This matter was discussed earlier but I understand the reply was unsatisfactory. We would like further clarification on the section.
Animal Remedies Bill, 1993: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No. 1:
In page 4, subsection (1), lines 4 and 5, to delete ", except in the definition of `substance' and section 11 (1) (e),".
—(Mr. Browne,Carlow-Kilkenny).
In my earlier response I indicated that while I appreciate the sentiments expressed, I cannot accept the amendment on the basis that it would very much limit the scope of the Bill. In addition, the definition is very much in line with the EC definition in regulations. It is possible that the wording proposed could relate to an animal from which a substance might be derived and for which a wider definition would be required. The section provides the widest possible basis for the application of regulations and what we hope to achieve. It covers a wider range of animal life than is the case in the provisions which have been outlined. Therefore it is in everybody's interest to leave the wording as it stands in the Bill.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
No.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
We now come to amendment No. 2. Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 9 are related. It is proposed therefore that amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page, 6, subsection (2), line 32, to delete "seven" and substitute "nine".
This amendment is intended to increase the number of members on the consultative committee from seven to nine and is in line with the spirit of the debate in the House on Second Stage. On that occasion I indicated to Deputy McManus and others that I would endeavour within the framework of the Bill to accommodate their individual points of view. By increasing the number of members on the consultative committee from seven to nine we are making provision for the level of representation identified in the House on Second Stage. It would be my intention to give representation to the organisations referred to on the last occasion and also to consumer representatives and the food processing sector. It is important that this committee be as broadly based as possible and that it contains the widest range of technical advice, information and expertise which could be made available to the Minister. I am satisfied that by extending the membership from seven to nine I will be able to accommodate all the views expressed by Deputies on the last occasion.
We welcome the Minister's amendment which will enable the committee membership to be increased from seven to nine. I would urge the Minister to accept amendment No. 4 in which we have named the groups which will provide a representative on the committee. The reason for this is simple. We all want this Bill to work; that has been said time and again by various Deputies on Second Stage. If it is to work we must have the goodwill of the major players concerned — the farmers, the vets and the meat industry. If totally independent people are to be nominated by these organisations, it is important that the organisations be named and that they be asked by the Minister to nominate representatives. We felt very strongly about this request. This procedure has been very successful with other boards and other committees.
I would ask the Minister therefore to reconsider the position and ensure that the Irish Farmers' Association, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association, the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries, the veterinary profession and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, as well as people from the meat industry, be specifically named in the Bill. If we are to get that goodwill it is important that those organisations nominate their representatives to the committee. I am not suggesting that the Minister of State would appoint people who would not be suitable, but some other Minister might appoint his own people who might not necessarily be the best representatives of the sectors concerned. I would ask the Minister of State to reconsider the position and to accept amendment No. 4.
I welcome the Minister's approach in relation to these amendments. It is important that the consultative committee be properly structured. In the past there have been undesirable methods of recruitment by Ministers to State boards, which was inappropriate in view of how modern Ireland operates. The idea of having a committee that actually reflects the larger community of interests is an important principle to establish. I welcome the Minister's approach, but if he is simply expanding the committee from seven to nine he is leaving it open for some future Minister to adopt a different approach. While he has the right approach, there is no guarantee that some future Minister may not go back to the bad old ways. We must go ahead with the amendment. I support amendment No. 4, which includes my amendment No. 3 but expands the whole principle of who should be represented on the committee. The two amendments can be combined quite easily. One point must be made concerning the relationship not only between agriculture and the consumer but between the chemical industry, the pharmaceutical industry and the consumer. It is this. Chemicals and pharmaceuticals have had much bad press, some of which has been justified, because of the abuse, the overuse and the inappropriate use of drugs, but sometimes because people are ignorant about the use of these drugs. It is important to avail of the opportunity to inform the public, through the Consumers Association, of the benefits as well as the abuses, because we are inclined to take for granted many of the very sound benefits of the drug industry. People are always inclined to think of the worst when examining the whole area of antibiotics, vaccines or whatever.
There is an unfortunate tendency to underestimate the consumer, the intelligence and the awareness of people, and to presume they would not understand when dealing with technical matters. One thing I have learned as a public representative is that one should never underestimate the depth and breadth of people's knowledge nowadays, because everybody has been educated by television, secondary school and so on. People are interested in the larger questions about the food industry, agriculture etc. It would be beneficial to include in the Bill that this principle has been conceded by the Minister of State so that there is a recognition by the Department that the consumer will be a pivotal factor in the future development of agriculture and particularly of the food industry. I would ask the Minister of State to consider the amendment in relation to the initial principle of expanding the consultative committee.
The Minister is adopting a sensible approach in relation to increasing the number of people who can be appointed to the committee from seven to nine. I am not sure whether it is a good idea to have people representing named organisations, with perhaps the exception of the Consumers Association.
In regard to farmers' representation on the committee, we have to bear in mind that the extent to which angel dust has been abused in Ireland is of the order of 50 per cent of all animals going to slaughter. On the basis of the law of averages it is likely therefore that many members of the farming organisations would themselves have been guilty of abuse. I suspect that some of those people may be in a position to make representations through their association to the person who would be the representative of that association on the consultative committee, and that in turn may not be in the best interests of what is good for the country. I would have a certain amount of concern about that, because this committee embodies one of the wonderful Irish paradoxes where everybody who speaks in public is totally opposed to the abuse of these drugs and yet they are abused to a great extent.
In regard to nominating various interest groups, and presumably this Bill will remain on the Statute Book for a long time, some of the organisations mentioned in amendment No. 4 will probably have less significance than they now hold, whereas there will probably be other groups who will gain much more significance as time goes by. The Minister may be tying his hands if he agrees to people who are nominated by the various organisations. I feel strongly that the Consumers Association should be represented on this committee because in Ireland we do not give sufficient attention to matters which concern consumers and, ultimately, the consumer is right. That is the reality.
If the Bill goes through in its present form the Minister, and future Ministers, can nominate whoever they like. It is our duty to legislate and we have only one opportunity to do so. The amendment is, therefore, reasonable. I have no objection to any named body being inserted or even to the Minister of the day being allowed to nominate a certain limited number. It is extraordinary to hear a Labour Deputy advocating giving the Minister nominating rights in respect of boards, committees or State boards because the party he represents holds the opposite view which was trenchantly expressed here on several occasions.
Deputy Upton's assertion that up to 50 per cent of cattle sent for slaughter are affected by angel dust should not go unchallenged because it is damaging the beef industry, the consumer and everybody else concerned with the elimination of the use of this banned drug. We must all work towards eliminating abuse and we must be vigilant. That is why the amendment was put down. The farming organisations should also be vigilant and specific responsibility for this matter should lie with them. That is why the amendment proposes that these organisations should be nominated with others. We, as legislators, should have the say as to who is controlling this. They should be people with an interest in this area and a commitment to solving the problem. It is in the interests of everybody, all the associations named here, cattle producers and consumers to eliminate abuses of drugs.
(Carlow Kilkenny): I support this amendment and I oppose what Deputy Upton said. Let me first deal with the amendment.
There should not be a question mark over anyone's appointment. I do not know why any Minister would want to reserve the right to nominate somebody off his own bat when the IFA and the ICMSA have the expertise and can submit a nomination to the Minister. I do not see why the Minister will not accept the amendment. Why should the consumers, who may have to eat meat that they do not want, not be able to nominate their expert? Why should the chemical groups not nominate their expert in that field? It does not matter how much the Minister's integrity is upheld or appreciated in this House; there is a danger he might nominate a certain type of individual, who may be an expert but about whom there will always be a question in regard to his nomination. In my own field of education I had an argument with the Minister not too long ago when a subcommittee was set up on school discipline; everybody was on it except teachers. Why should the people dealing with what is going on not be asked to nominate their expert?
In fairness to the IFA and the ICMSA, the beef industry is probably very important to them but I cannot go along with the suggestion that they might nominate somebody who would close his eyes to what might be going on. The IFA and the ICMSA are very responsible bodies. They do not want to see any use of angel dust because it is damaging a major industry. If this drug is abused we will find ourselves unable to sell our beef because nobody will want to buy from us. I am confident that the IFA will do everything possible to stamp out the abuse of angel dust. Some farmers abuse this drug, TDs do things they are not supposed to do and we do not comdemn every TD in the House. Every profession has its black sheep and someone always wants to make a quick buck, but responsible farming organisations would never condone the abuse of angel dust. For that reason I would have the utmost confidence in their nominees. The Minister should accept this amendment for his own sake. Allowing the Minister to nominate people puts him under pressure and open to unkind comments as to whom he nominates.
