Thank you for your attendance. I appreciate that some members have been considerably inconvenienced by our meeting on Thursday afternoon. Our first report carried over from yesterday is the Report on Proposed Regulation and Existing Directives Regarding Trade in Poultry Meat. We had this report before us in a subcommittee some considerable time ago. We went over it very thoroughly and we were reasonably satisfied with it. A possible tendency, to which it would give rise, would be for undertakings to become larger and more centralised but we are assured that that process is inevitable in any event. The important thing is that the traditional trade in this country of sales of New York dressed white turkeys in a plucked but uneviscerated condition is being allowed to continue until 1981. That is a very necessary provision. It is something to which the public are accustomed in this country. It would certainly be very undesirable to bring the traditional trade to a sudden end. Whether or not it will phase itself out during these five years is something we cannot say.

It gives it time.

It gives it time to adjust. It is a situation which we will have to keep an eye on. We sum it up on the last page, page 4, and state:

The deferment of the provisions relating to uneviscerated poultry is to be welcomed from the Irish point of view. Whether in the period up to 1981 the traditional demand for uneviscerated turkeys can be diverted towards the eviscerated variety remains to be seen. If it cannot the Joint Committee considers that there is a strong case for permanent exemption from the terms of the Directives of limited local sales by producers to retailers provided that the birds were clearly marked as uninspected.

Can we accept that?

One question. It relates to small firms particularly who have to pay the penalties. I think that we should recommend that the IDA grant-aid them for applications made. I appreciate that they are Regulations but I feel that where new and, perhaps, differing Regulations are being imposed on a trade, that trade should be assisted by whatever State Agencies can help them.

We would not regard it as one of our functions to make such a recommendation. There we would be very much getting into an area of Government policy. That is the type of thing that could appropriately be raised by a Member of either House when this report comes before the House. It would be outside our terms of reference.

Is there any provision for the transfer to this new type of marketing, production and so on?

I certainly think that anything in this area would, in principle, qualify for FEOGA aid.

Should we put in a word to that effect? It is a fairly short, intensive trade. I am just talking about the turkey trade at the moment. The corresponding amount of capital outlay on it would have to be got back in a very short period of trading.

Have we received any other representations?

No.

There was a fair noise about it when it was first mooted. Is it possible to make a recommendation?

FEOGA is there to assist agricultural structures in every way.

This emanates from the EEC. If they are imposing something on people involved in the business, I think it is only right that we should recommend. I do not know which of the various categories of business and enterprise might qualify because this trade might be industrial rather than agricultural; basically it is marketing.

There is nothing to prevent FEOGA grants being made available for the meat processing trade. A meat processing plant could qualify for a FEOGA grant?

Yes, and an IDA grant if it is acceptable. It may not be automatically acceptable either by the IDA or by FEOGA.

This is the point. I wonder if we should make a recommendation that they be acceptable.

Would it not meet Deputy Collins' point if we ask the IDA through the Department of Industry and Commerce to seek to have FEOGA assistance made available? It would not be outside the terms of reference of our Committee.

I am reluctant to do it, but if you really want to I would allow it. We are commenting on an EEC regulation which seeks to standardise the provisions governing refrigeration, packaging, labelling, meat packaging, meat grading and so on. To go on further into the policy area——

I think that would be outside our terms of reference.

I think that where a matter emanates from the EEC they must contemplate the threat that greatly increased costings will be visited on firms arising out of their proposal. It is only right, then, that one should note the fact that——

I do not know——

The Chairman's point is a good one, that we are beginning to infringe on policy.

No. This is a question of dealing with EEC moneys made available to assist the implementation of a proposed EEC Directive. You are in a different field here. We should note the fact that this is going to mean extra costing for those engaged in the trade. Some appropriate financial assistance should be made available; we might even say how.

First of all, we have to decide whether additional public moneys from somewhere should be made available.

I do not think we have any real information on that subject.

We are taking in a large quantity of turkeys for the festive season——

Leave turkeys out of it; this is the ordinary poultry business.

I thought you did mention turkeys?

Yes, but not in this connection. The uneviscerated, New York dressed turkey for the Christmas trade has been exempted.

For a period of time?

For five years.

Then it does not arise. We will come to it again in five years' time because we are committed by not doing something at this stage. However——

Paragraphs 1 to 4, inclusive, agreed to.

Draft Report agreed to.

Ordered: To report accordingly.