Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 4 Jun 1998

Vol. 491 No. 7

Food Safety Authority of Ireland Bill, 1998: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Bradford

Prior to the adjournment of the debate yesterday I was dealing with section 48(12) which obliges the Food Safety Authority to act where the terms of a service contract are not being met. While it is necessary to include this provision, I seek further details on how the Authority will respond. The section states that where the terms of a service contract are not being met the Authority may without delay make suitable alternative arrangements. What form will these take? If it is deemed that a certain service contractor is doing a poor job and alternative arrangements have be made, will the contract be offered to one of the other agencies listed in the Schedule or will the Authority be in a position to seek tenders and, if so, could persons currently working in the health boards, local authorities, the Department of Health and Children and the Department of Agriculture and Food end up losing their jobs to persons currently working in the private sector?

On the independence of the Authority, the Minister claimed the Bill will ensure greater transparency in the field of food safety. The previous Government proposed to appoint a regulator. That would be a much better way of monitoring food safety. Such a regulator would have no responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the various agencies but would have the power to intervene. A thorough audit or inspection by an independent supervisory agency would ensure greater transparency, unlike the proposed confused arrangement between the Authority and service contractors. The Authority will offer contracts to those service contractors best placed to meet the conditions laid down. This is a step in the wrong direction. This matter will have to be teased out in greater detail on Committee Stage. I am concerned about the effect it will have on staff morale.

A fully independent and autonomous Authority will employ up to 2,000 staff. Where will they be located? Why should Government Departments and agencies be required to make premises available? This issue will have to be thoroughly addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

On the structure of the Authority, the board will consist of ten members to be appointed by the Minister. This represents a slight increase in the number originally proposed. I welcome the fact that the chairperson of the scientific committee will be a member of the board and that in appointing members the Minister will have regard to relevant scientific qualifications and experience. The committee will be able to provide an early and detailed response whenever there is a food scare and other problems arise.

I am happy to support the establishment of the Food Safety Consultative Council, although I am not certain there is a need to appoint up to 24 members. It will ensure all issues of concern are the subject of the broadest possible debate.

We have belatedly come to accept that the interests of the consumer and the producer overlap. The producer who plays a key role in the economy which is heavily dependent on agriculture has to accept that there is a need for the highest standards. If we have learned anything from the BSE crisis, it is that anything that is bad for the consumer will quickly have an equally negative effect on the producer. Farming organisations now accept this argument and are to the fore in pushing for the highest standards of hygiene in food preparation. We must protect the food supply from the farm to the fork. All Government policies in the field of agriculture and the various grant schemes, including REPS, must be geared towards ensuring this.

While I welcome the establishment of the Authority, I am gravely concerned about the way the Minister has gone about his business. I am concerned in particular about the terms of the service contracts. There was a more straightforward and simpler approach but the Minister has not availed of that option.

The local authorities and the Department of the Environment and Local Government are not included in the list of official agencies included in the Second Schedule. What does this mean for those currently employed as veterinary officers in the county councils? It was suggested last year that they should be transferred to the Department of Agriculture and Food but to the best of my knowledge no progress has been made. I suspect they wish to remain as employees of the Department of the Environment and Local Government.

I hope I have not been too critical. The Authority should be established at the earliest possible date. I am concerned, however, about a number of issues which I hope we will be able to resolve on Committee Stage.

Ms Shortall

I wish to share my time with Deputy Upton.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is agreed.

Ms Shortall

The Food Safety Authority is one of the most important consumer protection bodies ever established in the State. It has a crucial role in the protection of consumer interests and in the provision of information to enable the consumer make informed choices regarding food safety. For the Food Safety Authority to achieve these important tasks, it is important it is placed on a statutory basis with dedicated legislation governing its establishment, composition and operation.

During the recent past the Government parties made great play about adopting a new approach to the Food Safety Authority, but with the publication of this Bill we see those claims are baseless because it does not alter significantly the role of the Food Safety Authority as envisaged by the previous Government. One wonders why there has been such a delay in drawing up this legislation. There appears to be a touch of window dressing about it.

On a number of occasions we were promised various legislation, but to date this is the first Bill to emerge from the Department of Health and Children since the Government took office almost a year ago. After 12 months we are still awaiting important legislation, such as the promised Health (Amendment) Bill, which is intended to reorganise the health services and replace the Eastern Health Board, and the long awaited mental health Bill. Yet the Minister for Health and Children seems unable to produce that legislation. One must wonder why that is the case. Is it an indication of a lack of interest or are there problems in the Department? Why has the Department produced only one Bill given that the Government has been in office for almost a year?

This Bill is an attempt to provide a sound comprehensive legislative basis for the Food Safety Authority. The Labour Party welcomes its publication in principle. However, the Bill, as presented to the House, is flawed and fails to enshrine in legislation the consumer focused philosophy that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland needs to make a real difference to food safety standards here. The Labour Party intends to table a range of amendments to strengthen the Bill.

We want a Food Safety Authority that is relevant to ordinary shoppers in the high street and one in which consumers to have a real say in its policy and direction. The Bill fails to achieve those important goals in key areas. I hope the Minister will engage with Members on Committee Stage so that we can amend the legislation to give the Food Safety Authority the comprehensive legislation it deserves.

Food accounts for 23 per cent of household expenditure in Ireland and is the largest item in the household budget. Irish consumers spend £4 billion on food annually or, on average, in excess of £3,500 annually per household. The food industry employs directly 37,000 people and more than twice that number are employed in associated enterprises that service the industry. In addition, 150,000 farmers are engaged in food production. Food exports are vital to our economic importance and the maintenance of thousands of jobs throughout the State.

The rights of consumers and their welfare concerns must take precedence over all other aspects of the industry. In the past, particularly since the emergence of BSE and the e-coli bacteria scare, consumer concerns centre on the safety, nutritional merit, cost and ethical concerns about the methods of food production and manufacture. It is important we should have a well resourced body dedicated to addressing these concerns and undoubtedly the Food Safety Authority will fulfil that role.

The Food Safety Authority has been operating on an interim basis under the Health Corporate Bodies Act, 1961. It has been awaiting its independent statutory legislative basis for some time. However, since the merger of the Food Safety Authority and the Food Safety Advisory Board on 1 January 1998, a considerable amount of work has already been achieved. I would like to compliment the work of the authority to date, in particular, that of its chief executive, Dr. Patrick Wall. The authority has established a one stop shop on food safety and information. It has also had the energy and foresight to launch a detailed and informative website that enables citizens across the country to have access to data, information and news from it. That is important work. It makes a clear statement about the focus of the authority which is on the individual consumer. The authority requires and deserves legislation that will recognise the central role of the consumer and promote the relationship between it and the consumer, but this legislation fails to satisfactorily achieve that goal.

On the work of the authority to date, I would like the Minister to clarify his intentions regarding the accessibility of information. The one stop shop concept is critical for supplying consumers with all the relevant information they require. Quite often in this age of information overload the presentation and availability of information under one roof is the key task facing information providers. With its Dublin office and website, the Food Safety Authority is addressing this need to some extent, but there are still major problems concerning accessibility.

Use of information technology and especially hi-tech innovations, such as the Internet, is unbalanced in demographic terms. There is an information gap in society and it is important for the Government to take effective action to ensure that a new social division between the information poor and the information rich does not develop. However, the information gap is a fact of life and the Internet site alone does not provide adequate access to information on food safety to many of our population. The authority and the Minister should take steps to address this situation and serious consideration should be given to the establishment of regional mobile information units that could travel to the major towns and villages outside the capital, inform people of the authority's work and provide them with access to information.

Regarding the specific detail of the Bill, the Labour Party has serious concerns about section 14. It deals with the establishment of the consultative council which will provide consumer interests with the most direct influence on the work and ethos of the Food Safety Authority. However, as with consultative bodies everywhere, it is important to ensure that body does not become a mere talking shop and the Bill needs to be strengthened to achieve that.

Section 14 (2) states "the Council shall consist of not more than 24 members and shall be broadly based and representative". That subsection is weak and lacks definition. The consultative council should be a significant forum for consumer interests to be aired and dealt with by the authority. Given the central role that consumers must have in the FSA, the legislation should explicitly state the role of consumers in the consultative council. A serious oversight of the Bill is its failure to give statutory recognition to the role of the consumer in that body and that needs to be changed.

