Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Oct 1987

Vol. 374 No. 2

International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs Bill, 1987: Second Stage.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

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

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the legislative framework for implementing ATP — the Agreement on the International Carriage of Perishable Foodstuffs and on the Special Equipment to be Used for such Carriage — and of a Multilateral Agreement under Article 7 of ATP concerning carriage in thin-walled vehicles to and from Italy. As both Agreements would involve a charge on public funds by their specific obligations as regards enforcement, Dáil approval of the terms of the Agreements is required by Article 29.5 of the Constitution before the State can accede to the Agreements. That is why the two motions are before the House in addition to the Bill.

The Bill may be summarised as providing the necessary framework for applying the detailed technical requirements of the Agreements — by enabling the Minister for Tourism and Transport to make regulations from time to time for the purposes of specifying those requirements as they are developing in line with developments in food and equipment technologies — and by making appropriate provision for enforcement, as specifically required by the Agreements. The necessary regulations will be devised in close consultation with the other Departments and interests concerned and will be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas which will have power, under section 14 of the Bill, to annul the regulations if they should consider it necessary to do so. The comprehensive explanatory and financial memorandum which was circulated with the Bill gives the general background to the Bill and a commentary on its provisions. All I need add to that is to emphasise that the Bill and regulations to be made under it are not intended to — nor should they — give rise to extra costs for Irish hauliers or producers and to put on the record of the House my resolve to ensure that the Bill is cost-effectively enforced and that proper export activity is not disrupted.

Why is the Bill needed? Indeed, on the general level, one must ask why hauliers and producers of perishable foodstuffs need to be reminded by national and international law to operate to acceptable standards. Commonsense and economic survival would dictate the observance of the highest possible standards at all stages from production to final destination. Unfortunately, experience has proved the need for law to be enacted to set minimum standards. This serves primarily as a warning to those persons who might otherwise be careless, but should not, of course, lead to any complacency on the part of any other persons.

Having received complaints about the off-condition of Irish perishable foodstuffs on arrival in export markets, particularly meat, the Transport Consultative Commission, in their 1981 Report on Road Freight Haulage, recommended that the State should accede to ATP as soon as possible and effectively enforce it, in order to ensure that Irish refrigerated vehicles are maintained to internationally acceptable standards and that they are not delayed or refused admission at frontiers. It is earnestly to be hoped that Irish international hauliers have fully taken the Commission's message to heart, a message which a few months ago I had the opportunity to reconvey to many of them at the annual general meeting of a representative body of theirs.

Our exports of perishable foodstuffs now exceed £1,000 million a year. Not only do we need to safeguard that level of exports but the Government's Programme for National Recovery calls for vigorous development of our exports so as to create worthwhile employment opportunities for our people. Hauliers have a vital role to play in all this, particularly in moving time-sensitive food exports speedily. If there is any departure from the highest standards, valuable orders will be lost, never to be regained. If Irish hauliers maintain their equipment to the best standards they can help to maximise our exports and secure new international business, thereby making a valuable contribution to regenerating our economy.

I might mention that the Transport Consultative Commission's 1981 report also drew attention to the benefits of haulage vehicles having temperature recorders — thermographs — so as to monitor the temperature of foodstuffs in transit. While neither the Bill nor ATP — nor any other international agreement — requires the installation of such recorders, hauliers would be well advised to consider having them installed for their own protection, particularly on long journeys. Of course, I fully recognise that, irrespective of the standard of carriage, the quality of the foodstuffs at loading would always be the crucial factor in determining whether the foodstuffs reach the market-place in the top condition which the customers are entitled to expect.

Returning to the Bill itself, it is clear that legislation is needed to give a legal basis for the examination or testing of transport equipment for compliance with ATP requirements, and for the certification of equipment complying with those requirements, and for effective enforcement. Without legislation, Irish certificates of compliance are potentially open to challenge by any one of the other 20 European states which are ATP contracting states, with consequential risk of hauliers being delayed or refused entry at international frontiers. So far, no problems of this kind have been encountered and it is in the national interest that the necessary legislation be in place at the earliest possible date.

As regards accession to ATP, Article 11 of ATP provides that accession by a state will not take place until one year has elapsed after that state has deposited its instrument of accession with the United Nations, which is the parent body of the Economic Commission for Europe which is responsible for monitoring and developing ATP. Ireland's instrument of accession cannot be deposited until Dáil Éireann has approved the terms of ATP and the Bill has been enacted, hence the need for early Dáil approval in both cases.

Ireland must first become an ATP contracting state before it can accede to the multilateral agreement concerning carriage in thin-walled vehicles to and from Italy. The Bill is so framed as to enable Ireland to implement the multilateral agreement but its terms must also be approved by Dáil Éireann before Ireland can accede to it. Thus, with the co-operation of both Houses of the Oireachtas, Ireland should be in a position to accede to both ATP and the multilateral agreement in just a year from now. In the meantime, Ireland will continue present administrative arrangements for implementing both Agreements but will be making the necessary preparations to have any required revised arrangements ready for putting in place at latest when Ireland's accession to ATP and the multilateral agreement takes effect.

I therefore commend the Bill and the two motions to the House.

Mr. Cullen

I agree with the thrust of what this Bill is trying to achieve. Since we export over £1,000 million worth of perishable foodstuffs per annum, it is of the utmost importance that the equipment used in the moving of these foodstuffs is of the highest possible standard. This Bill is of vital importance since there are question marks over the operations of some road hauliers in this respect and it is only right and proper that a very definitive set of standards be laid down to which all hauliers should adhere.

In his speech the Minister mentioned minimum standards. I believe a country like Ireland has an excellent future in the quality end of the market. We should be aware not just of minimum standards but we should encourage people dealing in the perishable foods market to set their own standards above and beyond what is necessary. The Minister referred to temperature control of goods in containers. This is an essential component when dealing with perishable foods. All those conditions and standards should be noted at the beginning of the journey and monitored throughout the journey so that our customers can be assured on receipt of the goods that temperatures have been maintained. That is of particular importance.

I am not quite clear on one or two points the Minister made, that is, the regulations to which he referred. I believe this measure was sprung on the House and I am reacting to what he had to say. The main thrust of this Bill is very important not just in the context of the carriage of perishable foodstuffs but in the presentation of products abroad and more particularly in ensuring that these products are delivered abroad under the highest possible standards and that those standards are adhered to.

