It is proposed to take amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together by agreement.
Abattoirs Bill, 1987 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (1), between lines 12 and 13, to insert the following:
"Provided that all slaughterings on the farm, including pigs and injured animals, shall be reported to a veterinary inspector within 30 days of the animal's having been slaughtered.".
My amendment provides that all slaughterings on the farm, including pigs and injured animals, shall be reported to a veterinary inspector within 30 days of the animals having been slaughtered. This proposal is intended to ensure that diseased animals are not used mistakenly by families on the farm and also to ensure that this section which allows for the slaughtering of injured animals is not abused by any unscrupulous individuals, if such exist, in the farming community. I ask the Minister favourably to consider accepting the amendment which is of a minor nature.
My amendment provides that the slaughter of such pig, or such injured animal shall be carried out in the presence of a veterinary surgeon who shall make a report to the Department of Agriculture and Food veterinary department. I ask the Minister to accept this amendment which is meant in the spirit of his Second Stage speech. Many of the regulations are geared to cutting out the practice of cowboy butchering on farms, unattended abattoirs, unlicensed abattoirs and abattoirs which are not visited under the present sanitary regulations. To allow such an act to take place without the presence of a veterinary surgeon will mean, as Deputy Stagg pointed out, that nobody will know whether the animal is diseased or otherwise and nobody will know whether that meat is offered for sale to the retail trade. There is no doubt that the Bill is intended to cut out the gross abuses which are occurring at present and my amendment seeks to close off the loophole in the Bill as it is drafted.
These amendments seek to introduce further controls on the home slaughtering concession provided for in the definition of abattoir under this Bill. The proposal that all farm slaughterings be reported to a veterinary inspector within 30 days is one I could not be satisfied would be complied with, nor is it in any way properly enforceable. If we were to make this provision we would only be adding to the bureaucracy and creating additional red tape. Moreover, non-compliance with such a requirement would create a new offence under the Bill, the reason for which is scarcely warranted given that we are referring to a bona fide and legal activity.
Veterinary supervision of the slaughter of a pig on a farm for home consumption only would be extremely difficult to implement on the ground. It would represent an over-elaborate control. Moreover, the cost to the local authority, between travel to and time spent on the farm by a veterinary inspector, would be prohibitive. Indeed, one could foresee such costs falling back on the farmer and all because he wanted to kill a pig for domestic consumption. There would also be problems in ensuring a veterinary presence in the case of an injured animal whose immediate slaughter would be necessary on humane grounds.
A common theme in both amendments seems to be a concern that this home slaughtering concession will be abused and that meat derived from such slaughtering will be offered for sale to the general public. Apart from the restrictions to this concession which I introduced on Report Stage in the Seanad, elsewhere in the Bill there will be sufficient controls to ensure that this does not happen. The meat stamping arrangements and augmented staffing proposals being provided for in the Bill, coupled with the heavy penalties for breaches of controls, will ensure an end to the activities of any cowboy operators on the home market meat supply scene. However, should all these controls fail, as I said before, I will have no hesitation in exercising the power contained in section 2 (3) (c) of the Bill by redefining an abattoir to include all slaughterings and, therefore, banning totally slaughterings on a farm for domestic consumption. It is only fair and reasonable, however at this stage to continue to provide for a farmer slaughtering for his own use, confined now of course to a pig or an injured animal, particularly having regard to tradition in certain areas and also bearing in mind the position of islanders.
This concession is essentially for farmers living in remote rural areas or for islanders. From my own experience I know this is not a widespread practice and is declining. However, I still feel it would be unfair to disallow this traditional practice. After a period of the operation of the Act we will be in a better position to assess the need either for a continued concession in this area or whether it should be outlawed altogether. The latter, as I have said, can be readily achieved through a ministerial order.
Further to what the Minister has said, may I put it to him that in the case of farm slaughtering at present is it not true to say that most slaughtering of injured animals or pigs is actually done in abattoirs on behalf of the farmers? With the exception of very remote areas, farmers should be encouraged to bring their pig or injured animal to a local licensed abattoir where, if necessary, a concessionary price or the inspection fee could be foregone. If we allow a loophole at present the cowboy operators will make very good use of it. In any case those who would traditionally kill a pig or an injured animal would have to pay a butcher to do the job for them on their own farm. If we could offer them the facility whereby this animal or pig could be processed in a local butcher's yard or abattoir and the inspection fee in this case foregone, it should encourage the farmers to do that. The thrust of the Bill is to regulate and control and the provision for farm slaughtering is actually a loophole in this regulatory Bill.
