While this legislation is properly geared towards the consumer, we must ensure producers and other interested parties such as community and environmental interests are consulted to the widest possible degree. Amendment No. 19 relates to the food safety assurance schemes which the authority will be empowered to put in place. When the authority is contemplating any such schemes, it must undertake the widest possible consultation. It is appropriate that farming, consumer, community, environmental and other groups would be consulted. I hope the Minister will seek to ensure that full consultation and dialogue will occur.
Food Safety Authority of Ireland Bill, 1998: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 18:
In page 11, line 2, after "or" to insert "having consulted".
—(Deputy Sargent.)
The purpose of section 13 is to promote partnership between the authority and the producers of food safety assurance schemes. It is primarily producer-focused and follows on from section 12, ensuring that a food safety culture is established. Section 12(4) already provides for consultation by the authority with a wide group of interests and the consultative council outlined in section 14 will be a key forum in which to engage these interests. I do not feel it would be appropriate to amend section 13 and cannot, therefore, accept these amendments.
I thank Deputy Bradford for his favourable comments on the amendments. No damage would be done to the Bill through the acceptance of the amendments, nor is there any reason for them other than the provision of necessary public reassurance that all aspects of food safety will be taken into account in the food safety assurance schemes. There does not seem to be any good reason for rejecting the amendments and I urge the Minister to go the extra mile on this issue. The public has been taken for granted in the area of food safety in the past and is now extremely suspicious. That is bad both for food safety and the wider economic interests of this country. Perhaps the Minister could reconsider accepting this amendment or one which he feels would be more in line with the requirements of the draftsmen.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 11, line 3, after "organisations" to insert "including independent regulatory bodies and organisations representing farmer, consumer, community, environmental or other interests".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 20 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue. Amendment, Nos. 21, 22 and 23 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, line 37, after "representative" to insert "and shall include no fewer than eight representatives of consumer bodies and representation for the independent regulatory agencies".
The broadly based representative nature of the proposed consultative council should make explicit reference to consumer bodies. My amendment seeks that no fewer than eight representatives of consumer bodies be provided for on the council, together with representation for the independent regulatory agencies.
Reference was previously made during this debate to consumer concerns in the area of genetically modified organisms. One of my amendments was ruled out of order as it involved a charge on the State and I understand further amendments in regard to genetically engineered produce will also be ruled out of order on that basis. Amendments are being sought on the grounds of the need for more representatives of consumer bodies and their concerns than are being allowed. I urge the Minister to take that into account and to give careful consideration to this amendment.
We debated this issue in some detail on Committee Stage. I also recall that at a briefing with the Minister of State prior to the publication of the Bill, he made great play of the fact that the consumer would be king as far as the Food Safety Authority of Ireland was concerned. Yet, when an opportunity exists to give specific representation to consumer interests, it seems the Minister is not prepared to do so.
I tabled amendment No. 22 on Committee Stage and had no choice but to re-table it on Report Stage. It is all very well to speak about giving primary consideration to consumers but I cannot understand why the Minister should refuse to accept an amendment which provides for statutory representation of consumer interests on the consultative council. If consumers are to have a say in any forum, that should be provided for on the consultative council. Of the proposed membership of the council, it is reasonable to expect that at least eight people would be directly representative of consumer interests.
I concur with the comments of the previous speakers. I would like to see the Minister accepting amendment No. 23. The proposals contained in these amendments should not be necessary as they should already be provided for. The consultative council will have a key role in ensuring openness and transparency. Consumer interest must remain of paramount importance. It would be quite bizarre if statutory representation were not provided for consumers on the consultative council.
My amendment also makes reference to small and medium sized food enterprises. I am concerned about the operators of such enterprises. We could argue strongly and with some passion about the need to ensure the maximum representation possible by the food industry on the council. I am concerned about the representation on it by those involved in small and medium sized businesses. At a time when there is dramatic change in agriculture at European level and we envisage major cutbacks on CAP and agricultural spending in the next few years, we must accept there is a greater outlet for home grown organic produce. There are a significant number entering that market. We must encourage and support them. Over the past two or three years many of those people have approached me and most other public representatives to express their concern about the regulations under which they work. It is the small producers rather than the large ones who are most concerned about legislation on this area. They need protection and support and to be actively involved when legislation on this area is being drafted. That is why I would like those involved in small and medium sized businesses to be represented on the consultative council. That would enable them have a direct input into matters which would be of great importance to their enterprises in the year ahead. If small and medium sized enterprises in this area were protected and developed, they could represent the future for rural Ireland, but they need to be involved in the consultative process and should have full representation on the consultative council.
I fully accept the Deputies' concerns, but I am not prepared to accept these amendments as the issue with which they are concerned is addressed in amendment No. 24 which goes into this area in great detail. We can discuss this matter further when we reach that amendment.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the Minister of State on this. Amendment No. 24 provides for various Ministers to nominate persons to the consultative council, but that is not what we are talking about. We are not talking about political appointees, people who happen to support a particular party line or people who represent vested interests in the food business. If the Minister of State is serious about the importance of the place of the consumer in all this, surely it is essential that consumers are included in the process and that at some level within the authority there is specific statutory provision for the representation of consumers. Amendment No. 24 does not deal with consumer representation. Will the Minister of State accept this amendment, if he is serious about ensuring consumers are properly represented and that we will not have only a collection of vested interests on this body?
