. Does Mr. Phelan think there are ways for farmers to ensure they can have confidence in Bord Bia, or Bord Bia all around the world if we are talk about globally and everything like that? Does he think there is a resolution? Is there something in the dialogue we are missing or is there any other way here? We have to get this message out. Everyone I have spoken to is 100% clear that nobody is backing down here and there is one resolution. What does Mr. Phelan think?

In a word, no.

No. Okay. Mr. McNamara?

No.

Mr. Farrell?

No. It is on record. We called for it on the first day.

There is no other resolution. I wanted to hear and the witnesses are entitled to say whatever they want. Do they see any other way of this resolving other than a change in chair? Going back to the meeting title, we are looking at the potential for loss of confidence in the Irish beef sector because that is what we are talking about. If we have quality assurance Bord Bia, this is where we are at.

Our priority is that he should step down. Our main priority is that he must go. A slight alternative would be that he would step aside for a long time to have this sorted but our main priority is that he step down.

If I could comment on this, the only way this is going to be sorted is by dialogue. We are quite clear. If I walked away in the morning and said everything was fine, nothing to see here, I guarantee it would not restore the confidence farmers have in Bord Bia. That is the issue. We can have our opinions here all we want but that is the nub of the issue. Can farmer confidence be restored with the chair staying in place? No, it cannot. If I said it could, that is not going to change the position on the ground. We need dialogue without preconditions. I have said that over the weekend and I would agree to that. At the end of the day, we need to look and see what is best for Bord Bia going forward. That is what everybody who has an influence on this needs. It is those around the board table and in the Department of agriculture and not anywhere else. It is not in the Business Post or in the Sunday Independent. It is around those entities that this will be sorted and in reality, nothing has been done since we had the board meeting three weeks ago and that is not good enough. Board members have looked for a board meeting to be called and they have either been ignored or they have not got an answer. Our request has been ignored and I do not think that is good enough.

No.

Mr. Farrell is keen to get in there.

Yes, and I want to take in Mr. McDonald in there as well because I want to make sure I get everyone for their opinion.

My view is always a view of the IFA because I am here to serve the views of the members. I would say on behalf of the association that it is regrettable that we find ourselves in this position. I have worked for the IFA for nearly ten years in this role. I do not believe in that time we have ever looked for anybody's resignation in actual fact. I have heard president after president, including the current president being asked during difficult times whether he had confidence in Ministers and in other people. We have always said we play the ball and not the person. Unfortunately, in this situation, it is as the president has outlined. As the Senator has said, we have all been to meetings up and down the country. To understand where Bord Bia is, it cannot function without the support of farmers.

Mr. Farrell is keen to respond to the Senator's question.

Yes. Mr. Farrell?

Look, we are talking about six of us here. We are representing over 5 million people as consumers and about 133,000 farmers who depend on Bord Bia for quality assurance, marketing and everything else. We have farmers walking away from the business, the industry, and undermining it as it is. We cannot let it be undermined any further so we do not have the confidence to stay and continue with the present chair. We need something to get confidence back even in the board.

I call Senator Daly.

I welcome the witnesses here from both organisations. As "conflict of interest" are the buzzwords, I had better declare that I am a paid-up member of both IFA and ICSA. I do not want to be accused of anything. If I am asked why I am a member of both of them, it could be called a continuity of representation in all given scenarios. You never know what might happen.

As the organisations requested to come in after last week's meeting, I was going to question the witnesses on some of the things that were said last week. One of them was the reference last week to an ultimatum being put down.

From what Ms Doyle said, has that ultimatum changed somewhat if there is a willingness to step aside rather than resign? I had not anticipated asking that question except for what Ms Doyle said.

To be fair, we were asked to try to get into negotiations on this issue and whether we would engage in dialogue. In any dialogue, you do not set preconditions. You try to put out a hand to see if there is a way to solve this. To be clear, unless we get dialogue nothing is going to happen. Eventually with every problem, whether the peace process in Northern Ireland or whatever, it starts with people sitting around a table and talking. There has not been enough of that in the past week. I am not going to set preconditions and we are not going to set preconditions – other people are setting them.

I am giving the IFA the opportunity to comment on what was said. That word was used. The comment was something like “I only take ultimatums from my wife”. I am giving Mr. McDonald the opportunity to comment on that.

From the point of view of it being an allegation against the association and calling it an "ultimatum", I think what the chair was referring to that time was a proposal that was made, I think he said himself, at the Bord Bia board meeting. I think a member of a board is entitled to make any proposal and put it in front of the board for a decision. I do not think it is fair to call that an ultimatum.

I am not.

I know.

I am asking Mr. McDonald to comment on what was said.

In my view it was not an ultimatum.

He asked to come in here after what was said and that is one thing that was said.