The consultative council will be appointed by the board in consultation with the Minister. It is important the work of the consultative council is made accessible to the general public and the Bill should include a requirement for the council to hold a minimum of its meetings in public. That would allow the general public, the consumers the authority is intended to protect, to have an insight into its workings. That would also be in keeping with a policy of open Government and administration that is sadly lacking in many aspects of public life. An amendment to the Bill requiring the consultative council to allow the public access to its deliberations, where practicable, would enhance the Bill and the public's engagement with the work of the authority.

Subsection (7) of the Bill states the "Authority may publish the opinions of the Council". That subsection undermines the independence of the consultative council and could lead to tension between the consultative council and the authority which could damage the whole process. It also reduces the amount of information available to the public on food safety and it should be changed.

A number of options are available. The authority should be under an obligation to publish all opinions of the council or the consultative council should be empowered to publish its own opinions as it sees fit, which would be the preferred option. That would lead to a more open consultative process and remove the potential for tension that exists as the Bill is currently formulated.

Other sections require amendment to ensure the vitality of the role of the consultative council. Section 48 (8) should contain a provision that would oblige the authority to furnish copies of reports received from agencies executing service contracts to the consultative council. Section 37 does not contain provision for the consultative council to require or request meetings with the chief executive. The chief executive will form a pivotal role in the Food Safety authority and it is important this legislation should define a relationship between the consultative council and the chief executive. The Bill does not provide any mechanism for this relationship to develop and this should be addressed. In spite of the Minister's comments about the various arms of the authority interlocking, there are significant weaknesses in this area.

Similarly, the Bill does not provide for any structures to facilitate information exchange between the consultative council and the scientific committee. Section 34 should contain a provision that would oblige the authority to furnish copies of reports from the scientific committee to the consultative council. The section should also provide for contact and dialogue between the chairperson of the scientific committee and the consultative council.

The Bill is vague about service contracts entered into by the authority and other agencies. I concur with many of the comments made by Deputy Bradford. I am not clear if the Minister's intention is that the authority will emerge as the main inspection body for food safety and if the current role of local authorities and health boards will diminish under the new regime instituted. I would be obliged if the Minister will clarify his intentions at an early date. Serious efforts must be made to deal with the many staff interests if there are to be significant changes in their terms of employment.

It would also be of benefit if the Minister gave an undertaking that the necessary resources needed will be provided to ensure that health boards and local authorities can adequately carry out their inspection functions when contracted to do so by the authority. The real weight and authority of the new food safety institution is closely related to the resources allocated to it. This is especially true in the case of inspection procedures and the agencies with which the authority will enter into contracts. At present the resources of health boards and local authorities are often stretched to the limit and additional resources to comply with the authorities' service contracts undoubtedly will be required. There is no point putting the onus back on the existing agencies to improve standards unless the Government is prepared to provide them with the necessary resources to do so.

These are just some of the shortcomings of the Bill. These issues will be debated more extensively on Committee Stage. The provisions for the consultative council are undoubtedly inadequate and must be strengthened to ensure public confidence and public engagement with the work of the authority.

In addition to the specifics of the Bill I will mention the task facing the authority in the coming years. The safety of the food we eat has become an important issue for every family in recent years. In the wake of the recent BSE scare we saw how ordinary families adjusted their purchasing patterns and moved away from purchasing beef in significant numbers. The recent food scare regarding a butcher's shop on the southside of Dublin also points to the seriousness of the issue.

The Food Safety Authority will have a huge task in educating consumers, retailers and producers in the proper handling and storage of food. There is still a large degree of ignorance about the basic rules governing food hygiene and safety and the authority must institute comprehensive public education programmes to tackle this information deficit. Some retail outlets have poor standards of food safety and do not appear to be aware of the manner in which microscopic bacteria are spread. It is still common to encounter food retailers who do not use gloves when handling fresh produce or who do not understand the need to wash their hands or replace their protective gloves after handling money. It is common to see butchers handling cooked or raw food and then taking money from customers. This practice needs to be outlawed completely because it is a potential health risk.

There is laxity in the handling of food in many homes and many people are unaware of the basic rules governing the storage of food. I am sure the majority of households do not know at what temperature their fridges should be set to ensure that bacteria cannot survive on food. Simple rules relating to the separation of certain foods, such as cooked and uncooked meats, are often ignored.

These practices continue because people do not have ready access to the necessary information regarding food safety. It is amazing that while a large number of people will radically change their purchasing and dietary habits due to concern over a disease, such as BSE which the statistical chances of catching are minute, the same people do not make small and simple changes that will protect them and their families from a range of infections and diseases that could easily occur in their homes or workplaces.

An information and education campaign to tackle this ongoing problem is necessary and the performance of the Food Safety Authority will be judged on its ability to ensure that the required information is provided in an accessible manner. This is why it would be of great benefit to the work of the authority if mobile information units were established on a regional basis to ensure that the maximum number of consumers encounter the work of the authority.

The authority will also have to ensure that an urgent analysis facility, operating seven days a week, is available to analyse samples urgently where there is a strong indication that there is a significant risk to public health. In the case of the butcher's shop on the southside of the city which was at the centre of a scare recently, there was undoubtedly a delay in the analysis of the sample. Where a threat to public health exists delays cannot be tolerated and a system to prioritise samples and deal with them swiftly must be introduced.

Consumers are also concerned about the issue of labelling. All food labelling should contain information regarding the source of the food and the content of the product. Added to this information, cooking and storage requirements should be clearly indicated.

I would be obliged if the Minister would indicate the Government's plans for the authority's co-operation with its counterpart in Northern Ireland. In the British-Irish Agreement, animal and plant health is one of the key areas with which the North-South strand of the agreement will deal. Has the Minister had consultations with his counterpart in Northern Ireland regarding co-operation on this important issue on both sides of the Border? How does the Minister plan to facilitate this co-operation and to enhance it during his term of office?

The Labour Party welcomes the publication of the Bill which establishes the Food Safety Authority on a statutory basis. We have concerns regarding the detail of the legislation and on Committee Stage we will table amendments intended to strengthen the role of the consultative council, improve co-operation between the consultative council, the board and the scientific committee and to improve the public involvement and engagement with the work of the authority.

The authority has made an excellent start to its operations. We wish it well in the coming months and years with the onerous task which it faces. It is a crucially important institution that has the capacity to significantly change attitudes and enforce regulations regarding food safety. These two goals are extremely important for consumers and the food industry. It is right and appropriate than an independent authority should be charged with their implementation.

Dr. Upton

I welcome the Bill which is part of a pattern associated with food scares. This pattern involves an initial scare followed by reassuring noises and comforting statements from the pillars of conventional wisdom and safe talk. However, this is followed by a reduction in consumption which includes a lag period while consumption slowly returns to normal levels. Complacency then sets in and another scare appears in due course and the pattern is repeated.

The Bill is the biggest and most elaborate response to the scares which have occurred. The board sets out to achieve the maximum possible level of food safety through better policing standards, food science facilities, education for the public and improved attitudes on the part of producers and the agencies. I am pleased the Minister for Health and Children introduced the Bill and that the Department of Health and Children will be the primary influence on the activities of the board. However, one hopes the influence will be in the form of benign support rather than modulation of how the authority behaves. The long-term success of the board will centre on two key factors — the quality and ability of those employed by it and the board's budget.

A very good start has been made with the appointment of Dr. Pat Wall and other members of staff. However, the pool of talented independent people who are experts in food science in Ireland is relatively small. Some experts in food science have been influenced by having to defend the system in the past. That is not confined to the world of food science; it is to be found in politics as well. We see ex-Ministers continuing to behave as if they were still Ministers and new Ministers behaving as if they were still in Opposition.

The establishment of the board is a recognition that the status quo is not good enough. It is essential, therefore, that those committed to defending the status quo should not be allowed to exert an undue influence on the new board. The quality of board members will be important and it is no harm to describe the kinds of people who should not be members — those who defend lobbies and those who defend the short-term interests of the agricultural industry have no place on the board. That would not be good for the board, for consumers or for farmers in the long term.

The board does not need a Department representative whose job has always been to defend the Department and who will be a sort of full back for the board to stop people getting through.

