Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 7 Mar 2000

Vol. 515 No. 6

National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill, 1999 [ Seanad ] : Report and Final Stages.

Amendments Nos. 1 and 38 are related and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:

"(3) The Livestock Marts Act, 1967, and section 36 may be cited together as the Livestock Marts Acts, 1967 and 2000, and shall be construed together as one.”.

The amendments provide for a new collective citation for the Livestock Marts Act, 1967, following the amendment of the provisions of section 36 of the Bill. The decided collective citation is a standard provision.

Dr. Upton

I support the amendment under which the Livestock Marts Act and section 36 will be cited and construed together as one.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 25 are related and may be discussed together.

Dr. Upton

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 6, line 31, after "who" to insert "imports or".

The Bill is significantly weakened by the exclusion of imports, which is unfair to Irish producers. What will be the situation if a dealer imports cattle and they are of inferior quality to cattle produced in Ireland because of the strict controls which will apply here arising from the Bill? Surely this would be considered anti-competitive from an Irish point of view and would place the Irish producer at a disadvantage. I am in favour of ensuring high standards, but the same high standards should apply regardless of whether the animals are produced in Ireland or imported. It is, therefore, important that the Bill take account of imported animals. At it stands they are excluded and it is important to include them.

The Labour Party has proposed amendments to section 2 and to the First Schedule which would have the effect of extending the scope of the Bill to imported meat. The purpose of the Bill is to provide additional guarantees regarding the safety of Irish cattle and beef to promote consumer confidence in the Irish product and to promote its marketability. Thus it would be contrary to the purpose of the scheme to include imported beef. It could also constitute a barrier to trade in contravention of EU and international legislation. Animals imported into the State would have to be covered since they could subsequently be traded, slaughtered and processed in the same way as domestic production.

The proposal to include imported meat under the scope of the Bill arises from the mistaken concern that meat imported into the EU from third countries does not have to comply with the same strict requirements as that produced in the EU and that the consumer would be at risk from such product. I again assure Deputies that this is not the case. Meat imported from outside the EU is also subject to strict regulation. Meat may only be imported from third countries and from establishments in those countries which have been specifically approved by EU veterinary officials. In addition, the meat may only be imported through approved import points and it must be accompanied by animal and public health certification conforming with EU requirements. The list of countries and establishments approved for export to the EU is subject to continuous monitoring and review.

During Committee Stage, Deputy Connaughton expressed concern regarding the position on imported feedingstuffs. Imported feedingstuffs are included under the scope of the Bill because such materials are generally included in the feedingstuffs manufactured in Ireland. Similar to the situation in relation to meat imported from third countries, the EU regulates the import of feedingstuff or feedingstuff materials from third countries.

I do not deny that there are issues of concern to Deputies regarding imports of beef. While I do not think this Bill is the way to address these issues, I will give thought to ways of making the imports position more transparent. I give that commitment here because I have an interest in that area. This issue is not related to the Bill.

Deputy Upton's amendment and my amendment No. 4 are similar. The Minister has replied to an amendment we put to a vote on Committee Stage. If it is in order I shall speak about it at this stage because the Minister seems to have referred to amendment No. 4.

The Deputy will have an opportunity to speak to amendment No. 4.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.

Amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are related. Amendments Nos. 4 to 6, inclusive, may be debated together.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, line 3, to delete ", other than section 6(1)(d), shall not” and substitute “shall”.

Unfortunately we do not have sufficient time in which to debate a huge number of important amendments.

I have all the time the Deputy wants.

No, because there is a deadline of 6 p.m. Since Committee Stage, many farmers have contacted me about the problem here. We discussed this problem in great detail the last day with the Minister, Deputy Walsh. The problem is that draconian measures are placed on Irish farmers. I went though every single one of those rules since 1921. If we have to move forward we should at least be fair to the farming community. I am not sure the food imports into this country will be treated in the same way as the foodstuffs produced here. For example, feedstuffs imported from outside our jurisdiction will not have the same conditions applied to them as those which apply to farmers here. When New Zealand lamb and meat from the continent and around the world arrives here we have no way of knowing how tight the regime is in that country as far as traceability is concerned. From the time the first ear tag is placed on an Irish calf until the day it is slaughtered it facilitates traceability. No matter what country one goes to, there is not any regime in Europe or in the world that is as tight as that which applies here. Is not this system anti-competitive? Given the huge amounts of imports, we have much less control over them. The Minister was extremely weak on this point the last day, hence the reason we put it to a vote. Time constraints do not permit me to go through the whole issue. However, it must be clear to the Minister that farmers are extraordinarily upset about what is happening.

