Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 27 Apr 1993

Vol. 429 No. 6

Animal Remedies Bill, 1993: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The fundamental aim of this Bill is to meet the demand for comprehensive and coherent legislation on animal remedies covering the entire spectrum from the point of manufacture to the sale for human consumption of produce derived from treated animals.

The issue of animal remedies has generated a certain amount of controversy and can be divided into three principal areas of concern. First, there is the industrial aspects whereby animal remedies are developed and placed on the market. Secondly, there is the producer who relies on safe, efficacious animal remedies to ensure the health of his stock so as to derive the optimum return for his investment and labour. Last but not least, there are the consumers who rightly demand that the animal produce which they purchase comes from healthy animals and is not contaminated or rendered less wholesome by the use of animal remedies.

The interests of each of these groups are equally important and any regulatory controls must recognise the legitimacy of their concerns and strike the right balance to ensure that no single group asserts its demands at the expense of another party. I do not suggest that there is any fundamental conflict or incompatibility between these parties; in fact, their interests are complementary. It is the function of the legislative system to ensure the necessary mechanisms are applied to ensure that the rights of all are respected.

To achieve this necessary balance a comprehesive approach must be adopted as consistent treatment is not facilitated by fragmented legislation. Our existing legislation has served us well. We enjoy a very high animal health status and our animal produce enjoys an enviable reputation for natural wholesomeness. In today's highly competitive food sector there is no room for complacency. As it is over 30 years since primary legislation was introduced in this area it is timely, in view of the rapid pace of change and development in the pharmaceutical and farming sectors, that the legislative position be reviewed and updated to lay the basis of regulation for the years ahead right into the third millennium.

I would not like to create the impression that there has been total legislative inactivity in this area. Throughout the eighties there has been a steady stream of secondary legislation arising from national initiatives and out of harmonisation measures adopted at EC level. It is important to recognise that the decision to ban hormones, both natural and synthetic, was taken in the mid eighties at Community level. This decision was taken because of growing consumer unease and a series of abuses in a number of member states. We have exercised very strict controls in the interest of farmer, industry and consumer over this period and only two major criticisms can be directed at our efforts. These are the fact that this legislation is fragmented over a number of different Acts and that responsibility is also divided between different Ministers. The situation has been referred to on more than one occasion as a legislative maze. The other aspect is one which has been raised on a number of occasions in this House. I speak, of course, of the low level of penalties applicable to serious offences. I fully share the sentiments of those who call for a punishment to fit the crime and feel that the Bill before us today will leave potential offenders in no doubt as to the Government's intention to deal severely with such activities.

Perhaps the most striking aspect in the development of the animal health industry over the years is the increasing consumer awareness of farming practices and concerns regarding the safety of substances administered in livestock production. Consumers quite correctly demand assurances regarding the safety of these substances and their correct usage. The pharmaceutical industry and the farming community have to respect these concerns if their industries are to prosper. There is little point producing any commodity no matter how economically if the consumer refuses to buy it. Equally the consumer must be educated that all animal remedies must satisfy strict criteria of safety, quality and efficacy before they are approved for placing on the market, that the responsible use of animal remedies improves the health and welfare of animals and consequently the quality of their produce. Healthy stock reduces farmers' overheads and so consumers share the benefit of more economic production.

It should also be acknowledged that the vast majority of farmers are quality conscious, respect the law and are interested in supplying a product in which the consumer will have confidence. As a final guarantee strict official controls are applied at slaughtering facilities and dairies to ensure the safety and quality of animal produce entering the food chain. A comprehensive testing regime is in place ranging from tests on live animals to samples taken at the point of slaughter. Much of this sampling is taken on the basis of suspicion. It is therefore possible by co-operation of all interests and the regulatory authorities to make the food chain a chain of quality.

Trade in animal produce has been greatly facilitated by the adoption of a comprehensive range of harmonised measures at EC level dealing with the criteria for approval of animal remedies, thereby ensuring that different demands cannot be used to create artificial barriers to trade. To complement these measures harmonised schemes for monitoring for correct usage have also been put in place.

Unfortunately a disturbing trend of using illegal substances for growth promotion in livestock production has emerged throughout Europe and, there is evidence to suggest, further afield as well. We in Ireland have not been immune and it is deplorable that an unrepresentative group of unscrupulous producers and dealers threaten the hard earned reputation and the viability of our livestock and meat industry. Particular attention has focused on the use of beta-agonists, commonly referred to as angel dust and hormonal substances. These developments have created a degree of consumer resistance to beef and other meat products and aroused a suspicion in regard to the use of animal remedies generally. Reports of usage in the national and international media are, to say the least, not good for our image as a producer of quality produce and undermine the basic elements of the marketing strategy for our food sector.

Live animal and meat exports are vital to the economy and contribute in excess of £1 billion annually in export earnings to the economy. While this is a vital contribution to the economy, I do not exaggerate when I say it is the lifeblood of the farming community. Good reputations are hard to earn and once lost almost impossible to regain. We cannot tolerate the activities of those persons who threaten the very existence of our livestock industry. I will not enter into debate as to whether those who supply or those who use are more to blame. It is sufficient to say that supply and demand cannot be separated as they are totally inter-dependent. Any person who supplies, uses or encourages the use of illegal substances must be treated with equal severity and this Bill provides the appropriate basis for that purpose.

Existing legislation relating to animal remedies is contained in the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1932, which deals with the regulation of animal remedies which have immunological properties, the Animal Remedies Act, 1956, which regulates the availability of animal remedies and the Poisons Act, 1961, which regulates the use of animal remedies which are deemed by regulations under that Act to be poisons.

Developments in immunology and biotechnology have long since surpassed the scope of the Therapeutic Substances Act and a new legal basis for dealing with this area is now necessary. The Animal Remedies Act and the Poisons Act have limitations in scope and more importantly provide for summary offences only, with the maximum fine under either Act being £100 and the Poisons Act having a provision for a prison sentence of six months. The greatest limitation in scope arises in relation to the powers of enforcement, adequate when regulating a law abiding sector, but totally inadequate for dealing with users or suppliers of illegal substances. There is the added complication of having to make two separate regulations when the availability and use of an animal remedy requires to be addressed.

Developments in veterinary medicine and biotechnology have led to a situation where strict controls are necessary on animal remedies and harmonised action in this respect has been provided for by a series of EC Directives. Because of the limitation in our domestic legislation to implement these measures the European Communities Act, 1972, has been utilised to provide the substantial powers of enforcement necessary to combat what, in many instances, amounts to serious criminal activity in relation to the supply and use of illegal substances. A series of very stringent legislative measures entitled the European Commmunties (Control of Veterinary Medicinal Products and Their Residues) Regulations 1988 to 1992, have therefore, been introduced to prohibit the manufacture, importation, sale, possession and use of illegal substances or the abuse of authorised substances. Despite this, the regulations lack effectiveness because the European Communities Act provides for summary offences only. This means that the maximum penalties which may be imposed are those applicable to summary jurisdiction, which in the context of profits to be gained from the illegal use of these substances are insufficient to have a substantial deterring effect.

As I mentioned earlier, this Bill will provide a single legislative basis for the regulation and control of all animal remedies and for the consolidation of existing legislation in this area, as well as providing for appropriate enforcement and sanctions. The wide ranging powers to regulate reflect the degree to which animal remedies are an integral part of livestock production. Because of the importance which attaches to the use of pharmaceutical products at EC level, provision is made that future Community legislation in this area should be transposed into national law under the provisions of this Bill. This is an important provision as it will enable future EC legislation to be transposed into domestic law independently of the European Communities Act, 1972, the use of which for implementing EC legislation has many advantages but also has weaknesses. I have already referred to the restrictions on the penalties which may be imposed under the European Communities Act.