I welcome the extension of this committee as outlined by the Minister. Most of the comments on the Bill so far have been about the abuse of substances like clenbuterol and hormones and how those abuses will be penalised. The other aspects of the Animal Remedies Bill have not been highlighted, for example, the advances in the remedies, the therapeutic agents such as antibiotics, anti-fungal agents, anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-helminhics and the new development of vaccines. Perhaps a preamble to some sections might advise on the proper use of these excellent substances that have come on the market and how they should be used properly by farmers, taking into consideration advice from the veterinary profession, the farming community, the Department of Agriculture and maybe the Department of the Marine.
Much misuse arises from a lack of knowledge of these substances and how to use them properly. People believe that a very strong antibiotic or like substance will be a cure-all when what is needed in many situations is good animal husbandry and may be the correction of an electrolyte imbalance. There are fine pharmaceutical companies throughout this country and we should duly recognise the part they played in producing some of those substances which are of great importance to the farming community when used properly.
On Second Stage I mentioned this point and I hope the Minister would come forward with an amendment to meet the principle enshrined in the case I was making in regard to appointments of this kind. I regret the Minister has not taken up my suggestion. In my contribution on Second Stage I referred to other legislation which passed through the house establishing new bodies, boards and consultative authorities. The method of appointing people to such organisations has changed in recent years. That reflects a certain maturity on the part of the Members of this House, and particularly Governments of the day in not continuing the old practice that the only people who act on those boards are people whom the Minister personally selects. That is not a good practice. As we are anxious to ensure that this body acts with the utmost independence in giving advice, it is essential the Minister concedes that the best way he can keep the consultative committee at arm's length from direct political appointment is by asking reputable organisations with a knowledge and experience in this area to forward nominees to him for appointment to the board.
The Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland was established when I was Minister for Energy and at that time I accepted an amendment similar to this. In fact, I went further than the then Opposition spokespersons proposed and ensured as far as possible that appointees to the board would be independent of the Minister and the Department and would be nominees of outside responsible and professional bodies. The joint amendment tabled here by Fine Gael and the Progressive Democrats seeks similar representation on this committee. I did not expect the Minister would oppose this amendment. I regret I was a few minutes late arriving here as the debate started earlier than I anticipated. I understand the Minister stated he is meeting the point by increasing the membership from seven to nine. That is not a logical argument and does not stand up. I will be disappointed if that is the Minister's final word on this matter. I ask him to either accept the amendment today or introduce a more refined one on Report Stage. Nevertheless, I expect an assurance from him that he will examine the matter seriously; otherwise my party will be pressing this to a vote.
The principle for this has been enshrined in the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and in the Act establishing the reconstituted An Bord Pleanála where outside bodies are represented. It is a retrograde step to believe that only the Minister of the day would have the power to select such people. Both the Minister and I know the temptation on a person in the Minister's position to appoint people for reasons other than their professional skills and, generally speaking, those persons are well known to the Minister. The judgement of such people could be questionable in the future. We are dealing with a matter of great importance here because our beef industry is our major industry and the quality of that product is an essential factor in its success in the marketplace and for the livelihood of our farmers and many other workers. Our economy depends on the beef industry.
I compliment the Minister for introducing this Bill and, as he is aware from Second Stage, Members fully support the principle enshrined in it. We have been crying out for a Bill such as this. Nevertheless, some of its provisions need to be altered and this is one of them. I hope I have made my point to the Minister and that we will get a reasoned response from him. I do not believe the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland, is of the old mould. He is a fair minded man and I am sure he will see my point. It has been recognised in previous legislation. The fact that this House came to the mature decision of allowing outside reputable bodies to make nominees to such boards has been applauded and has worked well. It would not matter then who was in Government as there would be consistency in the quality of advice being made available. I am not questioning the ability of any professional person who might be asked by the Minister to act in a consultative capacity on this body or stating that his or her advice might or might not be 100 per cent correct. However, the Minister must accept that, in order to remove any shadow of doubt, in all circumstances nominations should be left to the professional bodies. Such bodies are reputable, the Minister and his Department deal with them on a regular basis and there would be no question of them nominating an unsuitable person. Will the Minister respond to the points made and indicate a change of heart?
I indicated to Deputies that, arising from their contributions on Second Stage, I would carefully note the points raised, including those raised by Deputy Molloy. I take on board the spirit of the suggestions being made on Committee Stage.
We are talking about a consultative committee. A consultative committee exists at present and is operating efficiently. In response to Deputies' requests I agreed to broaden the scope of that committee and to increase its representation from seven to nine. Deputies can be assured that I will have consultations with the various farming organisations, the chemical industry, the veterinary people and so on, in relation to their nominations and recommendations for appointments to the board. I assure the House that it is not my intention to become involved in the personal selection of people who will represent the various sectors of the industry on this important consultative committee. I accept the spirit in which Deputy Molloy made his point. I am not so foolish as to think one could set up a consultative committee and ignore the established farming interests here. That will not be the case. I am not so foolish either to think that in a matter as important as this one could ignore the interests of consumers. I take Deputy McManus's point and I will have consultations with consumer organisations in regard to representation on the board.
However, organisations and structures can change and groups can emerge with a genuine desire of representing a particular interest in regard to this legislation. At the end of the day Deputies must rely on me to accept their case and they must accept also my commitment to ensure that the interests identified by Deputies will be represented. There will be that level of consultation to which I referred.
I take on board Deputy McManus's point in relation to consumer interests. It has been painfully brought home to us at present, that at the end of the day the consumer is the person who decides whether there will be a market for Irish agricultural produce. At every level we must take steps to ensure that food production is of the highest quality and that it is carefully controlled and monitored. Only when the consumer is satisfied that the agricultural industry is producing quality products will there be a level of commitment to purchase the products of Irish farmers. Despite bad publicity in respect of some sections of the meat industry during the past few months, by and large the produce of Irish agriculture in the meat area is par excellence and from the consumer point of view the quality of our products is at a very high level.
I am sure I have the support of the House in relation to this Bill. We must tighten up every loophole, though it will not be easy, in respect of the importation of illegal substances associated with growth promotion and so on. We must deal with the source and the people associated with the importation of those substances and ensure that farmers, the producers of our food, fully understand that to use any form of artificial growth promoters, which are available on a limited scale at present, will undermine the industry and in the long term adversely affect farmers' incomes.
Apart from the consultative committee it is proposed to set up as a result of this legislation, I propose to have consultations with the various farm organisations, the food industry, the veterinary profession and so forth in an effort to tighten up this obnoxious practice. We must obtain the co-operation of all sectors in respect of the implementation of this Bill. The House will agree this Bill when enacted will not be worth the paper on which it is written unless there is a concerted effort to root out the people associated with the importation of those substances. I will leave no stone unturned in order to ensure that the wide-ranging provisions of this Bill will be implemented in the interests of Irish agriculture and individual farmers in respect of protecting their incomes.
We are making some progress, but I would like further clarification from the Minister on some matters. Will the Minister allow those organisations to put forward nominations to him and will he then select the consultative committee from those nominated? How many organisations will be permitted to make nominations to the Minister and what process will take place when the Minister has received those nominations? Will the Minister confine his nominations to the consultative committee from those put forward by the farming organisations? Will the farming organisations and other organisations be listed in the amendment to which he is referring?
I am glad the Minister clarified that the meat produced here is par excellence because any other impression given in this debate would be false and it would not be correct to allow that happen. We have an ideal opportunity here. We are unique in Europe and in the world in that we can promote naturally produced beef and naturally produced food. The fact that we have natural grass produced beef should be a great selling factor on the European and world markets. Anyone who interferes with that cycle of beef production by the use of growth promoters will damage the good name of Irish beef on the European market. Farming organisations are preaching the message that we can greatly enhance the marketability of our produce abroad by being the only country not using any unnatural growth promoting substances and producing beef from natural sources only. I understand the Minister is accepting the amendment tabled.
I indicated that I have some difficulty in relation to outlining the organisations that may be involved because structures may change. However, we will have consultations with the organisations which have been identified. I will ask the organisations to put forward their nominees to the committee and there should not be any great difficulty in that regard. On Report Stage I will come back with an amendment which will take on board the points made here today once I have considered the structures entitled to representation. I am somewhat disappointed that Deputies would suggest that I would not consider the existing established representative organisations. That is not the case. The reason I do not fully support the amendment is that I want to be sure that representations are not excluded from the consultative committee. I ask the Deputies on the opposite side that, instead of calling a vote on this amendment, they would accept that I will come back on Report Stage and table an amendment indicating that the committee will be appointed following consultation with bodies which will be named at that stage. I am not objecting for the sake of objecting or of not wanting to take on board amendments from the opposite side; that is not the case. I indicated on Committee Stage that I would take on board the spirit of the recommendation and I have done that in terms of increasing the representation from seven to nine. When I have had an opportunity to obtain a more objective examination of the organisations with which I will have consultation, I will come back on Report Stage with an appropriate amendment.
I thank the Minister for the slight movement in his position. The Minister has stated that he has some difficulty in regard to what organisations might be asked to put forward a nomination as proposed in the amendment tabled. However, the Minister states that he will endeavour to bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which will name organisations with whom he will consult.