It is interesting to note that in Germany the standing of Irish foodstuffs is very high and that the quality end of that market is growing. Ireland's role can be hampered in many ways by being a mass producer because of our location and the make-up of the land. There are tremendous opportunities to go into the specialist markets and anything that can enhance the prospect of Ireland increasing her market share must be encouraged.

This Bill is ensuring that minimum standards, which are already adhered to in 20 European countries, will be maintained here. It is urgent that Ireland be a party to that agreement in the foreseeable future. I understand it will take a year before it will be implemented. I support the broad thrust of what the Minister is trying to do in this Bill.

Mr. Deasy

I agree with the sentiments in the Bill. Anything that will safeguard our exports of perishable foodstuffs is to be recommended. I have never heard of a case where Irish produce was rejected or returned because of inadequate refrigeration in the transporting vehicles. I believe the standards adopted by Irish hauliers over the years have been first rate. Our hauliers have always been to the forefront in seeing that perishable foodstuffs are delivered in first class condition. If there are further regulations and controls necessary, as would seem to be the case, let us have them. I do not believe the hauliers will object. The Minister said there would not be a great deal of extra cost involved for the people concerned — hauliers, long distance lorry drivers and the owners of the equipment. In my experience the problems — if there are problems for Irish perishable goods, and by that I mean mainly meat in refrigerated form — have not been due to inferior equipment.

The Minister mentioned a figure of over £1,000 million worth of perishable foodstuffs being exported by our producers but I say the figure is approximately £1.2 billion — and the bulk of that produce is beef, to a lesser degree lamb and to a much lesser degree pigmeat. There is also a certain amount of butter, but beef is by far the largest item. If there is a sharp practice in any particular area it does not relate to the condition of the Irish refrigerated trucks transporting these commodities, it is due to sleight of hand tactics adopted by some of our fellow members in the EC — countries which do not relish the thought of free and open competition. While they may sanctimoniously preach that they do, the fact is that a number of our EC colleagues go out of their way to put impediments in the way of Irish exports. What we must have in the EC are fair conditions of trade and competition, and in a number of cases that is not what happens. Some of our colleagues are not playing fair.

I suppose I should name names, but it occurs to me that the countries where standards are not the highest are those which do not obey the law. I have never heard of any difficulties getting our perishable agricultural goods, whether meat or dairy products such as butter, into Britain, Germany, Holland, Belgium or Luxembourg. The countries with which we have difficulties are those which have a question mark over their own standards of hygiene — I refer specifically to Italy, Spain and Greece. I ask the Minister to make sure that our produce is not prevented from entering those countries because of bogus claims of inadequate hygiene. Our trucks conform to the highest international standards and this Bill will ensure that those standards are reinforced.

We might ask why we do not sell comparable amounts of beef to Italy, Spain or Greece and those exported to Britain, Germany and some of the other countries I mentioned. Many of our lorry drivers and haulage companies are getting a very raw deal at the customs posts on the borders of some of these countries. People can be detained not just for days but for weeks in some cases on the premise that documents are not in order or that vehicles are not adequate. It is a disgraceful tactic and it is about time it was highlighted. The EC should put its house in order to ensure that there is genuine free competition and free movement of goods. No sleight-of-hand should prevent our manufacturers, processors and business people from doing trade under the terms of the Treaty of Rome.

We have considerable difficulty in selling perishable goods such as beef, lamb and butter to Italy, Greece and Spain. For too long the EC Commission has been turning a blind eye to these malpractices. We are in a Community of 320 million people and we should never have any difficulty in getting rid of all the agricultural produce produced in this country. If the market was accessible we should not have any problems. Obviously we have a problem in regard to dairy products because we produce the commodity type products rather than on demand commodities for which there is a sale. However, in the beef, lamb and pigmeat sectors we can sell everything we produce given that there are no restrictive practices operating at customs posts on the borders of these countries. I want to see Irish meat being sold openly in Italy, Greece and Spain.

I should like the Minister to ensure at the Council of Transport Ministers that our trade does not suffer because people are afraid of competition. They are afraid that Irish meat — beef in particular — will outsell their own because the quality of our meat is higher than any in the Community and indeed in the world. The British, Germans and Belgians, having eaten Irish meat, continually ask why they cannot buy it in their own countries. It is our prime product and there is a tremendous market for it. We should not be virtually shut out from a market of 100 million people because some of those countries do not relish the thought of competing with Irish commodities which are of far superior quality to their own. That defeats the whole intention of the Treaty of Rome. We are not getting a fair deal because in too many cases there is no open competition.

The only problem in regard to Irish produce — luckily it has been on a small scale — has not been due to the standard of the trucks in which perishable goods are transported but to the after-effects of Chernobyl last year. While we have had to contend with some radioactivity, which has caused slight problems particularly in regard to sheepmeat, where dairy products are concerned the problems have not been half as bad as those in the UK, for which we can be thankful. Sometimes there is not a genuine problem but certain countries for their own ends refuse Irish milk powder in the hope that they will get it at a knockdown price. Those cases generally do not occur within the EC but mainly in the Far East, the Middle East and South and Central America where people declare that the radioactive level of contamination is higher than that accpetable by world standards. I am convinced that Bord Bainne check all container loads of milk powder or similar products before they are exported and that there is no basis for these complaints.

Will the Minister bring home to his French counterpart, the Minister for Transport, the scandalous activities by pressure groups in France who see fit to attack Irish container loads of agricultural produce, beef, lamb or pigmeat? This activity should be condemned but despite the fact that I raised this matter on numerous occasions with the Council of Agriculture Ministers this activity still takes place. Sometimes there is a certain amount of connivance: perhaps that is too strong a word but the French authorities seem to turn a blind eye to the activities of their farmers and other groups. There should be no question of Irish goods being attacked in this manner and lorryloads of butter being burnt. I know that a number of drivers have been terrorised by these gangs of hoodlums who are let loose at or near ports of access, particularly in northern France. This activity is going on, year in year out, and it must be stopped because it undermines the whole principle of the Treaty of Rome. We particularly suffer from that kind of activity and often people are loath to go back to these markets where they run the gauntlet of threats and are sometimes physically assaulted. In extreme cases they have even seen their vehicles burnt on the Continent.