If a farmer in counties Mayo, Galway or Cork sells a heifer to a local butcher traceability works in that case. We know who the farmer is, the ear tag must be correct and so on. Suppose the butcher or the supermarket sells the meat to a person in the local town and a member of that person's family gets sick. It could be construed under this legislation that liability for what happened would fall on the primary producer, even though it may have been the fridge in the supermarket or in the butcher's shop that was at fault. I said that on several occasions on Committee Stage and we had a vote on it. I do not like what I hear the Minister say because it appears he has either missed the point or wants the liability to attach itself to the primary producer. Neither my party nor the farmers will accept that.

Dr. Upton

We are leaving a big gap in the legislation by not ensuring the seamless process from farm through to final product. It might well have been highlighted last week with the salmonella outbreak where the main concern expressed related to the farm and the possibility of trying to isolate the salmonella from the pigs at production level. To some extent the product was ignored. There should be a chain between the primary product and the finished product at consumer level. From a consumer safety point of view there is a huge gap in that chain.

Like Deputy Connaughton I raised this matter on Committee Stage. I am concerned about the traceability of imports into this country. We do not know from where much of the meat is coming. If a butcher is selling this and a local farmer's beast at the same time, who is to say which meat it is. This is a matter about which many farmers, butchers and wholesalers are concerned. If anything can be done to alleviate these fears I ask the Minister to do it.

I endorse the sentiments expressed by my colleagues on this issue. There are no controls on EU beef, lamb or any other imports, including imports of third country products. A cut of beef could be sold to a customer over the counter by a butcher. If there is something wrong with it and the customer makes a complaint the butcher could say it belongs to the local farmer when it may have come from Britain, continental Europe or a third country market. The farmer is the one who will be penalised. There is a huge issue here in relation to liability. The beef can be traced back to the farmer in question and he could end up with serious liabilities. E.coli 0157 is present in an animal when it leaves the farm. Someone may subsequently be contaminated by e.coli 0157. If it was discovered that the infection was resistant to antibiotics it could be argued that the farmer was guilty of dosing the animal with antibiotics.

This legislation has serious implications for farmers who are faced with large amounts of red tape and they are very angry because of this. If our food industry is to be restricted and farmers are to be encumbered with bureaucratic requirements, the same requirements should be imposed on farmers in other EU countries. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

These amendments are based on the continued misunderstanding concerning the scope of the scheme. The Bill must be read in conjunction with existing legislation on food which already covers food businesses. Such businesses, which include retail butchers, supermarkets, grocery stores and other food outlets, are already strictly regulated under the European Communities (Hygiene of Foodstuffs) Regu lations, 1998 (S.I. No. 86 of 1998). These regulations set out detailed standards for premises and procedures in respect of food businesses, covering the entire scope of their operations. The regulations are enforced by the health boards which, like the Department, are agents of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland in the delivery of food safety across the food chain for the benefit of consumers. The health boards operate a system of regular controls, inspections, sampling and analysis, the criteria for which are laid down in the European Communities (Official Control of Foodstuffs) Regulations, 1998 (S.I. No. 85 of 1998). These regulations provide powers to the health boards of seizure and detention of product, product withdrawal, suspension of operations or closure of businesses. There is also power to prosecute such businesses in the courts.

Against this background, I am strongly of the belief that it would constitute a duplication and a waste of valuable resources to include these businesses in the registration, inspection and approval processes under the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill. The introduction of a two tier inspection and approval system for these businesses would also be contrary to the Government's regulatory reform initiative, which seeks to simplify regulations and procedures for businesses. However, by regulating primary production and processing, the Bill will regulate the sources of supply for such businesses. Under the scheme, this sector will be obliged to ensure that when buying or receiving Irish beef they deal only with participants who are approved.

There is not much hope of that.

Pigs might fly.

This provision is contained in section 6(1) (d). Non-compliance will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties are provided in section 25. In addition, provision has been made in section 29 for the appointment of authorised officers to check whether this provision is being complied with. The combination of the legislation operated by the health boards and the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill will ensure that the consumer is protected across the entire food chain with regard to controls on the production, processing and sale of Irish cattle and beef.

The recent salmonella scare in relation to cooked ham is a case in point. The local authorities and the Department, as agents of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, are actively involved in the investigation into the source of this outbreak in relation to their areas of responsibility. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, as the agency responsible for food safety, has taken the lead role and is co-ordinating the investigation into this outbreak across the entire food chain. The protection of the consumer is thus being assured.