It is important for the Minister to realise that the whole intent of the amendment from this side of the House is that those organisations, whoever they may be finally, should have the right to nominate, not that they would be "consulted", which is the word the Minister used. If the Minister is saying to the House he will examine this again and that he will come back on Report Stage with an amendment dealing with how he can determine which organisations will have the right to nominate, I on behalf of my party will be happy to wait until Report Stage to see what the Minister has done.
May I suggest to the Minister that the procedures are already in place in the existing legislation? The device that was used in that legislation was to invite organisations wishing to have the right to nominate to indicate that to the Minister. He would then have the right to designate the seven or the nine organisations, who would then be invited to forward their nominations. There is no difficulty from the point of view of the parliamentary draftsman in deciding how the organisations might be determined. I accept the point that organisations change over time, but the amendment could be drafted in such a way that would accommodate that situation. After a certain period had elapsed perhaps eight years, another invitation would be sent to those who wished to be considered for inclusion on the list of nine bodies that will have the right to nominate. Therefore, there is no difficulty in keeping up to date with changes in the organisations.
Would the Minister confirm that the amendment will devise a system whereby organisations can be determined who will have the right to nominate, not just to be consulted? If this is the case, it would be acceptable to me.
As two previous speakers have stated, I appreciate the fact that the Minister has moved somewhat from his initial stance. As the last speaker has said, the Minister must state clearly that he intends to accept and place on the record of this House the organisations who will be eligible to nominate. They may not necessarily be the organisations we are debating today; but the Minister has increased the number of seats and, therefore, one or two additional organisations may be accommodated. I chaired a European beef and veal committee comprised of people concerned with beef production in Europe, including producers, consumers and butchers. All the various sectors were involved in that committee. This type of structure is extremely important as far as producers are concerned.
I was involved also in the Livestock Meat Board and, as Deputy Molloy said, the structures exist in that group also to indicate that the nominees can come from the relevant bodies concerned. We are not asking the Minister to introduce a new measure; we are asking him to take on board an idea that is well and truly tried in various organisations and Government bodies. I ask the Minister to make a commitment to name the organisations and that they would put forward their nominees to the Minister. Of course, the Minister, as in any other board, will have the right to discuss the suitability of any nominee and this should be his prerogative.
To return to comments made by previous speakers, our meat and dairy industry remains the most important industry in this country, regardless of what is said about other products. It is an Irish based industry produced in the cleanest, greenest island in the world. Yet we have this scaremongering statement from Deputy Upton that over 50 per cent of the cattle here are treated with angel dust. That is a totally objectionable and unacceptable statement to make in this House.
Totally untrue.
A statement was made by a Member of this House on Second Stage of this Bill which was the only part of the debate to receive publicity. Deputies who come here and make totally untrue, unjustified statements are putting not just the livelihood of farmers in the meat industry at risk but the country in general. That is unforgivable and I hope that when the Minister considers organisations from which nominations will be accepted such organisations will not be associated with the Labour Party. It is extremely serious for any Deputy to make that type of bland statement in this House.
I accept the comments made by Deputy Moffatt on the issue of drugs in general. The actions of the dairy industry in regard to the testing procedures and the measures we want to see implemented under this Bill can remedy many of the problems highlighted by the Deputy by proper monitoring and involvement by the veterinary profession. We are all in favour of that. There have been tremendous efforts by farmers and farm organisations to ensure we produce the cleanest, healthiest products. That is the way we should proceed in this Bill.
The Bill must work properly and that is why I return to the issue of whom the Minister will appoint. I stated on the last day we debated this Bill in the House that the smaller or weaker producers are sometimes those who are pursued from a legal point of view and that the real criminals are not being pursued in this regard. For that reason it is important that the Minister be above question in regard to the membership of this consultative committee. They must be people appointed by organisations who have no political connection with any party in government at a particular time. The committee members must be representative of the producers, the industry generally and of the consumer, who is essential to all of us. I implore the Minister to accept the principle of the amendment.
There has been a certain amount of concentration on the beef industry and we should remember that this Bill covers a much wider brief. Indeed, reading the forecasts in relation to the development of technology, I believe we will be regarding growth promoters as very small beer in the near future. That is one of the reasons we must ensure that when the consultative committee is established it truly reflects the larger community.
The Minister mentioned his difficulty in relation to organisations changing. I accept that is a difficulty; but the problem we have is that Ministers change and, while this Minister is clearly committed to the principles we are discussing, there is no guarantee, unless it is written into the Bill, that a later Minister will have the same commitment. Therefore, it is vital that a formula be found. I suppose we will have to take it on trust — and I hope we are not getting a pig in a poke — but can the Minister assure us that the principle will be established in his amendment that the various sectors which should be represented on this committee will be represented, whether it is the farming community, the consumers, the pharmaceutical industry or whoever? If he can establish that principle in his amendment, the specifics concerning organisations constitute merely a secondary point. It is a very important principle and simply leaving it to the goodwill of the Minister is not establishing that principle in law. In view of the changes in the food industry and the changes in technology, this Bill will outlast this Minister. We should acknowledge and take on board in this Bill the fears expressed about the use of angel dust, etc.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I accept the Minister's point but I should like him to confirm that he will bring forward a similar amendment on Report Stage. The Minister said he would consult the relevant groups. However, people can consult without paying attention to what is being said. The Minister may consult the groups and then submit his own nominations. Alternatively, he may ask for ten names and select the one which he prefers. The Minister is shaking his head to indicate he will not do that and I accept his bona fides in this regard.
If the Minister nominates representatives from the farming and consumer groups he will have the nucleus of a very important committee. If he includes representatives of the veterinary and pharmaceutical professions he will be assured of having a group with core values, we all know the importance of core values. The Minister can also nominate representatives from other groups — I am sure there are three or four more groups which would have a direct involvement. These groups will nominate people who have the relevant experience in this area. I would be very happy if the Minister accepted the nominees put forward by these groups.
Like Deputy McManus, I am not concerned about the changes within organisations — presidents come and go, they look after certain groups and have certain intentions. I would be more concerned about a change of Ministers. I will not have any worries in this regard when Deputy Crawford is Minister. There is a danger that a Minister may believe in giving jobs to the boys who, unfortunately, may still be boys at heart and not up to the standard expected of experts. I hope I am right in thinking that the Minister will introduce an amendment on Report Stage giving the names of the organisations who will make the nominations. I hope the Minister accepts these nominations and does not merely consult organisations before making his own nominations.
I wish to respond to the criticisms by the Deputies on the other side of the House about the figure of 50 per cent. While this may have been a throw-away remark, I was not the first person to refer to this figure. If I remember correctly, the secretary of a veterinary union first referred to this figure at a conference in Galway some years ago. I hope I am not misquoting the man but that is my recollection. Anyone who has any doubts about the validity of this figure has only to peruse the data on the changes in carcase composition and classification in recent years which occurred at the same time as clenbuterol became available to farmers. Is that a cause and effect relationship or a cause and coincidence relationship? I cannot think of any reason it should not be regarded as a cause and effect relationship. As a former Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry said, it is nonsense to think that the change in carcase composition and classification was solely a result of changes in animal breeding methods.
The abuse of angel dust and other animal drugs in Ireland got very wide coverage in the international press. I did not have any hand, act of part in this. I may have been quoted in some of these reports but I certainly did not initiate media interest in this issue. One has only to look at the large quantities of these drugs which have been seized to realise the extent of the problem.
There was a reference to the wonderful quality of Irish meat. We are only fooling ourselves in this regard. One cannot buy Irish meat in other countries. We do not have any way of knowing whether meat sold in Sainsburys is Irish, New Zealand or from some other country.
Deputy Upton is not improving the situation with his remarks. Even though he now appears to be saying that there is little substance to his earlier remarks, he is sticking to what he said. The Deputy should have the grace to withdraw his remarks in this regard. He is now basing his assertions on reports in the media.
Approximately ten farmers died as a result of using this substance.
It is obvious that the quality of beef produced in Ireland has improved considerably in recent years due to the influx of continental breeds which have replaced the traditional Hereford, Aberdeen Angus and Friesian breeds. To attribute this improvement to other factors such as the use of illegal drugs is misleading and very damaging to our beef industry. The Deputy should have the grace to withdraw his remarks in this regard as they have done more damage to the Irish food industry than any abuse of growth promoters.
I thank the Deputies for making their various points. They are determined to ensure consultation with the various farming organisations about the importance of this legislation and of having the best expertise available on this committee. I have no difficulty in regard to the core organisation referred to by the Deputies. However, I am not clear as to the position in relation to the processing sector, with whom we should have consultations and who should be asked to make nominations. It is possible that the expertise required by the committee may be available outside the existing organisational structures. Obviously I will have to take this possibility into account in establishing an effective committee.