Mr. Cowen

I hope Dublin have a good full back next Sunday.

Dr. Upton

Such a person's job is usually to mark people down and close them off rather than to produce an initiative. They have no place on the board and I am sure the Minister will ensure that such people will not be members.

The board's funding will be crucial. The present funding is inadequate. Food safety and quality assurance do not come cheaply and unless we are prepared to invest we will have more problems. Quality is the only way forward for the food industry. The culture of short cuts and soft options must be avoided and the board will have a key role in ensuring that that does not happen. If the board is to be influential it must have enough money to engage in serious, enduring research, and that seems unlikely.

There is an appalling ignorance of the role of research and development in Ireland. Some of the key people who call the shots regarding research do not have a clue and some of them are beyond help. It is impossible to change their minds to the point of understanding that if one invests in research there is a kickback. That is how progressive countries and companies progress. However, those people I am referring to are beyond understanding that simple concept. Another group of people are not totally helpless because they would benefit from a basic remedial course in this phenomenon, The course could be made up of small words, short sentences and two or three figures. Unless the board can invest in research it will not be effective in the long term.

There is a major problem regarding expectations about food safety. A risk free diet of perfectly safe foods is not available. Reducing the risks is the best that can be done. The extent of exposure to the problem can be diminished but not eliminated, though some people want no risk associated with food. There is a craving for certainty in the human condition, but it does not exist in this area. That craving has led to snake oil salesmen in the food sector who say that one can have a perfectly safe diet and that if one uses diet a, b or c the implication is that one will live forever and be disease free. It is important that this board confront this voodoo nonsense.

It is also important to have some understanding of risk and some perspective on where serious risk exists. In the old days we had ghosts, such as the púca. The púca is now extinct and people do not believe in ghosts, but there is still an opportunity for people to scare others by pointing out the limitations and deficiencies of technology. I am not saying that serious risks do not exist, but it is important to get a perspective on those risks and to manage them. We must move forward knowing that progress cannot be achieved without exposing ourselves to some element of risk.

People have stopped eating certain foods because they are afraid of getting BSE, for example, though the risk of getting BSE is very small. Those people drive their cars every day of the week and the risk of a car accident is much higher, not to mention the risks of drinking too much alcohol. People readily take serious risks yet stop eating certain foods because they become afraid of things happening that are very unlikely. Important concerns have been expressed regarding the staff of the new organisation and I hope the Minister empowers the Board to deal effectively with them.

What happened to the concept of "the farm to the fork"? It seemed a good idea, but it does not appear to have developed in the meantime. Will the board or any other body be able to move it forward? It is important that consumers be able to work their way back to see where their food originates, but no significant progress seems to have been made on this matter.

Consumer education in basic principles of food safety and hygiene is very important and has the potential for huge improvement in relation to the incidence of food poisoning. Most food poisoning arises from the activity of fairly boring poisonous microbes. Those could be cleaned up by basic measures in the average household, retail shop or food producing company. Deputy Shortall referred to primitive hygiene in retail outlets. There is huge scope there for diminishing the incidence of food poisoning, yet the public remains ignorant of this. It is a hopeless task to attract the public attention's to this in comparison with BSE. A spongy brain is the type of thing to make people sit up compared to bacteria which cause mild digestive disorders. It is important to deal with the basics of labelling and storing food. We must invest more in food safety. It is essential to develop scientific methods and improve food safety standards in the industry and among members of the public. People do not know how to store food properly in fridges and such basic errors could be corrected at a small cost.

I hope the new authority will invest heavily in promoting that aspect of food safety. It should also develop strategies to deal with recurring scares. I have no doubt that there will be further health scares involving food and the authority must learn the most effective way to manage them.

Mr. E. Ryan

I propose to share time with Deputy Callely.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. E. Ryan

I welcome the Bill because the authority it proposes to establish is long overdue. People's attitudes towards food have changed, as evidenced by the fact that they eat a greater variety of foods and are more conscious of the health aspects of the produce they consume. As a result they are more knowledgeable than in the past and they want to believe that what they are eating is healthy and wholesome. If it is successful, the new authority will restore confidence in the food industry. If consumers are confident about what they are eating, this will have beneficial effects for farmers, producers and manufacturers of food.

The establishment of a food safety authority is long overdue because of the number of scares involving BSE, salmonella, e-coli, etc. The risks of contracting some of these diseases are minute and many of the scares surrounding them were driven more by newspaper headlines than scientific fact. I understand that the risk of contracting CJD is quite small and farmers have argued that beef is safer to eat than many other foods. To a large extent that argument is correct. The production of beef is much safer than the production of poultry, for example. Many people began eating chicken or turkey because they believed these meats were safer than beef. I accept that the consumption of white meat is more beneficial to one's diet, but beef is a more organic food than many poultry products.

Problems surrounding beef production had to be tackled because a certain number of cattle were contaminated. As Deputy Upton stated, once a scare involving a food arises it must be tested scientifically so that people can be informed whether they should eat it. Warnings about certain foods must be based on scientific reasons rather than on newspaper headlines because many health scares have been driven by such headlines in the absence of scientific proof. Much of the food we produce is healthy and wholesome and its quality has improved dramatically. However, the increase in food production has given rise to many problems.

The main responsibility of the new authority will be to ensure the safety and quality of food and the restoration of consumer confidence. Consumers must be in a position to ensure that they are represented within the organisation. The new authority will be the single agency with overall responsibility for the enforcement of national and EU legislative provisions in the area of food safety and hygiene and for the promotion of standards of good practice throughout all stages of food production, distribution and sale. The authority will be formally established in January 1999 and the interim body will remain in office until that time. I welcome the fact consumers are represented on the interim body.

The new authority will come under the direction of the Minister for Health and Children who will also appoint the board and the scientific committee. The authority is important in terms of consumer confidence in agricultural produce and providing assurances to foreign markets about our agricultural exports. The responsibility of reviving confidence in our produce is particularly important in the aftermath of the BSE crisis and other health threatening diseases spread by animal infections and land pollution. The authority will assume responsibility for the functions of existing agencies, the Department of Health and Children and the health boards in this area. Existing agencies will act as agents of the authority in the performance of their contracts. This means there will be a greater degree of uniformity in the inspection regime and it will ensure that public health and consumer confidence take precedence.

The new authority will aim to promote a system of standards from primary production through to final sale and food inspections will be carried out under its guidance and direction. The authority may establish food safety assurance schemes for the protection of consumer interests by itself or in conjunction with other organisations. A food safety council will be established to consult with interim groups on the promotion of standards, etc. The Bill provides for the transfer of staff from existing agencies. Research, advice, co-ordination of services and certification of foods are included in the functions of the authority which will have full powers to ensure that producers follow the highest standards.

I welcome the Bill and the establishment of the food safety authority, a commitment Fianna Fáil gave when in Opposition. The legislation will go a long way to address unnecessary concerns on the part of consumers and it will deal with many of the real problems relating to food production. I hope the food industry will go from strength to strength and that consumers will regain confidence in the food they eat.

Mr. Callely

I congratulate those involved in bringing forward the Bill, particularly the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen. The Bill is designed to provide for a statutory body to be known as the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which will have full responsibility for all safety and hygiene matters. I am pleased that a single agency will have total and sole responsibility for the enforcement of national and EU legislative provisions in the area of food safety and hygiene and for the promotion of standards of good practice throughout all stages of food production, distribution and sale. This will hopefully mean there will be a greater degree of uniformity in the inspection regime and it will ensure that public health and consumer interests will take precedence.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the environmental health officers who currently work in this area under the aegis of the various health boards. These people work on the basis of existing legislation so there should be a degree of uniformity in terms of inspection and controls. However, greater benefit will be gained from the fact that a sole agency — the food safety authority — will retain responsibility in this area.

While emphasis can be put on hygiene enforcement I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the provisions of this Bill will not only contribute to public health but will also serve the economic development of the food sector. I urge caution, especially when EU legislation is involved. Many people find it difficult to make a living from food retailing in restaurants or cafés. They may occupy a unit in a shopping centre and, therefore, do not have total control over the maintenance or alteration of the physical environment. They may be faced with a requirement under EU or other law to make an alteration to the premises which it is not possible for them to carry out readily. This can cause complications. I hope the food authority will be able to take account of such practical issues when dealing with relevant matters. The House will endeavour to ensure the protection of consumers' interests. However, we must also acknowledge the practicalities involved for those selling food to the consumer. They can face great difficulties meeting certain criteria.