The second consideration is the requirement that all measures regulated for in this manner must be necessitated by the parent instrument. Any measure introduced on this basis may be challenged on the basis that it might not be necessitated by the parent directive or decision. Implementation of EC instruments by means of regulations under this Bill will enable the incorporation of wider ranging incidental and supplemental provisions so as to make the enforcement of the legislation more effective and better suited to Irish conditions and practice. It also means that infringements of such provisions will attract the high penalties provided for in this Bill and will leave our EC partners in no doubt about our commitment to the application of harmonised rules.

The Bill in section 1 revises the definition of "animal remedy" so as to cover fully the scope of EC legislation on veterinary medicinal products and to keep abreast of technological developments.

Section 2 sets out the animals to which the Act will apply. The definition is greatly extended from the 1956 Act and includes all mammals, birds, fish molluscs and bees and any other animal kept, or whose produce is intended, for human consumption. This is necessary to take account of species not covered by the 1956 Act which are now being farmed or reared for human consumption, for example deer and fish. It is also desirable to provide that all remedies intended for any animal are covered, as otherwise unacceptable products could be marketed for species outside the scope of the Act and diverted to animals intended for human consumption.

Section 3 provides for the enlargement of the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee which, under the 1956 Act, advised and assisted the Minister in the making of regulations under the Act. The Committee will have seven members. The extension of the size of the committee will ensure that all interests likely to be affected by regulations made under the Act will be adequately represented.

Section 4 deals with the information which must be conveyed on the container or outer wrapper in order to ensure safe and proper usage of the animal remedy. The same particulars must be stated on any advertisements for an animal remedy. The particulars required may be varied by regulation in appropriate circumstances.

The possession or control of an animal remedy in contravention of the provisions of the Bill or of regulations to be made thereunder, or of an animal or carcase, or animal produce knowing it to have been illegally treated, is an offence under section 6.

Section 7 inserts an implied condition in any contract of sale for an animal, or in the case of a carcase or any animal products, that the animal from which it was derived had not been illegally treated.

Section 8 empowers the Minister, following consultation with the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee, to make regulations — to control the availability, including manufacture and sale, advertising, possession and use of animal remedies; to prescribe maximum residues limits for animal remedies in foods of animal origin; for the control of animals to which animal remedies are administered and of food derived from such animals. The controls provided for include powers to restrict the sale, slaughter or movement to or from any place, and for the marking and detention of animals which are believed to have been treated with animal remedies. The disposal or destruction of illegally treated animals is also provided for. Section 8 also empowers the Minister to make regulations for the inspection and testing of substances, animals and food of animal origin and for the charging of fees in respect of such sampling and analysis.

This section also enables regulations to be made giving effect to Acts of the European Communities and validates regulations relating to animal remedies already made under the European Communities Act, 1972. This is a very important section as the regulations made under this section will regulate all day to day activities relating to animal remedies. When a new Bill is introduced there is always speculation about the type of regulations which will be made thereunder. In the case of this Bill the question is largely answered as the provisions relating to continuing in force of existing regulations will ensure a smooth transition in that the Bill once passed will be immediately operational.

The Minister shall, under section 9, prescribe approved methods of analysis for the determination of the composition of animal remedies or for the presence of residues in animal produce. The authorisation of the persons and bodies to carry out such analysis and for the admission of documents stating the results of such analysis as evidence in legal proceedings is also provided for under this section.

Section 11 confers extensive powers on authorised officers, officers of Customs and Excise and members of the Garda Síochána. I should mention that there is already very good co-operation between the different enforcement agencies in this area. These include, inter alia, powers to stop vehicles and enter any land or premises where there are reasonable grounds to believe that such vehicles, land or premises are used in connection with an animal remedy or an ingredient for an animal remedy, or are used in connection with the keeping or slaughter of animals, or where the offence under this Act has been, or is being, committed. Following entry, officers have extensive powers to search, examine, inspect, test or take samples and to seize and detain suspicious items as may be found thereon.

Persons connected with the afore-mentioned activities are required to produce relevant documentation or other items, including animals, and to give such information or assistance as may be requested by the officer or member concerned. This power is exercisable in respect of a dwelling only where there is reason to believe that relevant material would be destroyed before a search warrant could be obtained. The provisions here are in effect the same powers of enforcement as already applied under the regulations made under the European Communities Act.

Section 12 provides that a judge of the District Court may issue search warrants to an authorised officer, officer of Customs and Excise or member of the Garda Síochána to enter and search a dwelling house where there are reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of an offence is to be found therein. Members of the Garda Síochána and officers of Customs and Excise are empowered to search a suspect person under section 13. Section 14 empowers members of the Garda Síochána to arrest without warrant persons suspected of having committed an offence. Section 15 provides that nothing in the Bill shall curtail or prejudice other provisions of existing legislation in relation to powers to search or to seize or to detain property which may be exercised by members of the Garda Síochána or officers of Customs and Excise.

Section 17 provides that the Minister may issue composite identity cards to his officers in lieu of the separate warrants of authorisation prescribed by the various statutes in respect of which the officers are authorised. This provision is inserted because many officers are engaged in a wide range of duties and as a result are obliged to carry a large number of separate warrants. This provision will enable a single composite identity document to be issued to such officers.

Section 16 provides that any person who obstructs or impedes an authorised officer, an officer of Customs and Excise or member with the Garda Síochána in the enforcement of any of the provisions for by or under this Bill shall be guilty of an offence. Section 18 deems the impersonation of an authorised officer to be an offence. Section 19 provides that where it is not possible to prove the specific identity of an animal remedy in relation to which a contravention took place it will be sufficient to prove that contravention took place in relation to a particular class of animal remedy.

Section 20 makes it an offence to contravene by act or omission any provision of the Bill or regulations made or continued in force thereunder. It also provides that it shall be an offence to contravene a term or condition of any licence or authorisation given or granted under the Bill.

Section 21 relates to offences by bodies corporate and provides that where an offence is committed with the consent or connivance of any person who is a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate that person shall, in addition to the body corporate, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished as if guilty of the offence.

Section 22 empowers the Minister to prosecute summary offences and provides that summary proceedings may be instituted within two years of the date of the offence. This provision is considered necessary because the investigation of offences relating to animal remedies can at times be lengthy if all parties to the offence are to be identified and proceeded against. Under EC law we are obliged, in relation to certain offences, to trace breaches of the legislation back to the source of the illegal substance and to involve the authorities in other member states if necessary. Equally we could be asked by another member state to investigate a possible Irish link with a problem which came to light in their territory. In such circumstances it is important when the investigation is completed that we should not find the issue of proceedings statute barred. The provision gives an independent legal basis for prosecuting offences which is important in the context of the recent High Court decision on the European Communities Act, 1972, where regulations in this area were found invalid because they involved amending statute law by statutory instrument. This decision is under appeal to the Supreme Court.