To be clear, on the board meeting - I only want to speak for myself and I am not going to speak for anybody else - I made this quite clear on the day of the board meeting that there would be responsibility on me to go out for who we represent. We represent 70,000 of our members. I understand that we have a wider responsibility to the sector as a whole as well because of the scale of our organisation. We looked to deal with it inside at the board meeting. We made no comment on why we were looking for the board meeting beforehand except to say that we would deal with it within the board structures. Inside, twice, I outlined the seriousness of this for Bord Bia and I asked the chairman to step aside in the interest of Bord Bia. And that was refused. I felt if that was the case and if he was not considering his position, he should be removed. At that stage we were told that was not within our remit, that our views would be conveyed to the Minister and that is where it was left. The board meeting concluded more or less on that basis and there has been little or no communication from anyone directly since on this issue.

Right. The other thing I would like the IFA’s comment on, based on what was said here on the last day, is on the whole continuity of supply and contingency plan, that is, the reason beef from other jurisdictions is brought in. If the Irish supplier, without using any names, could not guarantee their customer continuity they would not get the contract and hence would not be selling Irish beef. Will the witnesses comment on that?

I will get Mr. McDonald to comment on that.

That statement has been made by the chair of Bord Bia in a public forum and has been put forward as his explanation for why Brazilian beef would come in. We said in our opening statement that it would be helpful if there was some third-party verification for that. In farmers’ eyes it does not matter whether it was 1% or what the reason is. The people who have supported the chairman have used that 1% figure and the fact that-----

Figures aside, it is the idea of needing to guarantee to a customer that if there is foot and mouth, for example, you still have supply.

Contingency, yes. What we said in our opening statement is there would be merit in having that looked at to see. I was not aware of it myself but then I am not in that business so I would not expect to be. It was the first I heard of it, and I would say it was the first a lot of farmers heard of it as well. Those who know better tell us this is standard practice and so on. We were not aware of it. The fact that Dawn Farm Foods is not part of the processor QA scheme is certainly an issue in terms of confidence in what is going on there. A statement was made by the chair. I am in no position to challenge it or verify it one way or the other. What we said is that it would be beneficial to have that statement validated by some independent party.

Does the ICSA have any comment on that?

On the background to it, Mr. McDonald touched on it there. He was looking to direct and his own company was not part of QA or part of the Bord Bia quality standard but at the same time, this is what we are going to bring down the road. That is a big thing. On getting our food outside Ireland in the event of a foot and mouth outbreak, as the Senator said, we have a local market. I know England is full but there is a European and there are other markets. There is a market somewhere; we do not have to go that far. To what extent was that looked at or where they could be sourced? We have to look at the proper standards we want to require. This is not what it is being replaced with. For any customer who is going to replace it with a substandard product - I cannot understand out that was sold to them. For any of us here, no matter what we want to buy, if we are being offered something substandard we will be reluctant to take it even in necessity. Quality is vital here and keeping it within the regulations of what we are used to working with in Ireland and Europe, there is big scope there for any supply of food. I do not see why we would have to go that far.

We should not get away from the core issue here, which is the confidence of farmers in Bord Bia. Since we had the joint committee meeting-----

It is confidence in the Irish beef sector. Not specifically Bord Bia. It is the beef sector.

They are absolutely intrinsically linked.

No. The purpose of the meeting is the potential loss of confidence in the Irish beef sector, resumed. It is not any company, organisation or individual. It is the Irish beef sector, resumed. That is clear.

There is absolutely no doubt that farmers are not going to have confidence in the Irish beef sector while this situation continues. The very fact that the chairman’s company is not part of the food processors' QA standard once again raises huge questions. Imagine I was looking for the chairmanship of Bord Bia and I was not quality assured as a farmer. What would that say?

Thank you. I call Deputy Cooney.

I thank the IFA and the ICSA for coming in here this evening and giving us the opportunity to ask them questions. I also want to compliment them on the fantastic work they are doing for the farming communities. They have achieved a lot over the last number of years and they can be very proud of that.

This is an unfortunate situation we have found ourselves in. We all know there is "for" and "against" but as others have said, we have to try to get talks going, get dialogue and see if we can sort the issue and move on for the good of farming in this country. We have had some fantastic farmers in this country and there is no point in saying otherwise.

The ICSA opening statement stated, “Beef farmers are not properly represented on the Bord Bia board.” Why would the organisation say that?

For the simple reason there are only two seats there. As we see it, no other organisation has a suckler committee apart from the ICSA. That is why we are not represented. People who are in sucklers are not represented on the Bord Bia board; that is the big thing. We want to see balance in Bord Bia.. If you look through Bord Bia there are 14 board members. There are two farm organisations represented. There might be three for milk and one for beef but there is no one from the suckler or sheep sector, which is what we are. There is no one there to represent them. We see at the moment what is happening to the sheep. It is a disaster. I probably should not bring it up here but it is all through Dawn-----

Do not bring it up.

That is okay. But that is the way I look at it. There has to be more balance in respect of the people who are on the board of Bord Bia.