I was disappointed to hear the Minister of State say he presumed the next amendment would cover the concerns expressed by Deputies about the need for consumer participation. He knows consumers would not be happy to be viewed as synonymous with the appointees of various Ministers, particularly in light of the various media reports on political appointments. That is not something that would improve the objectivity and the heartfelt concerns of consumers.
Consumers are the victims of intense advertising not because they are manipulated, but because advertisers present the interests of consumers for their own vested interests. That will continue unless consumers are explicitly included in legislation and involved in the consultative process, in this case in the consultative role proposed. I ask the Minister of State to think very carefully before palming off and dismissing these amendments because they go to the heart of what the food safety authority is about, giving consumers the assurance and confidence that the food they eat is safe. If we do not do that tonight, we will be wasting our time. I will press this amendment.
The person who will be most affected by the decisions that will be taken by the consultative council will be the consumer. The advice that will be put forward by the consultative council to the board of the food safety authority will have a major bearing on every consumer. It was the consumer who was most grievously concerned and affected two years ago during the BSE crisis and that will continue to be the case in every food crisis we face in the years ahead. If we are to provide any degree of reassurance, we must be able to say to the consumer that any decision that will be taken by the food safety authority will be taken after a process in which the consumer will be fully involved. If the consultative council is to mean anything and the food safety authority is to be in a position to provide reassurance to the consumer, which the Minister of State wishes it to do, he must ensure there is full provision for consumer participation and that there is a minimum number of consumers on the consultative council. This proposal goes to the core of the consultative council and the Minister of State's earlier argument that we must ensure the maximum protection and involvement of the consumer. The Minister of State should accept this modest amendment. It should have been part of the original proposal and we should not try to push it through at the last minute.
The Bill is consumer oriented and the board will be in a position to nominate members to the consultative council. As that council will provide the authority with a key consultative forum, it must be as representative as possible. Having considered the board's appointees and the nominations of other Ministers, the Minister will make his seven appointments to ensure a proper balance in representation. For that reason the section should not be as prescriptive as to state which groups should be covered by ministerial appointments. There is room for adequate consumer representation among the 24 nominees. The ethos of the Bill is to strengthen the hand of the consumer. There should be no worries about that and Deputies will realise that as we proceed through the Bill.
I take exception to the thought that this amendment is prescriptive. The Minister of State said the Bill is to primarily serve the needs and to address the concerns of consumers.
Including a reference to consumers could hardly be called prescriptive and it should be seen as synonymous with a Minister's appointment. We are trying to build confidence in food production and consumption and that can only be built if it is clearly stated, wherever the opportunity arises, that there should be consumer representation. In this case it is vital we state there should be consumer representation on the consultative council and that it is clearly understood there is no question mark over the consumer having a role on it. It may be the Minister of State's understanding and that of the Departments concerned that the consumer has a role, but that message must be conveyed to the wider public. Will the Minister make sure that is conveyed by one form of the amendments being taken together? I urge him to avoid the need to press this amendment because we agree it is in the interest of the consumer and should not be one on which we should divide.
Deputy Shortall rose.
Under the new rules on Report Stage the Deputy does not have a right to speak a third time. Amendment No. 21 was moved and only the Deputy who has moved the amendment has a right to speak on three occasions under the new Standing Orders.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 47; Níl, 65.
Tá
- Barnes, Monica.
- Higgins, Michael.
- Barrett, Seán.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Bradford, Paul.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Broughan, Thomas.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny) .
- McGinley, Dinny.
- Bruton, Richard.
- McGrath, Paul.
- Burke, Liam.
- McManus, Liz.
- Clune, Deirdre.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Cosgrave, Michael.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Creed, Michael.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Currie, Austin.
- Neville, Dan.
- Deenihan, Jimmy.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Dukes, Alan.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Durkan, Bernard.
- Owen, Nora.
- Farrelly, John.
- Penrose, William.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Perry, John.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Fitzgerald, Frances.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Sheehan, Patrick.
- Gormley, John.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Hayes, Brian.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Higgins, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Michael.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Blaney, Harry.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Brady, Martin.
- McDaid, James.
- Brennan, Matt.
- McGennis, Marian.
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Moffatt, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Byrne, Hugh.
- Moloney, John.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Carey, Pat.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Collins, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- O'Donnell, Liz.
- Cullen, Martin.
- O'Donoghue, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- O'Flynn, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- Dennehy, John.
- O'Keeffe, Batt.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ellis, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Fleming, Seán.
- O'Rourke, Mary.
- Flood, Chris.
- Power, Seán.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Roche, Dick.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Healy-Rae, Jackie.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Smith, Michael.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Wade, Eddie.
- Kenneally, Brendan.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Wallace, Mary.
- Kirk, Séamus.
- Woods, Michael.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Sargent and Barrett; Níl, Deputies S. Brennan and Power.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 not moved.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 11, to delete lines 41 to 45 and substitute the following:
"(4) The Minister may appoint not more than 12 members to the Council, of whom—
(a) 2 shall have been nominated by the Minister for Agriculture and Food,
(b) one shall have been nominated by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources,
(c) one shall have been nominated by the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, and
(d) one shall have been nominated by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government,
and the remainder shall be appointed by the Board.".
There were a number of amendments put forward on the composition of the consultative council on Committee Stage. Having again examined the section it is proposed to increase the number of ministerial appointments from six to 12 and to provide for one nominee of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and one nominee of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government in addition to the two nominees of the Minister for Agriculture and Food and one nominee of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources provided for in the original draft of the Bill. The Minister for Health and Children will make seven appointments while the board will nominate the remaining 12.