Section 23 addresses the issue of penalties and offers a range of options appropriate for the offence involved so that the punishment shall match the crime. It is provided that maximum penalty on summary conviction shall be a fine of £1,000 or 12 months imprisonment. For conviction on indictment a maximum fine of £50,000 is provided, rising to £100,000 on second or subsequent offence, and ten years imprisonment or both. It is additionally provided in section 24 that on conviction on indictment for a second or subsequent offence a person may, in addition to the penalty imposed, be disqualified from keeping, dealing in or having control of any animal or class of animal or any animal remedy or be disqualified from working or participating in the food trade for such period, including the life of the person, as the courts thinks fit. This possibility should act as the ultimate deterrent and is important in that it enables the public to be protected from a person who operates with callous disregard for the health and welfare of innocent parties.

Section 25 empowers a court at its discretion to order the forfeiture of an animal, an animal remedy or other thing in relation to which an offence has been committed and section 26 deals with the manner in which items seized by authorised officers, members of the Garda Síochána, or officers of Customs and Excise will be disposed of. Section 27 enables the Minister to recover the cost of disposal of items seized or forfeited as a contract debt.

Section 28 to 31 deal with procedural matters such as the laying of orders and regulations before the Houses of the Oireachtas, the fixing and charging of variable fees and levies for different classes of licences and authorisations and the payment of expenses incurred by the Minister out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas.

Section 31 will continue in force all instruments, documents and authorisations issued under the Animal Remedies Act, 1956, which were in force immediately before the Act was repealed and ensure uninterrupted application of controls. Section 32 repeals the Animal Remedies Act, 1956, section 21 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, and provides for the repeal of the Therapeutic Substances Act, 1932, by order of the Minister for Health following consultation with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry. These provisions arise because the subject matter of these instruments is now incorporated in this Bill.

These are the salient features of the Bill which I commend to the House and in so doing I would like to thank all the bodies who have contributed to its preparation.

I stated earlier that it is an appropriate time to introduce this legislation. The timing coincides with a major statement by the European Commission on the subject of the use of hormones and beta-agonists in livestock production. The general direction and thrust of the Commission's view is supported and the recognition of the need for a more direct and vigorous attack on the use of illegal substances is welcomed. Many of the Commission's recommendations are already in force in this country, and more are addressed in the Bill before us. I will also be asking the Commission to take account of the strong legislation in force in this country and to ensure that an equally vigorous approach is applied across the Community.

I look forward to an open and constructive discussion on the Commission's proposal at the Council of Ministers when the detailed proposals are presented. It is important that all aspects of the problem are considered. I am aware that there are wide ranging views as to how this problem should be addressed and that there are those who consider that the use of natural hormones should be relegalised by amending the Community law. However we have to recognise, first, that many of the substances being used illegally are far removed from and a good deal more potent than natural hormones, and, secondly, that the argument goes beyond the economics of production or the safety and efficacy of veterinary products.

We produce considerable amounts of food products for sale not just on our own domestic market but on a wide range of international markets. Therefore the requirements of the consumer are paramount. If consumers indicate that they do not want produce produced with the usage of these substances then that is the end of the argument.

This legislation has to be seen in a broader context of a comprehensive legislative approach designed to bring greater coherence and flexibility and to keep abreast of scientific and technological changes. This body of legislation is required regardless of whether natural hormones are legalised.

We should thank the Minister of State because in his speech he has added quite a bit to what we can find in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill. I thank the Minister for having added those things. I have to say, however — and I hope the Minister for State will not think me grudging in this — that it is a pity he did not add a bit more because there are a number of questions that arise out of this Bill which will have to be teased out. It would be useful if the Minister could give us some extra information on some of the points I will raise when he comes to reply to the Second Stage debate.

I will be glad to do that.

The last paragraph, and particularly the last sentence of the Minister's speech, made my hair stand on end. The Minister seems to be raising the question of whether these natural hormones might again be legalised. I would be utterly opposed to that. In a previous job I had in the European Commission in 1979 and 1980 I was instrumental in making sure that the Commission brought forward a proposal to ban the use of these hormones and I think that was an entirely right and proper thing to do. The only bad part of it was that it took too long to get agreement on that. If there is any suggestion of relaxing that ban and allowing the use of these hormones I would totally oppose it.

I know, Sir, that there is a body of opinion — the Minister hears this as do I and other Members of the House — that the fact that hormones are banned makes it more difficult to apply controls to hormones and to beta-agonists and all of the other substances we are concerned with. That is a baseless argument. Where a substance has come on the market that has made it possible to make a quick buck, experience shows that no amount of controls to try to limit or direct the use of these things will work. The only way we can be sure of avoiding the kind of side effects we get from these products is to ban them and to have not only legislation but also systems in place that can make that ban work. That is the business of this Bill before us in relation to clenbuterol and the various derivatives and combinations of it that are coming on the market.

In that connection I am not at all convinced that this Bill goes far enough. I have no doubt that it is going in the right direction, but I am not sure that we have fully understood the nature of the problem before us. We have to understand that if we are to have any chance of making sure that the legislation tackles the problem properly.

We have already had one experience in this area of legislation that did not prove to be adequate. In 1991 the then Minister for Agriculture and Food, Michael O'Kennedy, introduced the Animal Remedies (Control of Certain Sales) Regulations. The then Minister made very loud noises about his intentions, but the regulations proved inadequate for the job in hand. That was largely because the Minister of the day tended to underestimate or to down-play some of the advice he was getting in the House and from farmers all over the country to the effect that the magnitude of the problem was much greater than he was prepared to admit. Indeed, I heard the Minister classify statements made to him about points and methods of distribution of these substances as being only hearsay. We now know that not only were they not hearsay, but according to the people who talked about the iniquity of distribution methods that encouraged farmers at factory gates to use products of these kinds they were, if anything, understated. The fact that the Minister of the day chose to underestimate or to down-play the importance of that advice led to regulations that did not have the full effect we wanted. This had led to a situation where that trade seems to have fallen into the hands of a small number of particularly nasty and unscrupulous people. I do not think we can take the chance of that kind of thing happening again.

I have to say with the utmost seriousness that it would be a grave mistake to underestimate the nature of the problem facing us. I will illustrate a few things for the Minister who may feel, for reasons of discretion, that he cannot bring all of this out in public.

There is, for example, evidence to suggest that the Provisional IRA is involved in the importation of clenbuterol. That tells us something new and additional about the intrinsically evil nature of those people. It also suggests that an organisation that has a proven ability to conceal illegal materials and a network of safe houses and supporters around the country is involved in dealing with this malign substance, as well as being directly involved in the business of murder.

Like every other Member, I congratulate the Garda on their successes in recent years in unearthing caches of arms and explosives, but I do not think even the Garda would claim that they know the full extent of the operations and the connections of the Provisional IRA. If it is true, as it seems to be, that the Provisional IRA is now engaged in this filthy trade in clenbuterol, then the people who are given the job of enforcing this legislation must be equipped and supported accordingly. If we are to send members of the Garda Síochána, customs and excise officers and other authorised officers into a situation where we suspect they may be dealing not just with ordinary criminals but with people who are in the Provisional IRA or connected with it, then that creates an extra need for support and equipment for those people in order to allow them to do their jobs effectively and to deal with the ruthlessness that they will undoubtedly meet with. The Minister will agree that in some cases there has been a remarkable degree of determination on the part of people who have been suspected of having these substances to resist arrest and to get away. We are sending out gardaí, customs officers and other authorised officers to do a dangerous job and we should recognise that.

It also seems that the Provisional IRA or other importers of clenbuterol may be getting some of their supplies from sources connected with the drug baron rings in South America either directly or through Spain and perhaps from Eastern Europe. The implications of any such connections are huge and far reaching and we must ensure that the full and necessary international effort to choke off this trade is put in place. It is up to us to play our part in that. The provisions of section 4 (7) of the Bill may not be entirely in keeping with that obligation. That subsection takes a more relaxed view in regard to circumstances in which substances may be exported than of circumstances in which they remain on our territory. I ask the Minister to examine that with a view to ensuring that we are playing a proper part in an international effort to choke off the trade in such products.