The Minister and his Department should also look into the products which come back in refrigerated trucks which are referred to in the Bill. We are exposed to a great deal of unfair competition such as, to put a cruder word on it, the dumping of fruit and vegetables by some of our EC partners. I am quite sure that the type of dumping which takes place on a regular basis is illegal. There may be a season where the apple crop in France or Italy is exceptionally good and where they have far more produce than they need. A cheap way to get rid of it is to put it into the trucks at a giveaway price and to dump it on the Irish market thereby ruining the livelihood of fruit and vegetable growers in this country. That is why there is such a problem in regard to importation of fruit and vegetables which can be produced in Ireland. We still suffer a significant climatic disadvantage compared to some of these countries, especially in the south of France, where they can produce these commodities in vast quantities.

Mr. Wilson

I grow better apples than the French.

Mr. Deasy

I grow them myself as I live in the garden of Ireland. Indeed people from County Armagh come down to see how we grow them. However, we have our bad days too and if you get frost in May or gales in August you can have a disastrous harvest. We cannot compete with people who have an advantageous climate. We are probably not as vigilant as other EC members in seeing that everything is above board. We will have to make sure that we have fair access to the markets in the countries to which I have referred. We will have to ensure that there is not unfair dumping of fruit and vegetables into this country. The Department of Transport and the Department of Agriculture should be extremely vigilant in ensuring that the produce coming into the country is of the proper standard. The Government should see to it that there is not unfair trading in the form of dumping. I fully agree with the sentiments of the Bill. We cannot give anybody an excuse to say that the equipment we are using is not up to the highest international standards. The Bill will reinforce that point.

Mr. Roche

I will be brief in welcoming this Bill. The Agreements to which this legislation refer were reached as far back as 1976 and now operate in 20 European countries including nine of the EC states. Regrettably, Ireland is one of the three EC states that has failed thus far to formally associate with the Agreement. Some of the points made by the previous speaker are important in this regard. When there is an Agreement such as this and we do not formally adhere to it we leave ourselves open to technical barriers against our trade at boundaries and to spurious excuses against allowing the full writ of the Treaty of Rome to apply with regard to our exports. This is an important if somewhat technical set of measures. It is very important that we, as a quality exporter of foods, should ensure that in all aspects of the exports of our foodstuffs the highest possible qualities are maintained and the highest possible international standards are seen to apply to our operations and to our exports.

One interesting fact that emerges from the material that is supplied to us on this matter, and it is worth drawing some attention to, is that in the administrative arrangements that operate to date we have included some arrangements for private testing. That is entirely worthwhile. When this legislation is passed I hope private testing will be continued and expanded. As we all accept, this is no time for imposing additional administrative burdens on the State. This is the first instance I have heard of where testing arrangements are made on the basis of private and State co-operation. It is a laudable precedent.

The ATP was devised with the aim of increasing international trade in perishable goods and that is why the Agreement is important to us. It is vital for Ireland because we need to be able to display that we are at the top of the market in all our operations. It is vital that we should use this Agreement to our advantage. We should not only ensure that all temperature controlled vehicles in use and registered in the Irish State and taking Irish goods abroad are of the highest quality but we should, as a previous speaker has mentioned, more actively police the operations of non-Irish registered vehicles within the State. We should also police the returning vehicles with a view to ensuring that they are not used as a sealed means of dumping excess products from other countries on the Irish market.

Enforcement of the law in this area is important and therefore the legislative arrangements in this Bill are very important. Sadly, as has been said, when you try to operate on an administrative or voluntary basis, there will always be rogue operators. It only takes one rogue operator to destroy a reputation that has been built up at great cost. The rigours of the law being implemented in this legislation should apply to all people trading in this area.

I note that the legislation and the Agreement itself do not apply to long sea journeys. They apply to sea journeys of up to 150 kilometres and therefore to sea journeys between ourselves and our nearest and dearest neighbour. This draws to my attention the fact that this is a particular area in transport where we are deficient. We will soon be discussing important legislation in the House which will deal with Irish shipping in general. It is extraordinary that we, as an island nation in the food export market, do not have a single refrigerated vessel on the Irish register. Perhaps this legislation and the legislation which we will be discussing later today will operate as a catalyst in that regard.

As I said, it is important that we recognise the value of our food industry. Deputy Deasy stated that when you visit a foreign country there is continuous reference to the quality of Irish products and to their non-availability. I do not think the national interest is being served by our present arrangements. It is better served by the proposals being put before us today by the Minister.

I will re-emphasise that it is important that Irish operators and foreign operators handling Irish goods are properly policed and that they operate, even without that policing, to the highest possible level. Full accession to the ATP and the legislative safeguards introduced in the measures before us are vital to Ireland's future. They are vital to the expansion of our food exporting industry, an industry which has been ear-marked by Government as a sector worthy of investment, expansion and attention and an area where we all recognise that the potential for jobs and wealth creation is very great. It is for those reasons I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Keating

I wish to deal with a couple of aspects of the Bill which do not seem to have been highlighted so far. Deputy Deasy put his finger on an important point when he said there is a need for reciprocal emphasis in this discussion generally in relation not just to the carriage of goods out of this country but also to the importation of goods either in the same vehicles on the way back or separately. What we are talking about is perishable foodstuffs and therefore public health. I would like the Minister to comment on a couple of matters I wish to raise. For example, the Bill essentially provides for compliance with Europewide standards for temperature controlled equipment for transporting such merchandise. That therefore relates to one aspect of the conditions under which food is transported. Technology today raises equally if not more important, challenges in terms of the calibre, quality and health implications of those food-stuffs. For example, there is today a produce known as radiated perishable food——

Mr. Deasy

Irradiated.

Mr. Keating

Yes, it is the use of radiation for the purposes of retaining freshness. There has long been a suspicion, for example, that some of the celery being imported into the country from Israel has been treated with radiation. That radiation is induced into some perishable foods for the purposes of keeping their appearance fresh. I am told it works particularly well with strawberries which, in the normal course of events, would decay in a day or two, but having been bombarded with radiation they will last, or appear to last, much longer. That is an element of food content, nutrient and quality which seems to bear directly on the question we should be concerned about in transporting, handling and importing perishable foods generally. Perhaps the Bill or a similar Bill should deal with the question of whether that form of radiation or irradiated food should be the subject of discussion and whether some of the goodness or nutrient in that foodstuff has been destroyed.

