On a point of order, it is pretty bad timing that those of us involved in agriculture are attending a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, while this Bill is being discussed in the Chamber at the same time. Some of us still have to speak at that committee while this Bill is being discussed here. Deputy McNamara will address parts of it for me, as well as his own amendments, but it is very difficult to be in two places at the one time. I am sure the Minister-----
Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Bill 2022: Report Stage
The Bill will not be concluded today.
I understand that but it is not great timing for us.
I appreciate that but we are actually running ahead of schedule.
Okay. Thank you.
Amendment No. 1 is out of order.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 2 to 4, inclusive, and amendment No. 6 are related and may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“ “livestock producer” means any person engaged in the business of selling livestock to a meat processing plant for slaughter (including the sale of livestock from a meat processor to another meat processor);”.
I thank the Ceann Comhairle and the Government Chief Whip for facilitating a fuller debate on this Bill than might otherwise have been possible. I do not expect that we will agree on everything. We might not agree on anything but I am glad we at least all agree this is an important topic that deserves a detailed debate. I am grateful it will take place.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 6 are linked to this amendment. At this point, am I required to move all three amendments or just formally move the first amendment?
The Deputy can move all the amendments.
Amendment No. 2 provides what I suggest is a fairly non-contentious definition of a livestock producer, which is "any person engaged in the business of selling livestock to a meat processing plant for slaughter (including the sale of livestock from a meat processor to another meat processor)".
Amendment No. 3 defines a meat processing plant. Again, I suggest this is relatively uncontentious. It means "any plant or premises where there the business of slaughtering livestock, of manufacturing or preparing meats or meat food products from livestock for sale or shipment in commerce is carried out". That reference to "in commerce" means a commercial activity as opposed to somebody who is incidentally slaughtering an animal. For example, killing a pig at home was a relatively common practice in Ireland once upon a long time ago, at least, I am told it was. I do not ever recall it happening or seeing it at home but it was very common. Likewise, members of various religious minorities kill an animal at particular times of the year as part of their activities. This amendment rules out those people. It relates to those commercially killing animals for meat products.
On amendment No. 6, this Bill is about transparency. I applaud the fact there is an effort at transparency but a Bill on food transparency in the Irish context that does not mention meat processors lacks credibility. It is not credible to not talk about meat processors, given what we know in Ireland and given farmers' suspicions. I appreciate the Minister may say these suspicions are unfounded but there is a suspicion of price tampering. Right now, a huge number of livestock from feedlots are being slaughtered. It is not coincidental that is happening at a time when there is significant pressure on beef prices.
Is this time allocated to just the first amendment? I have moved on a little but I take it I get time for each amendment.
No, they are grouped so the Deputy has seven minutes.
The use of feedlots is just one of the avenues open to processors to keep down prices. This amendment does not require anybody to do anything but it facilitates the Minister or his successors to introduce legislation requiring very extensive reporting by meat processors on the "type of purchase, including grades, and age, the quantity of cattle purchased on a live weight basis, the quantity of cattle purchased on a dressed, or dead, weight basis, a range of the weights of the cattle purchased, the number of cattle purchased that were Bord Bia quality assured" - the Minister has repeatedly said that is very important - and "any premiums or discounts associated with weight, grade, or yield, or any type of purchase". That is quite important in the context of ascertaining the premia that are paid, in particular for in-spec Bord Bia quality-assured cattle.
The amendment also references the terms of trade regarding the cattle, and that meat plants may be required to report on forward contracts on the quantity of cattle that were slaughtered, in addition to reporting on cattle "delivered under a formula marketing arrangement that were slaughtered; the quantity and carcass characteristics of meat processor owned cattle that were slaughtered; [and] the quantity, basis level, and delivery month for all cattle purchased through forward contracts that were agreed to by the parties".
Meat processing plants may be required to report on average weight price paid per carcass; range of premiums and discounts paid; weighted average of premiums and discounts; range of prices; grade of beef; cuts of beef; trim specifications; and age specification of cattle. Meat processors may also be required to report on the prices they received for boxed meat, that is animals that have been killed and are vacuum packed. That is hugely important as there is some transparency as regards what farmers receive. There is not full transparency and there is certainly, as I alluded to earlier, a huge lack of transparency about the impact processor-controlled if not processor-owned feedlots have and the processors' ability to use them to hammer prices, but there is no transparency whatsoever around the price retailers are paying the processors. Unless and until we get transparency in that regard, we will simply never know where the profits are going in the food chain and who is getting what along the line.
We will also never know regarding, for example, the 30-month rule, which is not so important at this time of the year. I should declare that I am a farmer. It is declared in my Dáil Éireann interests. My experience as a farmer is that age specifications do not matter at this time of the year but they matter hugely when there is a volume of cattle to be killed. The Minister's Bill does not introduce transparency and, I respectfully say, does not have the capability to introduce transparency in that regard. If and when the Minister introduces regulations - I do not believe he will introduce regulations - it will be challenged by the processors on the basis that it is commercially sensitive. The principles and powers set out in this Bill do not facilitate the Minister to introduce that legislation. Any regulations the Government brings in to that effect could be struck down as being unlawful.
Thank you, Deputy.
In seeking to introduce transparency, the Minister has avoided the elephant in the room, which is the relationship between processors and retailers and the role-----
The Deputy is over time.
I did not agree to these amendments being grouped. In fairness, they are slightly disparate amendments that deserve an adequate discussion.
The Deputy will have a further two-minute opportunity.
I urge the Minister to accept these amendments, not because he has to implement regulations I have set out here, but because he could introduce regulations if he thought they were necessary or, more importantly,-----
I thank the Deputy. I need to move on.
-----if the regulator he is establishing thought they were necessary. The Minister is proposing to give a regulator-----
Deputy McNamara, we are over time.
-----a job he or she and his or her office will be unable to do, which is to introduce transparency in the food chain, especially when it comes to the murky world of meat processors in Ireland.
I support Deputy McNamara and compliment him on tabling these amendments. I join him in thanking the Ceann Comhairle and the Government Whip for their co-operation. Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 6 are grouped together.