I thank the Minister of State for tabling this amendment as promised on Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 12, line 18, after "food" to insert "and the role of diet in public health".
The issue of nutritional advice was discussed at some length on Committee Stage. The ultimate aim of food safety is to prevent illness in the community. However, even having a guaranteed safe food supply is not enough if the diet is not adequate. The authority must, therefore, be given a role in advising on nutrition. The purpose of this amendment is to reflect the importance of diet in illness prevention. It is appropriate that the authority's role be advisory in this area as there are many disciplines throughout the health services which have a role in developing nutritional policy. The authority will be in a position to produce such advice on its own initiative.
I welcome the amendment. This area must be examined more closely and become more well known. The public must be made aware of the importance of not only the components of food, but also the role of diet in terms of health.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 12, lines 26 and 27, to delete "e.g. mushrooms,".
Amendment agreed to.
As amendment No. 26 has been agreed, amendment No. 27 cannot be moved.
That was not mentioned when amendment No. 26 was moved.
Acting Chairman
It was mentioned in the context of amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 27 cannot be moved because amendment No. 26 has been agreed.
Amendment No. 27 not moved.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 29 is consequential on amendment No. 28 and both may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 13, line 18, to delete "request" and substitute "require".
The amendments refer to section 16(6) which was added on Committee Stage. However, the committee expressed concern that the subsection as drafted was insufficient and should be strengthened to introduce an element of compellability. The amendments address this concern.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 13, line 20, after "Authority" to insert "and such person shall comply with such a requirement".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 13, line 28, to delete "commission," and substitute "commission".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendments No. 31 and 32 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 14, between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(3) The Authority shall include details of any gift which exceeds, in the opinion of the Board, the value of £500, or such other amount as may stand specified for the time being in Regulations made by the Minister, in the report under section 25(1) for the year in which the gift is accepted.".
The purpose of the amendment is to enhance transparency and accountability. The threshold of £500 is being introduced to ensure the readability of the annual report is not lessened by the inclusion of long lists of relatively little public interest. The section on gifts is intended as an enabling provision. It is not the Government's intention that any income from this source be used as a substitute for Exchequer funding. I, therefore, invite Deputy Sargent to withdraw amendment No. 32.
I am glad amendment No. 31 has been introduced and I thank the Minister for considering the terms of the amendment I moved on Committee Stage. I intend to withdraw amendment No. 32.
However, the same claim was made regarding the national lottery when it was said that it would not be used as a substitute for Exchequer funding. With the benefit of hindsight, we know the inaccuracy of that statement. I urge the Minister to ensure that we do not slip into the tempting situation where gifts are used to bolster the resources of the Food Safety Authority.
I urge extreme caution in terms of avoiding compromise. Irrespective of the Bill's provisions, there is a huge temptation for large food production companies to have an involvement with a food safety authority and try to get a good reputation as a part of the food industry which helps the authority. This is dangerous territory and I urge the Minister to discourage any large-scale gifts irrespective of whether they will be declared. The declaration of such gifts gives publicity to the company. It is a no win situation and we should steer away from the encouragement of gifts to a statutory body which must be independent, objective and authoritative.
I support the amendment. It is most important that Deputy Sargent's comments are taken into consideration. There is always a risk that substantial donations from industrial sources may compromise the work of the Food Safety Authority. Allegations have been made in other countries, including the United States of America, where such cases have arisen due to companies funding the authorities which regulate food safety or other areas. It is crucial that the organisation which will be established to ensure the safety of the food we eat is not compromised by alleged funding from industrial sources. I support the amendment.
I thank the Deputies for their remarks. It is most important that the Authority is independent. The Government will take on board the comments of Deputy Sargent in the context of the experience of the national lottery.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 32 not moved.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 15, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(5) The Authority shall publish, with its first Annual Report, a schedule of all legislation, passed or made before or after its establishment day, any function, the enforcement of which shall be deemed to be a function of the authority.".
The purpose of the amendment is to give the public information about legislation referred to by the Food Safety Authority in its work. It will ensure the public is au fait with the work of the authority. The Minister may consider that people would not necessarily be interested in such detail. However, a sufficient number of people are concerned about the food they eat. They may be employed in the food industry or parents who take a keen interest in the diet of their children. This information should be available and included in the annual report.
The amendment is unnecessary. The Bill already includes in Schedule I a list of all the relevant legislation. This Schedule may be amended under section 5 for the addition or deletion of legislation. Furthermore, under section 16, the Authority is empowered to publish legislation in any form which it considers fit. These provisions are adequate.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 16, line 2, to delete "so is" and substitute "is so".
This is a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 17, line 11, after "pertains" to insert "and, without prejudice to any statutory requirement to the contrary, such Minister or body shall furnish a report so sought".
Section 30 allows the authority to seek reports from the Minister or another relevant body. My amendment seeks to oblige that Minister or body to provide the report sought. On Committee Stage the Minister said there might be difficulties with this in that a Minister could be precluded from providing reports for other reasons. My amendment deals with that problem. It is reasonable, and the Minister supported the principle of what I suggested.
I am not suggesting this Minister would seek to suppress reports, but that could happen in the future. This amendment would help to avoid that and I urge the Minister of State to support it.