At this time in this country there is no regulation about labelling such foodsutffs and no discrimination about whether food apparently fresh is as fresh as it appears or whether it has been artificially treated in some way. That treatment is not just atomic bombardment. For example, the foodstuffs are open to being treated with chemicals. Foodstuffs produced in this country and abroad may on occasions may be treated with chemicals and the producer will say on labels that the food should not be consumed within, say, a fortnight. It is not uncommon, depending on the weather, consumer demand on a particular day etc., for crops, lettuce, foodstuffs, perishable goods, to be sprayed or treated with chemicals, subsequently within a day or days sold openly on the market and consumed without reference to the health implications of the chemical treatment of such foodstuffs.

I do not want to raise unnecessary alarm but it is not generally known that we are now in the business of adding colour and chemicals to foodstuffs and bombarding them with radiation for the purpose of making them heavier and more attractive, giving them a longer shelf life and generally making them a more valuable product from the point of view of the producer or seller. Only last night we saw to what extent the rights of some purchasers, housewives and families are being underprotected from the degree of exploitation which that market allows. They are paying unnecessarily high prices without adequate standards of protection. For example, we may quite rightly be closing the door on export of some foodstuffs in conditions which are not suitable but we may not be as equally concerned to insist on the higher standards applying to imported food for consumption by our population. I would like the Minister to deal with that. That implies that we must have an evenhanded, universal approach to insisting on this Bill in all its aspects being enforced throughout Europe. There have been other examples of trading arrangements whereby countries have broken the spirit of agreements by various perverse, bureaucratic, innovative devices. That might be happening here and I ask the Minister whether he is aware — I am sure he is — of the possible health risks arising from food treated in the way to which I have referred.

Deputy Deasy mentioned dumping and the quality and calibre of that dumped food is an aspect of what I am talking about. It is not just dumped; it is complemented by substantial tonnage of perishable foodstuffs which are commercially and aggressively grown, produced and sold into this country. If the Bill is to be effective it must be policed properly. I want the Minister to tell us who and how many such police people, in the broad sense of the word, are involved. What is the mechanism whereby that policing is to be done?

The Bill in that context seems to be lacking in the area of sanctions. I do not believe that the sanctions proposed in this Bill are effective. They are derisory. Fines of the order of £1,000 are not at all adequate. Not just in this area but throughout the whole area of law we must be serious about ensuring that it is seen by those to whom that law applies that crime does not pay. That level of fine, which from the date of the passage of this Bill will decline in real terms, will undoubtedly be discounted by some people. A fine of that nature could be lost in the petty cash account of many companies engaged in international transportation. I do not believe that one would buy a set of tyres for one of their vehicles for that price.

If we are serious about this measure then we should be serious about its implementation, and I will be seeking very severe sanctions and to index link those sanctions. We should make it clear that the law is to be observed not because large numbers of police are hovering in every corner or officials are checking the paperwork but because it is right for people to comply. If they do not comply and they fall foul they should be punished severely. Secondly, at the heart of this we are dealing with the health of people. We are dealing specifically with perishable foodstuffs which people consume. To take shortcuts in that area is pernicious and vile and should be treated as a very serious offence.

In the whole area of carriage of goods it is timely for us to examine those areas where it is possible to deregulate. In some aspects of national and international transport, deregulation is feasible, possible, practicable, economic and efficient, but not in all areas. In protecting standards in this case, for example, it is obvious that there must be standards and they must be enforced, but there are other areas perhaps more germane to other Bills. I ask the Minister to take a broad look at legislation in this area and consider deregulation in a number of respects.

The measures in the Bill which refer to the limits to which the ATP does not apply I would like explained. I do not know why the ATP does not apply to any sea journey of 150 km or more. In Ireland, one of the smallest countries in Europe, that kind of limit would not even be the distance from Malin Head to Mizen Head. I do not know why it is there but I am sure there is a good reason for it and I would like the Minister to explain it. The standards that apply should be universal and I do not know why that cut-off point is specified unless it is covered by some other statute of which I am not aware.

I am interested, as is Deputy Roche, in the degree to which the IIRS and a private body have been engaged in testing and certification of temperature controlled transport equipment for ATP purposes. I would be grateful if the Minister would elaborate on what the findings over a period of time were in that respect, what studies, if any, emerged from that and what conclusions were drawn so that that body of knowledge might inform the debate on the Bill.

The references to the general environment of sanction should be comparable to that in Europe. I wonder whether we are consistent, both in our emphasis on high quality exports and sanctions and discouragements for abuses of the law, with standards in Europe. Obviously we do not want to make flesh of our own while others make fowl of theirs. I want to be clear that we are dealing with this Bill in a European context as a Bill which seeks to advance high standards of transport of important perishable goods throughout Europe. It is regrettable that we are one of the last countries in Europe to get involved in passing such a measure.

The Minister in his speech said that commonsense and economic survival would dictate the observance of the highest possible standards at all stages from production to final destination. I do not agree. Unfortunately the experience is that economic survival and commonsense dictate the precise opposite. They dictate the observance of taking the shortest cut and maintaining sometimes the lowest possible standards in order to reduce costs. People are tempted to try to sell goods which are inferior if they can get away with it. A lot of that goes on and we all know it. There are a number of cowboys in operation in this area and I hope the Minister will tackle that so that those abuses will be stopped. I include in this, not just the areas of production and distribution but certain elements which are discrediting the whole haulage industry. The observance by some hauliers of the highest possible standards puts them at an economic disadvantage and that is why an appeal to commonsense and economic survival as a bulwark of progress in this area would not leave me confident.

The Minister referred to the effective enforcement of the Bill. Will the Minister elaborate on that? We pass legislation and ministerial regulations regularly and it is all to some extent on a kind of a wing and a prayer and a general wish list of items that we hope will be enforced. I am not sure that this can be enforced and I am not clear that we should employ extra people to enforce it. The primary way of enforcing these measures is to make it clear to those who do not comply that if they break the law they will suffer sanctions which should discourage people from getting involved in breaches in the first place.