Representatives of Macra na Feirme were here today. The Taoiseach stated that the Minister of State, Deputy Heydon would meet them. Their action hits the kernel of agriculture and that farmers are worried about the future. I am sure the Minister and Minister of State met them and they made their case. They said in their statement that their action is grounded in a desire for young people to have a vibrant and prosperous future in rural Ireland. We love rural Ireland. We want to live in rural Ireland and we want our children to have a future in rural communities. Without proper meaningful legislation that takes on the big moguls and the beef barons that will not be possible. As I said yesterday in the House, I remember when Charles J. Haughey went over and sat in a tent, squatted with the late Gaddafi and, with the Purcells, opened things up and brought about exports. It evolved from there and look what we have now. We see former Irish Farmers Association, IFA, presidents and they become feedlots for the meat factories. The whole thing is rotten as far as I am concerned. It is rotten and I do not see any appetite or desire of successive governments, including the current Minister, to tackle this; none whatsoever.
There were pickets on the processing plants and factories two or three years ago - I do not remember how long ago. The independent farmers were out there. The IFA was not to be seen with them at the time. Some other groups came. Many people who supply cattle to the factories are paying levies to the IFA and other organisations. Many of them stopped at that time and more will stop because they are not being represented by the rural Deputies in Fianna Fáil or Fine Gael - the Green Party is out to destroy them - nor by some Independents who are backing the Government all the time. Neither are they being represented by the farming organisations, because it is a cosy cartel.
We have Bord Bia, the beef industry and marketing. It is all lethargic and rather inept and feeble. A world-renowned product that should be walking off the shelves is not walking off the shelves. It should be, but look at the price the housewife, mammy, daddy, - I had better be careful what I say - houseperson or the family has to pay compared with what the producer gets. The fifth quarter is totally hijacked and not dealt with at all. Farmers are being treated as complete latter day eejits, God forgive me. They have no say. It is the same with supermarkets as regards vegetables but in this case we are talking about meat. The same craic is going on. Divide and conquer, get rid of all the small producers and then have all the big food lots. We have it in my county with massive ranches. They have it in Kildare too. I cannot speak much for Donegal.
I had better declare an interest too as a landowner. My son is at least a hill sheep farmer. I will declare that interest in case someone says that I should not be voting or talking about it. I will fearlessly represent the agricultural community. I was born and raised on a mixed farm where we had cows, cattle, sheep, sugar beet, wheat, barley - you name it. We had everything and 30 or 40 acres of potatoes. The income from that clothed and educated my family.
It is terrible to think that small farmers are being ruined and to see those noble people of Macra na Feirme today, led by their incoming president, having to come up to make a last gasp effort to find someone to support them, for someone to call the dogs off them and stop the demonising and vitriol that is being poured on agricultural people, that they do not care about the environment. They have excellent animal welfare husbandry and land husbandry. They look after the land and will do so. They are ready, willing and able. When the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, and others came out first, they were brilliant. Now the schemes are Mickey Mouse. It would cost more to employ agents and everybody has to do it. In this case, however, there is no appetite whatsoever to tackle the meat industry - none.
Meat moguls have branched into God knows what, from filling stations to every kind of thing, including hotels and you name it, all on the backs of Irish farmers and their workers. I recognise the amount of employment in the meat factories. It is not that I do not; I do. It is in my town, Cahir, as well as Roscrea and Nenagh and everywhere else such as in the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach's constituency in Dawn Meats and all the other plants. All the maintenance crews and the building that goes on provide employment. Nonetheless, the spending of the profits on other projects means the economy has moved away from the large family farm. It has moved away from the big farmers. Farmers are dealing with all the restrictions the Government puts on producing the grass and the need to have farm to fork traceability. Bord Bia is not pulling its weight. As for regulators, what is the point in having regulators if they cannot touch these people? They laugh at them and kick them out of the way as if they were a bit of dirt on the ground. They have no interest in them. They have politicians in this House falling all over them and have them at their every beck and call.
I will finish with the man we commemorated three weeks ago, the late leader of republican forces, the late Liam Lynch, who gave up his life 100 years ago on 10 April. He fought for the ideals of freedom and all he wanted to do when he finished the War of Independence and the fight for freedom was go back to a farm, marry his fiancée and live out his life on a small family farm. Those ideals are so far removed from the beef barons and moguls of industry, such as Supermac's and others, and the farmers have been made patsies. They are sick and tired of it now. If we do not protect them and sit up and listen, we will not have them. We will have food shortages and misfortune. That is what we will have. I remind the Government that in the last three recessions, it was the agricultural community that pulled us out of the doldrums and recovered our economy. I support these amendments.
Today, as has been mentioned, Macra na Feirme came to Leinster House and launched its campaign, Steps for our Future. I commend each of their members. They are young farmers fighting for their futures. I, and many others, believe that we need to get to grips with the issue of generational renewal. The reason that has become such an issue and many people have been put off going into farming is there is not enough confidence that they will have a future and a viable and sustainable income from farming. Many of them are forced to only farm part time or abandon the idea entirely. To get to grips with generational renewal, we must instil confidence in young farmers that we are behind them as politicians on every side of the House.
We also need to assure them that there is transparency in price and they will have a decent income at the end of it. Deputy McNamara mentioned retailers and selling to processors. There must be transparency in that regard. In January, the Minister mentioned that the new office of the regulator would have two key functions: delivering price and market analysis and reporting. However, it needs to deliver accountability and hold retailers and processors to account. The regulator needs to have teeth. We need to get to grips with these issues or the situation will become far worse, given that the age profile of farmers is increasing all the time. We, in the Rural Independent Group, support farmers every day, not just on the one day they are forced to come to Dublin to demand their rights and fight for their futures. We have raised many a time the lack of transparency on price. We brought forward a Bill in 2020 calling for transparency in the beef sector because we made commitments to beef and suckler farmers in our constituencies, which we followed through on. We now need to collaborate and make sure we can work together as Deputies to ensure farmers have more transparency and get a fair price for high-quality produce. A lot of work goes into what they do and input costs are rising all the time. Many farmers are demoralised. They need to have confidence that they will be rewarded for their work in producing high-quality food.
Only the Government can bring forward this legislation. Efforts are needed to ensure the new food regulator is not just a regulator in name and tokenistic. It has to really have teeth and have the power to issue fines of up to €10 million to companies in breach of unfair trading practice regulations. I want to see evidence of that and an immediate culture change in this area. Ireland has much experience of what happens when a light-touch approach to regulation is implemented. We do not need a repeat of that. We need true accountability and to build confidence quickly. Farming must be promoted to try to attract more young people into the sector. Nobody wants to see a hostile regulatory environment created but we urgently need to shift the balance of power in this area. For too long, farmers have had to just walk away and accept the price they are given, not knowing what price the retailer pays the processor. These are basic, reasonable requests. If the political will exists within government, this should be made a priority and put into action as soon as possible and, therefore, I fully support Deputy McNamara's amendments.