Clenbuterol is a lethal substance and we are aware of some of the effects it can have on consumers of meat in which it has been ingested. It can have serious effects on consumers with cardiac problems. Those are the immediate effects, but we do not know anything about the possible effects of repeated ingestion of small quantities of residue over an extended period, such as would result from supplies of clenbuterol-treated meat being sold on a consistant basis in a particular area. There is no way of knowing the potential effects of that type of dosage over a period.

Clenbuterol in powder form can be lethal to an ignorant user. There are documented cases of ignorant users mixing this powder into feed without using protective gloves or masks who have died soon afterwards from massive heart attacks. The main physiological effect of this substance is to increase the heart rate and a person using the substance in powder form is liable to inhale it and undergo the same effects as animals who are treated with it. Ingestion in that manner is usually at a much higher level than that which an animal would get in its feed.

The use of this product produces short term gains for the unscrupulous user. Treated animals appear to have a better conformation and, therefore, command higher prices, given the system we use for pricing beef animals in our factories, a subject which we could debate for several days. The meat those animals yield following treatment is much tougher and less palatable than untreated meat. Apart from the malignant effect on consumers' health, there is also a substantial effect on the palatability of the product. Continued and widespread use of clenbuterol would inevitably degrade the quality and damage the image of Irish beef.

The Bill gives sweeping and comprehensive powers to the Minister, to authorised persons, to the Garda Síochána and to Customs and Excise officers. People might argue that those powers are excessive but the matter must be dealt with in proportion. The risks to users, consumers and to the image and wellbeing of our beef sector are so great that substantial powers may be justified. However, we must be sure in the first instance that the proposed powers are in fact, required and proportionate to the job required. We must ensure also that the powers proposed in this Bill are constitutional.

I would like the Minister to give us the benefit of any advice he has received on this issue because it is not as if this is the first time this has arisen. In previous years similar questions have been posed in regard to the extent of powers given to Customs and Excise officers. One Bill debated in 1990 dealt with this issue and the Finance Act, 1992, is notorious for having given substantial powers to officials of the Revenue Commissioners. Some of the Minister's partners in Government were unhappy about those powers but they seem to be less unhappy about them now. They now propose to give such officials analogous powers under the provisions of this Bill. I am not arguing that those powers should not be given, but I would like to be sure that they are given in a proper manner and that they will have the desired effect.

Are the people who are being given those sweeping powers fully and comprehensively trained to recognise what they are being sent out to detect? Do meat factory inspectors, for example, have sufficient knowledge to visually identify a suspect carcase? The process must start somewhere. From my knowledge it is possible visually to identify a carcase that has been treated with clenbuterol, following which the process of testing and examination begins. Are there any factors which would help livestock inspectors, members of the Garda Síochána and Customs and Excise officers to recognise the use of this substance either in a premises or a herd of cattle? Can further information be given to the people being sent out to do that important job, sometimes in dangerous circumstances? Are we sufficiently equipped or have we access to a sufficient level of service to carry out the volume of analysis that will be needed to crack down on the use of this drug? The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry — I think the Minister of State was present on that occasion — was somewhat amused when I asked him a question about an establishment in my constituency which carries out some testing in this area. Do we have access to enough facilities to ensure that testing is carried out at a level necessary to keep track of what is taking place and, above all, to convince the people who might be tempted to use this filthy substance that it is not worthwhile because they will be caught? No matter how effective the legislation is, it cannot be fully effective if the resources to apply it rigorously, in practice, are not available.

I had to smile when I heard the Minister talk about the provision in the Bill for identifying the authorised officers. The Minister stated that he will be issuing a single composite identity card to those officers. I would plead with him to make sure that the regulations governing this single composite identity card are more simple and straightforward than those governing blue cards, ear tags and so on for the animals those people will be inspecting. If this is not the case it will be a nightmare for the people involved. We might end up sending punches from authorised officers' ears to Abbotstown for examination to see if they have the proper powers. Simplicity in this regard is of the essence.

The Bill proposes a substantial stiffening of penalties and a widening of the scope of penalties to include forfeiture and a ban on keeping animals or being involved in the trade in certain circumstances. I welcome the widening of the scope of penalties. We want to see these penalties applied and our experience so far is not encouraging. As far as I am aware, the highest penalty applied so far is a fine of £2,000. I know the Minister will say that the fines are being increased substantially under the provisions of this Bill and that is true, but a fine of £2,000 under the existing legislation is at the low end of the provisions in that legislation. Given the effects of clenbuterol, the price charged for it and the gains that may be made from its illegal use, that level of fine is utterly inadequate.

Up to the time the recent High Court judgment, to which the Minister referred in his speech, was handed down and put a stop to proceedings, it appears that proceedings had been instituted in only 58 cases, summonses had been issued in 18 cases, the papers were being examined by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 14 cases and 26 cases were under investigation. None of that gives me confidence that this matter is being pursued with the necessary vigour. In one case where a major seizure of clenbuterol was made in the latter part of 1991 the matter had not come before the courts before the High Court judgment was handed down. Why has it taken so long for those cases to be pursued?

The Minister explained why it is proposed in section 22 that summary offences may be prosecuted and summary proceedings instituted within two years of the date of the commission of an offence rather than six months, as the law provides at present. He said the reason for this was that European Community legislation requires us in such cases to track down where the substance originated, that that could take time and required co-operation with other countries. Is that the reason the proceedings in the cases which have been taken so far were delayed, or is there another reason for this? If there is another reason for this we ought to know before we pass this Bill into law. We need answers to those questions before we can be happy that this Bill will deal with the full extent of the problem before us. There are other questions which also need to be addressed.

The EC Commission is preparing new measures which will be implemented as part of its campaign to curb the use of these illegal substances. The measures being proposed by the Commission include a requirement that producers provide the authorities of their member states with a formal written guarantee that they have used no anabolic substances before they can qualify for any Community funded aids under the Common Agricultural Policy. False declarations will lead to disqualification from aid for a period of one year for the first infringement and disqualification from aid for an unlimited period for subsequent infringements. Failure to cooperate with the authorities will also lead to withdrawal of aid. I should like to know if this Bill is fully compatible with what the EC Commission is proposing. The Commission talks about requiring a formal written guarantee from producers that they have used no anabolic substances. Section 7 of the Bill refers to an implied condition in a contract of sale. I do not know which of these two requirements will prevail. Will the EC requirement for a formal written guarantee prevail over a provision in our legislation which says that it is an implied condition of a contract that no illegal substances have been used? Is the Commission's approach as tough as we would wish it to be? If all these provisions are in harmony, what measures will be required at national level to ensure that they are all fully and harmoniously put into effect?

There are two European Community directives — directives 90/676 and 90/677 — dealing with the approximation of laws in the member states concerning veterinary medicinal products. These directives, which date from December 1990, do not seem to have been brought into effect in this country. Why has there been a delay in implementing these directives? Is this delay in any way connected with the fact that the preparation of this Bill has been going on for some time? Will the Minister explain the statement in his speech that this Bill provides that future EC legislation in this area of animal remedies will be transposed into national law without, as far as I can see, requiring any further action on our part? In the light of recent experience a Minister who comes into this House and says that this Bill or any other Bill will automatically provide in the future for the transposition of EC legislation into national law is what the French would call tres hardi and is chancing his arm more than a little. I do not think past experience of guarantees like that, even in Bills which have been passed as a result of referenda, is all that reliable.