If I could follow up on what Mr. McNamara said about balance, as we said in our opening statement, this was a big part of everything with Bord Bia. It was developed on that. That is where it was mainly set out first but it has been diluted and changed. The role of Bord Bia does not recognise where it started, where it is today and the changes on what it is about. This is why we need more strength for the farming groups on the board. That is where is has to come from across the board.

I just want to comment on that briefly. I have no issue with further farmer representation on the board.

I said that earlier on. I am a suckler, beef and sheep farmer. Before I became the president of IFA, I made my living full time from that. I have been since I came home from agriculture college and started farming. When I finish in this role in two years, if I am still in it, I will be going back to make my living as a full-time suckler, beef and sheep farmer. I represent that view on the board really well. If I was not on the board, we would not be talking about the issue we are dealing with here today. To be clear, I do not have any issue with further representation on the board. I take issue with the claim that we are not representing suckler or beef farmers properly.

We are all very confused about the confidence in the Irish beef sector. As we are all aware, the Irish beef sector had been going fantastically for the past number of years. Do the witnesses think that by dialogue and talks that we can get confidence back into sector?

I absolutely do. It is the only way it is going to be sorted. It is not going to be sorted by us staying in our silos. We have addressed that issue already. It has been a fantastic 12 months, particularly for beef farmers. I sold cattle this year. Never in my life did I think we would get the money we got. The only sorrow for me was that my dad, who passed away four years ago, was not around to see the prices that we saw this year because he took great joy out of the fact that we would sell good cattle. He loved coming to the mart to see them being sold on Saturday. He was not there to see these prices this year. He waited all his lifetime, as every other farmer in the country did, for those prices. We want to see this industry maintained. We want to see confidence in the industry. However, the confidence in the industry is being shattered by this issue at the moment. We need real dialogue where people are going to sit down around the table, take a deep breath and see what is best for the sector and that the outcome that we would arrive at would deliver that. That is all I want.

That is very important. I grew up on a farm. I have been involved in farming all my life. I am in a situation that I would love not to be at the moment, but I will be always there to support and help farmers going forward. Since I got elected to Dáil Éireann, I have a lot more time put in to supporting and working for farmers, not only in my own county but throughout the country. Again, it is time for us now to sit down, get talking, get the issues sorted out and move forward for the good of the farming community of our country.

I want to come back in on that question. Regarding dialogue, we can look forward to it, but one thing that we will have to have is confidence that there is going to be willingness on everybody's part to engage properly. It cannot be just a one end game. We have to an open dialogue that will direct it to get the result instead of a stand-off in one end or other. As far as farmers here, we want to get business going and everything else. We want to make sure that we are backed up in a safe footing and safe hands of everyone else. We have to be guaranteed that from everyone else on entering dialogue that there is 100% commitment to make it happen.

Again, confidence is important. If confidence is not there, we know it is not good for the business. Confidence is going to be important going forward. With talks and that, hopefully they can be achieved, and we can move forward.

I welcome everybody who is here. I am Bord Bia audited. I am one of the 55,000 or 60,000 people who are Bord Bia audited on this island. This was something that farmers bought into. There was a lot of hard work and grinding to the stone. A lot of work had to be done. A lot of new measures had to be put in place, but we did it and we are very proud of it. The reason that we did it was that at that time we were promised that we would see a huge price increase for milk, beef and all commodities. It took several years to see the increase. Milk started to increase first. What happened this year and last year? Beef started to increase. It was a huge plus to all those people who have produced cattle. I have always said it. I know hundreds of farmers up and down the breadth of Ireland who lost money out of cattle. I always asked if we could imagine someone going into work in any sector in this country and coming out at the end of the week with no money for their work. I saw that happen. We have to get the background. I saw farmers in desperation when the angel dust debacle was out there. I saw them handcuffed and taken away. We are coming from a background where people were very cross when this came out. They were devastated.

Today, we had a meeting. It was all about packaging and awareness. I am numb going out of here. In some cases, there was no compliance. Nobody was going out to see what was going on. We were shown stuff here today. It is there in the public domain now. There was packaging showing Irish producers, but the product comes from a different country. If the consumers out there knew - and if we think there is an outrage with farmers at the moment - there would be a total outrage. These are Bord Bia compliant farmers producing the best of goods in the country, and this is what is happening on that end.

A couple a weeks ago, our Government voted against Mercosur. Why did it vote against Mercosur? Due to the import of Brazilian beef and chicken. The IFA and everybody else, including me , said to take beef and chicken off the menu of Mercosur and none of us would have any problem with it. However, that was not the way. Lo and behold, in a very short period of time we came back, and I have to salute Mr. Gorman on that board for making us aware of what was happening. Nobody knew it. It was devastating to farmers because of all their hard work. It really is hard work. One would want to be in there to see it and the standards that we have. We are very proud of it. When that happened, there was total devastation. There were people up and down the breadth of Ireland in tears over what had happened with the boss of that company or whatever. They were setting the standards for us. On the other hand, when we did not meet the standards, it was another thing. There are two things that are very difficult on farmers at the moment. These are the herd test and the Bord Bia inspection. With the Bord Bia inspection, farmers are deducted this, deducted that and deducted the other. We can see it on the pages that the IFA has said it. Is there anyone else who would tolerate that being done to them and see what is happening?