The Minister in his speech referred to the benefits of haulage vehicles having temperature recorders and he said that the Transport Consultative Commission's 1981 report drew attention to this, so as to monitor the temperature of foodstuffs in transit. Experience generally, in an area like this, is that instead of consultative commissions drawing attention to these matters the Government should make up their minds as to whether these are essential, the same as in relation to the tachograph which was another element in the transport environment that was an item of discussion here for quite a while. Certain things are essential and it is not right to simply appeal to people's sense of fair play. What will happen is that some hauliers will operate the system and others will not. A judgment should be made as to whether thermographs are desirable or necessary or essential in the public interest. My focus today is on the public interest and not predominantly on the interests of hauliers although that is a matter about which we are all concerned. We must ensure that foodstuffs to the highest possible standards are delivered to the tables in this country and throughout Europe.

I have doubts about the Bill before us in that respect, and these doubts are fuelled by research into these matters and by the discovery that it is now possible to import without monitor or control food that has been treated in a variety of ways, the safety of these ways not having been tested. In some cases the treatment of food renders it essentially unsafe for human consumption. I refer specifically to chemical treatment where the active ingredient in the chemical goes on for days or weeks and should not be open to human consumption. That is my principal concern about foodstuffs appearing on Irish tables at present. As far as this Bill gives us a chance to raise those issues I am grateful for it and would appreciate if the Minister would deal with this in his reply.

Mr. Farrelly

Will the Minister say, when replying to the House, if there have been many complaints or problems with vehicles on which we have exported food-stuffs? It is interesting that our exports of foodstuffs to the Community is worth £1,000 million and possibly more. Is this improvement in regulations another first for Ireland as compared with our EC partners? When one considers the problems of the haulage business here is it any wonder that they may take short cuts so as to get the product to the market as soon as possible? This probably arises because of the internal costs here. It is an indictment on our overall transport costs. I know many hauliers who just cannot compete even with our friends in Northern Ireland. One must consider that the largest beef group in the country, Goodman International, when making deals with Iran, hire a Bulgarian haulage company to transport the beef. That is an indictment of the costs here. I am sure this company would employ Irish hauliers if they were competitive. It is sticking out a mile that they are not.

I agree with my colleague about the barriers that materialise at frontiers when our products are arriving on the markets. This has not happened today or yesterday. It has been going on for years. We do not create difficulties when products are brought in from other countries. We do not stop vehicles, and check them out as we could if we wanted to slow up the import of goods. When there is over production of potatoes for instance in other countries they are brought here and dumped on the Irish market and neither the customs officials nor Department of Agriculture officials do anything about it. Egg production here is crippled because of dumping. Because we are the first in Europe to implement laws, we are allowing our markets to be depressed and abused. Legislation like this should also protect our own producers. We have had problems over the last number of years in relation to potatoes, in relation to egg production, and in relation to fruit and vegetables although we have a Government committed to the food area — not that they look very committed now having regard to the Estimates we have just seen. At the same time it is there and it looks as if the people producing these products will have to do that on their own as there will be very little knowledge available from any Department source.

Having said that, I believe we are not doing enough as a Government to protect the home producers. I am delighted that there are people in my constituency exporting potatoes at present. Potatoes are one of the products that have been dumped on Irish ports when there was an over-supply. It will be interesting to see how long it will be before they have problems at frontiers.

Hauliers are not the main culprits. They are trying to survive. Possibly some of them take chances, because of the costs they are trying to compete against, in order to get products there on time. If there is evidence of products being off when they arrive at their destination it is probably because of delays at frontiers. The Minister should look at the overall position and do something positive to ensure that dumping of products does not take place. I know it is not totally in the Minister's hands; there is another Minister involved but we must give the other hauliers some of the medicine they have been giving us.

In regard to France, we know that our own farmers took it upon themselves to do something about imports and dumping and decided to dump a boat load of potatoes; they paid the price for taking the law into their own hands but we never heard what happened in connection with the farmers who burned container loads of Irish beef over the last few years. I am not saying that that is the road to take, it is not, but the Government have the powers through the customs and the Department of Agriculture to give the Irish producer fair play. If we are to develop the food area the Government are emphasising so much, can that be done without money behind it? I have my own views on that and they are not for this debate. Will these regulations apply to the hauliers employed from outside the State to deliver beef to Iran from one of our companies in Ireland? Will it be just a case of saying, if this beef happens to be off when it arrives, "well that is Irish beef for you"? We do not want that to happen.

It is important that we recognise the plight of Irish hauliers here. I believe the majority of Irish hauliers are reputable companies trying to earn a living. It is a tough job to keep trucks on the road. I have two neighbours who, when they return at night, spend two or three hours keeping trucks right. That is how tough and competitive this job is. Do the 21 countries covered by the legislation include Bulgaria, because Bulgarian hauliers haul the type of produce we are talking about from this country? If they are not then they must be included. I am sure the Minister will enlighten us with replies to a number of the queries that have been raised.

Mr. Kemmy

There are two different levels in this Bill. First, the ideal set out by the Minister is to achieve the highest possible standards and the best possible conditions to transport goods. There is no doubt that that is something to aim towards. It is highly desirable that our hauliers adhere to the standards laid down in Europe. The free movement of goods throughout the EC has been a fundamental aim of the European Community but, unfortunately, this has never been achieved. All too often obstacles have been placed in the way of this objective and Irish hauliers have suffered as a result. The Minister has not referred to those obstacles. Perhaps he is hoping they will disappear. But they will not disappear of their own volition unless determined opposition is mounted not only in this House but in the European Parliament and in the embassies throughout Europe.

The Minister, as someone seeking to raise the standards of Irish haulage contractors, has an obligation to do the best he can. He has set down what should be achieved. The reality is often different. Deputy Deasy has outlined some of the unpleasant aspects of this reality. As former Minister for Agriculture, he is well placed to comment on this matter. I am sure, when he was Minister, he spent many a sleepless night trying to deal with this problem. I agree with what Deputy Deasy said about attacks on Irish goods and hauliers especially in France. Indeed he was mild in what he said in this regard. In these situations the French, all too often want to have their loaf and eat it. They want full access to the European market for their own produce but they want to impose checks and balances on goods coming into their country from other countries. Unfortunately we have seen too many examples of French chauvinism and jingoism in the past two decades.