The point needs to be made that we need to look very closely at all the possible sources and distribution methods of these substances. There is a substantial number of wholesalers and retailers of veterinary medicinal products in Ireland. In addition, a good many pharmacists naturally in the normal course of their business deal in veterinary medicinal products. There is a substantial body of opinion — and I think the chemical industry in this country would include itself in that body of opinion — that we need a strict licensing procedure for all those involved in the distribution of veterinary medicines. There is no such provision in this Bill. I know that the regulations currently in force were aimed at dealing with the problem of van men who used to appear at marts and other places where farmers gathered. That is only part of the distribution network. A licensing provision of the kind envisaged would provide an effective means of controlling and tracking the movement of veterinary medicines.

I do not think the Minister should consider even for a moment arguing that such a licensing system would be too onerous. After all, it is the Minister and his colleagues who agreed that farmers should be tied up in knots by this new integrated administration controlled system. This system is frightening the life out of farmers and causing them to lie awake at night because they are afraid they will make a mistake in filling out this enormous form which requires 16 pages of explanations. It requires farmers, among other things, to deduct the area of rock outcrops on their farms from their declaration of area. It almost asks them what kind of cereal they had for breakfast yesterday morning. It asks for information on what fields farmers had under tillage in 1990, 1989 and 1988. If farmers get the answers wrong they will be penalised by 1 or 2 per cent in their area aid in future years. The emphasis in that system is very much on administration and control. If such a system had not been in the works for some time before the Labour Party, with some astonishment, arrived in Government I would almost accuse it of having invented it. That system is more onerous and interfering——

The Deputy accuses us of many things. He never leaves us out of his remarks.

The Deputy would be better off looking after that hanky than interrupting me. That system is more onerous and interfering than anything I have seen in the record of the old Soviet Union or Central or Eastern Europe. It reminds me of the story about the manager of a nail factory in Russia during the new economic plan of the thirties who was told his factory had to make 20,000 nails in a year. He asked the planners the very reasonable question, what kind of nails they wanted — masonry nails, car-pentry nails, round head nails or square head nails. The answer he got back from the planners was that he had to produce 20,000 tonnes of nails. The manager got his workforce together and they made one gigantic nail which weighed 20,000 tonnes. I believe this man ended up in jail.

What does this have to do with the debate?

The same fate awaits farmers in this country who make a mistake in filling out their IACS forms. The Department has told us that for most areas of farming enterprise direct aid amounts to between 45 per cent and 60 per cent of farm income. If farmers make a mistake in filling out their IACS forms they will endanger that proportion of their income. A Minister who produces a control system of that kind for farmers who are going about their ordinary legal business should not hesitate for a moment in introducing a control system for veterinary medicines and applying it as rigorously to those people as it is intended to apply it to farmers. They should apply it to the illegal traffickers. Maybe they should apply it even more to the honest and reputable people who do not get involved in illegal trafficking, to make sure that there is no room left for the peddlers of death and destruction.

The Deputy has one minute left.

How time flies.

Especially when one wastes it.

I hope that the Deputy does not start wasting my time, because he would only provoke me again and I might be tempted to call for a quorum and make him even more annoyed.

Section 28 is in danger of perpetuating the problem. One of the reasons for a large part of the Bill is that the High Court found that a doubt hangs over the validity of regulations made in the past under various enactments. I have consistently argued in the House for many years on a variety of subjects that the making of regulations proposed in section 28 should be limited. When something important is being done the House should lay down regulations that will not come into effect until specifically approved by the House. I am delighted to note that I am at least partly vindicated in my view. If that procedure had been followed more often in the past, especially in relation to legislation concerning European Community basic legislation, much of the content of this Bill would not be needed. The Bill perpetuates the same mistake. For years and in all connections I have objected to that practice, and I will object to it again in relation to this Bill. I invite the Minister to reflect a little, to look back on the reason he has to provide retrospectively to validate a series of regulations and to come to the same conclusion that I have reached — that that is the wrong way to do it.

Fáiltím roimh an mBille seo thar ceann mo pháirtí. Tá súil agam go rachaidh sé chun leas an tionscal talamhaíochta. Beidh cuid mhaith le rá againn, áfach, i dtaobh moltaí a fheictear dúinn a bheith riachtanach le go mbeadh an Bille sásúil ina iomlán. Tá súil againn, nuair a bheidh an díospóireacht seo thart, go mbeidh an Bille seo neartaithe ar bhealaí éagsúla.

In view of the enormous importance of the agricultural industry to the Irish economy and in view of the Common Agricultural Policy reforms currently being implemented, it is of the utmost importance that every possible effort is made to promote Irish agricultural produce as being of the highest quality available, not just in Europe but in the world. To achieve that accolade in the market-place demands the highest standards of excellence at every level through the production chain. Divergence from the highest standards at any one level can undo all the good work of others in the food production chain who worked diligently to comply with all the legal requirements to ensure the safety and welfare of the animal, the handler, the environment and, most important, the ulimate consumer of animal products.

Livestock based production is our primary industry and we should set world trends in standards of excellence that would make Irish food produce most in demand in the world's markets. We must become the world's brand leaders in the food produce in which we specialise. Because of the structure of Irish agriculture, the animals we produce traditionally pass through many different handlers before slaughter. After slaughter there are many different handling agents and processes before the final food product is available to the consumer. Every person in that production chain has a vested interest in ensuring that the consumer will have full confidence in the final food product. The perception of the quality and excellence of the product in the market-place will be a major factor in determining the value and price of the product, which works its way back along the production chain to the primary producer.

In such a unique situation it is essential to have an overall controlling body that will rigidly, efficiently and effectively ensure that the highest standards are applied at all stages of production so that a few cannot destroy the diligent work of the others in the production chain.

Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, some people will seek to make a fast buck irrespective of the long-term damage they may cause, which can and has resulted in death for others and, sometimes, even for themselves. The evidence given to date in the Beef Tribunal refers to many sharp practices involving relabelling and reboxing for ulterior motives. Despite the hundreds of millions spent on eradication of TB in this country, little progress seems to have been achieved in attaining the goal of disease-free status. Many irresponsible practices are mentioned as being the cause of such little progress. The current angel dust saga is again evidence of the presence of evil people, men and women, who will unscrupulously involve themselves in illegal practices irrespective of the danger to the lives of others or the destruction of the good name of Irish agriculture in order to make personal financial gain for themselves. These gangsters are murderers, too, because death can be — and has been — the end result of their illicit trade. Does anyone really know how many farmers have died through accidents with angel dust? Some beef farmers who have worked under very tight profit margins have been tempted to use angel dust, one of whose properties converts fat into lean beef. Those same farmers should realise that angel dust also converts meat eaters into vegetarians. It is believed, as mentioned by Deputy Dukes, that the IRA is involved in organising the distribution of some of the most lethal drugs in use illegally. Let us be in no doubt but that the shadow of the gunman will continue to hang over our most valuable industry until action is taken that will wipe out this ugly, murderous trade.

The Progressive Democrats have called for tough legislation in this area for a number of years past and, though not excusing the delay in bringing forward adequate measures to deal with the situation, we welcome the introduction of this Bill as a necessary and urgent step to deal with the situation. We still have reservations in regard to the adequacy of the Bill as the proposals by the Minister are really enabling provisions and it is impossible at this stage to judge how comprehensive and effective the regulations will be until we see them. The extent to which this is mostly an enabling Bill is clearly noted by an examination of section 8.