We have not even got 4% of young farmers in the country. How could any young farmer going forward see what is going on in this country at the moment where the very same company that is setting out the standards for us is not compliant itself? That is best way that I look at it. I acknowledge that I got a video on Saturday night - I wish to be very clear about this - and it showed the people who were sitting inside there and had got nothing to eat. I immediately texted the Minister for agriculture and told him that this has to stop, and it has to stop immediately. He came back to me about 40 or 45 minutes later. He rang me and said there is food going in there. That was very wrong. I want to publicly say that. That should not have happened. I do not have questions for the witnesses because they know where I stand. I am a farmer. There was anger the other night at a meeting because of what happened and the devastation to it. It is reprehensible. It is only going to be solved by dialogue, but there cannot be any stipulations or anything like that before the meeting goes on. Everything is on the table, and everything should be done.

Like everybody else here, I have been committees all my life. I had the disclosures every time. The minute a meeting would start, for example, if it was a county council meeting, anyone with the slightest conflict of interest would be sent out the door. They had to go, or they would be reprimanded after and rightly so. I cannot understand how this happened. I further cannot understand why there has not been a meeting since the previous board meeting. It defies logic. It is making people outside ask questions. They are very cross at the fact that there is something not happening there. The whole thing is not good for the image of farming. The consumer out there now is going to come on board as well because of what happened at this meeting here today.

They believe in their heart when they go into the shop and are picking up this stuff and looking at all the pictures of farmers over their heads that it is all Irish produce they are buying, yet it is not. The whole thing needs to be looked at from that point of view.

I know we are taking about a special issue today. All I am saying is that if we are to see progress in this area, dialogue has to take place, but there cannot be any preconditions laid down to it. That is not the way dialogue is done. In a dialogue, you go into an open forum and discuss what is to be discussed. Whatever is the end of that, we will all stand up and be counted.

Imagine the scenario of people going out to a farm tomorrow to check if it is Bord Bia compliant and telling the farmer he or she does not have something done. How could any organisation stay going like that? It could not. It would be crippled. Imagine a farmer being fined 20 cent or something like that or his or her milk not being taken. It is game over until we sit down. I can tell you that.

I welcome the farming organisations. I have a question for both, and Mr. Gorman might have a fair idea. The idea that participation in the Bord Bia quality assurance scheme is voluntary has been thrown around during the past week or two, but it is not voluntary. If someone wants to send milk or be part of the suckler welfare scheme, he or she has to be in that Bord Bia scheme. Where is this notion coming from? I just cannot fathom it. When the milk is moved on, a lot of it is not Bord Bia quality assured after it is processed. Farmers do not have to do it. Where is the compulsion on the farmer to work with the Bord Bia scheme in order to supply milk?

In our opening statement, we took issue with the comment the chairman made the last day that Bord Bia operated a voluntary quality assurance scheme. While that might be legally correct, the practical reality on the ground is that, without it, a dairy farmer cannot supply their milk to a processor. Neither can a pig or poultry farmer. Potatoes and vegetables are very tight. Bar selling them on the side of the road, a producer would have to be in the QA scheme. This is the way things have evolved for farmers and it is probably central to understanding the frustration of farmers on the ground about all of this. Clearly, it was voluntary for the chairman, as a food processor, to decide whether to be in the QA scheme. Whether he decided not to be, he was not eligible or he did not pass the audit, we do not know, but he is not a member of it whereas farmers in nearly every sector would be out of business. In the beef and sheep sectors, it is impractical not to be part of sustainable beef and lamb assurance scheme, SBLAS, as well because you will suffer losses in all sorts of places. It is a condition of the suckler carbon efficiency programme, SCEP. We felt it was a mistake in the first instance to make being a member of SBLAS a condition of the SCEP scheme. The Deputy is absolutely correct that, for farmers, it might be a legal nicety that the Bord Bia QA scheme is voluntary, but for all intents and purposes, it is completely compulsory.

I am trying to watch the clock.

It showed a lack of insight and understanding of the whole thing when the chairman described it as "voluntary" in his opening statement the last day.

Was the ICMSA or the IFA ever informed that chicken and beef were being brought in by the chair's company as part of its conflict of interest?

I can only speak for myself and the IFA. "No" is the answer.

Fair enough. Regarding what Ms Doyle said, is it the case that, if the chair moves to one side, everyone is prepared to go into talks? At the end of the day, though, would the IFA still be where it was last week, in that the chair is compromised by the situation he is in?