The phrase proposed in the amendment to section 5 is largely aspirational and does not have any real meaning in law. Furthermore, its inclusion could give the wrong signal to consumers in so far as it would convey the mistaken impression that the Bill as drafted is not all-embracing and comprehensive.

I addressed the concerns raised by Deputy Connaughton regarding the import of beef and feedstuffs. I have undertaken to look at the question but I do not think the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill is the correct place to do this.

Last year we exported 545,000 tonnes out of a total beef slaughter of 600,000 tonnes. We consumed only 55,000 tonnes of beef. Approximately 5,000 tonnes of beef are imported annually under strict licence. I have outlined the procedures involved in importing beef. E.coli 1057 has been mentioned. Were it not for the procedures I put in place, we would be at great risk from e.coli 1057. This disease has affected Scotland and the United States where it has caused loss of life. The strict procedures put in place by the Department and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland has saved the very valuable Irish food industry.

There will shortly be a new EU directive on the liabilities areas mentioned by Deputy Naughten. I was informed at a recent conference that Commissioner Byrne is working on this matter and I look forward to receiving that directive. When the directive is issued it will be necessary to legislate for its implementation in Ireland.

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 10, line 40, after "Minister." to insert "Any such inspection or checking in respect of farms shall be carried out at the same time as the annual TB and Brucellosis tests and at no extra cost to the herdowner.".

This amendment is central to the Bill. From today, every Irish farmer will require a permit to farm, although I note the Minister of State does not use that word. In order to get that permit, he or she must be visited by the local veterinary surgeon. This visit should be made on the occasion of the annual TB and brucellosis testing and the cost of the certificate should be included in the cost of the TB and brucellosis test, which is already quite a large sum.

We have no shortage of on-farm inspections. Farmers are inspected for REPS, headage and every imaginable reason. Some farmers are visited by a Department inspector six times or more in a year. When calves are sick, when cows are calving or when animals are being tested for TB or brucellosis, it is the local vet who attends to the animals. Every veterinary surgeon knows the farms he or she attends. No one is in a better position to write a certificate for a farm than the local veterinary surgeon.

I hope the Minister of State accepts this amendment. If he does not, I will put the matter to a vote.

Dr. Upton

A plethora of inspections is carried out at all levels of the food industry and on farms. In the interest of minimising bureaucracy, the farm certification should be done by someone who is already part of the testing system. Whoever does the testing should be specifically trained in the requirements of the Bill. I support the idea of the local veterinary surgeon doing the test rather than having an additional set of procedures carried out.

When this matter was discussed on Committee Stage it was generally felt that the inspection required by the Bill should take place on the same day as other tests. This would remove the need for an extra charge on farmers. As the Minister of State is well aware, the costs involved in having a vet visit a farm, particularly for those involved in the dairy, suckler cow, pig and poultry sectors, are enormous. The dropping of the proposed charge, therefore, would be very welcome.

I agree with previous speakers on the proposed charge. Farmers complain that we in this House make the rules and regulations but we do not, they are made by the European Union. It is outrageous that the rules and regulations that we do make have to be sanctioned by the European Union. This begs the question whether this House is needed any longer, but that is a debate for another day.

I agree there should not be an extra charge to farmers who cannot take any more. A war took place recently between farmers and the meat factories when it was proposed that extra charges be imposed. The proposed charge will put many farmers out of business. Given the red tape involved, farmers and their wives will have to employ three or four secretaries with a degree in agricultural studies in order to continue to operate in agriculture. This is a sad day for the industry which is being dictated to by the Civil Service and the European Union. One does not know what the other is doing. I am open to correction by the Minister of State but we are the first to introduce legislation in this area. As previous speakers said, we do not know from where the food we are importing has come. The Minister of State should inform us that he will not allow this extra charge to be imposed on farmers who, given current profit levels in the industry, are not in a position to sustain a further charge.

I agree there should not be an extra charge, in respect of which every public representative has received representations. I find Deputy Naughten's reasoning very difficult to understand, however, that the inspection should be included with other tests. As with all professions, time is money. Given that farming is going through a bad period, I recommend to the Minister of State that there should not be an extra charge, that it should be incurred by the Department. I would be suspicious and nervous if vets were allowed to incorporate it with the cost of other tests.