Let me add to what the last speaker has said. I am disappointed with the Minister's attitude to my own amendment which I would see as a middle course between what he is suggesting as total outlawing of slaughtering in any circumstances on the farm and the present system which he is suggesting. If my amendment were implemented there would be no travelling fees and no cost arising to the farmer or anybody else. It would simply be a matter or reporting each individual incident by the person who carried out the slaughtering. I see a danger in the section on injured animal in that animals might indeed be injured before they were slaughtered. We could have lambs having their legs broken before slaughter and that would be highly undesirable. I ask the Minister to look at the amendment again.
The Minister is suggesting that if his own proposal does not work out when the Bill is in place he will outlaw totally all slaughtering on the farm. That is where the costs associated with monitoring would arise. My proposal would have the effect that the Minister would know very positively, where, when and to what extent individual slaughtering was being carried out, without any cost to the Department, at local level or to the farmer. The farmer would simply fill out a form and send it in for the information of the inspectorate.
The purpose of this section is to allow home slaughtering to take place, which is a traditional activity and, as Deputy McCoy has said, is confined to remote areas. I would like to remind Deputies that I represent a remote area, a very scenic remote area in Cork South-West. There are a number of islands off the coast and it is a tradition in that part of the country to have an animal slaughtered for home consumption. I take the Deputy's point, and I am glad that he made it, that people should be encouraged to use local butchers or local abattoirs to slaughter and to dress these animals for return to the farmer for use in his deep freeze. In fact, that is what is happening on the ground. While farm slaughtering is not a widespread activity, nevertheless it is a traditional activity and should be allowed. It will certainly be monitored carefully to see there are no abuses of it.
The home slaughtering provision is legalised under the Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935. I do not want to introduce unnecessary bureaucracy or red tape with regard to the occasional slaughtering for home use and for that reason I cannot accept the amendments. However, I assure the House that this question will be very carefully scrutinised and monitored to see how it operates on the introduction of this legislation and the regulations under it. If there is any abuse brought to light a ministerial order can be introduced to have it discontinued.
I have been following the discussion on this item. I come also from a remote part of the country and there is a case in remote areas, particularly islands, to enable farmers there to continue a tradition which has been there for decades and centuries. From that point of view, while I appreciate the concern of colleagues to ensure that cowboy operators would not be able to take advantage of this section overall, I would not be in favour of the introduction of additional red tape or expense to genuine farmers in remote areas who would merely be following the traditions of their ancestors.
However, there is one small point which might be a loophole and which the Minister might deal with. The section refers to the "occasional slaughter of a pig". I think we should focus on that to ensure that the fears and concerns of my colleagues would not come to fruition. The provisions of the Bill are clear enough in relation to the accident or injury section where it is necessary to prevent suffering. Quite honestly, if it were necessary to prevent suffering, immediate action might be necessary in many cases and the farmer would proceed without filling any forms. That is fairly straightforward. However, on the question of occasional slaughter there is in fact no definition as to what in fact is "occasional slaughter". It is——
Only when it comes down to sin.
There is a question of mens rea here. I accept that the meat would have to be intended for consumption only by the residents on the farm where the occasional slaughtering takes place. Perhaps I am being rather technical and legalistic about it but the subsection does not provide that it has actually to be consumed by such residents. It is merely a question of intention at the time of slaughter. I do not know whether we need to get into that type of detail. A deficiency that is there and one the Minister might consider before Report Stage is the lack of definition of the word “occasional”. Is “occasional” once a week, once a month or once a year? It does seem to leave the position open to question. I suggest the Minister would look at the matter as to whether it might need to be tightened up by using some definiton of the word “occasional”. If that were done it might remove the concerns and fears expressed by my colleagues and which are essentially behind their amendments.