It is the farmers who will decide that and the farmers will not accept that he stay in the chair. We represent the farmers. We represent members who are very familiar with what the needs of our farmers are and we represent them transparently. They will not accept him in the chair.

Okay, that is perfect.

Representatives from the FSAI attended the meeting earlier today. I ask the opinion of both farming organisations present about a worry I have. A lot of people now - probably every one of us and hundreds more - are tracing up as far as we can. The FSAI, the Department and Bord Bia were before us. You would get sickened by some of the stuff we heard today about trying to trace where a bit of meat that goes into someone's belly has gone if it comes from Brazil. Bejaysus, though, you can trace it if it is meat from Ireland. If the meat went to Germany, every bit of it could be traced. There is something seriously wrong about the systems in place. We will keep at that.

In both farming organisations' opinions, is there a fear? We know now that there is chicken coming from four or five countries outside of the EU. In fairness to Adam Woods and Tomás Burke, a documentary was done on Brazilian beef. There is fear among people about this because of the hormones and the medicines that have been banned here for years. Is there a danger if this is not put to bed shortly? If companies in Ireland processing or selling meat or chicken do not clarify and lay on the table that they will not deal in this stuff, will it do harm to the whole industry? Now, the minute you go into a shop, you pick something up and check to see where it came from. When the story goes around the world about beef coming into Ireland from Brazil or wherever, is there a danger that the full beef industry, or the chicken industry for that matter-----

We are focusing on beef, Deputy, not chicken.

Right. I will leave the chicken where it is, so. Jesus Christ, it is meat. Is there a danger we will do harm to the overall European beef business?

I will defer to the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers' Association, ICSFA.

Definitely, it would do serious damage overall. It would do serious damage to consumers because they would not buy beef, and that would be a big problem. When it comes down along the line, the primary producer will be affected for the simple reason there will not be as many people available to buy our beef and, as a result, the price will fall. If this continues, it will have a downward effect from the top to the bottom. None of us wants to see Brazilian beef coming into Ireland. It is doing a lot of harm. We hear of it being used in different places. Due to a conflict of interest, I cannot say where but it is doing serious damage. Consumers here are looking at every bit of meat they pick up now. We have seen during the past week that a certain company has changed the label on its packaging. It had Brazilian corned beef, but now you can see the words plainly where before you could not.

What can be seen?

There was Brazilian corned beef and one could not read the words on the packet. The words were at the bottom.

You would need a magnifying glass.

Yes. Now, the words are in big print on the top. The label has changed during the past week after this information came out.

The one good thing to come out of this is the labelling is improving. The shops seem to be improving it themselves at the moment.

Not everybody.

Some of them are. I went to a few shops this week when I had time. I have been in Dublin today and yesterday. I have seen the labelling and it is improving. The manager of one of the supermarkets spoke about the number of questions he was getting from consumers now. He has got more during the past fortnight than he did during the past five years. That is all very good but if this issue goes on, confidence will be lost.

I have just one quick comment.

Deputy Healy-Rae is next.

I welcome the witnesses and all of the people sitting behind us. This is a very serious matter, and all the while we are talking about it, confidence in Bord Bia and in what people are getting is being eroded. During part of our meeting this evening, traceability and labelling came into question and our minds have been opened to what we did not know was going on at all. Last week, I got to know for the first time that Brazilian beef was coming in here. I did not know that. I thought that was what we were trying to stop with the Mercosur deal but the Brazilian beef has been coming in legally anyway. Does Bord Bia have any role to play with incoming beef, poultry or anything like that?

The answer is that we thought it did not but we are not sure now and those issues need to be clarified.

Bord Bia is marketing Irish products abroad.

The issue here that needs to be addressed, and I think it came up in the earlier session-----

The suggestion there was that Bord Bia was importing-----

No.

I did not say that.

Not from the Deputy, but the suggestion there was that Mr. Gorman did not know. That is not-----

For the record, anybody who picks up a QA mark-----

The witnesses are tarrying my time; I am robbed. Anyway, they do not seem to have an answer to that.

We have an answer to that. I think the issue here is that the QA mark that goes on our product is as a result of what farmers do at farm level. Everyone can rely 100% on that. Our policy in this association has been to look for that mark, buy product with that mark and you can trust that mark. I would stand over that anywhere. Farmers have spent years building up the value of that. Where the confusion has arisen recently is around Origin Green. In Question No. 7, we asked how much QA product or what percentage of QA product a processor had to buy to be classified as Origin Green. It looks like the answer is "Zero". That is a concern that leads to misunderstanding.

This is very clear to me - there are double standards. That is where the answer to this lies. In anything we were ever involved in, we were asked whether we had any conflict of interest. We had to satisfy whoever was asking the question that we did or did not. We had to get out if we had a conflict of interest. That is the nub of the issue here.