I will put down an amendment on Report Stage which will take into account the views expressed by the Deputies and if they are not satisfied with it obviously they will have the opportunity to table their own amendment and call a vote on it. I ask the Deputies to accept my commitment to establish a consultative committee which will be broadly based and effective. That is my aim. On the basis of what I have said, the Deputy might consider withdrawing the amendment.
Is the Minister saying he will put down an amendment on Report Stage which will allow the organisations named to nominate people to this committee?
I have no difficulty whatsoever in asking organisations to nominate people with the necessary expertise to this committee.
That will be incorporated in the Minister's amendment on Report Stage?
The Deputy will see my amendment when I bring it before the House.
I am not clear although I thought I was. I thought we were moving closer but the Minister must clarify the position before we move on. We are dealing with legislation, not with any person who happens to hold the office of Minister or Minister of State in the Department. zWhen this Bill is passed the debate that is taking place will be of no consequence. Only the terms of the legislation will have any effect. The Minister should state clearly what he intends to do instead of saying that he intends to come back with proposals that will achieve a broadly based and effective consultative committee; that would be better. What the Minister is saying is not specific enough. I want the Minister to say that he will come back with an amendment which will contain proposals under which the bodies who would have a nominating right could be determined and that it is those bodies who would submit the nominee who would become a member of the consultative committee.
I accept that if the total membership is to be nine, it is not necessary that all of them should be nominated by organisations and that it would be appropriate for the Minister to reserve the right to nominate two or three appointees out of the nine. In order to maintain the high degree of independence required in public bodies it is essential that Deputies in Opposition strive at every opportunity to ensure that this principle is enshrined in legislation and to get away from the old practice whereby Ministers made personal appointments. Under that system Ministers came under pressure to appoint political pals. There was always a stench about such appointments, a doubt as to whether the best people were appointed and whether they would act independently in the interests of the community, or support the Minister's interest if at any time there was a conflict.
We want to achieve the highest standards. We want the consultative body's advice to be above reproach and not to have any smell of political patronage attached to it. Political affiliation should not be a qualification for an appointment to a body such as this. It is in order to remove that stigma from Irish politics that, on all legislation my party will pursue this issue to ensure that everything is done openly. Fine speeches from Taoisigh or others about open Government are not enough. Proposals must be written into the legislation. The way to achieve that is not by accepting assurances from the Minister who is charged with bringing the legislation before the Dáil, but by having proposals written into the legislation. If the Minister clarifies that we can move on.
I have no difficulty in clarifying the points Deputy Molloy raised. I thought I had clarified my approach in relation to the various interests I want represented on the consultative committee. Broadly speaking, I would be consulting with farming organisations, the veterinary profession, pharmaceutical organisations and consumer and processing interests. I will discuss with them the importance of this committee and I will be asking them to nominate the persons most qualified within their organisations to sit on this committee. If that does not clarify the position for Deputies, I do not know what else I can do.
I thought I had gone a long way towards meeting Deputies' requirements on Committee Stage by increasing the level of representation and so forth. I made the point that it may well be that people outside of the scope of established organisations could make their expertise available to us and which will be of assistance in achieving our aim. The Deputy conceded that by saying he would not have any difficulty if the Minister wanted to nominate two or three people.
My only interest in relation to the organisations which will be represented, and perhaps people from outside organisations if that emerges as being necessary, is that they will be selected for appointment by the organisations. If other consultation has to take place it will be purely on the basis of capacity to make a contribution to the strengthening of the consultative committee in giving advice to the Minister. I have no other interest. I do not have a hidden agenda in relation to the importance of this committee.
I thank the Minister for his clarification. If we can have a provision along those lines incorporated in the Bill it will satisfy our interests. We have made it clear that we would accept one or two special advisers but the organisations must be named and they nominate the appointees. The Minister has accepted that and we will accept his word.
I accept and welcome the Minister's statement. I look forward to seeing the amendment. Will the Minister bear in mind that 51 per cent of the population is female? He might take that on board when he is considering the make up of this committee. The Minister should not forget also that they buy the groceries.
The Government is committed to appointing 40 per cent of women to State bodies; the Minister is obliged under the Programme for Government to do that. I am prepared to accept what the Minister is saying and to applaud him if he is saying his amendment will designate the bodies who will have the right to nominate. If the Minister puts it on the record by saying "yes" rather than nodding his head, I will be happy.
I have outlined for the Deputy the organisations I will be consulting in terms of the importance of the Bill and their right to nominate the person most qualified to represent them on this committee. There is nothing unclear about that. I have gone as far as any person in my position can go in terms of meeting the spirit of what the Deputy has asked.
(Carlow-Kilkenny): I wish to come to the defence of the Minister following the intervention of Deputy McManus with regard to women. We have asked the Minister to accept nominees from organisations and we can only ask the Minister to appoint women as ministerial nominees. We have asked organisations to produce names and if the Minister started to change that we would criticise him.
I know the Government has a rule in relation to State boards. The point I am making is that more than half the population is female and it is no harm for the Minister, when looking at sectional interests and who represents whom, to also keep that in mind. That is a perfectly reasonable point. I am not causing problems for the Minister and I accept his proposal. I am a very reasonable Member.
In the list of farming organisations from which nominees will be drawn there is one notable omission, that of the United Farmers Association. Will the Minister give that some thought?
Therein is evidence of the difficulty I have in relation to naming organisations. The only reason I named organisations was because Deputies seemed to misunderstand my intentions and proposals. We will consult each of the organisations concerned. In relation to the points raised by Deputies McManus and Browne, Deputy McManus put it rather mildly when she asked if I would keep the matter in mind. I can tell the Deputy that I will keep in it in mind.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, not moved.
We now come to amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 8 is related. Therefore amendments Nos. 6 and 8 may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No.6:
In page 6, subsection (3) (a), line 40, to delete "two" and substitute "four".
What I am proposing in this amendment is that the consultative committee, when appointed, should be appointed for a period of four years rather than two. Two years would appear to be a short lifespan for a consultative committee which will be asked to undertake important work and build up expertise in this area. As we know from experience, a period of two years is exceptionally short and I would like to hear the Minister of State's arguments if he is opposed to the amendment. I believe it would be appropriate to select a period in excess of two years.
I take the Deputy's point. There is a need for continuity in regard to any consultative committee such as this. The Deputy's amendment is a reasonable one and I am prepared to accept it.
I thank the Minister of State for accepting the amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 7 has been ruled out of order because it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. We proceed now——
Before you proceed, Sir, we were taking two amendments together. We have dealt only with amendment No.6; we have not yet dealt with amendment No.8 which reads:
In page 7, subsection (6), line 6, after "procedure", to insert "for the purpose of considering the matters referred to it by the Minister".
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 should be taken together because amendment No. 8 follows on from the change proposed in amendment No. 7, which reads: "in page 7, lines 4 and 5, to delete subsection (5)". That amendment is not before the House but, with your permission, I would like to refer to it.
In amendment No. 7 I am proposing that subsection (5), which reads "that the consultative committee shall meet whenever summoned by the Minister," should be deleted. If that subsection is deleted there would be a need to alter the wording in line 6 in subsection (6).
The Bill seems to imply that the consultative committee will only be able to meet whenever summoned by the Minister. I expect that matters will be referred to it by the Minister to obtain its advice. Once a matter is referred to it the consultative committee should have the right to decide on its own procedures and how often it should meet to consider that matter before it reports back to the Minister. It is strange that the consultative committee will only be able to meet whenever summoned by the Minister. It is not practical to ask any important body such as this, comprised of highly qualified experts, to meet only when summoned by the Minister. If the Minister of State could classify that matter he would meet my point on amendment No. 8.
I think the House would agree that the Minister should have the power to summon the consultative committee to discuss the way in which certain aspects of the Bill should be implemented. The Deputy has to bear in mind that we are talking here about a consultative committee which will make itself available to the Minister. If problems arise within the Department the Minister should be able to convene that committee, to discuss the matter on the agenda and advise him accordingly. The Acting Chairman has ruled that amendment No. 7 is out of order, but I make this point in response to the point raised by Deputy Molloy.
Under Deputy Molloy's amendment the consultative committee would have the power to decide its own procedures in considering matters referred to it by the Minister. I would have no difficulty with this. Indeed, having been summoned by the Minister, the committee should have freedom to decide its own procedures in dealing with specific matters on the agenda for consideration. Therefore I have no difficulty in accepting the Deputy's amendment, No. 8.
Is the Minister of State saying that the purpose of summoning the consultative committee would be to refer a certain matter to it and it would have the right to determine its own procedures and how often it should meet? One could read the Bill in another way, that the consultative committee could not meet unless the Minister summoned it.