I also support Deputy McNamara's amendments. I am a farmer's son. God rest my mother and father, we grew up on a farm. I have brothers who farm and nephews and nieces in the contracting business. I understand farming because I see it every week, I live it every week and I have been part of the farming community. Macra na Feirme's members had to walk 79 km. They started last night and arrived at Leinster House today. The Taoiseach said he would meet them and just as they arrived into Dublin, he decided he could not meet them but, if his schedule suited, he would meet them afterwards.
He never said that. He said in the Chamber yesterday that he would meet them.
He was on the phone to the president of Macra na Feirme today and he said he would not meet them, when he previously said he would-----
He said it clearly in the House yesterday. The Deputy can check the record of the House from yesterday. He said he would be in the Dáil between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m.
He was in the Dáil and he was supposed to-----
Do not misrepresent what he said.
They came at 2 p.m. and he did not come out to meet them.
He met them.
He met them later, at his own convenience, but he would not meet the full group of people who walked 79 km.
That was because he was in the House. The Deputy knows that.
Sorry.
Sorry nothing. Do not misrepresent it.
If the Minister of State wants to try to talk over me, I will talk over him all day long. He seems to have-----
I will call the Deputy out when he is not telling the truth.
It is easy for Deputy Heydon to try to tell the truth, when the Taoiseach could have walked out for five minutes at any time and met people. Ministers often sit in for five minutes and take over for anything in the Dáil. It was at 2 p.m. today. The Minister of State should not bother making excuses for the Taoiseach when I am talking about amendments.
It was Questions to the Taoiseach.
Without interruption, please. I support these amendments. I am a farmer's son. I also understand farming and where Macra na Feirme is coming from. The Minister is from a farming community himself. The farmers who were here today are aged up to 35. I was thankful to see a 50-50 representation of men and women supporting the young Macra na Feirme members today. The average age of people going into farming is a lot lower. I spoke to many of them today who said they have no future in farming. I have three brothers who are farmers. I will be lucky if one or two of my nieces or nephews go into farming because the sons and daughters of my other brother said they cannot see a viable future in farming. That is three farms, three brothers and three families who said their children are looking at this and cannot see a viable future in supplying the food chain. When will the Government examine protecting agriculture and its future rather than it being sold out to massive meat processors dictating the price for meat produce? The people who supply meat produce for this industry have to try to work at a bare minimum or even at a loss to keep the family farm going.
When there were protests from members of the farming group, which went around the country last year, the Rural Independent Group stood with them. I stood with them at protests over the prices farmers get for producing food. When the transport network came here last year and protested, we were there again, side by side with them, when other Members did not think it was too popular to stand with the truckers and transport network in Ireland responsible for the movement of food produce. When Macra na Feirme came today, we were there again to meet and support them. A minority, only five or six, of Government Deputies came out to meet them. The majority of Deputies who met Macra na Feirme members were Independents. That tells us what the Government thinks of the farming sector and what it has in mind about the future of farming.
I believe, come the next election, whether it comes sooner or later, that the people from farming communities will remember the people who stuck with them through the highs and the lows and tried to support them and the future of farming.
These amendments are for fairness of pricing and openness and transparency for the pricing model and the market that is there for the future of the cost for the producers producing the meat. I ask the Minister to accept these amendments in their entirety, as Deputy McNamara has tabled them, and to stand up and protect and future-proof the supply chain in this country. As I said, we have had protest after protest and the Government still has not listened. The Government brings various farming organisations and groups up here and says, "Yes, sir, no, sir, three bags full, sir", and then changes the position when they walk out the door. We are talking about the next generation of farmers whom we need to protect, and about existing farmers who would like farming to be comfortable so that there is a viable future for their children or grandchildren or their cousins who want to take over the farm. It is in the Minister's hands. As I said, he is from a farming background. I presume he would like to see the next generation of the McConalogues take on farming, see it as a viable future, have a life they can live and experience life outside of farming. That is what we want. We want them to get fair prices for fair produce and fair play when it comes to legislation and regulations being put in place for farming.
I fully support Deputy McNamara's amendment. I wish to talk about a situation in which there are a lot of issues with agriculture and the problems out there. I have just left the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, where we have been discussing the price of fertiliser all evening. It is shocking where farmers found themselves last year, with many of them going bust trying to purchase fertiliser at an extraordinary price. We looked at the reports telling us that it was not just because of the war in Ukraine that this happened because the price was on the way up in 2021. I asked the farm organisations a question and there was not one with a dissenting voice. They felt the Minister did not intervene. He should have intervened. Why did the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission not intervene? We are paying an astronomical amount of money in the difference in the purchase of fertiliser in Ireland in comparison with the UK. Then, from one province to another and one county to another, there are huge price differences also. In my constituency, Cork South-West, many farmers are angered with me that I was not able to put up the fight to force someone to make some change, with farmers at that time paying maybe €300 extra for a pallet of urea. It is an astonishing situation.
Farmers need to survive. The way the Government is going, it is treating farmers as if it wants them to be all working with a donkey and cart and spreading a bit of dung at the back, something that happened in 1940 and 1950. We are not going back to that. If we do, we will only open this to the Brazilian market. They would be delighted with the Government's squeezing of Irish agriculture, and squeezing it is.
I was in Farnanes, which is a good bit outside of my constituency, last Friday week after an invitation by the farm organisations to stand on the farm of a dairy farmer with 71 cows, a nice, modest farm. That man faces ruination if the Government is going to continue ploughing ahead with the nitrates directive. The Government needs to get up and say, "No. We are not going to do this. We are going to try to force change here." That man, besides many more farmers who attended that day, including a Government MEP and Deputy Aindrias Moynihan, knows - I certainly know - that there is a massive crisis here and we will have a massive issue with food supply if the Government continues with this. The Minister needs to make a statement today that he will not force farmers to do this. The target of 250 kg is non-achievable. They know that and the Minister knows that, but he will plough ahead. This gentleman is married with four or five lovely kids around the farm. He has 71 cows. He will drop to 50-something cows, he says, if this goes ahead. He said he will be non-viable, so he will be gone off the farm, unless he can purchase or rent land that surrounds him, and that will drive up the price of land for the ordinary suckler farmer who has a bit of land rented. The ordinary, smaller farmers will be absolutely wiped out.