I accept there is a tradition in rural areas of killing a pig coming to the winter and cutting a lamb's throat in spring for family use. I remember that practice at home; where I come from is a remote area but the area I represent is not so remote from this House, although it is remote in other senses, of course. I accept that tradition exists but I think it is a fading tradition. It might be a good thing that it is a fading tradition especially from the point of view of the consumers, and particularly farmers and their families. I have some personal knowledge of use of that tradition. One difficulty is that the Minister, under the regulations as set out, will have no way of knowing how extensive is this traditional practice. "Occasional" is a relative word which can mean anything. It could mean once every ten years, or five times a day. The use of the meat also is in question.
The tradition that I am talking about still exists, which is that quite an amount of meat from the slaughtered animal is given away free, gratis and for nothing to neighbours for their consumption at the time of slaughtering. I assume that there is no attempt to control that practice and I do not suggest that such control should be required. Will the Minister look again at my amendment which would simply allow him to be aware of how occasional such slaughterings are? As Deputy O'Keeffe has said, there might be a little red tape involved because when the farmer kills the pig he sends in the form. That is all that is involved. If a lamb breaks its leg and has to be killed, the form is also filled in. Occurring once a year, that is not much red tape.
I can readily understand the reservations expressed by the previous speakers. I wonder at the definition of the word "occasional", as Deputy O'Keeffe has done. A great deal of or not very much latitude could be given depending upon whether one was talking about a farm family living in a remote area having many members, as opposed to a very small family consisting of husband, wife and two children. There could be a vast difference between the occasions of slaughterings in these two cases. Will the problem which arises here be controlled under a further section of the Bill in relation to the health mark? I fully accept that as long as the meat is not for sale or distribution outside the family home or farm it does not run counter to the regulation. Perhaps a subsequent section might be involved here.
In relation to the wording in the Bill with regard to the occupier's own use, it is one of the objectives of the Minister's Department to promote farmhouse tourism. People are being encouraged to provide tourist facilities and accommodation on their farms. In many cases such farmhouses provide for guests meat which would come under this legislation when the animals are slaughtered on the farm. This practice could be much more prevalent in the future. In such a case the people staying as guests in the farmhouse would be consuming the meat slaughtered for the farm family's own consumption.
First, in relation to the points made by Deputies O'Keeffe and Durkan——
I would ask this question especially in regard to scenic areas.
——on the question of occasional slaughter, this matter is qualified by the rest of the section when one considers that the onus of proving that the meat is for consumption at home lies on the farmer slaughtering the animal. He can only consume a certain amount which will, in itself, make it an occasional occurrence. I want to reiterate that the whole purpose of the Bill is to allow for a traditional practice which is declining. In relation to pigs, as everybody knows who is familiar with this traditional practice, the animal is cured and salted. Regarding its widespread use, as feared by Deputy McCoy, for guests in guesthouses and so on, these people would prefer a more varied menu than cured bacon on all occasions. I honestly do not see any way in which this matter can be abused. Deputy Durkan mentioned the health mark. The stamping of meat will ensure that it will not get to the retail outlets. It will be confined to consumption at home and on the farm. All we want to do is to facilitate that practice is isolated rural areas and reduce the cost and the bureaucracy.
On the point raised by Deputy McCoy regarding farmhouse holidays, subsection (2) provides that a place ancillary to a guesthouse will not be covered by the exemptions. I think that I can allay everybody's fears in relation to any abuse, or to cowboy operators in this regard. If during the years ahead it comes to notice that there is abuse, I shall certainly have no hesitation in introducing a ministerial order to remedy the situation.
Could I ask for clarification in relation to another part of that section which refers to knackeries. The definition of knackeries includes any premises which are used "(c) as a kennels where dead animals or part thereof are fed to hounds", etc.
Acting Chairman
I want to dispose of the amendments. We can discuss the Deputy's question on the section.
It is in relation to this amendment that I wish to refer to this matter. It could have consequences for the use of premises where, for instance, as mentioned in the subsection, a person keeps greyhounds and feeds animal offal or parts of animals to the hounds in the course of his business. How can the collection and cutting up of dead animals be controlled under the heading of an animal being used for consumption on the premises? Will those operations be controlled in some other fashion? There could be a public health aspect if such an outfit were operating in a semi-urban area, or in any area for that matter, and reasonable standards of hygiene did not apply. Sometimes — in fact, very often — offence can be caused by the location of such knackeries if they are operated in a fashion which does not lend itself to the best hygienic standards. I wish to refer to this matter in connection with the amendments of Deputies Stagg and McCoy.