This amendment cannot be accepted because it is considered unnecessary. Section 50(1) already gives wide powers to authorised officers of the Authority to compel any official agency to produce information if required. Furthermore, failure to comply with such a request will represent an offence under section 50(5). This gives the Authority sufficient powers to ensure it can meet its obligations.
I support Deputy Shortall. Not only is it reasonable to accept the appropriate Government body would respond favourably to a request for such a report, it is imperative that it must. We cannot allow any delay or lack of response from a Government Department or body when such a report is sought from the Authority. The Minister of State has responded in the negative and appears to believe there would not be an occasion on which a Government Department would not wish to respond fully and speedily to the Food Safety Authority. We cannot be sure of that. There have been occasions in the past when Government Departments have not been as fast as they might have been coming forward with information requested. It is proper to insert in legislation this obligation to respond to the authority when information is requested.
I echo Deputy Bradford's comments. If, for example, the Department takes a prosecution against a butcher or other food company in relation to food quality, and the Food Safety Authority seeks information while a prosecution is pending, the Department might not be eager to furnish a report. Can the Minister of State assure us that the Authority will be provided with reports in cases of his Department or others carrying out investigations of food safety risks which result in pending prosecutions?
I seek clarification. The Minister of State indicated that this matter was covered by section 50. Will he indicate the part of that section which would require a Minister to provide such a report if sought?
The authority can oblige other authorities to provide reports under the Bill.
What about the Minister?
Name or shame can be in it. Such bodies must comply or they will be followed by the authority to make sure the reports are delivered.
It is not at all clear from the Minister of State's response or the section whether the Minister is included. We want to ensure absolute transparency with this authority so there will be no doubts about food safety. The Minister should be obliged to provide the authority with a report in the event of being asked for it. I am disappointed the Minister of State has tried to dodge the issue and is not prepared to deal with it in an upfront and transparent manner. This obligation is quite reasonable.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Acting Chairman
Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 41 to 56, inclusive, 58, 60, 63 and 67 to 69, inclusive, are cognate and can be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 17, line 24, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
These amendments deal with the substitution of "chairperson" for "chairman" throughout the Bill. Deputy Shortall and others requested this on Committee Stage and we are complying with their wishes.
I welcome the change in policy from the drafting office and the Minister. I gather a precedent was set in recent days with the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill and I hope from now on we will have gender neutral terminology in legislation so that we will not have to deal with amendments like this again.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 17, line 25, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 17, line 38, after "time" to insert "for stated reasons".
This amendment is designed to provide basic protection for members of the board who might be dismissed by the Minister. It is fair to expect in those circumstances that a person be dismissed for stated reasons and not just as a result of a change in Government or for a spurious reason. The Minister should be obliged to state the reasons for removing someone.
Deputy Shortall's amendment to subsection (7) is considered unnecessary. Stated misbehaviour is already provided for and, therefore, the amendment is not being accepted. It may be the case that a board member would need to be removed for health reasons and might not wish the reasons to become known. If the amendment is accepted the Minister would not be able to comply with the board member's wishes in such circumstances. However, the text of the subsection does require that stated reasons must be given if the board member is removed for misbehaviour.
I am not talking about a situation where somebody might be removed for misbehaviour, but where someone might be removed for political reasons, which would be unfair. To avoid that situation arising there should be an obligation on the Minister to state the reason for removal. Presumably in the case of an illness, the reason stated could be personal reasons which would not be contested. However, in the event of political decisions being taken there should be an obligation on the Minister to state why he is taking action.
There are three reasons stated as to why a person might be removed — illness, misbehaviour or inefficiency. That is wide enough at the moment.
Is the Minister suggesting there could not be other reasons?
No, I am not.
Is it not fair to expect that the person who is being removed should be given the reason? The Minister has not addressed the intent of the amendment. The Minister mentions other reasons, but surely it is fair to expect that the reason would be stated.
I support Deputy Shortall who made a very valid point. The legislation provides that a member of the board can be removed at any time without being given a reason. Including the words "for stated reasons" improves the legislation. It is only a minor technical drafting amendment and I ask the Minister to accept it.
I support the amendment. If we look back at previous amendments and note why the consultative council has to be appointed, which seems to be largely political, it raises questions and the public should be reassured that any dismissal will be above board. In the context of balance between discretion and public accountability we have to err on the side of public accountability.
This was discussed on Committee Stage. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Cowen, was unwilling to accept any amendment on it because it would constrain him somewhat. As has already been said, if a board member is removed for misbehaviour, that will be alluded to.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 18, line 3, after "imprisonment," to insert "or".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 18, to delete lines 4 to 6.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 reported.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 18, line 23, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 18, line 25, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 18, line 26, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 18, line 28, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 45:
In page 18, line 29, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 46:
In page 18, line 33, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 18, line 34, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 18, line 37, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 49:
In page 18, line 41, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 50:
In page 18, line 45, to delete "chairman" where it firstly occurs and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 18, line 45, to delete "chairman" where it secondly occurs and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 19, line 1, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 19, line 2, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 54:
In page 19, line 4, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 19, line 6, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 56:
In page 19, line 10, to delete "Chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 57 not moved.
I move amendment No. 58:
In page 19, line 26, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 59:
In page 20, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(d) analysis relating to the nutritional value and content of food, between mainstream production methods and those production methods utilised in the organic and biodynamic food producing sectors.".