Deputy Deasy referred, in a mild way, to the possible connivance of the French authorities but he must be aware that the French civil service have a long Machiavellian history of this type of activity. They have a long history of being able to protect their own goods and having it both ways. I hope that will cease. We should ask our MEPs and our embassies in France and other European countries to oppose this type of obscurantism and chauvinism because they do not have any place in the modern European context. Our MEPs have been far too slavish and obsequious in their attitude to the Common Agricultural Policy. They have been afraid to offend or attack some of the larger countries, notably France. This should stop. They should speak out clearly at the European Parliament and oppose the type of conduct I have outlined. For a variety of reasons it appears they are overawed by the larger countries. They should stand up to them and speak out clearly about the CAP and how it is being used by countries like France.

We should not allow our hauliers to be treated as fools abroad. The Minister was right to emphasise that we should aim for the highest standards and attempt to improve our position not only in regard to foreign transport but also in regard to the production of foodstuffs. The Minister told us he addressed Irish hauliers at their annual general meeting recently. It is good that the Minister should go to such functions but it is not good enough to breeze in, read a speech and breeze out again as usually happens. I accept that Ministers are very busy people but they have an obligation to organise seminars and briefing sessions for people like hauliers. It should not be a matter of simply handing a copy of the Bill to hauliers in the hope that all the problems will sort themselves out. Briefing sessions should be held about the contents of the Bill, the conditions of transport and the problems of crossing frontiers and getting across customs barriers. Usually our hauliers have to learn the hard way, by trial and error, but that is not good enough. We need a more professional and systematic approach to this. The Minister and his Department should get themselves involved not in laying down the standards but in giving briefing sessions to our hauliers and co-ordinating their work.

It should be remembered that meat and food hauliers are very important people in our export drive. Some Members have referred to cowboys in the haulage industry and I accept that some exist. Some people go into that business in the hope of making a killing, like they do in other areas, but we should not allow such people to cloud our image or reputation abroad. We should not allow them to cut corners or take chances because our national reputation is at stake. Hauliers are in the front line of our export drive in that they transport foodstuffs abroad. They are engaged in difficult and dangerous work and must spend many lonely hours on the road. They need our help and should be protected by the Minister and his Department.

It is not good enough for the Minister simply to lay down standards and guidelines. He, and his Department, should be positive in getting actively involved in the whole process. In that regard I hope to see greater co-operation between the Minister, the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Walsh. They have a great role to play and I hope that what we witnessed last week between the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister of State does not happen again. Such a lack of organisation should not occur when we go abroad. We should send the best team abroad to create the best possible image.

Mr. Deasy

Ministers are perishable commodities.

Mr. Kemmy

I accept that and I do not want to be accused of introducing an acrimonious note into the debate or of being unfair but it would be remiss of me not to refer to what happened last week. I do not intend to build it up into a big deal because such things occur. However, I hope the Minister for Tourism and Transport will take note of what I said and use his good offices to co-ordinate our efforts abroad. We all accept we are importing too many food lines. It is a national scandal and is responsible for many of our economic problems. I understand that in the region of £1,000 million worth of foodstuffs are imported. In the food and food processing areas we have a whole new world to win. There is a market available to us of 320 million people but we cannot get a toehold into it apart from selling beef and milk. That is like throwing apples into an orchard, it cannot go on indefinitely. We must diversify and tackle that market in a different way. To do that there must be an intelligent and co-ordinated approach and what we witnessed last week will not help in that regard. We must reverse the present pattern in regard to the import of food. Hauliers, and the Minister, have a key role to play in this regard.

Mr. Browne

In general the Bill is to be welcomed and I should like to compliment the Minister on bringing it forward at a time when changes are needed in the food industry. Many advances are taking place in it due to the advancement of technology. The Minister said that the Bill, and the regulations to be made under it, are not expected to give rise to extra costs for Irish hauliers or producers and it is important that that is adhered to. At present Irish hauliers are finding it very difficult to compete on the world market. It is not their fault that they cannot compete because hauliers in other countries get oil and spare parts cheaper. Foreign hauliers can quote prices that are far below those submitted by Irish people. We have all seen hauliers from Northern Ireland operating down here and anybody who pays a visit to Rosslare will notice that many Bulgarian hauliers operate through that port. In fact, last year Members from the area made representations to the Minister to do something about that. We also approached Deputy Wilson who was then in Opposition and were pleased that some action was taken. What happens is very unfair to our hauliers.

Last week it was brought to my attention that the contract for transporting intervention food from the country was given to a German firm and that that concern in turn asked Irish hauliers to quote for the work. Irish hauliers should be given the contract and the middlemen eliminated. I appeal to the Minister to investigate this because in most cases Irish hauliers do not get the contracts. They are asked to quote by foreign firms but because of the heavy costs they must bear they are not in a position to compete.

Deputy Deasy referred to the action taken in France and other countries in regard to imports. I accept that a lot of unfair dealing goes on, particularly in France, and that others are not penalised for it. It is too easy to import goods and I suggest that we should make it more difficult to bring items through our ports. I do not know how France and other countries seem always to get away with it and not be taken to task on the European stage but Irish companies and particularly Irish drivers are being attacked in a very high handed fashion. That is not acceptable to us as public representatives and it should not be acceptable to our Minister. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, in conjunction with the other Ministers, should bring this matter to the attention of the EC to ensure that there is more protection and that our drivers do not have to suffer, from time to time, from such cowardly attacks of the lowest form, particularly in France.

In every game there are rogues but generally the majority of our hauliers are of exceptionally high standard. The road haul is inclined to bring down general standards, but this should not be allowed to happen. We have top class hauliers and the only difficulties are caused in the area of cost competitiveness and cheaper quotations from other countries. Our hauliers cannot compete and find it difficult to make sufficient money to keep their trucks up to the maximum standards required.

The Minister states that he has received complaints about the awful condition of Irish perishable foodstuffs on arrival on export markets. Is that always the fault of the hauliers? Are the goods in good condition when they leave the factory? Drivers engaged in trucking will get to the destination point as quickly as possible because they are usually paid on the basis of the more runs, the more money. They would not hang about before taking on a load.