The Minister has the power to convene a meeting of the consultative committee every time he requires guidance and expertise on an aspect of the Bill with which we are dealing. Of course, there is nothing to prevent the consultative committee bringing any particular matter to the attention of the Minister, alerting him to various circumstances which might arise; requesting him, if you like, to convene a meeting for the purpose of discussing a specific matter. I want to be explicit, the consultative committee will meet, when convened by the Minister, for the purpose of discussing a particular matter and for seeking expert advice.
Therefore, the Minister does not foresee the consultative committee meeting on any other occasion apart from when summoned by the Minister. That is the way I read the provisions and why I tabled my amendment. I find it very strange that a consultative committee might be appointed, as proposed in the Bill, which the Minister would have the right to summon to inform it of the matter he wished to have considered. Having notified it of that matter, surely the committee should have the right to determine how it fulfils its task? Surely it would have to meet at other times? Does the Minister think that the committee, on the day it is summoned, could give its views immediately? Would there not be an opportunity to meet later to consider the matter put before it? Can the Minister see the difficulty?
I can, of course.
It seems the committee can meet only when the Minister summons it and must give its advice there and then unless it asks him to summon it again; it seems very strange to me. I would accept the Minister allowing the committee to make arrangements and devise procedures to facilitate the consideration of a matter he has put before it and authorising it to hold meetings but if he is saying it cannot hold a meeting to consider such matters unless the Minister summons it, that is different.
I support Deputy Molloy's point. It seems very strange that there is not a proper committee structure. It is possible that this consultative committee will never meet. It is possible that it could be summoned for one meeting to discuss a particular issue and hold no further meetings. We must ensure that there is a proper mechanism whereby the committee can get on with its work. I am satisfied that this committee will have plenty of work to do if it is to be useful. We have spent much time talking about its structure but we need to ensure it can meet. I am fully aware that financial constraints was the reason for amendment No. 7 being ruled out of order. Bearing in mind the size of the industry on which this committee will be consulted we should not restrain it from holding whatever number of meetings are necessary to furnish the Minister with proper advice.
As I have already explained, the purpose of the committee is to advise the Minister. Obviously there would have to be an item on the agenda for consideration. Therefore, the Minister would convene a meeting of the committee for the purpose of dealing with a particular or specific matter. The Minister having convened the meeting, the committee would then organise itself on the basis of Deputy Molloy's amendment which I have accepted. In relation to that specific item on the agenda, the committee would meet of its own volition, without further convenings by the Minister, until the matter has been dealt with.
I do not think Members are suggesting that we should establish a consultative committee which would meet on a regular basis, regardless of whether there was a matter to be discussed. I want to be as clear as I can. The Minister will convene a meeting of the consultative committee for the purpose of dealing with some specific aspect of animal health. That committee will deal with the matter until it has provided the Minister with the information and advice he sought. Indeed the spirit of what I am saying is incorporated in amendment No. 8 in the name of Deputy Molloy which I have accepted and which I hope is satisfactory.
I accept that. Again I thank the Minister for being prepared to accept my amendment.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 7, subsection (6), line 6, after "procedure", to insert "for the purpose of considering matters referred to it by the Minister".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 7, subsection (7), line 10, to delete "seven" and substitute "nine".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 7, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following subsection:
"(9) (a) At the end of the twelve month period following the enactment of this Act, and at the end of each subsequent twelve month period, the Consultative Committee shall submit a report to the Minister for Agriculture, which he shall lay before the Dáil.
(b) The report shall list the matters on which the Committee was consulted by the Minister, any recommendations it made to the Minister and the basis on which any recommendation was made.".
It is important that this amendment is accepted since there is not much point in establishing a committee if its deliberations are known only to the relevant Department and the Minister. We need a formula whereby each year a report can be provided by the consultative committee to all interested parties. If one is including representation of the various sectors on this consultative committee, by enabling it to send its representatives to function on that committee, one has already established a principle that these sectors matter, that what they say and do must be heard when decisions are taken. If that is the case, feeding information back to these bodies, or indeed to public representatives in this House, is part and parcel of that process since it is about transparency and providing information. A very simple reporting procedure should be established — since the information will be recorded anyway — it is simply a matter of putting it in a form in which it can be submitted to the Minister once a year and laid before the Dáil. This would mean that whatever information, knowledge and wisdom is garnered from this committee can be availed of and used on a wider base which, again, reflects the fundamental point the Minister made in relation to the establishment of the consultative committee. If he accepts that principle, as he says he does, he must then accept this amendment to ensure that that kind of process of consultation is guaranteed for the future.
I listened attentively to the points made by Deputy McManus. It is not envisaged that this committee will meet on a regular basis. In fact its biggest task will be in relation to the establishment of the regulations arising from the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. The only other time the consultative committee needs to meet would be if and when something took place within the agricultural sector which had a bearing on the animal health aspects of the Bill.
I do not envisage this committee reporting to the House. It is a consultative committee for the purpose of advising the Minister on specific aspects of the provisions of this Bill. I am not saying that for the purpose of saying it should not be transparent in relation to its findings. However, I reiterate it is being established merely for the purpose of advising the Minister. Therefore, I do not think there is scope for a reporting facility back to this House. Of course, Members are free to table questions in regard to how that committee is performing, or to ask the Minister whether he has received the committee's advice on a specific aspect of the implementation of the provisions of this Bill. I would not like the House to misunderstand the scope and extent of the committee we are establishing. It will be an essential committee, performing a crucial task. It will also be a voluntary committee. From that point of view we should not overstate its importance within the context of this Bill.
I find this quite astonishing. I cannot understand why the Minister is fearful of providing basic information. It is important that we know the advice given to the Minister. I do not think anybody will be too concerned if the consultative committee does not meet very frequently. If it meets infrequently we should know there are no major problems that cause it to be convened. However, if there are major problems it is important that we, as public representatives, know what the committee is doing.
Provision is made in the Bill for the payment of travelling and other expenses and that is perfectly in order. The Minister needs to be reminded that it is public money that is being spent and the public is at least entitled to know how that money is being spent and what the committee is doing. I do not think that is an unreasonable request and I am surprised it is causing difficulties. If we are to have openness in Government — I include the people in the process — public representatives, and the Minister, are entitled to receive information.
I am not satisfied that I will have to devise questions to get the right response. I am long enough here to know how the system works and that one has to ask a question in such a way as to winkle out the information one needs. This requires great dexterity, and a certain amount of imagination. It is not always possible for an Opposition Member to get it right and one ends up with waffle. I have had that experience over and again. It is very easy for a Minister to kick to touch when asked difficult questions. I do not envisage that there would be many difficult questions but having seen the way the system operates, I do not think Question Time is the occasion to seek the basic information I am asking for in this amendment.
I do not understand the Minister's fears. He is to be advised by a consultative committee that represents the larger community and I do not see why that information has to be kept secret.
There is no question of keeping anything secret. I have to restate the role of the consultative committee. This is a committee to advise the Minister on some specific aspect of legislation and on problems that may arise in relation to its implementation. Very often the matter under investigation could be raised in this House, indeed Members may be the first to bring a specific problem to the Minister's attention and he, in turn will seek the advice of the consultative committee. That committee will consist of a group of experts from different sectors working on a voluntary basis and willing to give of their time to provide the best possible advice to the Minister. At the end of the day the Minister is answerable to this House. He is entitled to be questioned on any specific matter on how he has dealt with a problem and whether he has taken the advice of the consultative committee. I do not see any real merit in having the consultative committee report to this House because I do not envisage that it will meet on a regular basis. It will meet for a specific purpose as the occasion arises. I hope the need for this consultative committee to meet will not arise very often because if the Minister needs to consult with the committee, it is an indication of a problem. I hope that following the passing of the Bill the abuses we are trying to address will be minimised and later eliminated. I suppose to a great extent that is wishful thinking.
That is correct.
I am realistic enough to know that we are addressing an extremely difficult problem because of the people involved in smuggling illicit products into the country.
I do not see this committee having an opportunity to make an annual report because as a consultative committee the Minister will call on it for expert advice on a particular matter.
It sounds very grand to talk about an annual report but the Taoiseach lauded the idea of a single page report and I do not see any reason for an elaborate statement or the type of annual report published by State bodies. I am talking about a record of the activities of the consultative committee and the recommendations it made. It may well be that what the Minister said will be the position, that it will meet infrequently and there will not be a need for extraordinary meetings, but he could also be very wrong. For example, no one knows the extent of the abuse of angel dust. Despite all the investigations, there is even a dispute about it today. It is not necessarily true that the consultative committee will meet rarely, it may and I hope it does because that means that things are working well but whether it meets frequently or rarely there is a need to carry out an annual audit of it. That is all we are asking for in this amendment. It is a very simple request: it is a matter of putting details on the record so that the people who pay for the committees can know what it is doing. I cannot understand why the Minister has a difficulty with that.