I asked about the 1%. The number 1 the lowest number you can think of. While it satisfied us that only a small amount was coming in, on the other side it was supposed to appease global customers. How would 1% appease global customers from Italy or wherever? That would suggest that the company was only able to source 1% from Brazil. Where was it going to get the other 99%? That is the nub of it for me. It is not credible. I could not believe that.

The other issue that is important to me, whether it was the meeting earlier today or the other day, is the health of our consumers. Too many young people we know have passed on and left families after them. They were fathers and mothers with young children. There is no answer. When you are talking about growth promoters, hormones and all these other things, we are left open to that when there is no proper traceability coming in from Brazil or other countries that we do not know about. I did not believe that we were having any beef from Brazil until the Mercosur debate and the debate last week. I did not know the extent of it. Quite a bit of it is coming in. What is amazing me is the question of who is following it after it comes into our ports in containers, how it is being mixed - 1% with 99% - and whether it is contaminating what we already have?

The poor farmers up and down the country, including the ones I met last Friday and Saturday nights, are rightfully angered at what is going on and what they have been put through. They have been put through the hoop. So have I, as have my young fella that is doing it for me and Johnny and Dan, the other two lads. They have to go through the hoop to get Bord Bia approved. We cannot have double standards. One has to understand that, the rule of that, what it means and what it has meant for so many farmers. Farmers are rightfully proud of what they are producing and the way they are doing it. It was hard to get them used to it at the start. It was hard for all of us to get used to it. What is this fella looking for? Is one tag not enough on a cow? At least we had the one tag, but those boyos out there do not have any tags. They are bringing in cuts that cannot be checked or assessed. If they brought in carcasses, there might be some chance of checking, but not cuts. They are bringing in all cuts. They are all cuteness for them to get around our system.

I understand the anger that is out there. We thank the witnesses for being here again today. We are representing the farmers, the people on the ground in the wellingtons. Maybe they are wet half the time in their boots or whatever. Maybe they are after putting their clothes on again in a hurry to pull a calf or something. I understand-----

We need to move on to Senator Lynch.

I thank the witnesses for being with us today. Before I get into my main commentary, I would like clarity from Mr. McDonald in relation to a point he noted to Deputy Healy-Rae. He stated that there could be 0% Irish-processed meat in a product certified Origin Green. He said processed meats did not have to be Irish to be certified. That flies directly in the face of what we were told earlier today at the food labelling session of the committee.

If I am wrong - I know some of my colleagues from Bord Bia are answering the question by sign language or something - but it is a sustainability scheme, as I understand it. I do not know for definite what the answer is, but we have asked what it is. I believe from looking at it that you make a commitment to use a certain percentage of QA product or equivalents from other countries. That is my understanding of it. I could be wrong. We have written to try to get clarity on this. We raised the question last week. Under our Question No. 7, we asked what percentage of QA meat was required to get it. I could be wrong. The stuff I have read would appear to imply that it is QA or equivalent.

Can we, as a committee, put in a question to Bord Bia on what has been said? We need clarity on that.

What we can do is go back and check the minutes from the earlier meeting.

We can check the minutes, but we need it in writing. It would be worrying if that was the case.

We have it in writing in our transcript from earlier this evening.

It would be good to get it written out properly rather than looking at statements.

We have a written statement from Bord Bia on the transcript. Senator Lynch's time is being eaten up.

I ask that my time be reinstated for the comments. The statement that was made by Mr. McDonald flies in the face of information we got earlier. We deserve clarity on that.

If I am wrong, I am happy to withdraw it, but I am asking a question.

We have heard an awful lot about this. I am sure all of us individually have been in touch directly with many of the people at the top table here tonight. I completely understand the way farmers are feeling. I am from a farming background in rural mid-Cork. We are in the Bord Bia scheme. We are dairy farmers. I get all of that. I get the double standards argument and the way farmers are feeling. They have put that across very eloquently tonight, as have many of their members over the past three weeks, including the 16 days that these protests have been ongoing outside Bord Bia. The fact is it is the time of the year that farmers do not want to be protesting. They have better things to be doing. We have had a month of rain and cows calving. This is not the time for this. It is most important now that, whatever has gone on before, a resolution be reached. There has been an awful lot of commentary from all parties about dialogue. When Mr. Murrin was before us last week discussing this, he said that the farm organisations had declined dialogue. I would like their comment in relation to that. Have they had any dialogue with the Minister, Deputy Heydon, on this matter. The impression I am getting this evening is that there has been zero dialogue or an opportunity or attempt at dialogue since 22 January. I would like their comments on that.

I thank Senator Lynch for her questions. On dialogue, I believe that dialogue should have started at the board of Bord Bia, which I attempted to do by raising it with-----

I take Mr. Gorman's point, and I have a question on that, but I would appreciate if he could answer the questions.

We looked subsequently for board meetings, which have not been responded to in any shape or form. A board meeting is due to be held on, I believe, 18 February. I have had discussions with the Minister, Deputy Heydon. The outcome was that there was no movement on either side. That is all I can say on it. That was the agreement when we had those discussions the other evening. Real dialogue means that you go in without any preconditions.