On the one hand, it could be said that an animal because of injury, disease or whatever, could be slaughtered on the premises and used in the course of the ordinary farm enterprise, and the keeping of greyhounds could well be interpreted as such. On the other hand, an animal could be collected from or delivered to that premises either already slaughtered or needing to be slaughtered which could also be termed animals for use or to be maintained in or to be consumed on the premises.
On the question of knackeries and supply of meat from knackeries to kennels this matter was raised by a number of Deputies from constituencies where the greyhound industry is a very important part of life. I assured the House on Second Stage, and I want to assure the House now, that the control of knackeries will be covered for the first time under the legislation being introduced. Anybody who saw recent media coverage of the activities of some knackeries will agree that it is not before time. There will be rigorous enforcement of these regulations to ensure that some of the activities that have been prevalent up to now will be terminated, that there will be a strict level of control over their activities and that there will be no question of some of these activities being allowed under the regulations now being drafted as a consequence of this legislation.
Acting Chairman
Are you pressing your amendment?
In view of the Minister's refusal to meet what I believe is a desirable and simple amendment, I am pressing it.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 16; Níl, 75.
Tá
- Bell, Michael.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- McCartan, Pat.
- Mac Giolla, Tomás.
- O'Sullivan, Toddy.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Spring, Dick.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Taylor, Mervyn
Níl
- Abbott, Henry.
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Michael.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Coughlan, Mary T.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Davern, Noel.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dennehy, John.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Flood, Chris.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hilliard, Colm Michael.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Michael.
- Lyons, Denis.
- Brennan, Matthew.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, John.
- Burke, Ray.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- McCarthy, Seán.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Mooney, Mary.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West).
- O'Dea, William Gerard.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Keeffe, Ned.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stafford, John.
- Swift, Brian.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Howlin and Stagg; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 13 to 18 and substitute the following:
"Provided that the slaughter of such pig, or such injured animal shall be carried out in the presence of a veterinary surgeon who shall make a report of same to the Department of Agriculture Veterinary Departmend;".
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill".
The local authority, according to the memorandum, means the council of a county. There is no reference to the urban authority. Does the urban authority, being a statutory body, have any responsibility in this regard?
I have been advised that responsibility has been taken from the urban authorities and given exclusively to the county council authorities who will have responsibility for urban as well as county council areas.
Knowing the local urban district council area — and the fact that within that area these provisions would apply — might I ask: is there a particular reason for this being done? What arrangements will be made between the county council and the urban council with regard to the implementation of the provisions of this Bill within the jurisdiction of the urban council?
The provisions of this Bill will be operated with the maximum efficiency. As the Deputy knows, in County Cork there is a county veterinary officer. In future that will apply throughout the country in that there will be one county veterinary officer with responsibility for the operation of all the veterinary regulations for the county, urban councils and town commissions within the county area. This arrangement is in the interests of maximising efficiency, so that a county veterinary officer and his staff will have responsibility not alone for the county but for the urban and town commission areas within the county as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
There are two points I want to make on this section. Indeed I want to renew my plea to the Minister in relation to the matter of duplication. The Minister dealt with a query from Deputy Sherlock about cost effectiveness. It is largely on that basis I make this plea. I might refer in particular to the reference to the power of the Minister to transfer his functions in relation to licensing to the local authority within whose functional area the abattoir concerned is situated. I am concerned at the retention of the power by the Minister, in the first instance, and the entitlement of his Department to issue licences. Under the provisions of this Bill we are to have a veterinary officer in each council or corporation area with some provision for joint veterinary officers covering smaller functional areas. In these circumstances it seems to me to be ridiculous to have veterinary officers of the Department travelling down to those local authority areas to exercise functions in relation to the granting of abattoir licences. Why, in the name of goodness, is that not done, in the first instance, by the veterinary officer in the county concerned? It would appear to me to be far more cost effective, even bearing in mind the question of travelling expenses of departmental veterinary officers, presumably from Dublin, going to the remoter parts of the country costing, say, 40p or 50p a mile. That does not seem to make sense when there is a veterinary officer on the ground in those counties who will know the premises, who will have a lot of experience of the day-to-day operations and who will be much better placed and equipped to advise or decide on whether a licence should be granted and the conditions to be applied to any such licence.