The Bill has a number of regulations attached to it and I wonder about its implementation and enforcement. The fines of £1,000 are small. Will it be like some other legislation on the Statute Book which is never implemented? I hope the Minister will ensure that every help and support is given to the hauliers and that a reasonable length of time will be granted for them to comply with maximum standards. He must also ensure that they get a fair chance to quote, particularly in the area of intervention foodstuffs. It seems that they are being kept on the outside, with companies from other EC countries being given priority.

I compliment the Minister on bringing forward this Bill.

Minister for Tourism and Transport (Mr. Wilson)

First, I thank the Deputies who contributed to the Second Stage discussion for the ideas put before the House. I shall try to deal with some of the points raised. Deputy Cullen started by emphasising how important standards are and most of the contributors laid particular stress on that, that we should have the highest possible standards, enforce those standards and consequently, as the Deputy indicated, there would be great prospects, which there are, for our food export business.

I was grateful for Deputy Deasy's expression of support and his welcoming the fact that there will be no great extra cost. This point was also made by Deputy Browne a few moments ago. There will be no great extra cost imposed on the hauliers who, as is generally agreed, have, as of now, many difficulties with which to cope in a highly competitive business. They have extra charges for their trucks while other countries support by way of subsidy the activities in the haulage business. Consequently, we must be very careful not to damage our hauliers' competitiveness still further by extra costs.

Deputy Deasy indicated that in his experience it was not the equipment that was to blame but the lack of commitment to a free market in the EC, that some countries actually put every obstacle in the way of our exporters. He mentioned beef, lamb and pigmeat; the other important area of export covered here is that of fish, although hauliers in that area do not meet with the same kind of trouble as the others. It is a very important export to the Continent, particularly to France and it is covered also by the Bill.

We have, in the Treaty of Rome, an instrument which should be enforced and if literally enforced it should make a free market available to our exporters. There is in some cases — Deputy Deasy mentioned Italy, Spain and Greece — a system, it is true, of inhibiting, and I shall not use a stronger word than that, our exports to those countries. The heart of the matter was expressed by Deputy Deasy when he said that at times bogus claims of inadequate hygiene in our exporting vehicles are used to try to prevent goods from coming into various countries. The whole purpose of this Bill is to set standards so that no such bogus claims can get any credibility whatsoever. In answer to questions raised by some other Deputies, notably Deputy Farrelly, we have not had many complaints from hauliers. There is an ad hoc system in operation as of now. The urgency of what we are doing now is to make sure of legislative support for people if such bogus claims are being made by importing countries.

Mr. Deasy

Deputy Farrelly wanted to know if there were any complaints about the quality of the perishable goods delivered, rather than complaints about hauliers with regard to delays.

Mr. Wilson

He made both points.

Mr. Deasy

There were considerable complaints about delays. I have yet to hear complaints about the quality of our goods.

Mr. Wilson

I took down the words that the Deputy used, which were "bogus claims of inadequate hygiene". This Bill will remove any possibility of that being used as an excuse to inhibit our hauliers, our exporters. It should cut the ground from under any such bogus complaint.

Deputy Deasy also referred to the unfortunate accident at Chernobyl. We were, I suppose, extremely lucky, although there were some complaints about lamb and venison at one stage but the becquerel count was at a weight which indicated that there was no need for panic. Some countries did use this as an excuse for trying to refuse meat exports from this country. Much of the debate was not absolutely relevant to the Bill before the House but I would back up those people who complain about the activities of pressure groups in various countries in Europe who attack our hauliers and exporters. The Minister for Agriculture and Food, Foreign Affairs and Tourism and Transport should and will — speaking for myself and I think I can safely speak for other Ministers — make their voices heard at Council meetings and indicate that we will not as full members of the EC tolerate any interference from citizens of another country with our people.

Backloads were referred to. We are entitled to examine these. Incidentally, the Bill does not cover fruit and vegetables. We would also need to watch out for dumping but it is not a matter which is specific either to this Bill or to my Ministry. As I have said, we do not have the power to inspect either on the way out or on the way in. Deputy Roche referred to the word "quality" in his remarks. That is a most important word in relation to our food exports. Again, this Bill is designed to ensure quality. We could establish in this country a cachet for the quality of our food. Various Governments and Ministers have geared themselves to seeing to it that our natural food is not interfered with through the use of various chemicals to promote growth and so on. All over the world at present there is a big movement to return to natural and organically grown foods etc. Deputy Keating talked at length about this. In the context of Deputy Roche's comments on quality, we should be alert to the possibility of getting a special name for quality and pure foods on the European market and for that matter on the world market.

I will refer to the question of enforcement later as it was raised by a number of Deputies. As Deputy Roche said, one rogue operator in a particular area can destroy a reputation which had been built up in terms of the delivery and quality of food. In the past the availability of Irish foods specifically known as such was very poor. I recall that while working in London years ago Irish beef for sale there was never branded as being Irish but as "prime Scotch". Even so you knew perfectly well that what you were buying was prime Irish beef. This is an area where we have to push ahead. What we are trying to do is to put a Bill on the Statute Book which will guarantee that food which is exported will not suffer any deterioration in quality.

In a lengthy contribution Deputy Keating, and I want to point out to him that this Bill does not cover fruit and vegetables, talked about various other matters which are not relevant either to this Bill or this Ministry. Nonetheless, they are important. He referred to irradiated food, to various colouration and to the treatment of food to make it look good. The Department of Agriculture and Food and the Department of Health have important roles to play in this regard and I am sure that imports are being monitored by the various agencies that have an obligation to do so. I have already made reference to the increasing popularity of natural and organically grown foods. Health food devotees now prefer to see an apple with a flaw because that would indicate that it had not been treated with chemicals and they could be sure that they would not suffer any damage to their health if they ate it. There is a great movement towards organically grown foods which have, in so far as is humanly possible, avoided contamination by chemicals.

I take the point which was made by Deputy Deasy that the dumping of food along with the dumping of manufactured goods have caused problems and job losses in this country. The powers of inspection being taken in this Bill do not relate to the quantitative importations. They relate to a different Ministry but the inspectorate of the Department of Tourism and Transport will be in a position to call the attention of other Departments to this problem wherever it is occurring. It has to be tackled on a wider level. When in office previously I found it was very difficult to prove dumping. One needed to get information about the country of origin and the cost on the market there, along with information on transportation costs. It was very difficult to make any case stick.