The Minister has two situations if he is not going to step in and realise that a reduction from 250 kg to 220 kg is non-achievable. If he is not going to step in here, he will leave people in a desperate situation in which many dairy farmers will not be able to afford to purchase or rent grounds neighbouring them. If they do, they will pass it on in the price to the person who was renting it already. It is a very unfair situation. The one phrase that was used in the yard by many of the farmers in Farnanes was "We are being treated like environmental terrorists". That is what the farmers are saying, not Michael Collins. That is an astonishing situation in which Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil have left Irish agriculture, to think that the dairy farmer and the suckler farmer feel like environmental terrorists. They are among the best in the world. That is the saddest point we are trying to make here. They are the greenest and the purest in the world and they are being treated terribly.
If any political party or politician worth their salt comes in here and does not state that the nitrates directive targets the Government is seeking to reach are non-achievable, they are not worth one vote in rural Ireland - not one. That, I assure the Minister, will be remembered. The farmers were naming Deputies in that yard and the yard was full of farmers. They were naming who is with them and who is not with them, so watch it, lads. I am giving ye a bit of advice: be careful out there. The Government cannot have a farmer with 71 cows going out of business. It just cannot do that. If that is the case, many genuine, hard-working farmers will be wiped out. They are so frustrated to have the finger pointed at them the whole time. In any discussion in here, the farmer is the problem, agriculture is the problem, rural Ireland is the problem. We will find the solution in rural Ireland and in agriculture, but the Government will not. As I said, the price difference in respect of fertiliser between the UK and Ireland is astonishing, but it is also from county to county and that needs to be investigated. I pleaded with the committee this evening that an investigation needs to be carried out here.
There is also the situation with the sheep compensation that was asked for. Unfortunately, sheep farmers found themselves in a desperate struggle for survival. I have met with Donal O'Donovan of the IFA often and Dermot Kelleher of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association. They are people who know what is going on in their own areas and their own farming situations. My son is running the suckler farm now. It is an organic farm, and that is fine. That suits where we live because there is a lot of rough ground and that suits the farming we do down there, but that type of farming does not suit everybody. I have super dairy farmers living near me. They are tremendous. I would not begrudge them one acre of their ground for the work they do. I spoke to a lady this evening from Rosscarbery. She knew I could not give a solution to the issue she had. She said to me that her son, who is married with two children, hardly sees the kids or the wife these days. He is out every night because of cows calving. She said he is - pardon the expression - working his butt off by day. She asked what the outcome will be. They are under immense stress - there is absolute stress going on here - and we condemn them the whole time here instead of supporting them and making sure they are going to survive. We need to fight for them. That is what the Minister was put here to do. I plead with him to do that, to look at the nitrates issue and to come out and make a brave statement that will give the farmers breathing space to survive.
I thank all the Deputies for the discussion on the amendments. As they will know, this legislation has had several months of work in terms of its preparation and very significant engagement, first in respect of my Department, working with the team and engaging with the stakeholders, a comprehensive consultation process with all farming organisations and all stakeholders that had an interest in the legislation, and then really good, solid, sterling work carried out by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, which met again and invited in stakeholders and farming representatives and spent a lot of meetings and a lot of time putting together a comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny report to help to inform this legislation.
I gave that significant overview and looked at it in great detail. Twenty recommendations were made in that report by the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, based on cross-party involvement. I either fully accepted or significantly accepted 18 of those 20 recommendations.
My objective is to make sure the legislation is as effective and impactful as possible. When I was on the Opposition benches where the Deputies are now, one of my key policies, and indeed this is something the Ministers of State, Deputy Heydon and Senator Hackett are very committed to as well, and one of my key objectives in terms of getting into government was to introduce transparency legislation, to introduce a food regulator or food ombudsman office, to bring that transparency to the food supply chain. This can allow us to trace the massive work our farm families do across the country and the effort that goes into producing those cattle, beef, sheep, milk, pigs, poultry, horticulture products, eggs or whatever it might be. Of the food that is produced, 90% is exported abroad to markets across the world because we are such a good food-producing nation. Obviously we do not have control of the prices that are available abroad. We market the quality of our food very strongly to try to maximise the value of it. We want to be able to ensure that for the 90% of our food that is exported, there is transparency there, allowing us to trace back what is happening in the food supply chain and to apply as much pressure as we possibly can to ensure farmers are getting both a fair deal for the massive work they do producing it and a fair income. That is what this legislation is about. That is why the work has gone into it.
We had massive engagement on Committee Stage of the Bill and very thorough discussion. That was very important in terms of making this legislation as impactful as possible. We are now at the very last Stage in the Dáil and the Bill will move to the Seanad after this. I recognise the amendments that are being discussed at the moment. Despite all the several months of work, the first time I saw these particular amendments was last Thursday. They were put forward at this very late stage. That is fair enough. It is possible and appropriate as well within the legislative process.
That is the legislative process.
However, I do believe that what is being mentioned in these amendments is already covered in the legislation. The legislation covers meat processors and the sale of livestock, and it covers much more broadly than that as well. These amendments are not necessary because the provisions are already contained in the legislation. There were several months of hard work, consultation and cross-party engagement at the agriculture committee. I really must recognise the work of the agriculture committee in putting that report together, and I have encompassed as much of it as I possibly can.
Many Deputies will have referred to the importance of Government backing farm families. That is certainly what we are doing. Everything I and the Ministers of State, Deputy Heydon and Senator Hackett, do is about working together to improve farm incomes and improve the lot of farmers. We want to improve the lot of farm families in terms of the policies and schemes we put in place, which we are massively backing through the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP. We also seek to improve in any way we can the lot of farmers in terms of the price they are getting by having as much transparency as possible in the food supply chain. That is why we are bringing forward this legislation, which is historic in its objective and rationale. We are looking forward to having the office of the food regulator up and running with the staff in place and with this legislation passed. We are seeking to future-proof the Bill by giving significant powers for regulation subsequently so that, if necessary and as we learn, we can also provide through statutory instrument the necessary capacity to make sure this office works in the way we want.