I know the Minister, on Second Stage, referred to the need for a standard system in regard to the issuing of licences. Surely that could be covered in two ways. The regulations will lay down broadly the relevant statutes. Second, if, it were necessary, to have a meeting before the commencement of the regulations between the chief veterinary officers for the various local authorities, the implementation of the regulations could then be discussed and they could get on with the job on the ground. I urge the Minister seriously to consider my pleas in relation to duplication. It is making unnecessary work for the Department, for the bureaucrats in Agriculture House, which could be done much more effectively by the local authority veterinary officer.
Here I might touch on the Minister's experience serving on local authorities. Is it not wise that more and more power should be devolved on local authorities? The retention of that power within the Department is contrary to that notion of devolution. I know there is an enabling provision to allow devolution, but why not have the power vested in the local authority in the first instance? As somebody who has had much experience serving on local authorities, I urge the Minister to consider that as a better approach and, if necessary, to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to cover the point.
The second point I want to raise is in relation to subsection (5) which reads:
Whenever the Minister proposes to make regulations pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the Regulations shall not be made until a draft of the Regulations has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
Provided a decision is taken to transfer the functions, the Minister makes an order to transfer those functions to the local authority within whose functional area the abattoir concerned is situated. Yet, from a reading of subsection (5) one will see that any such regulation cannot become effective until a draft has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
The Minister will be aware that there are different ways of implementing regulations. The most difficult is where one requires an affirmative resolution which has to be approved by both Houses which, effectively, is quite difficult because of time constraints, and so on. It appears to me that that requirement of an affirmative resolution of both Houses to approve any such regulation is a further protection of the bureaucrats, that it will be more difficult to have these powers devolved because of the requirement to have an affirmative resolution approving of the draft regulation passed by both Houses.
I do not want to get a reputation for being anti-bureaucrat but I am very strongly in favour of devolution and of the cost-effectiveness of having the work done on the ground. Therefore, there are two avenues open to me: one, give the power in the first instance to local authorities to deal with the licensing, as opposed to the Department; or, alternatively have a very simple procedure whereby a regulation can be made by the Minister to allow devolution without the need to have such regulation laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses.
I have no problem in saying that I should like to regulate the bureaucrats where I can find them in their places. But section 9 (5) recognises something which I recognise and appreciate, that is, the primacy of Parliament, rather than giving authority to bureaucrats.
I become very nervous when I hear of functions being devolved to local authorities, or even powers being devolved to local authorities. What does not usually accompany such devolution is the requisite money to have the task carried out. While the fees to be collected would be available to local authorities — if the regulations are made — I have serious misgivings about the requirements in that regard from the point of view of the local authority. As somebody who has served on a local authority, as have most of us, I am very conscious of the fact that this House regularly passes legislation which devolves responsibility to a local authority without allocating them the wherewithal or finances with which to carry out the task involved. There is a long list of such legislation and I am very anxious for the Minister to assure the House that this Bill is not in that category.
I am glad that a number of Members alluded to the importance of membership of local authorities because, on other occasions in the House, great pressure was put on people to get off them. However, they serve a useful function. A good deal of sense has been talked about devolution of power to local authorities and in future the demands on Department staff could be such that it will become increasingly impossible for them to conduct the annual licensing inspection. Therefore, subsection (3) allows for licensing to be devolved to local authorities at a future stage.
Indeed, some local authorities, particularly those with full time veterinary staff, where licensing of premises is satisfactory, are a bit annoyed at the prospect of losing this function. However, the problem is that regard must be taken for the unsatisfactory position on licensing obtaining in some parts of the country where they do not have full time veterinary staff. Moreover, until such time as all local authorities have full time veterinary personnel employed and the provisions of the Bill are fully and properly running in all areas, there would be little point in considering the transfer of licensing functions.
