Vol. 374 No. 2
I want to table an amendment to section 13 which will read as follows:
In page 9, delete lines 1 to 3 and insert the following: "necessary to enable effect to be given to any amendment of Annex 1, 2 or 3 to ATP, including any Appendix to the said Annex 1, made in accordance with Article 18 of that Agreement.".
I will speak about the reason for this amendment when we reach section 13.
When Deputies Farrelly and Browne were speaking they inquired as to whether Bulgaria is one of the 21 countries which participates.
It is. I mentioned that in my reply.
The Minister maintains that when this Bill goes through there will never again be any problems at frontier posts or ports, where our commodities are concerned. That is very naive. It is not always on quality, health or hygiene grounds that refrigeration trucks are stopped or delayed.
I know that.
The problem is most often due to documentation which is declared not to be in order and I fail to see how the Bill will overcome that problem. If people want to be mischievous, I do not know what one can do about it.
The Deputy is perfectly right. The Bill is very confined in its range. Other legislation will have to cover that problem, particularly the pretence that documentation is not in order or that there is something wrong with the cargo, the way it has been handled or refrigerated. It is very difficult to solve this problem but it must be dealt with at international level. There is no other way. If somebody arrives with a load at Le Harve, Cherbourg or Dieppe and this kind of thing happens, it can only be dealt with at Government-to-Government level. It should be dealt with and cleared up at Council of Ministers level since we belong to the Community.
The Minister indicated in his reply that nine of the twelve member states had ratified this legislation and that, other than ourselves, the two remaining countries were Greece and Portugal. It is my experience that countries like these two seek derogations from any legislation or regulations which do not suit them and I am very suspicious that these two countries might look for derogations. As a result of that, we might find access to their markets virtually impossible. I have repeatedly seen the Greeks refuse to take goods from other countries, saying that they could not face up to the competition since they had a special problem. This undermines the whole concept of the European Community. I would ask the Minister to ensure that the Parliaments in Greece and Portugal pass the necessary legislation within a matter of months. One-third of the markets of the European Community are virtually closed to Irish produce because of malpractice. I would not like to see the Greeks, the Portuguese, or anybody else getting away with these tactics.
The indications are that both Greece and Portugal are taking steps. We cannot complain too much, seeing that we are only now arriving on the scene ourselves. We had no ulterior motive. The ad hoc arrangements were working well and we now want to put statutory feet, so to speak, under those arrangements. The indications are that Greece and Portugal are moving towards adherence to the ATP in the same way as we are moving in this House.
We have had some notable success in the food area in Greece, for example, due to co-operation — which should be encouraged on all fronts — between the dairy science faculty in UCC and one of the co-operative societies. A particular type of cheese was elaborated which made quite a strong impact on parts of the Greek market. I saw this cheese openly for sale in Greece on a number of occasions.
They stop our meat, with no apologies.
They will have to be moved on from that by the machinery available in the EC.
In subsection (4) I should like to add the words "not less than £500 and not exceeding £1,000". This would not be aimed at the professional operator but it would deter the potential rogue operator. The maximum fine is £1,000 and I am suggesting that there should also be a minimum fine.
There is no mention of a minimum fine.
A minimum of £100 would be too small and it would not be in the interests of the professional operator. The minimum fine should be geared to deter the potential rogue operator.
I take the Deputy's point, but if we stipulate a minimum that might tend to lodge in the mind of the Justice and that might be as far as it would go. If £1,000 were the only figure mentioned there is a chance that it will influence the Justice to impose that £1,000 fine. If we mentioned a minimum I believe that would be a weakening rather than a strengthening of the stipulation.
Will the Department monitor the position? If there are people who abuse this, will they ensure that the fines are not so low that they will not act as a deterrent?
Yes.
If that is not happening, will the Minister bring in legislation to ensure a minimum fine?
Yes. I give that stipulation and if it were necessary we could bring in a short amendment to the Act, as it will be then.
I accept that.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 9, delete lines 1 to 3 and insert the following:
"necessary to enable effect to be given to any amendment of Annex 1, 2 or 3 to ATP, including any Appendix to the said Annex 1, made in accordance with Article 18 of that Agreement.".
The need for the amendment arises because of reservations about the extent of the section as worded. This proposed amendment specifies what is needed. Any amendments to ATP itself, that is the basic ATP Agreement, could require a new Bill. Amendments to the Annexes are of a technical nature and should be readily implemented after Dáil approval. I seek the approval of the Dáil for this amendment to cover that point.
Did I understand the Minister to say that any changes in the ATP Agreement would require a new Bill?
That is right.
I am at a loss to understand why fruit and vegetables are not included as perishable foodstuffs. Can they be brought within the scope of this legislation at some stage because their exclusion does not seem to make sense?
As the House is aware, the ATP Agreement is a United Nations Agreement and consequently it would have to be agreed by all members before this could be done. The fruit and vegetables sector can be covered by other legislation, but here we are specifically dealing with meat, fish and dairy produce.
On the definition of "perishable foodstuffs"——
Certainly they would come within the broader definition but the actual perishable foodstuffs are specific to the ATP.
Is there a similar agreement in existence dealing with fruit and vegetables?
Not in the transport area, but in the agriculture and food area.
I meant specifically in the transport area.
No.
Will the Minister investigate if there is comparable legislation dealing with fruit and vegetables? If such legislation does not exist, will he instigate a movement towards providing such legislation?
It would have to be national legislation rather than the type we are dealing with here.