As Ms Doyle and I said earlier, we want that but, to be clear, when we go in to have that dialogue I will represent farmers in the best way possible. Farmers on the ground will not accept anything less than a new chairman. When we enter that dialogue we need to keep that in mind and come out with the best possible outcome. Let us be real about this: if we are going to enter dialogue and think we are to come up with a solution that will restore confidence in the beef sector, it is not going to happen under the current chairmanship. That is my view.

That is fair enough. I take Mr. Gorman's point about the fact that he has requested a further board meeting, and there has not been a board meeting since 22 January. I note that there was no vote of confidence at that meeting. Mr. Gorman might clarify the position, as my understanding is that there are 14 members on that board who are representative of different sectors across the agricultural industry. Two walked out - the ICMSA and the IFA representatives. The feedback that came out-----

To be clear, nobody walked out.

They said they did not have confidence in the chair. My understanding is that the other 11 did. If the vast majority of the board have not stated that they do not have confidence, where is the merit in discussing it at board level? Does it not have to be directly with the Minister and the chairman?

No.

What would be achieved at a board meeting?

I am only going to speak for myself as regards the board. I am not going to speak for anybody else. My position, and that of the IFA, is quite clear. The Minister requested a view from the board before the board meeting. The board is central to this, as is the Minister. If there is to be a solution to this, it must be about restoring and maintaining confidence in the beef industry. Senator Lynch knows what I mean when I say that. There has to be discussion around those two issues or on the side of it. It is not going to be anywhere else. That is where it sits for me. We have not had meaningful discussions in any shape or form at board level or with the Minister since then. The sooner we get down to trying to work this out, the better. We need it sorted out.

Deputy Fitzmaurice alluded to damage to the sector. Every controversy causes damage to the sector and to relationships. It is going to take a while to mend that damage. There is no question about that. The one thing that we have in the beef sector is a quality assurance scheme at farm level that stands up to any test. We might not like it, but it assures quality. If we are to have confidence in the sector going forward, at least the foundation is there. The last thing we need is to see that foundation of farmer confidence destroyed.

I thank Mr. Gorman. Could we hear from the ICSA?

I will follow on from what Mr. Gorman said about the board. As far as farming organisations are concerned, we received an email yesterday about a meeting with no date, time or place. We had to reply as to whether we had an interest in going. We still do not know what the position is on dialogue, as far as that goes. We are still awaiting that information. It is hard to be prepared for something that is a vague message. We need more direct communication upfront to get the trust of everyone to get involved and to vote confidence.

Could I add one more comment, Chair?

We very much welcome that the witnesses were available at very short notice for this meeting. We need to move on.

Could I have one second?

I am sorry but do I not have a minute left?

The extra time has been added.

Could I make one very short comment?

I am moving on to Deputy Maxwell.

I have not had an opportunity.

I am aware of that but it was Senator Brady who contested it, and we can check that. The time was added. I call Deputy Maxwell.

I welcome all the witnesses. I am not going to repeat everything. We have to get real. There were 200,000 tonnes of South American beef from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay coming into the European Union for a number of years. It has not just happened in recent months. Anybody who has travelled around Europe, as a lot of people have, will know that if you go on holidays to Spain you see restaurants with Argentinian or Brazilian steak. We know it is happening. We know that poultry has been imported. This is not all just coming out in the last couple of weeks. We all know what the Irish farmer produces is top quality - the best in the world. It is fully traceable. If you get a steak in any European city tonight that comes from Ireland, you can trace it back to the field on Google Maps and see where it came from and if it was sold.

We know where we are. We all have entrenched positions here. The Government is not going to sack Mr. Murrin, whereas the IFA and the ICMSA want him gone and Bord Bia wants him in place. Is there any way, at this late stage, that we can all take two steps back from the precipice? Ms Doyle and Mr. Gorman said there are no preconditions, but the precondition they want to go in with is that Mr. Murrin has to go, no matter what happens. That is fair enough. As a Border TD, I received messages and phone calls on this last week asking me to vote a certain way tonight. Is there any way that we can all step back and have no preconditions? Could we put a one-month or two-month timeline on this? There are not an awful lot of questions we need answered. When Mr. Murrin came in last week I could not attend. Maybe we could tease out the question about the 1%. I do not know. The problem is, as Mr. Gorman said, that this is all about talking and getting around the table. How do we get around the table so that we deliver for Irish farmers and Irish exports, going forward? I understand that we could do this in a month's time and we might not have Mr. Murrin or whatever. Is there any way, at this late stage, that we could all take two steps back, re-evaluate and look at what is best for Irish farming and Irish exports and see how we can move on?