We consider that the sanctions in the Bill will prove adequate. A number of speakers thought that they are not adequate. I have not heard any argument which would indicate that the sanctions will not prove adequate. Someone made little of a fine of £1,000. I think that that is a substantial fine. I do not see anyone pushing £1,000 through my letter box. It is a substantial fine when you consider that we do not have large haulage companies. Many of the companies operating in my own area are very small but they are very effective and work very hard, as Deputy Farrelly has said. The Departments of Health, Agriculture and Food, and Tourism and Transport are involved in many of the areas raised by Deputy Keating.

As a number of Deputies referred to enforcement I shall refer to it, too. The detailed arrangements for enforcing the Bill have yet to be decided. The intention is to avail in so far as possible of the existing inspection arrangements in relation to foodstuffs and compliance with transport law. The Department of Tourism and Transport will be liaising with the other enforcement agencies with that in mind.

Section 8 of the Bill provides for the appointment of inspectors to enforce the provisions of the Bill. The section enables inspectors to be appointed by the Minister for Tourism and Transport, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for the Marine and by any of the eight health boards, with the consent of the Minister for Health, each of whom has already appointed suitably qualified persons for inspection work in relation to foodstuffs, as the House well knows. My own Department have appointed transport inspectors. This arose out of the Road Transport Act, 1986, which was very thoroughly debated. Incidentally I want to pay tribute to my predecessor, Deputy J. Mitchell, who had done a great deal of work on this Bill while in office. As the House will have noted the Bill makes no specific reference to the Garda, but, because of their powers, they are also available in the enforcement area.

Deputy Farrelly started by asking whether we were unique. Deputy Deasy thought I was not addressing myself to what Deputy Farrelly said. I should say that all the EC countries have already adopted the ATP except Ireland, Greece and Portugal. There are indications now that both Greece and Portugal are moving in the direction of legislating in this area. I agree with what Deputy Farrelly said, that there are special problems for our hauliers. I have already referred to them. Deputy Browne also mentioned the fact that people were being asked to quote overall for the carriage of intervention beef, then coming back, no doubt knocking off a bit of the profit, hoping that Irish hauliers would do the work for them. I could not agree more with Deputy Browne in that there should be first access for our hauliers to carry what intervention beef leaves the country, that they should not be brought in as a type of subcontractor.

I disagree with Deputy Farrelly in his having doubts about our commitment to develop the food industry. I do not know why, even at this early stage, he has developed that scepticism. I want to assure the House that there is 100 per cent commitment on the part of the Government to develop that area because of its great potential. As several Deputies said, we have the finest raw material — I am not being chauvinistic about that, it simply is a fact. We have our strengths and many weaknesses, but that is one of our strengths, provided we look after it, preserve it and provided we do not allow the quality of our food or the environment in which it is grown to deteriorate. Deputy Farrelly asked if the ATP applied to the United Kingdom? The answer is yes. I should say that Bulgaria also adheres to the ATP.

Deputy Kemmy agreed with other Deputies that it was important to emphasise the highest possible standards. He referred to the EC obstacles. The obstacles put up by pressure groups and so on certainly are to be fought and obliterated on the basis I have mentioned already, that the Treaty of Rome is there, that we are a full member with full rights. No citizen of any other country — under that treaty — has a right to interfere with our access in so far as the Common Market has been developed. It is hoped that by 1992 it will have been fully developed. All members of every Government would have been at one in that, a commitment to ensure that that is adhered to. I do not think, as Deputy Kemmy said, that anything will disappear of its own accord. In answering points raised by Deputy Deasy I have said that what I want to do under the provisions of this Bill is to cut the ground from under anybody who is using bogus arguments about the quality of our food, how it is handled or transported.

Rather indelicately Deputy Kemmy mentioned bun-fights because I quoted something I said at a hauliers' dinner. I do not confine myself to that kind of infantile fare.

Mr. Kemmy

The Minister has a sense of humour.

Mr. Wilson

I do not confine myself to infantile fare at such things. These occasions are used for serious discussions with regard to haulage problems. I am sure Deputy Kemmy knows already but I will inform him that, acting as agents for the Department of Tourism and Transport, the regional technical colleges provide adequate, full and high quality courses for our hauliers dealing with both national and international legislation. Those courses are a great success.

Mr. Deasy

We shall have to get the Minister for Agriculture and Food in on how to keep Ministers of State in their places.

Mr. Kemmy

The Minister's own Department should be more involved.

Mr. Wilson

I develop and deploy a deafness which suits on occasion. Deputy Browne, who has had experience in the haulage field and who is a valued member of my parliamentary party subcommittee on transport, indicated that Irish hauliers encounter serious competitive cost problems particularly with regard to the North of Ireland. He instanced Bulgaria as well. He also welcomed my assurance that the provisions of this Bill would not impose any extra prohibitive costs on our hauliers. As the Deputy represents Wexford, he is aware of the problems hauliers encounter at times in the competitive field and on the Continent. I want to assure the House that the Department of Tourism and Transport, in concert with other relevant Departments, will keep an eye on that at the various Council of Ministers' meetings and will be very glad to hear of even the slightest infringement of regulations or the slightest interference with their freedom.

Surprisingly, Deputy Browne thought that the fines to be imposed for infringement are too small. I do not. I am still not convinced of the argument that the fines incorporated in the Bill are too small. However, I will examine any proposals emanating from Members of the House.

Mr. Cullen

I think the point being made was that the fines range from £100 only to £1,000. If they were all to be enforced at the upper end of the scale that would be fair enough. The danger is that they will be enforced at the lower end of the scale, which would be a serious problem, for instance, if the fine to be imposed were to be £100 only each time. I think that was the point being made.

Mr. Wilson

We can deal with that point on Committee Stage. I have dealt already with Deputy Browne's point about intervention and quotations for that aspect of the business. I agree with his sentiments and shall call the attention of my colleagues to that problem.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. We are all committed to the one objective, that is to render it easier for our exporters to export good quality food which will be acceptable in the markets to which they are going.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Mr. M. Barrett)

When is it proposed that Committee Stage be taken?

Mr. Wilson

Now, if that is acceptable.

Agreed to take Committee Stage today.