In the interests of the objectives of food safety and of safer and more sustainable production of food, it should be taken into account that the Irish public has a very limited knowledge generally of food produced along organic and biodynamic lines. The current dominant motivation behind food production is appearance. That is evidenced again and again by marketing studies. The Minister of State said the objective of the Bill is to make the consumer king, but in the area of food, appearance is king and the cost of producing the food is queen. We are talking about food safety but the current perception of the public is that once the appearance is reasonable and the cost is low, the food is acceptable.
The Food Safety Authority has a considerable job on its hands. We should equip it for that job so that other factors, which are not so easily assessed can be taken into account. The Food Safety Authority, in its scientific work, should carry out an analysis of the nutritional value and content of food between mainstream production methods and those production methods utilised in the organic and biodynamic food producing sectors. Clinical tests have shown that food produced organically results in a healthier product. Without the analysis, organic food has to labour under the dominant means of assessing its worth which is often price and appearance. While organic produce can be equally as appealing to the eye and can be produced at an equal cost to that produced with chemical inputs, particularly if labour costs are addressed through reform of the taxation system, it continues to labour under this bizarre way of assessing food which is dominated by appearance and cost. Will the Minister accept the amendment because this is an area on which the Food Safety Authority should focus.
This amendment is not acceptable because it is unnecessary. Subsection (6)(c) already takes account of the type of analysis to which the Deputy refers. In addition, subsection (1) is a general enabling provision which allows the board to refer matters to the scientific committee. If the authority is to be independent, the Bill should not be too prescriptive as to which matters the board should refer to the scientific committee. In regard to organic food, its producers should not have anything to fear from the scientific committee if it is as healthy as the Deputy says.
I support the Minister of State in this amendment. The Bill already covers any eventuality where an issue that should be investigated is referred to the scientific committee. We are talking about a proposal for a scientific project which will compare the nutritional value of mainstream foods to that of organic produce. I do not disagree with Deputy Sargent in regard to the comparison between both products. Without exception the organic product is often of better quality as it does not have the additional residues found in the mainstream product. It is not appropriate to this Bill, however, which concerns food safety from the point of view of the consumer. The inclusion of such an amendment will restrict the scientific committee somewhat. It can only do research in a number of areas and that limits the amount of time it has to carry out research into other issues. The scientific committee should not be tied down.
(Dublin West): I support Deputy Sargent's amendment. I regret the Government's reluctance to take on board some of the ideas in regard to bucking the industry involved in mainstream food production and actively promoting the production of organic foods. I am amazed that my amendment on a hazard committee in regard to genetically engineered foods was ruled out of order. I am astounded that there were sufficient grounds for that because it was an innovative idea which will be seen in the future to have been of crucial relevance. The Government should accept Deputy Sargent's amendment. I hope the work of the scientific committee and of the Food Safety Authority, when it commences, will show the benefits of organic food as opposed to the type of mass production which severely diminished the quality, flavour and enjoyment of food. Is it any wonder that battery hens, who are as happy as politicians whipped into voting lobbies against their will, produce a product with less flavour and nutritional value than the organic material? The same applies to pigs which are held in disgracefully cruel and confined conditions. I do not understand the reason the Minister of State will not support measures such as that being called for in the amendment.
Will the Minister of State give an assurance that the analysis relating to the nutritional value and content of health foods is brought to the attention of the consumer? The growth in the health foods business is astronomical but there is a risk that many companies will promote the health food image while falling short in regard to its real health benefits. It is important that consumers are made aware of the benefits of health foods. Products are sold through packaging and TV advertising so we must ensure that we sell health foods that are of benefit to health.
Deputy Naughten put forward his views on some aspects better than I did. Deputy Higgins made a political speech rather than speaking to the agenda. We are discussing the safety of food. That is the main criteria.
(Dublin West): That is a very narrow way of looking at it.
I agree with the Minister that we are talking about food safety but he should consider the meaning of safety. We are also talking about aspects of the whole health area with which he is familiar as a qualified physician, namely, allergies, the boosting of the immune system, etc. These are all matters of safety and health. I would go so far as to say that the growing and consumption of organic food has been found to buck the trend world-wide in relation to the decreasing sperm count. These may not be immediate matters of life and death to the individual, but they relate to health and the safety of the human race. The Minister should take a more broadly-based view of what the Food Safety Authority ought to do.
The organic sector here is facing an uphill struggle in comparison to that in Denmark and other countries where 25 per cent of food is organically produced. We ignore the enormous resources available to promote organic farming, which has health and economic benefits. We also ignore the fact that that market cannot be satisfied. People want to eat healthy food, but very often they cannot get it. The Food Safety Authority should embrace all aspects of food, particularly an area such as this which is disadvantaged compared to the mainstream food industry. The authority should be an ally rather than an indifferent associate to the development of this area.
The Minister, Deputy Davern, stressed the importance of developing the organic food industry. I urge the Minister, as somebody who may disseminate information to ensure that people understand the difference between various types of food, to accept the amendment, which would help redress the imbalance.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 60.
In page 20, line 33, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 61:
In page 20, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following: "(14) Advice furnished by the Scientific Committee to the Board may also be furnished to the Consultative Committee and the chairperson of the Scientific Committee may from time to time meet with the Consultative Committee to discuss such advice.".