I believe these amendments are fully covered already in the comprehensive legislation that is in place, having come through Committee Stage and earlier Stages. We are already there in respect of them. Many Deputies referred to Macra na Feirme today. I, along with the Ministers of State, Deputy Heydon and Senator Hackett, and the Taoiseach, met its representatives. It was a very good, constructive meeting. Our objective is to back young farmers in every way we can. In the CAP programme introduced in recent months, we have increased by 50% the payments in Pillar 1 to young farmers and, with national funding, have increased by 50% the payments for all of the schemes in Pillar 2. For example, in Pillar 1, in the outgoing programme, the young farmer top-up amounted to just over €70 per hectare additional in terms of entitlement value. In the new CAP, it is €170 per hectare increase per entitlement. That is what the Government is doing to deliver for young farmers. That is the significant impact we are making. That is what we are about. A key part of that is this legislation, which is very comprehensive and will achieve the objective we are aiming for.
To suggest that the powers that are proposed to be given to the Minister and his successors to make regulations requiring transparency in the food chain is already covered in this Bill is patently incorrect. Where does the Minister or the regulator have the power to require beef processors to provide data on the amount of feedlot cattle that are being killed? That has an important impact on pricing. They are used to push down prices. That is why they control so many feedlots that were previously owned or controlled by farmers who were driven out of business by those very processors. The power of these meat processors is not unique to Ireland. It is the same as the power of the meatpackers in the United States. The reporting requirements in this Bill are taken pretty much from the United States Department of Agriculture public law 106-78 which was passed by Congress on 22 October 1999. The meatpackers in America were no more happy with this proposal than the meat processors here would be but the provisions have withstood their various legal challenges and are being implemented. I am not saying the system in America is perfect, but it is there.
The only powers the regulator will have in what the Minister proposes is to collect, analyse and regularly publish reports on price and market data relating to the agricultural and food supply chain and generally in relation to the agricultural and food sector in the State, but the problem is there are no market data on the impact of feedlots. There are no market data on the requirements of supermarkets around age and the impact of the 30-month rule. There are none. There are no data whatsoever on the price processors are paid by retailers so they both have a line to say to angry farmers, who are justifiably angry. That may be less so during the lifetime of this Dáil than in the previous Dáil, but I fear in future Dáileanna, as it is cyclical, there will be anger again. The retailers and the processors will point to each other and say, “There is the bad guy. There is the place you need to be protesting outside, not here, because I am not making any money out of this. I might have managed to buy the building the Department of Health is in but I never made anything out of the business.” It is laughable, and the Minister talks about historic. He championed this in opposition. He does have an historic opportunity to bring in powers to provide for transparency in the food chain but the failure to do that is historic and lamentable. I urge him to reconsider his position.
The Minister referred a moment ago to all the different things he brought in through CAP and for farmers a number of months ago. Could he tell me now why Macra na Feirme members marched to the Dáil today? The boards they had in front of them stated “McConalogue, Hackett and Heydon – Family Farms for Sale”. That was on their placards. The Minister said he had helped to put in place all these different funds for those same farmers and had increased them, but he forgot that they want to work with the Government for the future of farming, which includes the environment. The Minister is now deciding about the rewetting of land, and he wants to do it just like that.
They want to work with the Minister to improve environmental impact. Why did Macra na Feirme members have to walk 79 km with their placards to say the Government is putting their farms up for sale, while the Minister comes in and says the Government was introducing the Bill for young farmers months ago? If that was the case, they would not be here today. What the Government has done has not worked. It has not listened to the farmers. The Minister said he met farmers' representatives today. Why did he not go out to meet the large group of farmers who were outside Leinster House? He met one or two farmers in an environment he could control. Why did he not go out to meet the young men and women who walked through the night, with their hundreds of stories and blisters on their feet, to stand outside Leinster House today? Does the Minister think they would have done that if they thought anything he has done would improve the future of farming in Ireland? They certainly do not think it will and they are the ones who are doing it day in, day out. They are not in the bubble in which the Minister is living.
It is not just the Rural Independent Group that is saying farmers are very concerned. Deputy McNamara and many others on this side of the House are saying it too, as, I am sure, are members of the Minister's party and other parties in government. Macra na Feirme does not often organise marches. It is only when it has a genuine case, an urgent need arises or an obstacle occurs that we see its members gathering outside Leinster House. They are here because they are worried about their futures. They need to have confidence that the Government will deliver and support them. Input costs are rising all the time. Price is crucial. We have discussed it so often in the House. I became a Deputy in 2016 and the issue of price and the lack of transparency and so on was discussed then. Is it any wonder farmers are demoralised? We have to retain the farmers who are in the sector but we also need to secure the future. We need to ensure we are encouraging the next generation into farming, that it is a positive sector and they can secure a viable income. The only way to do that is to call out the retailers that are short-changing them, as well as calling out the processors, and ensure there is accountability. The Minister referred to data collection in the context of the food regulator, as did I. There must be real accountability. Fines must be imposed to show we mean business and are standing up for Irish farmers.
This is an historic opportunity, one that we in government are grasping and driving forward. That is why months of effort have gone into this. It is why we have consulted farm organisations across the country. Deputy Carthy, who is present, is one of the members of the agriculture committee who put significant work into the report and the 20 recommendations, 18 of which I have accepted or substantially accepted. That is why the Bill is robust and strong and provides the powers for further regulations as necessary to ensure this office works and delivers and has teeth.
We discussed the Macra na Feirme walk. The day that a farm organisation or union says everything is okay is the day we can all retire. By their nature, organisations will always push their case, and rightly so. I met Macra na Feirme representatives. I am listening and will continue to listen and seek to do more. I have been listening for the past year and a half. I travelled the whole country while putting the CAP together. I travelled to every county and met with Macra na Feirme and all farmers who wished to participate in the process to ensure the CAP that we have introduced backs farm families, and young farmers in particular. I referred to the top-up. Up to last December, it was just over €70 per hectare for a young farmer for five years. In recent months, that has increased to more than €170 per hectare. In the context of the targeted agricultural modernisation scheme, TAMS, there are significant supports for farmers with new on-farm investment, with a 60% grant. Under the outgoing CAP, that was available for 200 investment items, ranging from slatted sheds to machinery, such as slurry machinery, as well as milking parlours and so on. The Government has increased that from 200 investment items to 300. That is 100 more investment items in respect of which young farmers can get a 60% grant under TAMS. We are seeking to back farmers and ensure we give every opportunity to young farmers to get in and get up. We will continue to seek to do more and to listen to Macra and other farm organisations regarding how we can support them.