I strongly disagree that the cost should be incurred by the Department. Were that to happen the fear is that it would eventually be passed on to farmers. With the proper training, the annual TB or brucellosis test would present vets with an ideal opportunity to sign off on what is, in effect, a licence to farm. There will be turkey on the menu tomorrow in the cafeteria in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development; following the passage of the Bill it will be Christmas every day for vets given the charges that may be added on. The farming community is already finding it very difficult to survive given the additional charges being imposed daily by vets and the meat factories. The proposed charge is being slapped on top of these.

On the licence to farm, has the Minister of State sought the views of the Attorney General and, if so, does the Minister of State believe that the Bill, under which farmers will lose their God given right to farm their own land which has been passed on from generation to generation, is constitutional? By how much will the price of beef increase per kilo and to what extent will this make Irish beef less competitive in continental Europe? They are the two critical questions which need to be answered.

I urge the Minister of State to look again at the amendment which is well balanced and with which every Member agrees. It should be remembered that we are not being dictated to by the European Union on the Bill for which we have sole responsibility. I, therefore, urge the Minister of State to accept the amendment.

I thank Deputies for their contributions on the amendment on which the debate seems to be anchored. I can give Deputy Upton an undertaking that inspections will be made by qualified personnel who will receive the proper training. The Attorney General has approved the Bill which is deemed to be in order unless proved otherwise. While I would like to be in a position to do so, it would be hard to quantify the increase in the price of beef per kilo.

The Minister of State would not want to do it.

I fully realise that the farming community is going through a difficult period and I do not want it said on any side of the House that the Government is imposing hardship on it.

That is how it looks.

The Government fully realises that rural Ireland is of vital importance to the success of the economy. There are 145,000 registered farmers and in spite of what has been said by the planners and others about what will happen in the years ahead, I would like each and every one of them to remain on the land. I do not want to see any of them being put out of business by this Bill.

I am sympathetic to the amendment which has been discussed widely. As it is not my policy or that of the Department to impose hardship on the farming community I support the view that the ideal time to carry out inspections is at the time of the annual TB and brucellosis tests, but this should have the agreement of the farmer concerned. There should be flexibility if possible.

What about the cost?

In the interests of rural Ireland, I am also prepared to concede on the issue of cost.

I thank the Minister of State.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

We now proceed to amendment No. 8. Amendment No. 9 is cognate. Is it agreed that they be discussed together? Agreed.

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 12, lines 15 and 16, to delete "to the Minister" and substitute "orally to an independent self-financing appeal board based at county level".

This is a very important amendment. The Minister travelled some of the road with us the last day on the question of an appeals board. The cheque in the post will now account for 53% of farm income. In this connection, what are the maximum penalties where an animal has lost both eartags? Fine Gael is seeking the establishment of an independent appeals board. This is not to cast an aspersion on the staff of the Department. However, they are in an unusual position because they are judge and jury. The Department imposed the penalty at farm level and, as the scheme is currently constituted, by and large it is senior people there who are deciding whether that was right or proper. I know that there is a European Union input into this also, but along with my party and no doubt every farmer, I want the appeal to be conducted by an independent body and I want there to be an accessible oral hearing. By accessible, I mean that I cannot see why a farmer in Kilkenny, Cork, Galway or Mayo should have to travel to Dublin to have his or her appeal heard. It should be done locally. The Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs is able to conduct appeals locally and I see no reason that this should not be done locally.

I have every reason to believe the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, may be inclined to accept these amendments and I will always bid "fair play" to a man when he deserves it. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, announced that there would be an independent oral appeal, but we seek its provision at county level. It is an administrative problem but there is no reason it should not be done. It is on that basis that I will put the amendment to the House, if I must, having heard the reply of the Minister of State, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe.

On Committee Stage I was the first to seek an appeals system in each county.

That is correct.

I felt that many small farmers would not be in a position to make an appeal in Dublin and that if an appeals officer came to each county every so often to hear appeals, the farmers could get their local agricultural instructor, councillor, Deputy or solicitor to speak on their behalf.

Social welfare officer.

Many of these cases arise because the farmer put an incorrect mark on the application form or wrote the wrong date or number. It is sad that people lose much of their subsidies because of a mistake in an application.

I told a story that day of where a father wanted to keep his son on the land and if I have time, I will recount it to the House. He leased a farm with sheds, accommodation and land five miles away and set him up with a suckling herd. When he was filling up the application form, in answer to the question as to whether he was associated with another herd, he stated he was associated with his son's herd and that the son was associated with his herd. As a result, the Department maintained that the herds were being mixed and one of the herds, that of the son, was disqualified. It is a shame, considering the father was trying to do a good turn for his son and keep him on the land.