The purpose of this amendment is to allow the broadly based Consultative Committee to be kept informed of the advice of the Scientific Committee. On Committee Stage the Minister undertook to consider this matter for Report Stage. He said it is important that all the arms of the new authority would interlock and that there would be free exchange of information between the board, the Consultative Committee and the Scientific Committee. I tabled this amendment to facilitate that flow of information. It provides that the advice of the Scientific Committee may, rather than should, be made available to the Consultative Committee, thereby increasing communication between the different arms of the authority.
This amendment is not acceptable. It is an operational matter for the authority to facilitate communication with the structural elements of the authority provided for in the Bill. It is inappropriate to provide for such arrangements in detail in the Bill.
I support Deputy Shortall's amendment. It is important there is a flow of information between the three committees. The problem in the past within the scientific community is that it has not been able to disseminate information to representatives of organisations and interest groups such as the Consultative Committee. It is important that such an amendment is accepted. It would encourage the Scientific Committee to distribute information to the public which it can understand. In the past the scientific community published reports and documents — this is done also in regard to medicine — which the ordinary Joe Soap cannot understand. The amendment would not only facilitate the flow of information between committees, it may be of assistance in disseminating information to the general public.
I am disappointed the Minister, Deputy Cowen, who undertook on Committee Stage to consider this matter positively, is not here and left the Minister of State to carry the can. The wishes of Members who put down amendments in good faith have not been met.
The amendment would allow for the chairperson of the Scientific Committee to meet the Consultative Committee. On Second Stage the Minister stressed the importance of a sciencebased approach to food safety. In that context it makes sense that reports drawn up by the Scientific Committee would be made available to the Consultative Committee, which is a broadly based group, so that it would be informed of the scientific information produced and that its deliberations and decisions would be better informed. I see no reason the Minister should not accept the amendment.
The role of the Scientific Committee is specific at times and we do not want to be too prescriptive. It is up to the authority to decide the flow of information required between its various elements.
The Minister is ill-informed in terms of what the authority can do. An authority with high quality personnel will work well — we all have confidence in Dr. Wall — but we are not talking about a personalised case. We are talking about laying down legislation which will last long into the future, regardless of the personnel in the authority. In that respect it is important to set down in the legislation the relationships we would like to see develop between the various arms of the authority. It is very well for the Minister to say there will be a free flow of information between the three bodies, but I am thinking of the future when the personnel involved may not adopt the open approach envisaged. To facilitate good communication between the three bodies concerned, it is important to set that down in the legislation.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 62 not moved.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 21, line 13, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 66 is cognate on amendment No. 64 and both may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 23, line 39, to delete "a House" and substitute "either House".
These are drafting amendments needed to provide greater clarity to the text of the Bill.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 24, line 3, to delete "the said".
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 24, line 14, to delete "a House" and substitute "either House".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 24, line 39, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 24, line 40, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 25, line 2, to delete "chairman" and substitute "chairperson".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 100 is related to amendment No. 70 and both may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 29, between lines 10 and 11, to insert the following:
"(d) any incorporated body which has been duly authorised by the relevant Government Department to carry out inspections relating to minimum standards in the area of food production e.g. The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association Limited, The Irish Organic Trust Limited, Demeter Standards Ireland Limited etc.".
I discussed this issue previously on Committee Stage and believe there is a strong case to include this peculiar range of organisations which do not fit into a Department agency, a non-governmental organisation, a consumer interest body or the other agencies which we are discussing. The Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association, the Irish Organic Trust Limited and Demeter Standards Ireland Limited are the bodies which are required and, indeed, depended on to ensure organic standards are policed.
If such organisations were not in existence, large companies would be able to claim whatever they wished in relation to the organically produced food they market. Such companies would be free to make more money on top of the huge profits they already make without anybody being able to challenge the veracity of their claims. The organisations referred to in my amendment are basically holding a thumb in the dam in relation to those marketing food primarily for profit and making unsubstantiated claims about quality. We see the type of language used in packaging, for example, suggesting food is new, healthy and nutritionally improved. The types of claims made should be challenged and policed.
I hope the Minister of State will take on board the fact that section 48 on service contracts states that the authority may for the purposes of carrying out its functions enter into a contract. This amendment does not impose an obligation and has nothing to do with being prescriptive. Section 48(d) simply covers the unusual circumstances of the organisations which carry out an invaluable role. I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendment on that basis.
Deputy Sargent made a valid point because a number of organisations outside the Bill's remit are authorised by various Departments to regulate the standards involved in food production. The Deputy used a good example, organic farmers, who regulate the production of organic produce. Such organisations should be included in this section. I ask the Minister of State to consider Deputy Sargent's amendment.
I agree with Deputy Naughten. The North Western Health Board, the agency involved in food safety in my area, does an outstanding job. Outside agencies could play a huge role in the implementation of the rules in relation to manufacture and retail, particularly the IQA, which independently evaluates firms, or ISO9000. They set a high standard of operation which in turn often determines quality and safety. It would be worthwhile considering outside agencies, apart from those listed.
(Dublin West): I strongly support Deputy Sargent's two amendments. It is crucial alternative voices are heard by those responsible for the safety of our food. That should be stated quite categorically. The problem is that powerful organisations, such as the Irish Farmer's Association, and agri-business companies and associations, regularly have the ear of the Government and the major parties. Sections of the IFA, representing large farmers, are like the agricultural wing of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil and are in constant touch——
I remind the Deputy we are discussing an amendment; we are not on Second Stage.