The Minister used the word "historic" quite a lot. This is historic only to the extent that never has so much been offered but so little delivered by way of concrete powers to a regulator. Where does the regulator have the power to ascertain the impact of feedlots? How will it do that unless there is a possibility to give it that power? The Minister does not have to do so, of course. It is merely that he is unable to make regulations to that effect. Where will the regulator be able to find out the amounts retailers pay processors and the conditionality in that regard? That information is available in the United States as a result of legislation. It is available in France, although perhaps not to the extent French farmers would like. Where are those powers? Is it the Minister or the Department that does not want the regulator to work? It is historic that a big office of the regulator is being set up. I predict that it will be entirely staffed by retirees from the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Where is the power to deliver transparency? Do the Minster and the Department not want transparency? If not, why not? Nobody believes there is transparency in the food sector in Ireland. He is one of the few people who believes the mere establishment of the post of regulator will bring transparency. It cannot and will not bring transparency, however, unless regulations can be made by the Minister or his successors to give the regulator the powers to seek the information needed to know where the profits are being made in the food chain. Massive profits are being made in the food chain but they are not being made by producers. Retailers are paying the price but we have no information on anything in between and we will not get such information as a result of this Bill. That is why I am proposing these amendments.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“ “meat processing plant” means any plant or premises where there the business of slaughtering livestock, of manufacturing or preparing meats or meat food products from livestock for sale or shipment in commerce is carried out;”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 68; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Bríd.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Michael McNamara and Michael Fitzmaurice; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:
" "reporting day" means a day on which—
(a) a meat processing plant conducts business regarding livestock committed to the meat processing plant, or livestock purchased, sold, or slaughtered by the meat processing plant,
(b) the Minister is required to make information concerning the business described in paragraph (a) available to the public, and
(c) the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine is open to conduct business;".
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 68; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Bríd.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tóibín, Peadar.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Chambers, Jack.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Donohoe, Paschal.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Michael McNamara and Michael Fitzmaurice; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the following unfair commercial practices in the sale of the agricultural and food products may be prohibited by regulation:
(a) deferrals of payment of agricultural or food products that exceed 30 days or other reasonable time period set down in regulation;
(b) one of the parties to the commercial relationship cancelling an order for perishable agricultural and food products within 30 days prior to the seller’s delivery date;
(c) one of the parties to the food contract unilaterally modifying the terms of the contract for the supply of agricultural products and food products, as regards the frequency, method, place, timing or volume of supply or delivery of agricultural products and food products, quality standards, payment terms or prices;
(d) one party to the commercial relationship requiring payments from the other party that are not related to the sale of the supplier’s agricultural or food products;
(e) the buyer requiring the supplier to pay for deterioration or loss, or both, of agricultural produce and food products, occurring on the buyer’s premises or where the property has already been transferred to the buyer, without such deterioration or loss being due to the negligence or fault of the supplier;
(f) a party to a food contract refusing to confirm in writing the terms of a sales or supply contract agreed between the buyer and the supplier and whose written confirmation has been requested by the other party;
(g) one party to the business relationship unlawfully acquiring, using or disclosing trade secrets of the other party within the meaning of the European Union (Protection of Trade Secrets) Regulations 2018 or any other regulations the stated purpose of which is to give effect in the State to Directive (EU 2016/943);
(h) one party to the business relationship threatening to carry out, or carrying out, acts of commercial retaliation against the other party when the other party exercises its negotiating, contractual or legal rights, including by making a complaint to the regulator or cooperating with the regulator during an investigation;
(i) the buyer passing on to the supplier the costs of investigating customers’ complaints relating to the sale of the supplier’s products, where the cause of the complaints was not due to the supplier’s negligence or fault;
(j) the buyer returning unsold agricultural and food products to the supplier without paying for these unsold products, or their disposal, or both;
(k) a party charging a payment as a condition for storing, displaying or listing agricultural and food products or making them available on the market;
(l) a party requiring the other party to bear more than 50 per cent of the cost of discounts for agricultural and food products sold as part of a promotion;
(m) a party requiring the other party to bear any of the cost of discounts for agricultural and food products sold as part of a promotion unless, prior to a promotion commencing, the duration of the promotion and the expected quantity of agricultural and food products to be ordered at a discounted price on the agreed terms are specified and the contract between the parties makes express provision for such a promotion and the extent of the discount arising therefrom;
(n) one party requiring the other party to pay for the advertising of agricultural and food products by the other party;
(o) one party requiring the other party to pay for the marketing of agricultural and food products;
(p) one party charging the other party for the personnel to fit out the premises used for the sale of the agricultural and food products.”.
The Bill as it stands allows the Minister to make regulations proscribing unfair trading practices but what those unfair trading practices are is not defined in the Bill. From that, one assumes that one refers to the legislation which it is sought to implement in Ireland, which is Directive (EU) 2019/633 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on unfair trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agriculture and food supply chain. While that may sound reasonable, there has been a significant discrepancy in how that is applied across member states and furthermore, how it is applied in Ireland.
I was a member of the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine from 2011 to 2016, while Deputy Fitzmaurice joined us on the committee in 2014. In that committee, which was chaired by Andrew Doyle, the then Deputy for Wicklow, there was a lot of discussion largely at Deputy Ó Cuív's behest. It was through this discussion that we learned that the transparency which existed in Ireland was quite different from that in other countries. In particular, how producers were treated in Ireland was quite different from how they were treated in other European countries.
The then Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Bruton, introduced a statutory instrument that proscribed a lot of activities. You could say he was ahead of his time because that 2016 regulation was quite similar in many respects to what was introduced by the socialist government in Spain in 2020 in Royal Decree-Law 5/2020. This law introduced a lot of protections for farmers - or producers to use a better term because it is broader than farmers - to much applause from the food sector and food producers in Spain. However, in 2021, during Covid, the protections introduced by the then Minister, Deputy Bruton, in 2016 were watered down considerably by the then Minister of State, Deputy Troy. Covid was a great cover if you wanted to do something and did not want people to know about it, discuss it or have any great concerns about it. Such concerns may have related to their health or to the draconian legislation that was being promulgated by the Minister for Health and facilitated by this House.
For the avoidance of any doubt, this legislation specifically allows the Minister to bring in regulations proscribing certain practices. It does not require the Minister to do it but it enables him to do it should he feel the necessity to do so. Under the Bill as it is framed, the Minister takes recommendations from the regulator. Some of the recommendations concern the prohibition of deferrals of payment for agriculture or food products that exceed 30 days or any other reasonable period set down in regulation. As I understand it - I am subject to correction on this - the time period that had been prescribed by the then Minister, Deputy Bruton, was changed by the then Minister of State, Deputy Troy, for no apparent reason. Obviously it made life easier for Tesco, Dunnes Stores, SuperValu, Lidl and Aldi but it made life a lot more difficult for producers.