The Department of the Environment have asked that, if and when it is proposed to devolve licensing to local authorities, they will be consulted. This request is considered reasonable having regard to that Department's overall responsibility for local authorities. Accordingly, provision is also made in this subsection for such consultation. Subsection (4) refers to selectively devolving licensing to local authorities only when we are confident that the job will be done properly, having regard to the position in relation to permanent staff in such local authorities. The Minister will still retain power for the granting or refusal of licences. The whole thrust of this legislation is to devolve responsibility to local authorities but, until such time as they have the staff to do it, it will not be possible to hand it over to them.
Subsection (5) is important because it gives the Dáil and the Seanad the opportunity to vet any proposals on devolution of licensing before they can be implemented, to which Deputy Stagg referred. He also referred to the primacy of the Dáil in relation to these matters and I accept his comments in that regard.
Deputy Kitt raised the question of the cost of veterinary inspectors going down the country and chalking up expenses and subsistence. The Department's veterinary officers are located in every local authority area in export meat plants and travelling would be minimal as they reside in the area. The Department's veterinary inspectors are being used to bring the domestic abattoirs up to the same standard as export plants which they supervise at present, as required by the Government. Therefore, I can allay any fears or anxieties in relation to bureaucracy and centralisation. The decision in devolving licensing to local authorities will be taken when they have the personnel and when their full time veterinary inspectorate is provided by the local authorities. I hope that can be done as quickly as possible because, like the Deputies who contributed here, I want to reduce bureaucracy.
I love the note prepared for the Minister in regard to the primacy of the Dáil. When it comes to establishing regulations which will devolve the powers from the civil servants to local authorities then the primacy of the Dáil is referred to and such regulations cannot be put into effect without going through the usual procedures and having the full approval of the Dáil and Seanad. However, the Bill also provides for orders to be made by the Minister. In section 2 (4) the Minister may, by order, amend or revoke an order made under that section. There is no reference to the primacy of the Dáil and it is very handy for the Minister to be able to make an order without the need to lay it before the House. I am not at all impressed by the suggestion that the primacy of the Dáil has been taken into account in the drafting of this section. I strongly suggest it is because such an affirmative resolution requires further trouble and time in this House and the Seanad that it has been drafted in that fashion, to provide an additional barrier to any such devolution. As one who strongly believes in devolution, that point needs to be made.
The other point I wish to make is in regard to selective devolution. The Minister has satisfied me to a degree in his explanation about the Department's veterinary officers in various parts of the country being able to do the initial work in licensing inspection. I hope it will be a cost effective process and that it will not involve huge additional expense. If the Minister gives me that assurance, I will accept it. I also wish to refer to selective devolution to local authorities who traditionally have had veterinary officers and whose affairs are in good order. In Cork county, a veterinary officer is doing a good job and the same applies to Kerry.
Where there are clear examples that the local authority veterinary officers are doing a good job, I would be very anxious to see selective devolution and I will be anxious for an assurance from the Minister that he is of the same mind. I do not know if he will be in office long enough to make the necessary orders but at least he should assure the House that his mind is running along those lines and that he will make such orders where there is clear evidence that the veterinary service within selected local authority areas is up to a high standard.
The Minister's last statement regarding staffing gives cause for concern. While the authority is available to transfer functions, obviously there is a requirement to employ staff. Will the Minister indicate if the staff embargo in the public service affects the implementation of this Bill? Local authorities and the Department have to apply this embargo and how will they be able to take on the extra numbers of staff required at local authority level to implement the provisions of the Bill? Have we provided elsewhere the necessary finances for the extra staff or will the House be asked to pass a Bill which will place on the existing staff, who I assume are working to full capacity, extra duties the effect of which will be that they will not be able to implement the provisions of the Bill?
Deputy Jim O'Keeffe was concerned about the primacy of the Dáil. I should like to refer him to section 63 which states that all orders or regulations may be annulled by the House within 21 days of them being laid before the House. Important regulations, such as those made under section 9, will be put before the Oireachtas before being implemented. I should like to assure the House that there will not be any problem about putting such orders and regulations before the House. All orders and regulations under the Bill will be implemented in the most effective way possible. Where the Department are satisfied that the job will be carried out in a competent way — we are satisfied that that is the position in southern counties — it will be possible to devolve powers quickly to the respective counties.