(Dublin West): I accept that but I am arguing why the Minister of State should accept——
There are 30 amendments remaining and we have but 20 minutes. I ask Members to confine their comments to the amendment.
(Dublin West): I was arguing why alternative voices are needed in relation to advice and the organic production of food, which will be the way of the future. We will return to organic production when we have run the mill in terms of chemicals and the poisoning which takes place. To ensure we move on to that rung sooner rather than later, I ask the Minister of State to accept the amendments and to have alternative voices to the powerful conglomerates.
The purpose of section 48 is to facilitate the drawing up of service contracts between the authority and the official agencies responsible for the food safety legislation listed in Schedule 1. The scope of this section cannot, therefore, be widened to provide for service contracts with bodies other than official agencies. Unfortunately, I cannot accept the amendment.
The Minister of State seems to be under the impression that there is an official agency that would serve the need for a service contract in relation to organic produce. I am trying to fill a gap. The Department of Agriculture and Food might value organic produce and the Minister of State may present certificates at Dromcolliher and elsewhere to graduates in organic farming but, when all is said and done, it is these groups which set and police standards and to whom the Minister goes to talk about organic farming. It seems these organisations are providing a necessary, unique and irreplaceable function. If the Minister is saying the Food Safety Authority is in the business of entering into service contracts with all groups that relate to food safety and does not mention the various organic organisations, he is leaving an enormous gap in the legislation. I am exasperated by the lack of willingness to fill that gap by accepting this amendment. I hope we can overcome that misunderstanding and accept the amendment.
The Department of Agriculture and Food is the official agency in this sector. However, the authority is free to enter into contracts with any person or organisation for the provision of ancillary services but this cannot be done under section 48, which is for a very specific purpose. I am precluded, therefore, by the definition of official agencies.
I disagree. The Department of Agriculture and Food talks about organic farming more and more and yet it comes back to these agencies when it needs to organise inspections and consultations regarding the practices of organic farming. It has limited experience through Teagasc and experimentation at Johnstown Castle but that is by way of supporting these organisations which have the ultimate experience and expertise to provide the service contracts. If the Minister says the Food Safety Authority can enter into contracts with anybody it wishes, then it is putting these organisations on an equal footing with anybody who expresses an interest in food. I am not sure whether the Minister seriously expects that to be a valid alternative to my amendment but it falls far short of meeting the need for proper organic expertise in the area of service contracts being available to the Food Safety Authority. The Department of Agriculture and Food does not carry out all the functions required by the organic farmers and certainly could improve its act considerably. In the meantime it relies on these organisations. I hope the Minister appreciates that and will accept this or a similar amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 29, line 31, after "publish" to insert "within 3 months".
An amendment requiring the authority to publish the changes to service contracts within one week was moved on Committee Stage by Deputy Bradford. This would be impractical and was not accepted but we undertook to examine the matter further. I have now reviewed the matter and propose that a three month deadline be put on publication. This is in line with the provision in subsection (6). It may be the case that the authority may need to negotiate changes with a range of agencies and individually. It would be impractical to expect the authority to publish the changes negotiated with each agency within a week. It would be more efficient and sensible to agree changes individually and publish them when the round of negotiations was complete. A three month deadline would allow this. The authority is free to publish changes much sooner if necessary.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 72:
In page 30, line 3, after "Where" to insert "an official agency fails to enter into a service contract or".
This is a drafting amendment to allow for consistency with section 48 (10). Subsection (10) provides for an official agency with an option in regard to the commencement or renewal of a service contract.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 30, line 7, after "concerned" to insert "and the trade union and staff association representatives of that agency's employees".
Official agencies employ approximately 2,000 persons, in various Government Departments. In this section we are giving the authority power to displace, in certain cases, people working for a Government agency which is not carrying out the service contract as originally agreed. Before the Minister and the authority would intervene in such a fashion and impact in such a way on an employee or employees, the staff associations or the trade union representatives of that agency should be consulted. We hope such a situation would not emerge but there are a number of official agencies involved. Unfortunately, there may be a time when the authority may have to intervene in such a way. In that event it would be proper that the appropriate staff representatives be consulted at such a delicate time.
The Deputy misunderstands the nature of the service contracts. Service contracts will be between the authority and the official agency. The staff, for as long as the service contract arrangement continues, will remain employees of the official agency, not of the authority. It would not be appropriate, therefore, for the authority to enter discussions with the representatives of staff who were not employed by it. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
The employees of the official agency in carrying out a contract would obviously be working full time on that contract. The loss of a service contract to a particular agency, the Southern Health Board, the Western Health Board or particular veterinary departments, would have huge ramifications and a major effect on the staff. If a service contract is to be withdrawn from a particular agency it would be appropriate that the organisation representing the employees would be consulted. The service contract may be a minor contract for one small task but, equally, it could be for a major contract, involving a significant number of employees of the agency in question. In a spirit of dialogue and consultation there should be provision for discussion with the various employee representatives on such an occasion.
This section is very specific. The setting up of this agency was facilitated by service contracts. That is the whole modus operandi behind it. Contracts are for three years to give reassurance to the agency and its staff, at the end of which they are be reviewed.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 74:
In page 30, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(14) The Authority within 3 years from the date of establishment shall review the operation of the service contracts and, after due consultation with the official agencies and other interested parties, shall develop and publish a plan for the long-term enforcement of food safety standards.".