An inspector may call to a premises and, under current provisions, may make a report if necessary which can affect the granting of a licence. The procedures allow inspectors to require certain works to be carried out. I am aware of the case where a small café in a shopping centre was inspected and the inspector noticed a number of minor matters needing attention, including a crack in the plaster on the wall and a broken floor tile. All the significant issues relating to food hygiene, preparation and sale were in order. However, because there was a total of seven minor items to be addressed the application for a renewal of the licence was rejected. The proprietor had no alternative but to go through the appeals process, although the inspector had returned to the premises, reinspected the premises and was satisfied that the work had been carried out. In the current economic climate it can be difficult to get hold of a tiler or plasterer to carry out work.

The food safety consultative council should be able to make good recommendations through working with the interested parties on the promotion of standards and other important issues. Slight alterations to current procedures and standards may be required. It would be in the best interests of all concerned if the issues could be addressed pragmatically. When the food authority is up and running the Minister should adopt a pragmatic approach to the simple issues. We must bear mind at all times that consumers' interests should be protected. However, the concerns of those striving to provide industry and to satisfy demand must also be taken on board.

I have tabled many parliamentary questions to the Minister for Agriculture and Food over a long period on the various grants and funds available from the Department. I am surprised at the level of expenditure over many years on the bovine TB and brucellosis eradication programme. It is time we called a halt to it. In excess of £38 million was spent on it in 1997 and similar amounts have been spent annually over many years. I am concerned also at the grants available to farmers, many of whom receive one or more payments. I am baffled at the setaside scheme under which farmers may receive hundreds of thousands of pounds not to use their land.

Young entrepreneurs in the food sector in urban areas who strive to make a livelihood, to provide employment and to supply demand for food have no grants available to them. There are over £962 million worth of grants available under the agriculture and food headings, yet not a penny goes to the entrepreneurs to whom I referred who set up enterprises in Dublin. Sums totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds are paid in setaside grants, £962 million is available to farmers to claim one or more payments and almost £40 million was spent last year on the TB and brucellosis programme. Of what benefit is it? It would stir up a hornets' nest to ask who is responsible for the spread of brucellosis and TB.

There has been much comment on the e-coli and salmonella scares and their effects on the food industry. I raised previously in the House, the question of false allegations made in this House by Members whose families and friends benefited as a result of the tribunal of inquiry into the beef processing industry. There are people in this House with egg on their faces. They made false allegations in this House which had a huge impact on the food industry and were unable to give concrete evidence to back up those allegations when the tribunal was up and running. Millions of pounds were spent investigating the beef processing industry. It would have been much better spent on young entrepreneurs setting up in industry, providing services and so on.

Because of the current economic climate there is a huge increase in disposable income and people eat out much more regularly than before. Will the Government consider expenditure in terms of providing grants in this area? Entrepreneurs should be given assistance. Perhaps money could be made available to enterprise boards under the heading of food. Because of the increase in disposable income and the cultural change whereby many more people eat in restaurants, that matter should be considered favourably.

Ms McManus

I wish to share my time with Deputy Connaughton.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Ms McManus

While the Minister for Health and Children is in the House I wish to make a special plea on behalf of a food which is 100 per cent pure, safe, natural and free. I refer to human milk. I raised in the House previously my concern that the Department of Health and Children does not support the drive for increased breast-feeding among young mothers. Will the Minister consider this aspect of food safety? No food is safer or better than human milk, particularly for very young babies. Yet there is an extremely low level — approximately 30 per cent — of breast-feeding in Ireland. We are literally wasting a primary food and a primary source of nutrition and protection for very young babies. La Leché League applied to the Department of Health and Children for funding — I raised this matter with the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, on a previous occasion — and if the Minister has not already dealt with this application I would ask him to ensure, in the interests of food safety and of the very young, that breast-feeding is given the support it deserves.

I welcome the Bill which is an important step forward in the modernisation of our food sector in terms of its regulation and its development. Food is essential for life, although it is unequally distributed. In parts of the world people are dying from too little food while in other parts people are dying from too much. We are fortunate to live in a country where the vast majority of people have enough to eat, but food has become a national and, at times, a knotty issue. Consumers are more discerning, informed and suspicious than ever before.

A study carried out by the department of medicine in UCG of about 200 shoppers found that every one of those surveyed expressed concern to some degree about the status of the food they buy. Those fears may not always be grounded — most of the time they are probably ungrounded — but they must be addressed. The Food Safety Authority is an important structure to alleviate fears.

We must also consider the international aspect of the authority. Food safety has become a marketing tool, particularly in European countries. It is used very effectively to attract consumers to products. We pride ourselves in having a green image and we must ensure we compete effectively in marketing and in terms of the record in other European countries.

The Bill ensures consumer trust. Provided the authority functions as is desired, the Bill will be effective in terms of allaying fears and in terms of competitiveness. We are talking about every stage from production at farm level to the food on our plates. I was interested to hear the term "from farm to fork", the term I always heard was "from plough to plate", but it has the same meaning. There must be an assurance that at every stage the highest possible standards are guaranteed. If such standards are to be guaranteed there are serious implications in terms of resources, staffing and adequate financing.

The Minister's failure to address these vital factors is revealing and disturbing. He must recognise that the Bill arises from a commitment by the rainbow coalition Government and the work of the Food Safety Authority. When we came to Government the consumer affairs section in the Department of Enterprise and Employment was deplorably under-resourced and neglected. In recognition of the need for consumer protection and the facilities provided by that office, one of the major decisions taken by the last Government was to ensure the office was upgraded, resourced, relocated and adequately staffed. It is ungracious of the Minister not to recognise the good work done by his predecessors.

As a member of the Opposition, I have no difficulty in saying that the expansion and strengthening of the role of the Food Safety Authority is a welcome initiative. Moving on from the role of regulating the regulators towards a central directional role and ultimate responsibility is a significant step forward and I am happy to support it. I wish, however, the Minister was not so grudging in his approach or so parsimonious in his praise.

The Minister should be more explicit about funding. It is very well for Fianna Fáil to claim that it set out a policy in the programme for Government and that it is taking the initiative of introducing legislation, but that is not enough. Funding is critical to the success of the authority. The Minister should have referred in detail to the issue of funding and I hope he will do so in summing up. The authority will be judged on its capability to live up to its new role of direct responsibility. The requirements are considerable, but the budgetary and resource implications have not been spelled out.

The Minister for Health and Children has been unable to wrest sufficient funding from the Minister for Finance to deal effectively with areas of responsibility within his Department. I question his ability to secure the solid financial base that will be needed for the authority's expanded role. His track record so far has not been impressive nor has the Department of Health and Children dealt sufficiently with food safety. There is a danger the authority will be seen as the poor relation in the Department. The Minister set high targets, but he must assure us he can meet them. I have great confidence in Dr. Wall and the authority. It has a good reputation and has shown its commitment to engage with the public and directly in public education.

The Minister stated the outbreak of BSE and e-coli 0157 undermined public confidence. Those were not the only factors involved. Despite what Deputy Callely said, the serious irregularities exposed by the beef tribunal, the extensive court cases relating to the use by farmers of illegal growth promoters, the scientific advances of genetically modified foods and irradiation contributed to public anxiety. While, generally speaking, our diet is balanced and healthy, the establishment by statute of an effective and well resourced authority is an important guarantee for public confidence. Anything less than a well resourced authority would simply serve to increase fears rather than allay them. I recognise that numerically speaking there are very few cases of BSE, but the remoteness of the likelihood does not lessen the fear or the need for vigilance.

The consumer has only recently been placed at the centre of the debate on food safety. At EU level the traditional dominance of farming interests is being replaced by a greater emphasis on the consumer. I recall arguing with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry during the time of the Fianna Fáil-Labour Government about having only one consumer representative on the board of Bord Bia. I am pleased we have moved on from that narrowly based thinking in terms of food safety. When the name of the Department of Agriculture was changed to the Department of Agriculture and Food most people, particularly consumers, believed it did not address relevant food safety issues and that producers dominated to the detriment of consumers. Most producers want best practice in production, but there cannot be grounds for complacency. There are still rogues, mavericks and those who want to take short cuts. In the recent dispute about the dairy hygiene regulations, the Irish Veterinary Union took a position on certification that most farming organisations opposed and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry appeared to be willing to concede to them. This shows that we have still some ground to make up.