The business of the committee will be recorded and to have an annual report laid before the Dáil at the end of each year in line with this amendment should be a simple procedure. I cannot see any difficulty with this but without it people will ask what is going on. For example, when the Minister makes a decision people will ask what advice he obtained, whether the consumer association was able to provide him with the information he sought and, if so, why he made the decision contrary to that advice. We are entitled to this information and I would be very disappointed if at the end of the day we do not get it as a matter of course. It should not be a matter of trying to extract the information from the Minister who may not be in a position to give it or may not be willing to do so. With all due respect, that is not the way we should proceed.
I support the amendment. I am sure the Minister realises that we live in an era where open government is advocated and expected by the community. His party leader on numerous occasions claimed that he would preside over open government. If we do not make provision in legislation for this openness we will not achieve it. The Minister has a duty to ensure that the Department carries out its duties but Opposition Deputies see a wider responsibility than what the Department may see as appropriate. A committee is being asked to undertake important work in support of the objective of all parties in this House, to achieve the highest possible standards for our beef industry. We want to create internationally a perception of our food produce as of the highest standard. The procedures are in place to ensure that nothing less than satisfactory happens and that the highest standards are maintained. The only way we will achieve that is by pulling back the curtains to allow the full light of day to shine in. The information should be made available to the public, and that is the proclaimed intention of the Government. I am surprised at the necessity to debate this matter at great length. The qualified people who will act on this committee should have an opportunity to report to the Dáil, the public, the industry, interests abroad and customers as to what they are doing or recommending. That is part of the openness necessary to achieve the highest standards. I am surprised the Minister cannot support this amendment. I have not yet heard any strong reasons for the Minister's opposition to the amendment and I hope he seriously considers the matter before rejecting it outright.
This is a very important amendment. We would have put down a similar amendment but there was not much point in repeating it. We indicated in the course of the debate that this amendment is necessary. Perhaps the Minister may wish to word the amendment in a different way. It is important that there be an annual report — it need not be a very long document — to inform the House and the public of the work the committee has been asked to undertake and the recommendations it makes.
I too support this amendment. It simply proposes that a report be made each year. We have already discussed the fact that a number of bodies will be involved, all of them for various reasons. It is important that a report be made by the committee. It is essential that we are open in this matter. Wild statements have been made in the past that have done no good to the industry or the country. I ask the Minister, if he is not satisfied with the present wording, to consider rewording the amendment to ensure that a report is made annually.
I am trying as best I can to understand what the Deputies wish to achieve while at the same time considering the operations of the committee. I do not envisage that this committee will sit on a regular basis or will have a considerable amount to report. I take Deputy Molloy's point on transparency. I assure the House it is not my intention to conceal information which would be relevant to the operation of the House or to individual Deputies. I restate the point that this will be an advisory consultative committee. The Minister is the person who is answerable to this House and to the nation and he will be guided and advised on specific technical matters governing the Bill. I cannot understand in what circumstances the opportunity would arise whereby the consultative committee would report to this House.
The matters under consideration would be very much public matters, matters which perhaps Deputy McManus, Deputy Molloy and other Deputies would raise on the Adjournment alerting the Minister to the fact that a problem exists and asking what he will do about it. To the extent that a problem exists the Minister would consult with the advisory committee and he would be answerable to the House in relation to action taken in that regard.
I am not being awkward or difficult, but I am trying to see if there is some justification for Deputy McManus's request in the context of the overall structure of this Bill and the role of the consultative committee. I am not convinced — I say that as kindly as possible — there is a role for this committee to report back to the House.
Maybe I can help the Minister. He is probably forgetting he has conceded that he will be requesting organisations to appoint representatives to the consultative committee. That in itself makes a qualitative difference in that people will not be on the committee at their own behest but will be representing bodies. If at any stage in the future a contentious issue arises and the Minister takes a controversial decision, the people representing those organisations would not have an independent system to which to refer. They would be dependent on the Minister and that would be unfair on them. If I was representing the Consumers Association, farmers or whatever, I would have a difficulty with that because I would be depending on the goodwill of the Minister. I agree we should all be able to depend on the Minister's goodwill, but it is not necessarily guaranteed. I have no doubt about the Minister's integrity and credibility; but we are not talking about a Bill that will establish certain principles. As the principle has been already established that organisations will be represented on the consultative committee, we then have to establish a recording system that is open and transparent, not an elaborate system that will cost money but one that allows people the independence they need in representing large organisations. Otherwise they could end up getting a lot of flak and not having any record to which to refer.
This is an important matter. If the Minister does not follow my logic, which to me and to Deputy Molloy is crystal clear, I ask him at least not to oppose the amendment but to take a second look at it. It is a point about which I feel very strongly.
I too feel very strongly about this matter. I realise there is a guillotine on this debate.
We may be getting somewhat repetitious on this matter.
We are not being repetitious on this matter, but I am anxious to move on. If we do not reach some of the main provisions in the Bill it is a strange way to do business. I would point out to the Minister that one of the purposes of this Bill as set out in the explanatory memorandum is to provide for the regulation of the availability, possession and use of animal remedies and for the prescription of maximum permitted residues of animal remedies in foods of animal origin. Those matters are of extreme importance to the public, farmers, the industry and our customers abroad. If a consultative committee advised as to the permissibility of levels of residues it is important that the public knows what is being advised. The Minister is saying he sees no reason to let the public know what advice is being given, but I do not accept that; nor will the public accept it. The Minister may not have given much consideration to this matter. He believes this committee will not meet very often and will not have to be referred to very much. I hope the Minister is right, but I see it as a further assurance to the people that we are striving to ensure that what goes into the food process is of the highest order that we have procedures in operation to achieve the best possible standards and that people have absolute confidence in the produce of the Irish farmer and the Irish meat industry. We all have a common objective and I cannot understand the reason the Minister does not see the necessity to publish the work of this committee. Their work could be vital in certain instances if some matters are to be permitted and others are not. This is all part of the transparency to which the Minister subscribes and the openness we are anxious to achieve. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, perhaps he would indicate he is prepared to consider it for Report Stage. I do not know what Deputy McManus's attitude would be, but if we got an assurance from the Minister we could move on to the next item; otherwise we will have to take a serious stand.
I take very seriously the views expressed by both Deputies as I know they are sincere and genuine in relation to the case put forward. I have explained — and I do not want to be repetitious — that I do not see the need for this committee to report to the House on the basis that in the final analysis the Minister has to report to the House. While I cannot recall any body, I am sure there are many voluntary advisory committees within other Government Departments who advise the Minister or Ministers of State in relation to specific aspects of their administration and who do not have to report to the House. Their role of advising the Minister is merely a consultative role. To the extent that both Deputies are genuine in the case they are making, I will look at the matter again before Report Stage, if that is acceptable. My personal view, as of now, is as already expressed. Both Deputies are concerned and perhaps we could discuss with the consultative committee, when established, whether they would wish their advice to the Minister to be discussed in the House. I will think about it and report back on Report Stage.
Is Deputy McManus pressing her amendment?
I want some more information before I press the amendment.
We cannot have any more repetition.
I would remind the Minister that the Beef Tribunal would never have been necessary if questions had been answered clearly. While the Minister said he would review the matter, he also said he does not see any necessity for it. I do not want to be fobbed off and I do not see any point in accepting what the Minister says — although I would like to — unless there is a genuine understanding that there is a need for some kind of record of this type. If he can say he understands the argument and accepts the principle involved, I would be happy to leave it with him. However, if he does not accept it there is no point in his wasting time reviewing it, in which case I would put the amendment to a vote.
I want to be as helpful as I can to the Deputy. I have expressed my judgment in relation to the case put forward by both Deputies. I am not convinced of the need for the committee to report to the House if the committee is advising the Minister and the Minister is consulting with the committee. I can think of cases where other committees advise Ministers and do a good job and the Minister benefits considerably from their advice. I am prepared to examine this question again, bearing in mind the sincerity of the views expressed by Deputies McManus and Molloy, to see whether there is a need for this committee to report; if so, I will come back with something positive.
I fully subscribe to the idea of transparency, but transparency can be projected through the various organisations which these individuals will represent. The farming organisations would not be slow to highlight some particular aspect of animal health matters if the Minister did not act on the advice given and the same would apply to the other sectors. I do not think one could even envisage a situation where there would not be transparency in relation to the advice which would be available. I say that in all sincerity, because the organisations themselves, through their nominees, would create the level of transparency about which the Deputy is concerned. I will examine the position to see whether there is justification for the committee reporting to the House and consult with the committee with a view to ascertaining whether the public interest would best be served in terms of their openly publishing their advice to the Minister. I have reservations on it. I hope the Deputy will not press the amendment, but I am prepared to examine it.
Is Deputy McManus pressing her amendment?
Yes.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 71.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Barry, Peter.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Carey, Donal.
- Clohessy, Peadar.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connor, John.
- Cox, Pat.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Creed, Michael.
- Cullen, Martin.
- Currie, Austin.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Keogh, Helen.