I might just speak because I am aware of where the IFA is as an association. I am directed by the national officers of the committee. Ms Doyle and Mr. Gorman are members of the committee, but there are five other members on it as well. To clarify something that is important, we never refused to meet or speak to anybody. The only thing we rejected was a proposal from the Minister and the chair of Bord Bia that he would attend the IFA national council and brief it on his Brazilian beef activities. We did not agree with that. We wrote back to the Minister and suggested two things. The first was that the Minister have a discussion with Mr. Murrin and the second was that he call in the board members, without the chairman, and have a discussion with them about where they are now. An awful lot has happened since the board meeting on 22 January, much of which the farm representative members on the Bord Bia board warned the board about. I refer to the strength of feeling, the depth of anger among farmers and the inability to restore confidence. It would be useful if the request for the earliest possible board meeting was granted to let the board have a discussion about this without the chairman. That is one suggestion.

The Minister has included a myriad of other things as part of the dialogue tomorrow, or whenever it occurs. It is a Food Vision discussion. I do not think that is a wise way to do it. It would be far better to take the bull by the horns and discuss the problem we have right now, rather than starting to have a philosophical discussion about the future of Irish agriculture while we have a burning issue that needs to be solved. Those are the two points I would make.

I accept the Minister should have whatever broad-brush discussion about Food Vision that needs to happen but there should be a separate dialogue around this immediately. For example, I do not know how many people are going to the meeting tomorrow but there will be a lot there. There will be one person from the IFA there. It is going to be strange to see 17 or 18 other people in the room while this dialogue is happening. To be honest, I do not know how it is going to work. Maybe I will be unexpectedly positive about it afterwards but my point is that it does not look to me like genuine dialogue to resolve the problem. It looks to be a way of saying we are moving on, rather than saying we know there is a problem and we have to solve it.

If we started there, we might have a chance of making progress. I suggest an immediate board meeting. The Minister has a representative on the board. If that representative looked for a board meeting, one might be organised. Let us try to get around the table. What is the point in letting it go ahead? The board has fiduciary duties for the good of Bord Bia. I do not think anybody could deny that Bord Bia has a problem. There is a significant problem here that is doing damage everywhere. People can blame us and everybody else for it but there is a problem that has to be solved. That is the suggestion. Let us call a board meeting and see what the board thinks now.

Going back to a point I made earlier on, I would add that everything you can think of has been thrown into the mix here. The issue of 200,000 tonnes of South American beef already being brought into the European Union has been thrown in. That has nothing to do with this. This is about farmers' confidence in the industry and how that can be restored. We need to focus on that. At the end of the day, we will go in without preconditions but, if everybody goes into that room without preconditions but does not take on board the fact that farmers on the ground are not going to accept this chairman when they are making their decisions, we are not being true to ourselves. That is the bottom line. I am prepared to go in without preconditions but I cannot forget our members and farmers in general, very few of whom think this is not an issue. We need it sorted as soon as possible.

If I may come in, a lot of this goes back to the fact that farmers are numerically very poorly represented on the board. There are two farmers and 11 or 12 non-farmers. If there were more equal representation, the vote of no confidence might have looked an awful lot different. As I said earlier, it is not within the gift of anyone in this room to solve this.

Just as a point of order-----

The Minister has to come back with some proposal.

We understand that discussions are being undertaken or that the offer of discussions is on the table and that groups will be meeting-----

They do not know where they are going.

-----over the coming days. That is a very welcome development on all of this.

On that point, everybody is busy. We all have timescales and schedules. We cannot drop everything every time. I know we did today but it cannot be common practice. We are busy people as well. We need a bit of respect on that end of it if we are to move on together. If that comes into it, I am sure we can all work together but somebody must be prepared to do that.

I thank Mr. Farrell. I am glad we were able to facilitate his request to take part in this meeting at short notice.

I acknowledge that and thank the Cathaoirleach.

The opportunity to engage in discussions has been made available. I understand that the Minister has issued an invite and will be identifying-----

For the record, we have been told that they do not know where or when they are going.

We understand that the offer of discussions has been issued and that those parties who are interested in taking part will be made aware and will receive follow-up in the days ahead.

May I have 30 seconds for concluding remarks? I thank the committee for inviting us. It is really important to have been able to come in here to discuss this issue. We always value the fact that we can engage with our politicians from all sides on the issues of the day. That is really important. We started out with an issue about Brazilian beef and poultry. That has now morphed into the Origin Green gold standard. A host of issues, including the issue of governance, has been raised. This needs to be sorted as soon as possible. I look forward to that process starting as soon as possible. Once again, I thank the committee for having us in. It has been of real value.

We have covered a huge swathe of ground today and in the previous session. I acknowledge the executive-----

To clarify, is dialogue to take place Friday of this week? Can we get an answer to that?

Senator, please stop. We have had a wide-ranging discussion in both sessions. I thank the executive and various staff and officials who have been able to facilitate these meetings and the members who have taken part. Táim an-bhuíoch as an gcomhoibriú go léir. We understand that invitation has been issued and that the various different groups will have the opportunity to take part in discussions. We very much welcome that.