At the end of the day the consumer must be the king or the queen — many consumers are female. To address the issue of food safety we must ensure the absolute independence of the authority and the Bill provided for that. It is important that vested interests cannot influence the authority, it is a question of resources and a secure budget. An argument could be made for a system of levying because exporters will benefit from the guarantees the Food Safety Authority can provide in marketing their products abroad. There is a danger that we could end up with an export driven initiative. We must ensure that exporters are not given a type of gold card certification for their products if a similar standard of excellence is not provided for produce for the home market. We must be able to compete and live up to our image. Sweden can guarantee their chickens are salmonella free and Denmark have superb arrangements in place regarding food safety. I understand multiples are demanding very high standards and, while that is very welcome, it also places demands on producers to meet those standards.

Service agreements are at the nub of the problem for the authority. While the authority has moved from being a regulator of regulators, the work will continue to be done by agencies by way of service agreements. I can envisage problems for the authority in regard to the effectiveness of the system. If, for example, a local authority does not have a full-time veterinary officer — ten do not — how will it enforce consistency across the country? If an environmental health officer does not comply with an agreement what power will the authority have to enforce the agreement? It appears it cannot impose any sanctions in that regard. If that is the case, it will not be effective because of the limitations at local level and human fallibility. Will the Minister refer to that matter in his reply?

Another matter that must be addressed is the question of data collection and the lack of links between laboratories. We must ensure data is accessible. We are all aware of the recent salmonella outbreak in a Dundrum butchers. While the health board did a good job in tracking down the outbreak, it took a long time to do so. We must address the question of traceability and the provision of information in a speedy manner to ensure effective controls are in place.

While I welcome the Bill, I want the Minister to deal specifically with budgetary and staffing requirements at central and local level. If he fails to do that he will undermine the competence of the authority to meet a glorious opportunity to deal with food safety in a modern and effective manner.

Mr. Connaughton

I thank Deputy McManus who, at very short notice, agreed to share time with me. I, too, welcome the Bill and, wearing my farmer's cap, I believe all farmers will welcome it. The debate has been very balanced. During other similar debates we were not all singing from the same hymn sheet in that primary producers were always wrong and everybody else was right. Of course, that is not the case. I lend my voice to the good wishes sent to Dr. Patrick Wall who will do a good job as chief executive of the Food Safety Authority. He made a good impression when he appeared before a committee of the House a few weeks ago.

We want one authoritative voice in the food safety area so that people can accept and believe what is being said at a time of a crisis. The last BSE outbreak brought horrendous problems for which we are still paying and we have not recovered as an agricultural nation. Reports in the national media were totally wrong. Only 70 cattle out of a total of 7 million were affected; it was a low incidence. A few months following the outbreak one could hardly give cattle away at marts. In 1996 there were approximately 70 outbreaks of the disease and consumption fell dramatically. Strangely, in 1997 there were almost the same number of outbreaks but more meat was eaten in Ireland. The same cattle, farmers, land and disease were involved but the perception of the disease changed.

It is important there is an authoritative voice that will tell consumers the way it is. If the situation is bad, they should be told and that is where Dr. Patrick Wall and the food safety authority come in. It is in the interest of our 150,000 farming families that this authority is successful. We export nine out of every ten animals and, obviously, the certification attached to the ear of every animal when they are exported is the most important aspect of our marketing. If one looks at Bord Bia, our Embassies and our marketing structure throughout the world, that certification is required and that is why I welcome it. There are obviously pitfalls which will have to be watched. Recently, the Minister of State appeared before an Oireachtas Committee where he gave us a great insight to the legislation.

It is obvious there will have to be greater funding because somebody must pay the piper. As primary producers, farmers are already paying veterinary and inspection fees, etc. . I hope that if there is an increase in fees it will be shared by everybody, including processors, distributors and consumers. It should not be landed on primary producers. I hope there will not be vested interests on the scientific committee because if there are, it will fail. It is important that when it makes a recommendation, it will be seen there were no vested interests of any description.

There are 3.5 million Irish consumers about whom we must worry most. I hope we reach a stage that when they put food on their plates, they will know there is improved fitness to practise at farm level and greater efficiency and attention to detail at processing and distribution level and in our kitchens where food is frozen. Dr. Wall said there is little point in blaming anybody else if one's refrigerator is set incorrectly and the food is not treated in one's home as it should be. This is an example of a breakdown which could result in major illness. This is an all embracing business and I wish the authority well. I hope funding will be made available for it, vested interests will be kept outside and throughout the world when our products are being marketed and are on display that the certification of the authority will be the best in the world. That is when I and everybody else will be happy.

Mr. Collins

I totally support the setting up of the new food safety authority on a full-time statutory basis. However, unlike Deputy McManus, I have the utmost confidence in the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen. Such an authority for food safety with a high degree of expertise and independence will be well placed to protect the reputations of farmers and other producers whenever a problem of food safety arises. The new authority will be the agency with the overall responsibility for the enforcement of national and EU provisions in food safety and for the promotion of standards of good practice throughout all stages of food production, distribution and sale.

Responsibility for food controls currently rests with a wide number of Departments and agencies and hundreds of staff are involved in the delivery of food control services. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for such staff to have other duties, in addition to food control, assigned to them. It is not definitively possible at all times to identify food control staff individually. As a result, the transfer of all relevant staff from existing agencies to the new food safety authority will take time, but it will greatly add to bringing all strands of food safety control under the auspices of one central agency.

Following the BSE crisis, the setting up of the food safety authority is a positive and innovative step in assuring foreign markets about the safety of our produce. However, this is only one measure which must be introduced if consumer confidence in our food products is to be improved. Other initiatives which could be implemented to enhance and improve food products include the allocation of greater resources to Bord Bia for the implementation of marketing and promotion activities of Irish food products in Britain and throughout Europe; greater marketing of Irish beef products in Britain and in Europe through greater promotion of the national beef assurance scheme and continuation of the operational programme for the food industry post-1999.

The facts speak for themselves in this regard. In terms of direct employment, the food industry accounts for approximately 38,500 jobs in Ireland. Over 12,000 people are employed in the slaughtering and preserving of meat, 7,200 in the manufacture of dairy products, 2,700 in the manufacture of poultry food, 5,500 in the bread and flour industry, 4,000 in the sugar production sector and over 7,300 in other related food industries. Food production provides important benefits in terms of direct employment and its contribution to the agricultural and wider rural economies. The current operational programme for the food industry 1995-99 has been allocated £641 million pounds broken up into three categories — EU assistance of £205 million, national assistance totalling £78 million and private sector assistance of £358 million. I fully appreciate the importance of the food industry from the perspective of those involved in it and that of consumers.

I recognise the broader need for the marketing of Irish food products here and in Europe on the basis of their quality. There must be a real partnership and participation by all those involved in the food industry in this process to guarantee that improvements are made in this sphere. The setting up of the food safety authority will undoubtedly assist the food industry, but more work remains to be done if the agriculture industry is to fully recover from the BSE crisis.

The Minister is to be congratulated on carrying out the commitment in the Government's Action Programme for the Millennium which stated a new safety authority would be created. It is an agency with singular and overall responsibility for the enforcement of legislative provisions in the area of food safety and for the promotion of standards of good practice throughout all stages of food production, distribution and sale.

Public health and consumer interests will be protected as a direct result of the uniformity of control to be exercised by the new authority. The Bill also provides in section 30 for the authority's involvement, either on its own initiative or in co-operation with food producers' representatives, in the establishment of schemes to protect consumer interests. These schemes, described in section 13 as food safety assurance schemes, will cover the promotion of best practice and preparation of guidelines on raw materials, processing, packaging, preparation, storage and handling of food products.

Although the Bill provides in detail for a policing and enforcement role for the authority, its main aim is to foster, through education and promotion, a food safety culture among providers and consumers which characterises all elements of the food chain. The establishment of such a culture will serve the purpose of protecting our national public health in a positive sense, as opposed to relying on an enforcement regime to carry out such tasks at all times. I am also glad that the national surveillance unit, which will have primary responsibility for food-borne diseases, will maintain a liaison with the new Food Safety Authority of Ireland in this area.