Section 8 is in effect the heart of the Bill as under this section the Minister gets sweeping powers to introduce regulations to cover practically every situation involving the manufacturing, distribution and use of animal remedies. Section 8 empowers the Minister to make regulations relating to animal remedies and ingredients therefor, for the control of the manufacture, importation, exportation, handling, storage, transportation distribution, advertisement or other promotion, sale, supply or use of animal remedies and to prescribe maximum permitted levels of residues of animal remedies in foods of animal origin. Regulations may also provide for the control (including the movement to or from any place, the importation, exportation, sale, slaughter, inspection, sampling and analysis, detention, marking, disposal or destruction) of animals to which animal remedies have been administered and a food derived from such animals and for the charging of fees in respect of such sampling and analysis. This section also enables regulations to be made giving effect to the Acts of the European Communities and validates regulations already made.

In view of the urgency of this issue and its grave importance for the agricultural industry, it is essential that this Bill includes a requirement that the Minister introduce the basic regulations within three months of the Houses of the Oireachtas passing the Bill. Otherwise, there is the danger that the current unsatisfactory situation will continue indefinitely. If the Minister cannot give the House watertight assurances regarding this matter, the Progressive Democrats will feel obliged to propose amendments to the Bill.

Even when all the desired regulations are in place, there remains the crucial question as to how efficiently and effectively they will be policed and enforced. It is incumbent on the Minister to spell out in detail the mechanism, the personnel and the resources he will put in place to ensure that adequate and accurate checks are made regularly to ensure that all requirements are complied with. Rigorous enforcement and ruthless prosecution are required if Ireland is to earn a worldwide reputation for excellence in animal food products.

I expect the Houses of the Oireachtas will approve this Bill, hopefully with some strengthening amendments, but implementation will rest with the Minister and his staff. We can examine the Bill in more detail on Committee Stage. It constitutes an important step in the direction of protecting the good name and livelihood of our livestock farmers and in guaranteeing the consumer that the food offered is totally free from any substance deemed to be an impurity.

A major omission from the Bill is any provision requiring the licensing of wholesalers and retailers of animal health products. There is a strongly held view in the chemical industry that control of distribution and the stamping out of illegal practices will remain a problem until licensing is introduced. Of necessity such a system would be a complex one. I accept that its details would have to be set out under reglulations.

I believe the Minister may have power under the provisions of section 8 to introduce such a licensing system but that section places no specific responsibility on him to do so. If the Minister indicates, in replying to Second Stage, that he proposes introducing such a licensing system for wholesalers and retailers, I will accept that. Otherwise my party will consider tabling a suitable amendment to provide for it.

The concept of licensing involves controlling the products a wholesaler or retailer keeps on his premises. A wholesaler should only stock prescription medicines if he has vets or chemists as customers. A retailer should not stock prescription products. If a wholesaler or retailer breaches his licence conditions he should be penalised up to the point of having his licence removed.

Licensing should also involve the concept of fitness to hold a licence and should require adequate premises, including keeping sufficient records to allow tracing of products; being able to operate batch recall; adequate stock rotation and appropriate storage facilities, such as fridges, for vaccines and so on.

Some years ago the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries advanced major proposals in relation to animal health product distribution routes in Ireland and suggested proposed distribution categories. I will list them as follows — veterinary surgeon use only; prescription only medicines; pharmacy sale only; licensing seller — intramammary preparation; licensed seller — general and general sales list. FICI identified the type of animal health products that would fall into each of those categories. Since I am sure the Minister will be familiar with the document I will not go into greater detail on it now. Nonetheless I should like him, when responding to this debate, to indicate whether he intends establishing such a system on the passage of this Bill.

I will refer briefly to a number of sections. Section 3 is the one under which the Minister proposes to re-establish the Animal Remedies Consultative Committee and to increase its membership to seven, one of whom will be a nominee of the Minister for Health and the remaining six nominees of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the period of appointment to be two years. I would suggest to the Minister, in the interests of ensuring that the advice he receives is of the highest order and is independent of any departmental or ministerial influence, that he should designate bodies who would nominate people whom he would appoint to be members of such a consultative committee. This is a practice the House has adopted in the case of a number of other bodies which have been established in recent years. I regret to note the Minister reverting to the old form of merely allowing power in the Bill for ministerial nominees alone. It is a retrograde step.

I am surprised it should occur when the Labour Party are in Government with the Minister's party since they, along with my party, had been advocating this type of approach in the case of the Radio-logical Protection Bill, 1991, which was introduced in my period of office as Minister for Energy when we effected that change. It was widely welcomed then and was adopted by my colleague, Deputy Harney, in the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, which principle was adopted also in the case of An Bord Pleanála and a wide range of other bodies established under Acts of the Oireachtas. I would ask the Minister to reconsider whether he should be the person to select and nominate such members. As the Minister knows, there is a tendency to elect party members. One wants to ensure that the highest possible standards are applied in regard to these matters. There are responsible and experienced bodies dealing with this in the market place. Their involvement and commitment should be recognised and they should have some role in proposing nominees.

I want to refer also to the provisions of section 23 where the maximum fine for indictable offences is being raised to £100,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both. Bearing in mind the huge amounts of money that can be made by people who indulge in this dreadful illicit trade in drugs such as angel dust, I wonder whether a maximum fine of £100,000 is a sufficient deterrent. The Minister might re-examine that. We should not be afraid to insert exceptionally high figures since, as time passes, we may well find such figures need adjustment later. This horrible trade can result in vast sums of money being made by unscrupulous individuals. We should not place a limit on the courts in the amount of fine they may impose.

In regard to section 24, I question the disqualification from involvement in the trade on conviction for a second offence. Those who are prosecuted for drunken driving, on conviction of a first offence, have their driving licence suspended. I wonder whether it would not be better to leave it to the discretion of the courts as to whether disqualification should apply on a first offence. I do not know why the Minister should consider that only somebody having been caught twice, should be disqualified from participating in the agricultural industry. I should like the Minister to address that issue when replying. We can re-examine it on Committee Stage.

I refer the Minister to two EC Directives relating to veterinary medicinal products which are long overdue for implementation. Directives 90/676 and 90/677 contain a requirement that "Member States shall take the necessary measures to comply with directives not later than 1 January 1992. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof". My information is that we have not yet complied with the directives dealing with this whole area. I should like to know whether there is some special reason for this. Will the Minister inform the House at the conclusion of Second Stage what is the real position and whether it is intended to comply with these directives at an early date? Have I been mistaken? Have they been complied with? I understand they have not. The Progressive Democrats will consider whether to table an amendment committing the Minister to regulate for these directives within three months of the passage of this Bill by both Houses of the Oireachtas, that is if the Minister cannot give us a satisfactory response to that question.

The Culliton report furnished to Deputy O'Malley, when Minister for Industry and Commerce, in January 1992 is perceived by this Government as the blueprint for the future of industrial development and employment. In a special appendix on the food industry, Culliton highlighted its importance:

It accounts for almost one-third of the gross output of all manufacturing industry in Ireland with the Irish-owned sector of the food industry accounting for over half of the gross output of all Irish-owned industry.

As we know, the food industry is by far the most important component of the indigenous sector of Irish industry. It is largely Irish-owned, the meat and dairy sectors contributing by far the largest part of the Irish food sector.