One of the important things that can be introduced is a provision ensuring that one of the parties to a commercial relationship may not cancel an order for perishable agricultural and fruit products in the 30 days prior to the seller's delivery date. That is explicitly taken from the Spanish royal decree law. This law is explicitly set out for the purpose of implementing the unfair trading directive. If it can be done in Spain, I do not see why it cannot be done here. We know that the number of horticulture producers in Ireland is decreasing year on year. Even though this country is ideally suited to growing food, including horticultural products, more and more of it is being imported. We know this has a detrimental effect on our environment because imported food has a far greater carbon footprint than food produced in Ireland. If we are serious about the environment, eating organic carrots flown from one part of the world to another is not going to help our environment in any way.
We know we need to protect horticulture producers in Ireland because they can provide us with security of supply. There was huge uproar in England, less so in Ireland, when shelves were emptied out because of adverse weather conditions in the south of Italy and the south of Spain, where much of the horticultural produce we purchase comes from. It is in the interests of our environment, economy and safety and security of supply. It is also about traceability and the fact that possibly fewer preservatives have to be added to fruit and vegetables if they are travelling from north Dublin to shops in Dublin; from the Kinvara, Ballyvaughan and Bellharbour area up to Galway; or from Ogonnelloe down to Limerick than if they are being brought across the world. For all of those reasons, it is very important to protect horticulture producers.
We talk a lot about it but, year-on-year, horticultural producers go to the wall. Year-on-year there are fewer of them in Ireland. We do need to protect them and we need to protect them as fully as possible, not with a minimal standard introduced in the lifetime of this Government but by that which ironically - or I do not know if it is ironic or not - was introduced by persons who supported this Government when they were in office and in a position to make regulations.
I just want to be clear. It does not require the Minister to do everything but it facilitates him to ensure that a broad range of fair trading practices are adhered to. On that basis I urge him to consider the amendment.
Food security is paramount to everyone, not alone the farmers but also the consumers. We all see what happened with the fertiliser. It is my belief that the cartel operated by the larger co-ops in this country have ensured that the cost of fertiliser went to the highest that it could. This year, even with the price of gas coming down, we see they are still trying to make the argument that because they bought the fertiliser at the back end of last year, 2022, that they are entitled to charge as much as they can get for it now. If it was not for the fact that fertiliser became available at a cheaper price in the North of Ireland and that we could see the same thing was happening in the UK, it would still be at an exorbitant price. These co-ops are telling us that they bought this year’s fertiliser at a dear price at the back end of 2022. They did not tell us that they bought the fertiliser at a much cheaper price at the end of 2021 and they held on to it. They would not even quote or give it out in March last year until the price went up further. This is unfair trading. It is treating our farmers with contempt and treating the consumers and the housewife with contempt. That is what has happened. The farmers could not sustain the extra cost without driving up the cost of their produce as they finish it and produce it; they had to drive up the cost to cover their own expense whether it is dairy, beef or whatever.
I am asking the Minister and the Minister of State here to carry out a high-level investigation on these co-ops. When we talk about the larger co-ops, these are the very people who have been trying to stop their suppliers from supplying the smaller merchants recently. We thank those smaller merchants for supplying fertiliser much more cheaply than the larger co-ops. There is and has been unfair trading going on in this and it has to be called out. The Minister has to do something about it. I raised it with the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, a couple of months ago. He came back to me with a letter following my question to him during Leaders’ Questions saying that these co-ops were justified in charging what they are charging because they bought it dear at the end of last year but he was not able to go back far enough to see what happened at the end of 2021. I am calling on both of the Ministers to do something about this and ensure that something like this never happens in this country again.
I am also calling for an investigation into another matter, namely the cost of green diesel. Farmers cannot operate without green diesel. The price of green diesel went up way higher per litre than white diesel. There is no difference in the quality of white diesel and green diesel for driving whether it is a lorry or tractor. The only difference is the dye that is put into it. I cannot understand and farmers cannot understand why green diesel is at a cost that it should not be. We are thankful that the cost of road diesel and petrol has reduced but it needs to be reduced more. At the same time, green diesel has not gone down to the level that it should. We still know that something has happened and we need to get an explanation for the farmers because again, the farmers cannot sustain the extra cost onto the food that they are producing. Here in this Chamber, I want to thank our farmers right around the country for the wonderful food that they are supplying, whether dairy, beef or whatever, at the highest level and the highest standard. They are maintaining their environment requirements to the highest standard. I resent and reject the Citizens’ Assembly on Biodiversity Loss that is insisting that farmers be taxed more on their produce and that the subsidies they get from Europe should be reduced. I want to remind those people that the subsidies are not a gift. The farmers are entitled to them for producing food at a cheaper price and to compensate them for not being properly paid for the food, whether beef or dairy that they are producing. I resent the statement by that citizens' assembly a couple of weeks ago and I am glad to get the opportunity to condemn it for that because there was not a farmer in there that voted and passed that motion for the sham assembly they were all put into which was set up by this Government. There is only one assembly that I believe is correct and that is the people who are elected. Those people were elected by nobody. We are elected in here and we are the citizens' assembly.
I rise to support amendment No. 5 which was tabled by Deputy McNamara. I am bemused or intrigued. He mentioned the foresight that the former Minister, Deputy Bruton had. He was around the House a long time. I think he is an t'athair an Tigh. I would love to know why, when he was a Minister of State, Deputy Troy changed it. This is what intrigues me most about what is going on with this Government and past Governments and the way they are able to be manipulated. We are the first people here who do not represent our people. If it is good enough that Spain can legislate for this then why can we not do it? We have the dearest oil prices in Europe, if not further afield. Gas, electricity, you name it. We thought when we decoupled the clean energy from the so-called fossil fuel there would be a breakthrough and in many areas we get breakthroughs. Deputy Danny Healy-Rae spoke about his question to the Taoiseach at Leaders' Questions and going back to the price of fertiliser in 2021. There are agencies and watchdogs there and a plethora of officials who are meant to be watching all these areas and what are they doing? If a farmer makes a mistake or if the farmer has put incorrect information by accident in his application forms, he is severely penalised. It is time that others are made carry the can if they make mistakes.