After the Maastricht Treaty and the new Treaty of Amsterdam, consumer policy has become a major concern of the European Union. Numerous provisions and action plans have been adopted at a European level for the protection of consumers and their interests. Especially after the BSE crisis, the Community has taken measures to ensure that the principles of good health and consumer protection are included in all European Union policies. With the directives which provide for liability on defective products, and other measures such as general product safety, numerous measures have been put forward to improve food safety and consumer protection. Specific provisions have been enacted for labelling requirements on the ingredients of foodstuffs and food additives.

In future there will be an increasing need to improve consumer confidence and to identify the genuine priority problems for consumers to enhance their quality of life and to guarantee minimum safety standards. EU consumer policy is well advanced and consumer protection in the field of food protection is but one example of such legislation. In the trade area, new instruments such as the directive on the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees, the directive on consumer protection in the indication of the price of products, the directive on comparative advertising and the protection of package holiday makers are examples of the priorities of the member states and the EU in consumer policy.

Throughout the Bill there is a strong emphasis on the openness and transparency under which the authority will operate. The chief executive, board members, the scientific committee, the staff of the authority and any other consultants and advisers or persons engaged by the authority will have to declare any financial or other beneficial interests that might be in conflict with their role in the authority.

Mr. Moloney

I welcome this timely and appropriate Bill. The food scares of the last few years have had a disastrous effect on consumer confidence and the economy as a whole. However, the scares we experienced in the past, such as salmonella and the danger of unpasteurised milk, pale into insignificance when we compare them to the possible link between BSE and new variant CJD. Concern in our home market is quite apparent. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, for being so forceful and committed in bringing the Bill before the House. It is in line with the commitments in our manifesto and our programme for Government and I take great pleasure in supporting it.

Yesterday the Minister mentioned other issues of concern to consumers, including new crop developments, food processing, the increasing availability of genetically modified foods, antibiotic residues in pork, and angel dust and other growth promoters. All these scares regarding food production have caused tremendous worry for consumers, who have correctly demanded protection from the State. This Bill conforms to those demands and the Minister has addressed those fears.

The Bill will reassure the consumer, make a solid contribution to public health, allay the fears of our export market and go a long way to develop our food industry. By extension, it will assist economic growth and job creation. The consumer will be reassured that the authority is independent and science-based, and that there will be full traceability of food. That has been a buzz word for a number of years in food safety and the Bill will protect the consumer in that regard. The Bill will also encourage, promote and foster high standards of safety and hygiene from the primary production stage to purchase by the customer. This typifies the commitment in the Bill.

The authority will have as its key objective the placing of primary responsibility for food safety with producers as well as with manufacturers, distributors and retailers. I believe it will act in the consumers' interest, which will make them king and assure them of good standards.

There have been a number of misunderstanding regarding the farming community, perhaps due to the few farmers who have used illegal growth promoters. The IFA's reaction to the Bill demonstrates beyond doubt its commitment to food safety. The association has recorded its support for the Bill and stated that consumer confidence in all food products is vital for producers. Those of us who met IFA delegations in the last few weeks will have taken that on board. Farmers have nothing to hide as regards food safety. They are committed to the highest standards, as underlined by their open and early support for the Bill. I support the IFA's call that the authority must be fully independent and act in accordance with the highest safety standards at every link in the food chain. The association said the authority should also have an obligation to assure and inform consumers about Irish food. I support this call and the Bill provides for it.

One of the most important aspects of the Bill is the establishment of the scientific committee to advise on matters referred to it by the board relating to scientific or technical questions, food inspection and nutrition. The science-based nature of the authority shows the wholesome commitment of the Government. That authorised officers will be empowered to enter and inspect food premises, to secure these premises for later inspection and to inspect and, if necessary, remove records proves beyond doubt the good intentions of the Bill. For the first time closure orders may be served where improvement orders have not been complied with. This shows the Government's commitment to food safety. Where there is an immediate threat to public health, similar orders may be served. The new authority will be directly accountable for all food control functions. Traceability will be the cornerstone of the Food Safety Authority. The authority's responsibilities will include inspection of farms, places of primary production, water treatment plants etc. That prosecutions may be taken by the authority itself or by one of the contracting agencies shows the purpose of the Bill is to protect and reassure the consumer regarding food safety.

I am happy to support the Bill given that it is in line with our commitments in the programme, An Action Programme for the Millennium. I congratulate the Minister, Deputy Cowen, and the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the Bill which is long overdue as it is necessary to ensure confidence in regard to food safety. In recent years there have been many food scares but, generally speaking, the level of control and food safety is of a high standard. While it is necessary to establish an independent authority we should congratulate and pay tribute to those responsible for this area heretofore. My experience is in the whole area of agriculture and food inspection. I often considered inspectors were inspecting themselves and to an extent that is the case. While they have done a marvellous job, difficulties have arisen from time to time in certain areas. There was always a question about their independence in that they were supervising themselves. It did not have face validity that beef factories and creameries were supervised by the Department of Agriculture and Food. It would have been more appropriate if they had been supervised by the Department of Health and Children. The authority, when established, will have an independent role and will have credibility with the public. This is important in the context of people's awareness of the need for quality food. However, it is important that the authority be given the necessary resources and that it has the teeth to operate effectively.

The Minister has clearly stated the best possible practices in supervising the whole area of food safety. He has outlined what he considers necessary but, in the event that the resources are not provided, confidence in food safety will be undermined. On the one hand the Minister is saying this is the proper way to proceed and on the other he is not providing the resources to ensure the implementation of the Bill.

The primary role of the authority will be to promote, encourage, and foster high standards of food and hygiene at all stages from primary production to final sale to the customer. Like the previous speaker I pay tribute to the farming community and the IFA for their wholehearted support of the Bill and the establishment of the authority. We welcome that. A key objective of the authority is to bring about acceptance that primary responsibility for food safety rests with producers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers and caterers.

The area of the producer has been examined over a number of years and there are various EU directives regarding production at farm level. Sometimes these directives are not backed up with proper assistance to ensure standards are reached. While our standards are high in the area of food production in the farmyard, a great deal more assistance should be provided to ensure the best possible practices. When viewing production standards in European countries I am often amazed that their standards are lower than ours. This is because we are mainly an exporting country and our standards are dictated by the export market and the inspections of the country to whom we are exporting. Frequently, they set standards higher than are required in their own countries. This is a means of protecting producers in their own country. I do not have any problem with that except that more assistance should be provided to the primary producers, the farmers, to ensure the best possible practices.

While manufacturers were well supervised by the Department of Agriculture and Food, distributors are not supervised to the same extent. The authority should examine the area of food distribution. In recent times retailers and caterers are supervised more by local health boards. The authority should ensure the co-ordination of all areas in the provision of food from the primary producer to the consumer. The authority will carry out, through the contracts negotiated with the agencies, inspections, approval, licensing and registration of food premises and equipment. Where the situation warrants it, this will extend to the farm and places of primary production. Water treatment plants and other sources of material are used in food production. It will also be responsible for the sampling and analysis of food and inspection of food labelling.

While this is not the area of responsibility of the Minister I avail of the occasion to raise an issue which he may bring to the attention of his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, because the whole agricultural area impacts on this. Two issues are causing concern. One is the movement of the primary product, cattle, due to the severe delays in the results of the 30 day premovement test. The IFA and farmers in general are concerned about the delay in producing the blood test results to enable them to move cattle. In several cases that I am aware of, the information came too late to remove the animal.

The other issue deals with the quality of the product. It was brought to my attention recently that where an animal en route to a plant loses its identification tag, the factory will not accept the animal and return it to the farmer. Obviously, the animal has been in an area which is not disease free. The factory cannot have disease free status because diseased animals are taken there. It is the job of the factory to ensure that no diseased animal gets into the food chain. Although there is disease in the factory area including TB and brucellosis these animals are returned to the farm. This area should be examined because of the obvious danger of transferring disease from the factory to the farm. I understand the need for identification of all animals and that there can be a need for further herd tests, but once an animal has been inside the factory gate it should not be returned to the farm.