The Minister announced that he will allow an oral appeal. It is crucially important that the decision of that appeal is transparent. That is not the way it is done at present, where all that is recorded is the decision of the appeals board. The deliberations which take place are not recorded. I hope there will be a change with this appeals mechanism.

Regarding the penalties relating to the tags, there have been situations in the past where, when there was a tag missing when a farmer brought cattle to the factory and the farmer returned later with the take to Kepak or the factory involved, the inspector kicked it into the bin and said "Thanks a million". That is wrong and it should not happen. Farmers should not be penalised in this manner.

More important than where an appeals system is based is the process of appeal. Last year's strategic management initiative committee report strongly recommended an independent appeals mechanism. The attitude of the Department up until then was that there could not be an appeals system because it would violate EU regulations. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, responded positively to the report of the SMI committee. The concerns of the committee, which I chair, were that there should be an independent appeals system, seen to be independent and trusted by the farming community and that it would relate directly to its client base. One of the things which stuck that committee during all of its deliberations was the minor issues on which people could lose their entitlements. The pedantic detail required of farming families is something which most Deputies could not meet. In fact, Senator Avril Doyle, who was Vice-Chairman of the committee, admitted that, notwithstanding the fact that she was a graduate in this area, she would have difficulties.

I accept Deputy Naughten's point that when an appeal is made there must be a clear-cut response from the appeals mechanism. It must be seen to be credible and it must not simply be a reiteration of the earlier judgment.

Having been Chairman of the committee which recommended it, I am pleased that there is a move towards an appeals system. Tremendous work has been done within the Department to try and humanise a system which in many ways has been inhumane. It was interesting that the senior EU personnel we invited before the committee paid credit to the Department and to the honesty with which the farming community has responded to EU schemes.

I wish to see the appeals system up and running and dealing with its client base in a manner to which those clients adapt. The Department has gone a long way and this House could do so too.

I take Deputy Roche's point. He is right. It is no wonder the EU officials were very complimentary of them because the Department always seemed to go against the farmers.

In the case of the inquiry of the Committee of Public Accounts, for example, when the politicians were being examined they were not examined by their colleagues; they brought in solicitors to do it. It is outrageous that this is the case in the year 2000. If this was brought before the courts, there would be a case against the Government. The farming community must deal with a junior or senior inspector and then there is a further inspector up the line. It is like in politics where the Minister's backbenchers will do whatever they can to defend him.

For months I have called for an ombudsman for agriculture and I stand over that. There should be an ombudsman who should have an agent in every county.

That would be a handy job for the Deputy.

The appeals unit should be in place and the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development should not be judging its own officials – they will not let one another down. There should be independent people involved and that should have been done 20 years ago rather than now.

That would be a handy job for the Deputy.

He would do a good job.

I will take any job. I know whose side I would promote – it would be that of the farmers. The appeals system must be put in place and I want to see independent people dealing with it.

Deputy Ring seems to think that because backbenchers request something, it is easily granted. I can assure him it is not. We represent the farmers whether we are on this side or that side of the House.

I do not doubt that.

We will make our point. I find it difficult to understand that where the Minister or one of his representatives decides to refuse, the farmer has 14 days to appeal and he or she must appeal to more than likely the same person who has already made the decision. I wish to inform Deputy Ring that on several occasions we have brought this to the Minister, Deputy Walsh, at our parliamentary agriculture meeting and he agreed with us. I understood there was to be an independent appeals board set up. I would wholeheartedly agree with my colleague, Deputy Brady, when he said it should be at county level.

He is right.

It is ludicrous in this day and age to think that farmers from all over Ireland must come to Dublin.

Through the traffic jams.

Irrespective of that, it is ludicrous anyway. It might suit these inspectors for other reasons if they visited the counties. I anxiously await the reply of the Minister of State, Deputy O'Keeffe.

An undertaking was given on Committee Stage that an appeals system would be established and it will address the problem identified on both sides of the House. I wish to advise the House of a correction to section 32, consequential upon the acceptance of amendment No. 19: In page 22, line 1, a comma should be inserted after the word "revokes".

That is covered.

I thank all those who participated in the Bill. It is complex legislation, but is very important for the agricultural and food industry because we are an exporting country.

As it is now 6 o'clock, I am required to put the following question in accordance with an order of the Dáil of this day: "That amendments set down by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Rural Development 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.
Top
Share