In the context of this Bill it is important to recall what Culliton had to say regarding environmental and health factors and the future prospects for the animal food industry:

Consumers throughout the Community are becoming increasingly interested in the environment, including farming techniques, animal welfare, use of fertiliser sprays and fungicides, effluent, and other forms of pollution.

Environmental Protection legislation in likely to intensify during the next decade. This is likely to constrain the development of the agriculture industry in highly populated countries with highly intensive production-methods such as the United Kingdom, Holland and Denmark to a greater extent than countries such as Ireland. These trends could provide significant opportunities for Ireland if correct policies are adopted.

Of all the opportunities which may become available to Irish agriculture in the 1990's and beyond, those based on health and environmental factors are probably the most significant. The Government, farmers, food manufacturing, and related industries should work together to ensure that Ireland achieves a leading and unique position in Europe as a producer of high quality, environmentally friendly, safe food.

Future marketing must be directed at identifying and meeting consumer, rather than producer, needs. Government Departments and State Agencies can play an important role by ensuring that financial assistance for the food industry is concentrated on firms which are driven by consumer needs. Additionally, they must ensure that agricultural and processing research, training and education relate closely to the identification and development of products to meet market needs. Trends within the rest of the community should be anticipated and led rather than followed by introducing stringent, environmental legislation and regulations. The development and promotion of a clean, pollution free environment should become a major policy instrument for the food industry.

I am sure that all parties in this House would subscribe to those views.

In conclusion, I express the hope that the Animal Remedies Bill, 1993, will prove to be a most effective instrument in achieving for the food industry the objectives set before us by the Culliton review group.

This Bill is both welcome and necessary. For too long the use of products such as clenbuterol by unscrupulous farmers has put lives at risk and damaged an industry upon which many thousands of jobs depend. However, the context in which this Bill is being presented is unwelcome and unnecessary.

It has been said that to every human problem there is a solution which is simple, neat — and wrong. This month's High Court decision in the Tipperary case shows how wrong a solution can be. The fight against the illegal use of angel dust has been undermined by the failure of the Legislature while 500 EC directives have been put in jeopardy because the Government pursued a course which was simple, neat and unconstitutional.

Too often legislation is brought before us as a reaction to court decisions. When this happens people rightly wonder who is in charge: is it the courts, or those whom the people elected to govern? With the expertise of the Attorney General, the Law Reform Commission, the legal advisers, the programme managers and the public service et al at its disposal the least we should expect from the Government is that it would abide by the Constitution. In the most recent case the High Court ruled that the State acted unconstitutionally and found that regulations introduced by the Minister to comply with an EC directive on veterinary products were invalid. I would have thought that the first duty of any Minister is to ensure that any regulations introduced do not contravene the Constitution.

During the short life of this Dáil we have already seen legislation being rushed through on foot of another court decision. In that case the problem related to public building works which suddenly were found to have been constructed illegally. We were presented with an extraordinary Bill which has created a lacuna in the planning process. Today the State has an absolute right to build anywhere and at any time without being held accountable or without there being the usual checks and balances that democracy demands. This is a direct result of legislation which was rushed blindly throught the Dáil to plug a sudden leak in the system. A new Pandora's Box has now been opened at a time when the Government is trying to convince the country that it is able to reform the Dáil to make it work efficiently. Obviously, this Bill covers a lot of ground other than the problem that arose in the High Court; but it is my understanding that the Minister is providing a solution whereby this House will be bypassed in incorporating new EC regulations. While this may be efficient, it does not sound very democratic.

One area where it is clear the previous approach failed was in the control of the drug clenbuterol. The illegal use of this drug continues despite all the promises that have been made in the House, despite the media investigation, the extensive debates and the fact that there is a tribunal investigating the meat industry. This shows up clearly the gulf between expressions of concern and the reality. High standards in the meat industry is the catch cry of the day; yet the litany of criminal activities and scandalous disregard for the law is lengthening. The reality was never more clearly expressed than last week when meat plants around the country were on the point of closure, not because of any particular failing of the meat plants but because the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry had cut back on the amount of time spent at the factories by agricultural officers, whose job it is to ensure that standards are maintained. It was only when the agricultural officers refused to accept these cutbacks and threatened strike action that the matter was taken seriously.

Shoddy practices in our plants, along with the use of angel dust by unscrupulous farmers, and the failure of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry to stamp out this activity once and for all has caused serious damage to our standing as a beef producing country. Clenbuterol is a lethal substance which is known to be a killer. It can destroy humans, animals and public confidence. Its continuing use has led to the EC Commissioner, Rene Steichen, advising us to be ruthless in dealing with it. I wish the Minister well in relation to this Bill and in stamping out this activity.

The statement follows on a study which was carried out on abuses of the substance in member states. It is regrettable that the Commissioner chose not to publish the findings. Too much secrecy does not serve the public good. We should know the extent of the problem in Ireland compared with other EC countries and we should know his findings in that regard. Otherwise, there is always the danger of complacency and that we may presume that by introducing stiff penalties somehow the problem will be solved.

We need to look carefully at the international trade in angel dust and at those criminals at home who feed off this lucrative and lethal trade in drug abuse. If our objective is to develop a beef industry of the highest quality which can flourish in the future in an increasingly competitive market we are going to need more than a law which penalises the use of illegal growth promoters and controls veterinary products. In every part of the meat business we need an inspection process which is extensive, expert and up-to-date. Let me cite the cold meats sector as an example. Full training is not provided for agricultural officers who have been given the important task of applying complex EC directives. This training should be provided for these officers. We need proper management of resources so that the budget is spent most effectively and the best return may well be achieved through not spending quite so much on highly expensive veterinary officers but by examining how this work could be done by technical staff and employing more officers within the overall budget.

The Culliton review group carried out a comprehensive study on the future development of the food industry. Last week the expert group on the food industry presented its report, which called for a strategy which is broadly in line with the Culliton proposals. One of the most glaring weaknesses of the expert group's report is that that group did not include anybody who represented consumer interests. It was left to the retailer, Senator Feargal Quinn, to raise critical points in relation to the weaknesses of the report. Today we received a commitment from the Minister that he will take the concerns of consumers into account, but the failure of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry to recognise the central importance of the consumer may well undermine opportunities to create jobs in the food sector in the future. The report should have included an in-depth analysis of changing patterns in consumer demand.

The Culliton review group argued the case for business-to-business sales and in favour of providing food ingredients in line with the growth in prepared food, but the expert group adopts a different approach and argues in favour of branding. Both cannot be right and it is clear that there is a conflict. If we are to assess the future needs of consumers we need to know much more about them. The failure to include representatives of any consumer groups in the make-up of that expert group shows how underdeveloped the Department's approach still is.

Today I listened to a report on the findings of a recent study in the United States which contains some surprising information in relation to dietary habits. We are all aware that people are more health conscious now; but this survey shows that all of a sudden people are eating more fat, taking less exercise and starting to smoke. We need to know why——

It is obviously the socialist governments.

I do not think the socialists have taken over in America — we are working on it — this is happening in the States and we take our lead from them.

Deputy Dukes blames us for everything. What will he do when we are not in Government?

The Deputy's party made a bags of everything when they were in power.

We need to know the reason for this change and why consumers make certain decisions. An important step would be to include consumer representatives in any future strategy in relation to the food industry. In this regard it must be remembered that women make up the vast number of consumers and they will decide whether we have a food industry. We have come very late to the idea that the consumer is central to the whole matter of food production. For too long the producer has dominated and benefited from our position in the EC while the consumer has come out a poor second best.