Deputy Stagg was concerned about the number of full-time veterinary inspectors that would be required. I should like to tell the Deputy that there are 23 local authority areas without full-time veterinary inspectors. The staff embargo will not prevent us appointing full-time veterinary personnel to those areas. It is worth repeating that the cost of implementing the provisions of the Bill will be borne by the revenue accruing as a result of some of the fees such as veterinary inspection fees.
I should like to ask the House to agree that we have exhausted all possible worthwhile contributions. There are many more sections in the Bill and many amendments tabled to them.
The purpose of a Committee Stage debate is to tease out the various provisions and satisfy oneself as to the need for them. I should like to ask the Minister a question in relation to subsection (3). Section 8 (3) states that any person who contravenes the provision of that section shall be guilty of an offence while section 18, which is related, deals with the suspension of an abattoir but I should like to know how it is proposed to implement that provision if local authorities will not have the statutory power to do so. Will this work be carried out by the Department? I should like to know why there is no reference to a fine for a specific offence.
I should like to press the Minister on why he considers it necessary to have an affirmative resolution for devolution as opposed to the ordinary procedure under section 63 for laying regulations before the House. Is it Government policy to devolve powers and, if so, why is it necessary to have an additional barrier in relation to an order for devolution by requiring an affirmative resolution of both Houses while other orders under section 63 are merely required to be laid before both Houses? If the Minister is convinced that the policy of devolution is the correct one and is prepared to selectively devolve his powers under the Bill to those authorities who are prepared and ready to use them, I wonder why he does not consider withdrawing the need for an affirmative resolution under subsection (5) and allowing such orders to be dealt with under section 63?
I should like to refer Deputy O'Keeffe to section 63 (2) which states that every order and regulation made by the Minister under this Act, other than a regulation made under sections 9 (3), 24 (3), 44 (3) or 56 (3) of this Act, shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the order or regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order or regulation is laid before it, the order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the Act.
Why not allow the devolution order to fall under that section?
Subsection (5) of section 9 gives the Dáil, and the Seanad, the opportunity to scrutinise and be satisfied that any proposals on devolution of licensing are brought to the attention of the Members of both Houses before they can be implemented. I do not want an additional layer of bureaucracy introduced because it is Government policy to devolve as many functions as possible to local authorities under this legislation. It is important, however, to give Members of both Houses an opportunity to look at proposals before devolution takes place. I hope that no cumbersome red tape or bureaucracy is put in the way of devolution by any subsection. I should like to tell Deputy Sherlock that section 57 empowers the local authority and the Minister to prosecute. It is the intention that the local authority will be the prosecuting authority.
I will not press the matter further but I am not convinced of the need under subsection (5) for an affirmative resolution. I appeal to the Minister of State to consider the matter further between now and Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Before I call on Deputy McCoy to move amendment No. 3, I should like to suggest to him that as amendment No. 20, in his name, is related the two amendments might be taken together for discussion purposes. I accept that amendment No. 2 relates to section 44 but we can discuss it now and when we reach that section the Deputy will be at liberty to move it. We could finalise the discussion on the amendment on this section. If the Deputy has not examined the affinity of the two and is not happy with my suggestion he can indicate that he is dissatisfied.
I am not happy with the affinity of the two amendments.
In respect of this we have to cater for the Deputy's unhappiness and take amendment No. 3 in his name.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 10, subsection (7), between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following subsection:
(8) The appropriate fee shall not be altered except by reference to the index of inflation.
The Bill places a burden in excess of £2 million, between veterinary inspection fees, licence fees and registration fees, on the home or family butcher. While the proper control of abattoirs and knackeries is of prime importance, in general that section of the butchery trade which deals with home consumption has a proud record. I ask the Minister to accept that any increases should be related to the index of inflation. There is no safeguard in the Bill to prevent him from increasing the various charges.
