Written Answers. - EU Regulations Breaches.
John Ellis
Question:
103
Mr. Ellis
asked the
Minister for Enterprise and Employment
the prosecution policy of the Director of Consumer Affairs in relation to breaches of the EU (Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1982.
[13100/96]
John Ellis
Question:
104
Mr. Ellis
asked the
Minister for Enterprise and Employment
the cost of prosecuting retailers in breach of the EU (Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of Foodstuff) Regulations, 1982; and if he will consider introducing amending legislation in order to put the onus on manufacturers and suppliers rather than on retailers in relation to these directives.
[13118/96]
John Ellis
Question:
105
Mr. Ellis
asked the
Minister for Enterprise and Employment
the number of prosecutions in relation to breaches of the EU (Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1982 in each of the years from 1982 to date in 1996; and the area that has had the greatest number of prosecutions on geographical basis.
[13119/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 103, 104 and 105 together.
The legislation to implement the European Communities (Labelling, Presentation and Advertising of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1982, more commonly known as the Food Labelling Regulations, came into force in 1982. Enforcement of its provisions did not, however, begin until 1988, when the Director of Consumer Affairs was given statutory responsibility in this area. Since then the number of prosecutions has been as follows: 1988, two; 1989, one; 1990, four; 1991, one; 1992, none; 1993, none; 1994, three; 1995, two; and 1996, seven. Available statistics show that the greatest number of prosecutions on a geographical basis have been in the Dublin, Cork, Leitrim and Sligo areas.
Regarding costs incurred by the Office of the Director of Consumer Affairs in prosecuting offences under the regulations, it is not possible to isolate these costs from other costs incurred by the Director's office. However, the single biggest and most identifiable element of the total cost of a prosecution is that which relates to retaining legal representation and, on average, that amounts to £200 per case. The other costs would be those associated with the Director's other legal and administrative expenses and the travel and subsistence expenses of his technical staff, both in relation to the detection of the offence and its prosecution. Depending on the decision of the judge, costs can be awarded to the Director which offset to some extent his incurred costs.
The Deputy has expressed concern regarding the onus of compliance being on the retailer in relation to the regulations. The 1982 regulations make it an offence to sell foodstuffs which do not comply. This in effect allows the Director to prosecute not only a retailer but also a producer who is selling direct to the public or who is selling on to the retailer. If the product is sold indirectly through a supplier then the supplier can be prosecuted. In practice most prosecutions are against retailers because in many instances the manufacturer will be outside the jurisdiction of the State which would make prosecution impossible. Furthermore, many products are repackaged by the retailer which would make prosecution of the manufacturer inappropriate.
Regarding prosecution policy, when the director is of the view that the regulations are being infringed he first draws the alleged infringement to the attention of the retailer or supplier or manufacturer, as appropriate, and gives them an opportunity to rectify the matter. It is only where his warning has not been heeded that the Director considers initiating prosecution proceedings, which he regards as a last resort.
As a general point of information, it is worth noting that, in accordance with section 9 of the Consumer Information Act, 1978, the Director is independent in the performance of his functions.