In relation to veterinary products and additives to meat, it is clear that the over-whelming demand from consumers is for a "green", chemically free product. Lip service is paid to this notion and there is a great deal of talk about producing green products in future but it is interesting to note that in the Estimates for the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry this year there was a reduction in the expenditure for the development of organic farming. That is a minority niche, but it is still growing and it is a great surprise to me that we do not see the potential that lies in organic farming, particularly in a country like Ireland where we can sell ourselves as being environmentally friendly. The larger question of a green approach to nonorganic farming needs to be built on the firm foundation of research and an awareness of what the consumer wishes to buy rather than on what we can produce. A weakness in the report on the food industry is that there is not sufficient attention or concentration on what people want to buy.

A wide range of animal and fish will come under the remit of this Bill which controls the use of veterinary products as part of the general EC trend to protect traditional agriculture against modern technological advances. At a time when the EC is trying to reduce output, the capability of bio-technology is to increase it and the EC decision in 1988 to ban all growth hormones, including natural implants, was a result of consumer pressures as well as the economic reasons for such a decision. Mr. Alan Gillis recently questioned this decision and called for a rethink on it. At a time when the appetite of the consumer for a chemical free product is growing and Ireland is promoting a green image in all areas from tourism to agriculture, there seems little point in either he or the Minister of State reopening that debate. However, the question still remains, and in the longer term it is important, as to Irish and EC policy on the relationship between agriculture and modern technology as a whole; this includes advances in veterinary products.

We need to ensure that the impact of technology benefits the development of Europe's food industry. Understandably, given the high number of farmers, the EC adopts a cautious approach to the question of bio-technology. If, as a consequence of that caution, bio-tech companies concentrate their research in laboratories in the United States rather than in Europe, the future of European and Irish agriculture may end up at a disadvantage in the long term. We need to be conscious of this.

A full assessment of how consumer patterns emerge and change is urgently needed and participation by consumers as equal partners in the food industry is critical to that process. Any expert body set up to oversee and plan development in the industry must include consumers, indeed any consultative committee set up to advise the Minister on animal remedies that may be damaging to the interest of the industry must also provide for the role of the consumer. Deputy Molloy has already raised this matter. There was a great deal of dissatisfaction when the caretaker Government brought in many political supporters and people who did not seem to have justifiable reasons for being appointed to State boards at a time when the general public was expecting better representation and expertise from people in a position to wield power and influence. In this regard there is an opportunity to set the record straight and to ensure that this consultative committee represents fully the interests that have a right to be there and have a contribution to make. When the committee makes recommendations it would be of value if they were made public so that we all know why something is being banned. At the end of the day if we are to alter radically our approach to the business of producing, processing and marketing food from our natural resources, the consumer needs to be central to that change. Unhappily the approach taken by the Department so far has failed to make that critical leap but it is vital to the success of any modern Irish food industry.

I welcome the comprehensive Animal Remedies Bill, 1993. It deals with the regulation of animal remedies and regulates the remedies that may be administered to animals and the testing of food deriving from treated animals.

We have come a long way from the days of the misuse of drugs such as stilboestrol, testosterone, chloramphenicol and naturally and synthetically produced hormones in veterinary practices. A conglomoration of antibiotics was sold to farmers by people operating at marts from the backs of vans. These products were also advertised in every farming journal and agricultural newspaper and were claimed to be the cure for all problems.

We moved from the knowledge we had acquired during the war that sulphonamide treatment does not build up the same resistance in animals. It was a pity that we moved so quickly after the discovery of penicillin to the ad hoc administration of antibiotics as a cure for everything. It was believed that antibiotics could cure everything, so much so that due to over usage over a period animals built up a resistance to the normal use of antibiotics. Antibiotics for a wide variety of diseases were being sold on the side of the street, indeed people used them for the treatment of mastitis — or for what they considered to be mastitis — without as much as taking a bacteriological culture from the animal or trying to find out to what treatments the bacteria were sensitive. The veterinary profession had a major problem in trying to convince the farmers that this might not be the route to follow in the treatment of animal diseases. Sows that were unable to produce milk for their bonhams were injected with stilboestrol. This was done in the knowledge that these pigs would be used for human consumption. This substance had such a detrimental effect on the female population that irreparable damage was done by those who wanted an instant solution to their problem.

We have moved a long way down the road from that position. Testing was introduced and carried out by the co-operative movement in the dairy industry and other areas. Milk contaminated by antibiotics was proven to be unsuitable in the manufacture of cheese. A requirement was introduced whereby milk contaminated with antibiotics was discarded. This resulted in a major economic loss to the farmers concerned because they were not allowed sell this milk into the food chain. Because the farmer was penalised in this way the widespread misuse of antibiotics was soon brought to an end. Only then did we get down to the proper management of mastitis and other infectious diseases that caused widespread concern to people involved in animal treatment.

We have come a long way in this regard. I agree with Deputy Dukes — I find it difficult to agree with him because he is a most disagreeable person — in that the Bill is only as good as its operation on the ground. Competent, trained staff should be available to ensure that people who misuse substances in the production of food, thereby endangering the livelihood not alone of humans but also of animals, are penalised. Unless officials have power to enter farms, whether in County Tipperary, which has been named as being involved in this despicable practice, or elsewhere, this legislation will be ineffective.

I have memories of debating and supporting the Abattoirs Bill which was put in place as a result of a requirement in an EC directive that the highest standards apply in the killing of animals and the preparation of meat for consumption. Under that Bill powers vested in the Minister were transferred to local authorities without making available the necessary funding to properly carry out the job. A specific amount of money was to be used by local authorities to employ veterinary surgeons who would ensure that slaughtering was properly carried out and meat was properly prepared, hung and stored. This work could be done only by a team of professionals at local authority level, for which provision was made by order. However, local authorities have been unable effectively to carry out the work without extra funding, over and above that provided for in the legislation. The local authority in my area expends in the region of £65,000 per year in addition to that provided for under the Act. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the necessary staff and resources are available to implement legislation such as this. Until that is done we will be unable to carry out the work. It is very difficult for small producers and butchers to meet the strict requirements, to which none of us objects, unless additional funding is made available.

As regards meeting requirements laid down in EC directives, we have been proved to be probably more pro-European than anybody else. We have adopted regulations and directives over the years in the hope that our food will achieve the highest standard and reputation. In spite of the fact that it has been sullied in the last number of years by individuals who managed to maintain control over the bulk of the food chain, people still perceive the Irish product as being clean and hormone free, produced in an environmentally friendly climate. We have a green image and it is important that we meet requirements laid down in directives.

Many of our neighbours in the Community have abused and disregarded EC directives. Our small farmers and butchers have been penalised in this regard in the knowledge that there is total disregard for regulations in other countries where in some cases people carry carcasses of animals on their shoulders from an open truck to the butcher shop, where meat is prepared and sold to the consumer. The strictest regulations are in operation here but very little assistance is provided in meeting the requirements.

There is deliberate misuse by farmers, dealers and illegal organisations of the product known as angel dust. Many people use it as a fund-raising product. It is used with no consideration for the animal's life or for the lives and health of the consumers. The people using this product employed the best legal advice available to them and found the State negligent under the Constitution, proving legally that they could escape their responsibility. These people are criminals, they are almost guilty of murder and no reduction in penalties imposed on them should be tolerated. Whether a penalty is at the discretion of a justice or laid down in legislation it will not be severe enough to be a disincentive to the users of this commodity.

Debate adjourned.
Barr
Roinn