I welcome the Bill, the success of which will depend on the Minister having the goodwill to provide the resources to ensure all aspects of it are implemented. If that is not done the Bill will have a negative effect because the consumer will hear the Government talking about best practice while not providing the finance to ensure there is best practice.

Mr. Sargent

I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the long awaited Food Safety Authority of Ireland Bill, 1998. Those of us who regularly attend for the Order of Business will testify that the Bill, which deals with a serious issue, has been promised for many years. I will set out what I believe should be a central objective of the Bill. The question of whether the Minister can fulfil that objective perhaps will be dealt with elsewhere.

The Bill accepts current trends and refers to higher standards, although it does not say how those standards will be measured. It also accepts the trend which should be reversed, namely, the intensification of food production in this country and elsewhere which has resulted in considerable problems, the more well known being BSE and CJD.

Some advantages have been gained from intensification over the years in respect of short-term costs but in the long-term it has resulted in enormous costs which are difficult to quantify but which we pay nonetheless. The Bill should take account of that and support more sustainable agricultural practices. For instance, organic production should be favoured.

The sustainability of packaging is another factor to be considered. I realise that is not this Minister's brief but packaging, particularly plastic packaging, in relation to food production has increased in recent years. That area should be addressed in the Bill.

The demands made on producers by large retail multinational companies operating here — I raised this matter on the Adjournment — have resulted in smaller and more sustainable producers going out of business. In my own constituency of Dublin North, farmers who want to deal with Tesco are being asked to spend between £18,000 and £20,000 on the provision of a chilling room. If they do not do that, Tesco will not do business with them. Tesco is currently cornering the market, and issues like that must be addressed as a backdrop to the Bill. Merely insisting on higher standards will not raise them unless the infrastructure exists to ensure sustainable and wholesome food is produced.

We are some way behind other countries in relation to CJD, for example. A UK survey project refers to the incidence of CJD in the European Union in 1994. A number of countries monitor CJD with the help of EU funding, but Ireland is not on that list. France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK indicated the number of cases, definite and probable, and incidence per million per year. In the context of the Bill before us, the Government should try to catch up with other EU countries so that we can be reassured and benefit from this monitoring which is funded at EU level. It is worth following up that matter even at this stage.

The Bill has a broad brief. It covers a significant number of issues including packaging, food standards, the operation of premises dealing with food and a number of associated matters. Difficulties can arise when a range of operations are covered in a Bill. To that extent this Bill seems to rely on a number of the agencies currently in operation. I hope we can ensure on Committee Stage that it will not be compromised through lack of resources or having to depend on the same people who have dealt with the area of food safety up to now, or in terms of independent experts.

The board of the Food Safety Authority will continue to be chosen by the Minister. Will he spell out more clearly the criteria that will be applied for the appointment of people to the board? People concerned with food safety expect reassurance from us. There is provision for the chairman of the board to be sacked but the reasons for that must be more clearly identified.

In light of the debate yesterday on payments to politicians, it was interesting to read the section on gifts and that the authority could benefit from being resourced from various quarters. There is reference to the authority not being compromised by any conditions attached to those gifts but we know from debates in this House that conditions are seldom attached to gifts. Matters would be much simpler if that were the case. Previous tribunals have found that giving a gift is compromising to some extent and we must be extremely careful that we do not allow the authority to be forced into accepting resources from vested interests which might compromise its independence. That is particularly relevant, given the compromising situations following our debate yesterday.

My worry about the giving of gifts is related to the fact that large vested interests have a great deal to lose by incurring the displeasure of the authority. The giant multinational retail units and companies to which I referred have enormous turnover and it would be well within their means to give resources to the food safety authority to help it do its work. They would probably also get PR kudos for so doing. However, I pointed out earlier the long-term effects of allowing such a system to dominate our food production. I hope we can ensure the Bill will strengthen the independence of the authority by not allowing it to depend on gifts, as is mentioned in the Bill.

I reckon the food safety authority will not see the light of day until next year, which leaves more time in which food safety must be assured. Food is very important to our economy as well as to our individual wellbeing. We must speed up the implementation of the Bill and the appointment of the authority.

I welcome the gender balance of appointments throughout the Bill. It is difficult to see much gender balance in marches or demonstrations by food producers, but perhaps this food safety authority will have a knock-on effect.

Lessons should be learned from the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to fines. Some of the fines should be increased on Committee Stage. As I mentioned, some of those who might face the wrath of the food safety authority are extremely large multinational companies with turnover comparable to the GNP of some countries. Slapping a hefty fine of £1,500 on such companies would be little more than an irritation to them. The fines must be revised in that context.

The standing committee to be set up by the Dáil should examine reports but it seems to be focused on accounts and financial dealings, which are important in themselves. However, given public concern about food safety, it should be mandatory for these reports to be in the public domain. The Bill states the authority "may" publish reports, which I hope it will. However, as is the case in many Bills, "may" could read "shall" without threatening the foundations of the State. I hope that will be amended on Committee Stage.

The Bill refers to the production, growing, storage and manufacturing sides of food safety. It seems to omit the increasing interest in wild food. In England and Germany restrictions have had to be put on the collection of wild food because of its increasing popularity. It opens to question the integrity of our environment when one expresses concern about the state of food collected from the wild, which is no harm. For example, in some countries the picking of mushrooms is a family pastime, similar to choosing a Christmas tree. We must include wild food in the remit of the food safety authority, thereby focusing attention on the healthy state of our environment generally. People should be encouraged to pick blackberries and so on unless it damages the environment. Collecting wild food is a very healthy, social and nutritional pastime.

The Minister referred on Second Stage to about 50 agencies which are relevant to the Bill. There are much fewer than 50 agencies in the list at the back of the Bill. I presume he was referring to agencies associated with, for example, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. There are agencies which would be very important to the work of the food safety authority but which are not directly connected with the agencies listed in the Second Schedule to the Bill.

I have a particular interest in the organic food production sector and the various organisations which, largely on a voluntary basis or with meagre support from the State, operate inspections of various aspects of food production. The organic inspectorate operates on a relative shoestring and is supported by the organic sector. I hope the food safety authority will take a proactive stand, perhaps by lobbying the Minister for Agriculture and Food or by generally alerting the Government to the need to help the organic food sector to ensure inspections are properly resourced.

Packaging and labelling are becoming far more important in marketing than ever before and the descriptions used by, for example, egg producers are pretty wild and make wonderful claims. Words such as "natural produce", "home produced", "healthy" and "wholesome" are loosely and glibly thrown around, as if to suggest an organic standard is being adhered to. A close inspection of some of those products would reveal they are very far from organically produced food. Cowboy food producers are being allowed to exploit a price premium or market advantage for their own gain. However, they are discrediting those who, at considerable expense in many cases, are making the extra effort to produce food in a non intensive, humane and healthy organic fashion. The food safety authority should address that issue, which does not seem to be covered by the official agencies listed in the Second Schedule.

This Bill presents the Government with a final opportunity to redress the damage done to food production by the dominance in the food market of very large and successful profit oriented multinational interests. That is the ultimate challenge we face. The Bill should face down the challenges and take-over bids which I am sure will be made by large multinational vested interests. It should set the standards for the control of the food industry. I look forward to furthering that on Committee Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of Health and Children (Dr. Moffatt)

I thank Deputies for their contributions to this debate and for the manner in which it has been conducted. We are all agreed that food safety is one of the most important issues at present. As Minister of State with special responsibility in this area it is my first priority.

As the Minister has already stated, the Government recognises the need for uncompromised and independently verifiable assurances on food safety to ensure consumer confidence. While the primary purpose of the Bill is the protection of consumers, the Government also recognises that one of the best ways of promoting the food sector is to put in place a strong, independent and science based food safety authority, which will have the confidence of consumers, both at home and abroad.

In his introductory speech, the Minister referred to such issues as BSE, the new variant CJD, salmonella, listeria and e-coli, which are matters of increasing concern for consumers, as are new crop developments and food processing. I agree the Government must listen to all and respond appropriately to their concerns. I assure the House that the Government will not be found wanting in this regard. The protection of public health is a matter of absolute priority and any threat to the safety of food we eat will receive an immediate, strong response. It is vital, therefore, we put a structure in place that can adequately identify and assess any risk to public health in a competent, professional manner and then communicate clearly and effectively with both consumers and providers.