- Lowry, Michael.
- McCormack, Pádraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McManus, Liz.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Nealon, Ted.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- De Rossa, Proinsias.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Flaherty, Mary.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fox, Johnny.
- Foxe, Tom.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harney, Mary.
- Harte, Paddy.
- Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Malley, Desmond J.
- Owen, Nora.
- Quill, Máirín.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shatter, Alan.
- Sheehan, P.J.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Yates, Ivan.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Bell, Michael.
- Bhamjee, Moosajee.
- Bree, Declan.
- Brennan, Matt.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Broughan, Tommy.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Burton, Joan.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Connolly, Ger.
- Costello, Joe.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Ellis, John.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Brian.
- Fitzgerald, Eithne.
- Fitzgerald, Liam.
- Flood, Chris.
- Foley, Denis.
- Gallagher, Pat.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hughes, Séamus.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Kavanagh, Liam.
- Kemmy, Jim.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Kenny, Seán.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Kitt, Michael P.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Martin, Micheál.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- Moffatt, Tom.
- Morley, P.J.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Mulvihill, John.
- Nolan, M.J.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Sullivan, Gerry.
- Penrose, William.
- Power, Seán.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, John.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Upton, Pat.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Walsh, Eamon.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies McManus and E. Kenny; Níl, Deputies Briscoe and Ferris.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
We now come to amendment No. 11. I observe that amendments Nos. 12 and 16 are related. Is the House agreed that they be discussed together? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 8, lines 14 to 16, to delete subsection (3).
It is difficult to understand why those sections are inserted in the Bill. Section 4 (3) states that subsection (1) shall not apply to the importation in bulk of an animal remedy otherwise than in the container or outer wrapper in which it is intended to be put on sale. If we are serious about this matter we need to have total control and it is difficult to understand why this subsection or subsection (5) should be inserted in the Bill. We must ensure that this Bill can be enforced and we do not want any weakness in it. Perhaps the Minister will explain why those subsections are included.
A large proportion of this Bill deals with the question of identifying illegal substances. A number of sections deal specifically with the labelling of the commodites concerned. The difficulty I have in regard to the Deputy's amendment is that the same specific requirements would have to apply to the large bulk importation of products as would apply to the single product when it eventually appears in the chemist shop or when it is administered by a veterinary surgeon. The Deputy's point in regard to the need to be able to identify clearly the contents of all importations into the country, particularly in this area, deserves further consideration from our point of view. I am prepared to examine that and report back to the House on Report Stage. I would like, however, to remind the House that specific regulations govern all imports vis-à-vis customs clearance and so on; but I appreciate that those clearances could never relate to the specific ingredients in various imported items. This is an important area. We will give further consideration to it and perhaps we will be in a position to do something about it on Report Stage.
I thank the Minister for his commitment. We do not wish to tie anything up in knots, but if we are serious about knowing exactly what is being imported and from where it comes we must ensure that the paperwork and the labelling is as foolproof as possible. I accept the Minister's commitments to examine it before Report Stage. However, I assure him that if it is not to our satisfaction we will have more to say at that stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12 not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 8, subsection (5) (a) (iii), line 39, to delete "Advertising" and substitute "Advertisement".
This is merely a drafting amendment and I ask the House to agree to it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, subsection (5) (a) (iii), line 39, after "1989" to insert ", and the Medical Preparations (Licensing, Advertisement and Sale) (Amendment) Regulations, 1993 (S.I. No. 70 of 1993)".
Again, this is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 8, subsection (5) (b) (i), line 46, after "the provisions of" to insert "paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of".
This is another drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
Section 4, as amended, agreed to.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 11, subsection (2) (a) (ii), line 35, to delete "for the purpose of slaughtering it".
It is difficult to understand why the wording here —"Selling or otherwise supplying the animal to another person for the purpose of slaughtering it", — is used. If there is any doubt in respect of animals they should not be sold. I would like the Minister to clarify why that wording is used. If he cannot explain the purpose of the wording, he should delete it.
There is some merit in the point raised by the Deputy. We are having consultations with the Attorney General's Office for the purpose of seeking legal clarification with regard to the matter. We will report back on Report Stage.
The wording appears strange. It does not make sense in its present form. I accept that the Minister is seeking legal advice in regard to it.
I take the Deputy's point; it has some merit. On examining the amendment and re-reading the section we considered it was necessary to seek further clarification in respect of the wording and we have sought the advice of the Attorney General's Office in this regard.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
We now come to amendment No. 18. Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22 are related and, therefore, may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 21, to delete "implied" and substitute "express".
We want this Bill to be effective and the use of the word "implied" in respect of the implied condition on the part of the seller that all reasonable precautions have been taken is very indefinite. I suggest the word "express" is absolute and should be substituted for the word "implied". We would not be here today if the law in this area had been more exact. We would not have to introduce this Bill and we would avoid much anxiety among those who are trying to bring the misusers of animal remedies to justice. For that reason we want the Bill to be as foolproof as possible. I am not a lawyer but the advice I have received indicates that the use of the words "implied condition" is not strong enough. Will the Minister state why the word "express" should not be used to ensure there is no doubt or ambiguity in regard to the provisions of this Bill?
This proposal relates to a provision which would imply certain conditions relating to the correct use, if any, of animal remedies in every contract of sale of an animal. In our view there is no need for such an amendment. The present wording of the section conforms to the usual wording used in legislation which creates implied contractual obligations — obligations which are not in writing but implied in contract by law. Substituting the word "express" would not achieve any extra benefit for the operation of this legislation and would not provide any better de facto control on the ground.
I am disappointed that the Minister has stated that it is usual to include the word "implied" in Bills. This Bill is before the House because the contents of previous Bills have been usual and not exact. That is why we have had to introduce this Bill. The wording here is extremely important. I ask the Minister to consider this amendment, or to put down an amendment using a different form of wording. From the information available to me the use of the word "implied" is not strong enough and could be questioned and perhaps misconstrued. We wish to help the Minister to ensure that this Bill is workable and that we will not have to amend it after some legal case.
I support the amendment. Its purpose is to assist the Minister and make the Bill stronger by including words that will leave no doubt as to their meaning. If it only implied that something might happen, that is not a strong condition. If that condition were an expressed one, it would have to ensure that something would happen. The word "implied" is much weaker than the word proposed in this amendment. This is an example of the Opposition being willing to assist the Minister by strengthening this legislation to make workable to the fullest extent the controls this Bill seeks to achieve.
The word "implied" is an important one in legal terms. It is used in relation to many contracts in the commercial area, including farming. To concede to the request in the amendment to use the word "express" would create enormous difficulties in terms of normal farm trading. When one uses the word "express" one would have to have a written contractual arrangement in relation to most transactions. I am sure the Deputies opposite will appreciate that to proceed down that road would disrupt trading, particularly in relation to agriculture. The word "implied" is one which is readily understood. When one buys an agricultural or other product, implied in that transaction is the understanding that the product being purchased is a genuine article and is in accordance with the implied contract for sale. I do not consider that word creates any problems. To use the word "express" would create enormous problems if we were to pursue that matter in respect of the provision in the legislation. While I appreciate the Deputy is trying to be helpful, the amendment would not be operable in respect of all that would be involved.
There are two weakneses in the wording as it appears in the Bill. First, there is the "implied" condition which we are discussing but there is also the requirement on the seller that all reasonable precautions be taken. That in itself is not very strong but we are willing to overlook "the reasonable precautions" because reasonable precautions to one person may not mean the same to another. The reason for the amendment was to have an express condition inserted.
"Express" is a definitive word which would have to be backed up in terms of a contractual arrangement which would make normal trading, particularly in agriculture, extremely difficult. However, as I said previously, the word "implied" has always meant that the product purchased is genuine in terms of the sale. While I understand what the Deputies are saying in relation to the use of the word "express" I hope they appreciate what would be involved if I went to the Deputy to buy five or six of his Charolais bullocks and requested a written guarantee that they had not been treated with growth promoters; it would cause immense trading difficulties. On the other hand, in the context of Irish law and what is understood in relation to the word "implied" it carries a serious contractual agreement in relation to the products being purchased.
That brings us to the second amendment. The reason they were tabled separately is that if one was accepted the other would not be as important. However, we have the issue of "implied" on the one hand and "all reasonable precautions have been taken and all due diligence has been exercised to ensure" on the other. Both elements are weak and I hope the Minister will agree there is a necessity, if he is retaining the word "implied", to delete the second section. As an ordinary farmer I want to ensure this Bill is foolproof and the systems workable. However, we are not implementing this Bill for the ordinary farmer, but to bring criminals to justice. I make no apology for saying that. The majority of ordinary farmers live within the law and want to produce a quality product. Some people are caught but could not be pursued because the law was too weak. We are now trying to ensure that the Bill is debated fully in this House and that difficulties will not arise in the future. We want to improve the Bill and ensure that it is sound and workable.