This is ground which has been ploughed and harrowed on Second and Committee Stages. This amendment goes to the core of the legislation. The Food Safety Authority, as proposed by the Minister, is dependent for its operational effectiveness on service contracts. At the core of the Government's and the Department's philosophy is the indication that, at a future date, service contracts will be terminated and employees of the various official agencies will become permanent employees of the Food Safety Authority. Everyone accepts that cannot happen overnight and that lengthy discussions, dialogue and negotiations will have to be entered into by the authority, the various Departments and representatives of staff working with the various official agencies.
If the Minister of State and the Government are to live up to and fulfil their political commitment to have a fully independent, fully staffed and powerful Food Safety Authority, it is not good enough to say it will happen at some stage in the future. I appreciate a three year service contract is perhaps the minimum time for such a contract to work effectively. However, at some stage between now and the end of the first service contract, the Minister of State, his Department and the Government should state when the next stage will take place, which will be the direct employment of food safety inspectors by the authority as opposed to the various official agencies. That is the political commitment given by the Government and by the Minister of State and the Minister during the debates on Second and Committee Stages. We need to know when this will be implemented so I would like to see a plan brought forward during the term of the first service contract indicating when the transfer of staff to the authority and their direct employment by it will occur.
I support the amendment. Approximately 2,000 people are involved in this procedure which will also involve many new and changing relationships. The Minister of State said people would work on a contract basis initially and we would see how it would go from there. Some of us are concerned that we are talking of people's careers in terms of "we will see how it goes". If the initial contracts are for a three year period, we should be in a position after three years to know how things have gone, what difficulties have arisen and what new arrangements might need to be made. To end any uncertainty surrounding people's jobs and the nature of their employment, it is fair and reasonable that the 2,000 people would be told at the end of the three year period the intentions of the Government and the authority regarding their long-term working conditions.
This is an excellent amendment and it would be an excellent benchmark with which to assess the work of the authority after three years. I appeal to the Minister to seriously examine it because, if it is the long-term intention for the authority to employ the number of staff in question, it is important to ensure that value for money was given within the initial three year period. If a commitment is given to accept the responsibility of permanently employing 2,000 people, an assessment should be made of how good a service was provided by all the statutory bodies under the remit of the Food Safety Authority. If this cannot be done within the three year period, there should be an independent means of assessing the effectiveness of each group under the remit of the authority.
I support the amendment. The purpose of the Bill, as opposed to the legislation of the previous Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Noonan, is that the Food Safety Authority would, under contract, carry out work and assessments relating to food safety in various companies, organisations and so forth. The basis of the Bill is that the authority would be independent. It is impossible for it to be truly independent if Department staff are employed by it because they would have a bias towards their Department, the Department of Agriculture and Food. The reason the Food Safety Authority is being established is to take responsibility for food safety from that Department. For that reason, it is important that, after three years, the authority would directly employ its own staff who would be under its authority so that they would not have a bias towards other Departments, such as the Department of Agriculture and Food.
I appreciate the concerns of Deputies but Deputy Bradford's amendment is not acceptable. The Bill already provides for the ongoing review of contracts under section 48(5). We have already discussed three year contracts and the annual review. We cannot be tied down at this stage to a time limit because it is a new situation. It would be unfair to have our hands tied.
In his reply to the debate on Second Stage, the Minster of State said he would not be drawn on this issue. That is an indication of the weakness of the political will to do what was originally promised. It was the Minister of State's party and Government which promised to put in place a food safety authority which would be independent and autonomous and which would employ the entire inspectorate staff. We could have a lengthy debate about the propriety of that proposal but it is the Minister of State's Department and the Government which has introduced the legislation.
We need to be able to indicate clearly and quickly to the 2,000 staff working across various agencies when they will be employed by the Food Safety Authority. It does not place an excessive demand on the authority, the Department, the Government or any agency to indicate after two, three or four years how the service contracts have worked, how long they will remain in place, what progress has been made in negotiations and discussions with the staff in the different official agencies and when movement will be made towards the stated goal of the Minister of State of having the authority employing the inspectorate staff.
If the political will exists to do what was promised, it is not too much to expect that, within three years or more, an indication would be given when movement to the next stage would be made. If we are unwilling to do that, it is an open admission that the service contracts will remain in place permanently and that the original political promise is already null and void. That is why the Minister of State should be in a position to give some indication. It is not a question of being drawn on it or of giving a specific date but rather if the Minister of State can state that it remains his intention and that of the Government that the Food Safety Authority will eventually employ the entire food safety inspectorate staffing. Will the Minister of State at least answer the question and give a commitment on it?
Deputy Bradford is right because there has been a U-turn on the setting up of the Food Safety Authority. It must be autonomous and independent and the Government has said as much. However, unless a time limit is imposed, that will not happen. I could be here in 50 or 60 years' time in a zimmerframe, and the situation would still be the same unless a time limit is put in place now. I ask the Minister of State to accept Deputy Bradford's amendment.
I thank Deputy Bradford for his confidence that we will be on this side of the House in three or four years. As I stated already, the service contracts are for three years. Ultimately, we have envisaged that we would get to the employment by the authority but we do not want to put a date on it.
As it is now 10.30 p.m. I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That the amendments set down by the Minister for Health and Children and not disposed of are hereby made to the Bill. Fourth Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed".
Question put and agreed to.
I ask you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, to ask the Clerk under Standing Order 126, to correct a typographical error. The correction should insert the word "on" in page 12, line 16, after the word "advice".
Is that agreed? Agreed.