The Government believes the interests of consumers are better served by the creation of an authority which will be directly accountable for all food control functions. For the authority to be accountable in this way, it must also have direct responsibility for these functions. While our original intention was to effect the immediate transfer of all relevant staff to the new authority on vesting day, this has not proven to be a practicable proposition.

It has been suggested that the Government's decision not to give the authority the audit function envisaged by the previous Government was a case of change for the sake of change and an attempt to put Fianna Fáil colours on the previous Government's proposals. Deputy Bradford claimed that we have got it wrong and that the option of an authority which was merely an audit body was the correct one. I strongly disagree. The previous Government's proposals were little more than a knee-jerk reaction to a growing lack of consumer confidence. The idea of an authority which would have no direct role in its administration of food safety services and which sat pontificating at one remove would not have provided the assurance consumers demand and deserve.

Deputy Bradford described his preferred solution as "simple and straightforward". There is nothing simple or straightforward about food safety. We are concerned with a complex, ever changing environment, where the range of skills required to manage it extends from microbiology to animal husbandry to environmental control. It is not simple and requires a structure which brings all these diverse skills together and allows them to function in a harmonised, responsive way. The structure proposed for the authority is not a bureaucratic nightmare, as some have claimed. Indeed, it provides the necessary checks and balances to ensure that the best interests of the consumer are served.

There has been criticism of the provisions in the Bill for contracts between the authority and the existing official agencies and it has been suggested that the authority could, somehow, go elsewhere for its services. This is nonsense, which I can illustrate with an example. The health boards employ some 200 environmental officers. These are highly skilled professionals with years of training and experience behind them and are in the front line when a food safety alert arises. Perhaps Deputy Bradford could tell the House where we can get 200 such officers if not from the health boards? The Bill proposes that the authority will be able to publish details of the contracts and will introduce a system of monitoring to ensure that the agreements are adhered to. If contracts are not satisfactorily fulfilled the authority will report to the Minister for Health and Children who will arrange for such reports to be laid before the Oireachtas.

The service contracts proposed are a practical, workable and immediate solution. They do not purport to be anything else. In the longer term we may well see the authority with its own full staff and the bulk of these would come from the existing agencies. On the question of transfer of staff I again emphasise that this will only happen after discussion and agreement with the representatives of the staff concerned. The Bill provides that any staff who may be transferred will enjoy terms and conditions no less favourable than those which they already have. I will not be drawn on any timetable for transfers. No decisions have been made on this. Let us get on with the work in hand and get the authority operational without delay using the service contracts devices as an interim measure.

The ultimate benchmark of quality is safety and the protection of public health. The Bill focuses firmly on this. In the broader context, quality is much more subjective and is influenced very much by personal taste. It is essentially a market driven concept. Different markets have different perceptions about quality. To give the food safety authority responsibility for this wider area of quality would deflect it from its primary responsibility, which is to focus on the matter of food safety.

My colleague, the Minister for Agriculture and Food has a whole range of programmes dealing with the quality issue. These are complemented by the schemes operated by Bord Bia, Bord Glas and the processing retailing sectors. These schemes represent industry's response to consumer concerns and quality. I am satisfied they should be left in this arena.

Quality assurance schemes will undoubtedly benefit from underpinning the safety role of the authority. However, I stress this is a desirable spin-off and not a requirement of the food safety system. The Bill provides the authority's involvement, either on its own initiative or in co-operation with food producers representatives in the establishment of schemes to protect consumer interests. These schemes, to be known as food safety assurance schemes, will cover the promotion of best practice and preparation of guidelines on a range of food safety issues.

The structure of the authority has been considered carefully to ensure that it can discharge its functions in a fair and balanced way. This can be managed by achieving a proper balance between the four structural elements — the board of the authority, its scientific committee, the chief executive and staff and a consultative council. Specifically, the Bill provides for a broadly based consultative council. The Ministers for Health and Children, Agriculture and Food, the Marine and Natural Resources and the board of the authority will nominate the membership of the council, the broad base of which reflects the need for balanced representation. Notwithstanding that the council will include representation from various interests, including producer interests, the authority will not be bound by its views in arriving at decisions. The board of the authority will regard the best interests of the consumer as paramount. The notion that the consumer is king or queen will be reflected in the appointment of the board's membership. Within this context we can look at the role of the council.

Deputy Bradford sought clarification on the local authority veterinary service. As he indicated, it was the intention that the service would transfer to the Department of Agriculture and Food. It may still be prudent to do this but we may need to review the position in light of the establishment of the authority. The point was well made and I will be happy to amend the Schedule on Committee Stage to include a reference to the local authorities and the Department of the Environment and Local Government.

Deputy McManus raised the issue of breast-feeding. I accept that the low level of breast-feeding is a source of concern. The Department is pursuing the matter on a national basis and has established a national breast-feeding policy. The Health Promotion Unit has funded the production of a video and an information pack by Professor Kelleher of UCG for professionals. It has also produced the Breast Fed is Best Fed booklet and a poster giving clear and simple advice on the issue. The Department has provided support for many voluntary organisations, including the La Leche League, the Irish Childbirth Trust and the Irish Association of Lactation Consultants.

Deputy Connaughton welcomed the Bill and said it was balanced. There are 150,000 farmers each of whom is behind the authority. The Deputy highlighted the pitfalls in certification and asked who will provide the funds to solve any problems that may arise. He is anxious to ensure the scientific committee is not interfered with by outside interests. We can deal with these issues in more detail on Committee Stage.

Deputy Neville said that, as a major food exporter, we need to have confidence in the authority which should be credible. Its independence will guarantee this. The Deputy availed of the opportunity to highlight a number of issues affecting farmers, including the movement of cattle in regard to the brucellosis test about which we have heard much recently. There is need to produce blood test results faster. Attention was drawn to the problems being experienced in Cork and Sligo.

Deputy Neville also raised the issues of tagging and factory practices and mentioned that cattle are transferred from the factory back to the farm. This is not good practice. We will bring this matter to the attention of the Department of Agriculture and Food.

Deputy Moloney said the Bill is timely to restore the confidence of consumers following a number of food scares. He is happy that the authority will be independent and highlighted the scientific and traceability aspects.

Deputy Collins expressed confidence in the Minister whose ability has been questioned. If one considers how the Department has performed over the past 11 months, one could not but have confidence in him.

Deputy Collins reminded us of the number involved in the food sector — 38,500 at a minimum, including 12,000 in slaughtering; 7,200 in dairying; 7,000 in poultry; 5,000 in bakery; and 4,000 in sugar and ancillary services. It is important to maintain the highest standards. The consumer needs to be assured that everything possible is being done to ensure food safety.

Deputy Shortall highlighted the need for consumer education in food hygiene and safety practices. The interim authority has established an information centre in the city centre which is complemented by an Internet website and a freefone helpline. It also plans to provide mobile information units.

On the question of cross-Border co-operation, we are considerably ahead of the United Kingdom in the development of a food safety body and structures. We have many shared interests and intend to maintain close contact. Meetings have been held at ministerial and official level.

Deputy Upton mentioned that BSE poses a much lower risk than traffic accidents. That is not to say we should not be concerned about the myriad problems which can arise such as food poisoning. These can be avoided by ensuring best practice. The Deputy raised some interesting aspects to which we will return on Committee Stage. The Deputy also highlighted the authority's role in assessing real risks and communicating effectively with consumers and producers. That is an important aspect of its role and we will also deal with that.

I thank all Members who contributed to the debate. Yesterday the authority was described as an emperor with no clothes, but I stress it will have a full and well fitted wardrobe and will be well decked out for the job in hand. People have asked from where the money will come. The Government has guaranteed the authority £2.38 million this year and given a commitment to ensure it will work. We know that will cost money, but it will be provided to ensure we will have the best possible authority.

I look forward to the Committee Stage debate and thank all those outside the House who assisted us in our work on the Bill and the Department officials for their help in preparing it. I pay tribute to the fine work done on the scientific aspects of this matter by Teagasc, the farm organisations and farmers who have supported the concept of this authority. They know their future depends on good quality and safety in food. We export more than 80 per cent of our produce and it is important we get this right. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.