Deputy Crawford's comments are reasonable because we are indicating that in the case of the sale of an animal, it was not treated with an animal remedy. That is reasonable because any producer of animals should be able to give an express assurance on the sale of their animals that they were not treated with drugs prior to being sold.
As I indicated earlier the word "implied" is important and has specific meaning in legal terms. I do not want to be repetitious but the implementation of the amendment could create serious trading difficulties for the people concerned.
The other point is in relation to the implementation of the word "implied". If one purchases a product, livestock or otherwise, sold under the implied contractual arrangements, it is open to each individual to take legal action if the conditions are not complied with. At the end of the day, as the Deputy said, we want this legislation to work. Therefore, we must put workable provisions in this Bill, the use of the word "express" would create difficulties in relation to specific trading arrangements.
Is Deputy Crawford pressing amendment No. 18?
Yes.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 19 to 22, inclusive, not moved.
Section 7 agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 14, subsection (2) (b) (i), between lines 41 and 42, to insert the following:
"(V) the movement to or from any place of any animal which is not or has not been identified or marked otherwise than in accordance with this Act and the regulations made thereunder (including regulations deemed to have been made or continued in force by virtue of section 8 (8) or 31 (1)),".
This amendment is designed to make it clear that the general provision contained in section 19 (1) (a), which provides power for the Minister to make regulations relating to the identification and marking of animals, can include controls on the movement of animals which are not so identified or marked. This is not a substantive amendment; rather it is designed to give greater clarity to the section. It is important that we broaden the section sufficiently so that all these animals can be identified.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No.24:
In page 15, subsection (2) (b) (iii), line 15, to delete "and" and substitute "or".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 16, subsection (2) (b) (vii), line 21, after "derived from," to insert "an animal or".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No.27 is an alternative to amendment No. 26.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 17, lines 13 to 23, to delete subsection (4).
Section 8 gives extraordinary power to the Minister to specify that certain particulars set out in section 4 (1) need not be published in relation to certain types of animal remedies where he is satisfied that, having regard to the type of animal remedy or to the form of advertisement or other promotion, it would not be reasonable or practicable to require such publication. Will the Minister explain this provision?
Section 8 (4) provides the Minister with powers to exempt certain forms of publication from the need to include all the details required under section 4 (1), for example, advertising on radio and television. The acceptance of this amendment would cause considerable difficulties and would make the overall provision impossible to implement.
I support the points made by the Minister. I have in my hand a biro which was given to me during the elections to Seanad Éireann. The words "Senator Francis O'Brien, Agricultural Panel" are appropriately inscribed on the biro. If a chemical company was to seek to use the same device to advertise their goods, there would be an obligation on it, under this amendment, to provide details on the biro of all the ingredients used by it, an impossible thing to do. The Minister's approach is both practical and sensible.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 17, subsection (4) (a), line 16, after "Subsection (1)" to insert "or 5 (b) (ii)".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 18, subsection (6) (b) (ii), line 9, after "or any" to insert "class of".
This is also a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 18, subsection (7), line 19, after "and" to insert "to or".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 18, subsection (7), line 21 to delete "on that animal".
Is this a drafting amendment which will tighten up the section?
That is correct.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 18, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following subsection:
"(8) The Minister shall make regulations providing for the licensing of wholesalers and retailers of animal remedies. Such regulations shall provide for—
(a) requirements as to fitness to hold a licence,
(b) requirements as to the suitability of premises for the carrying on of a wholesale or retail trade in animal remedies, including the security of such premises and their fitting for the proper handling of animal remedies, and
(c) the keeping of adequate records to ensure that animal remedies received at or sold from the premises, or both, can be adequately traced.".
As the Minister will be aware there is a very strongly held view within the chemical industry that regulations of this kind and the licensing of wholesalers and retailers is an absolute necessity if we are to achieve the objectives set out in this Bill. The Minister is nodding his head in agreement. I hope he agrees with the point I have made. He may also have heard the argument in favour of this amendment, which I hope he will accept.
I support this amendment. It is important that those involved in the chemical industry are properly monitored so that they can be traced. The licensing of wholesalers and retailers who provide animal remedies is absolutely vital. Much reference has been made to vanmen who have caused extreme damage to the livestock industry. It is very important that these people can be traced. The Bill proposes that animals which are slaughtered should be free of such substances. If this is to be achieved we must be able to trace the people who provide these substances and take legal action, if necessary. I am glad the Minister is nodding his head in agreement on this vitally important issue.
The provisions in section 8 are wide enough to encompass the type of regulations envisaged by both Deputies. It is a requirement of Council Directive 81/851, as amended, the licensing and controls should operate on wholesale and retail establishments. Regulations will be made after the Bill comes into force providing for that. Each of the items referred to by the Deputies can then be taken into consideration. I hope this meets Deputy Molloy's concerns.
Will the Minister repeat the directive number?
It is directive 81/851 EEC.
I accept the Minister's explanation. As far as I am concerned, that would meet the requirement. If the Minister has given an assurance here that registration will become a requirement, I will accept that.
Yes.
On a point of information, there are two directives involved. There is some concern about delay in implementing the regulations. What kind of timescale does the Minister envisage between the passage of this Bill and the coming into force of regulations?
The Deputy can take it from me that there will be no undue delay. The fact that I requested Committee Stage of the Bill to be brought before the House quickly is an indication of my genuine concern to ensure that the provisions will be implemented as quickly as possible. I cannot give a specific timescale as I do not want to mislead the House, but there will be no undue delay.
It is extremely important that the regulations be implemented quickly. Apart from EC regulations, we must have our own regulations in place and be certain that there is no danger. The issue of the suitability of premises is vital. I have major anxieties about leaving a weakness in the Bill in relation to who holds licences, the condition of premises and so on. The Garda and Department officials have had to run around private houses without being sure where goods are kept and where they should be kept. If the Bill is to be put into operation we need proper premises and proper records. Our amendment is to try to improve the situation. I am not altogether satisfied that the Minister has given a sufficient reply and that we will have adequate traceback. A lot of angel dust was found in cardboard boxes and we were not too sure what it was. If animal remedies were kept in proper promises and properly controlled, we would be better satisfied that the Minister and his representatives could implement this Bill. That is what we all want.
Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that the regulations implementing this part of the directive will be brought into force within two months of the Act being passed and signed by the President?
Already, in advance of the final passage of this Bill, we are having consultations on certain aspects of its implementation. When this Bill is passed we will have the most advanced legislation in Europe in relation to controlling illegal substances. We should all take credit for that because the House has been unanimous in supporting the provisions of the Bill. I intend to ensure that we deal effectively and positively with what is and has been a threat to the meat industry in this country and to consumers, who at the end of the day must be considered.
I did not get an answer to the question I asked. Will the Minister assure the House that these regulations will be introduced within two months of the Act being passed and signed by the President? The Minister replied by saying that he is having consultations. I would have expected that consultations would be in progress and would be at an advanced stage. I am anxious to determine if the Minister will commit himself to a timespan for the introduction of these regulations. These are considered to be crucial to the successful operation of this Bill.
To give a timescale would be running the risk for misleading the House and that is not my intention. There will not be any avoidable delay in the implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
What is your expectation?
Let me respond. The Bill when passed must go to the Attorney General for his imprimatur. Once it is passed here there will be certain aspects of it over which I will have no direct control. I would reassure the Deputy that I will pursue the matter diligently to ensure the implementation of its provisions as quickly as possible. An indication of my concern is the speed with which the Committee Stage was brought before the House.
It is an extraordinary assertion by the Minister that the Attorney General has some statutory role between the passage of this legislation and its signing by the President. The role of the Attorney General, is in the preparation of the Bill before it is presented here and before the Minister accepts the Final Stage. Would the Minister explain what role the Attorney General would have after the Bill is passed. Will the Minister give me his estimate of how long it will take before these regulations can be implemented? Obviously, I will not hold the Minister to a specific date, but I would like his estimate. Is the Minister talking of one, two or three months?
My reference to the Attorney General related to the implementation of the regulations which will emanate from this Bill. I would like to be able to tell the Deputy that we can move within a certain timescale but, if I did, I would mislead the House. All I can say is that there will not be any delay as far as I am concerned.
I welcome the Minister's assurance that when this Bill is passed we will have the most advanced legislation in Europe for the control of illegal substances. That is contrary to what a Government backbencher said earlier. I am glad that the Minister is now putting on record that we will have the most advanced legislation in Europe so that we can market our produce openly in competition with everybody else. That is the idea behind the Bill and the amendments we have tabled today.
This Bill will achieve nothing because it is merely enabling legislation. One cannot adjudicate on it until one sees the regulations to be made under it. It would be wrong of anyone to suggest that under this Bill the most advanced controls in Europe will be put into operation. It all depends on what regulations are put in place.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.