The licence fees set out in section 10 are intended to provide a self-financing basis for the activities of the Department of Agriculture and Food in the inspection of premises for licensing purposes. This cost will be confined to the travelling and subsistence expenses of the officers concerned. Their salaries will continue to be borne by the Department. The fees have been pitched at a level to cover these costs and the estimated licence fee yield of £40,000 annually should be sufficient. Inspecting officers will be deployed to the export meat plants on a geographical basis to ensure that costs are contained and that the annual licensing programme is conducted as economically as possible. Accordingly any future increase in licence fees should be very marginal.
Deputy McCoy's amendment is imperfect to the extent that problems would arise as to the interpretation of what constitutes the index of inflation and over what reference period. It could have the effect of imposing an additional annual charge on butchers, probably unnecessarily. Amounts would emerge on the three-tier fee structure which would lead to increased bureaucracy. The domestic meat trade has not voiced any concern about the licence fees, which have been tiered in favour of the smaller operator. Department officials have been involved in comprehensive consultations with the trade over a considerable time and have gone through the Bill section by section. If it has been possible to take their views into account, this has been done.
Having regard to the narrow cost base associated with licensing, any increase in such costs will require a very minor adjustment. Any such adjustment will require, under subsection (6) of this section, to be brought forward under regulations to the Houses of the Oireachtas and then this House and the Seanad will have the opportunity of vetting such regulations. If it is found necessary to increase the rate of fees at some future stage to keep in line with costs — I hope there will be no need for an increase for a considerable length of time — the regulations so proposing, as provided for in subsection (4) to this section, would have to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Minister introducing such regulations would have to justify with facts and figures whatever increase was being sought. I do not think any Minister will ask for an unreasonable increase in fees. The fact that it has to be brought before the Oireachtas is sufficient safeguard against inordinate increases. For that reason I cannot accept this amendment.
I am satisfied with the Minister's explanation and I will not press this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
My first point relates to the Minister's comments on the need for an affirmative resolution of the Houses to vary the fees. Subsection (6) provides for a variation of fees by regulation, but it does not require an affirmative resolution of the Houses. Section 63 states that every order and regulation made by the Minister, other than a regulation made under sections 9 (3), 24(3), 44(3) or 56(3), shall be laid before the Houses. It does not require an affirmative resolution. It comes into effect if there is not an annulling order, which is unusual. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point. He stated that an affirmative resolution is necessary. If that is the situation I am very happy with it. It seems appropriate that the Minister should have to come before the House to get an affirmative resolution if he is raising the fees. Deputy McCoy would probably agree.
My second point is a technical one. A small slaughterhouse or abattoir will have a fee of £10, otherwise it will vary according to the throughput of animals. What happens in the case of the initial application when the Bill has been passed? What is the appropriate fee for a small abattoir applying for a first licence under the new legislation? One reading of the section would seem to imply that the bigger fee would have to be paid rather than £10. Will the appropriate fee under subsection (4) be £10 or a larger amount?
Inspection fees are covered under section 44 (4) which states:
Whenever the Minister proposes to make Regulations pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, the Regulations shall not be made until a draft of the Regulations has been laid before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
That relates to inspection fees. The estimated annual revenue from inspection fees is £1.4 million, whereas in the case of the licence the estimated revenue is £40,000. The trade were consulted in relation to the licence fees and did not raise any strong objections. These fees will be necessary at a rate to cover the cost of the annual licensing inspection by the Department. Licence and registration fees at bacon plants and export meat plants respectively are being increased in sections 48 and 50. The new fees applicable at these plants will be £500. The old fees were only £10 for a bacon curing licence and £1 for registration of a plant to export meat. While these fees are once-off, their increase to the new level will serve to equalise treatment between the export and domestic sectors.
Regarding Deputy O'Keeffe's query, in the first year of licensing and also for new abattoirs there will be problems in the determination of the previous calendar year's slaughterings. To a large extent, therefore, proprietors will have to be taken at their word as to what they slaughtered. The application form will make provision for such a declaration. We would not expect to receive many false declarations in view of the relatively minimal amounts of money involved. We will be relying on the integrity of the applicants.
That is fair enough. I am satisfied on that point. Am I correct in saying that the affirmative resolution applies to the fees per head but there is no need for an affirmative resolution in the case of an increase in licence fees?
That is correct.
I reiterate my objection to the non-inclusion of such an affirmative resolution in this section and its inclusion in the previous section.
Question put and agreed to.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.