It is time that this Government, and especially the Minister and the Minister of State, defend the farmers. They should challenge, as we said earlier, the beef barons, the feedlots and the way that has diminished the small family farms and the way the sector has gone into such big, powerful entities. Now we have it again, given what is going on with the fertiliser. It is shocking.
I want to salute the suppliers of the world, the likes of Pat Myers in south Tipperary and east Cork and many others. Indeed, when farmers struggle with bad springs and shortages of fodder, these small suppliers have the ethos that the co-ops were set up to have. The South Tipperary Farmers' Co-operative became Avonmore, then they became Glanbia, and God knows what it is now - Tirlán - or whatever it is. They have gone off and have become multibillion euro industries and they have forgotten their roots and where they came from. They were of the people, for the people and to help the people. We had great leaders in farming, such as T.J. Maher and Joe Rea, who was a friend of mine. There are many people like that in other areas as well.
The farming organisations marched to Dublin, like Macra na Feirme did today. What is wrong? Where is the inertia in this Government and the last number of Governments to serve the people they were elected to serve? These are our ordinary citizens. We should try to get the best price for them. In this case, we should try to get the best price for the farmers so they can get reasonably priced fertilisers so they do not have to add on to the price.
We all know what happens when the cost of oil is put up, which the Government voted for here last week. They voted to put excise duty on fuel prices again. It will be up to 23 cent per litre by October. That will add to more inflation. A kindergarten pupil in school would know that. The Government parties vote blindly for it. The Taoiseach said yesterday when he was answering questions that he expected prices to come down further. Yet, a week before, all his Deputies voted to put it up. I do not know what this means. They are playing mind games with people.
We need to assert. We need to have Governments, Departments and the likes of Bord Bia and the other agencies to serve the people they are set up to serve. It is no good to have a fine, fancy office in a regulator that has a brass plate on the wall outside, where there is fancy furniture and a nice title, if they are toothless, useless and fruitless. That is what they are. They are not set up to tackle. It is a runaway train as regards the big supermarkets and what used to be ordinary farmers' co-operatives. Now, they are multimillion euro industries. What they do in other parts of the world is more important and there is no one looking after the basic family farm and ordinary farmers. It is not happening.
Governments here should be looking after our people. Why is fertiliser cheaper in Northern Ireland and in other EU countries? Why is fuel cheaper? Why is electricity cheaper? Why is gas cheaper? Why are we the dearest in the class for everything? Why is that? Have we lost our will to live, or are we taking our instructions from other powers that are not elected to this House at all?
Deputy Healy-Rae mentioned the citizens' assembly and I will not even go there. On any kind of issue that arises now, which the Government wants to cloak and confuse and subjugate, it sets up a citizens' assembly. I am surprised there was not one called today for another topic we were talking about. Everything is put into a citizens' assembly. They hand-pick people and there is no proper representation by the sector we are talking about. Is it any wonder that Macra na Feirme members came today with such dignity, respect and an honest-to-goodness plea? There was not a bad word among them, or any kind of traffic blockades or anything else. They co-operated with An Garda Síochána. They came with a mantra; it is to be allowed to live in rural Ireland, to be allowed to have a fair living, to be allowed to build houses and to be allowed to have self-determination within the laws of the land. They should not be forced out of existence, squeezed out of business and exterminated. They import our foodstuffs from all over the world. What about the carbon footprint there? The thing is, it is an upside-down world that we are dealing with. They are upside-down countries when we see what we are doing, importing those kinds of foods.
Every year, as Deputy McNamara said earlier, we see more and more horticulture farmers who grow potatoes, carrots, parsnips and everything else being forced out of business. When they all are gone, there will be the low-cost sellers. I will not name them, but we know who they are. They will charge what they like on imported food that is sometimes as dry as bloody old ram's horn that was cut off a year ago and thrown in the bottom of a ditch. You could not eat it. It is unhealthy. What about the carbon emissions when it was transported to Ireland? The Government must stand up, serve the people they are elected to serve and stop serving the big moguls.
I thank Deputies McGrath, McNamara and Danny Healy-Rae. Deputy McGrath spoke for seven minutes but he did not refer to the amendment we are discussing here at all in his contribution in any significant way.
I did.
A number of points have been made. I will come back to Deputy McNamara, who referred to the grocery goods regulations, which were repealed in January 2021. There was a lot of engagement between my Department and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment at the time. They were repealed because we at that stage adopted the unfair trading practices, UTP, regulations and set up an office within my Department pending the establishment of this statutory office. They very significantly overlapped with the UTP regulations. That was the reason for that.
With regard to the amendment, the Bill as it stands provides for a wide range of types of unfair trading practices. Section 4, for example, refers to regulations. The section is concerned with the principles of the regulation-making powers of the Bill. There is, therefore, capacity to make further regulations as required. I believe that is the appropriate way to do it, in terms of how we look forward and how we add to that. It provides the flexibility to make sure there is a level of detail, consideration and capacity to amend them as necessary and to make sure the new regulator can work effectively.
The regulation-making powers for unfair trading practices are dealt with in Part 3. In Chapter 2, for example, sections 57 to 65, inclusive, provide powers for the Minister to make regulations, including prohibiting specified practices that include the matters referred to in the Deputy's proposed amendment. For example, they include the power to make regulations on late payments under section 58(1). Short-notice cancellations are included in section 59(1). Unilateral changes to the terms of supply agreements are referred to in section 59(3). Section 58(2) deals with prohibiting a payment that is not related to sale of the agricultural and food products, etc. I am very satisfied that the matters referred to by Deputy McNamara are adequately covered in Part 3. Section 58(3), for example, provides for prohibiting a payment for the deterioration or loss of products while section 61 provides for prohibiting a refusal to confirm in writing the terms of a supply agreement. There are a number of other examples.
They key is that the legislation will establish the legal capacity and framework for the Minister by regulation to be able to, as we go along, identify additional practices that may need to be addressed, to put those into law and to give the food regulator the capacity to oversee them.
Most Deputies have turned their attention to this Bill over the past few days. However, many Deputies have been involved in this over a number of months. Indeed, many stakeholders have been working hard on this for months and have been feeding into it. There is a commitment from the Government to make sure this legislation drives on, delivers for farm families and delivers on transparency in the food supply chain. The commitment and dedication we have shown in putting this legislation together and working so hard to bring it to this Stage will continue as necessary through the form of regulation. This Bill gives the current Minister and future Ministers the capacity to ensure this legislation works effectively.
For that reason, I do not believe the amendment is required. The significant content it outlines is covered and provided for in the Bill.
It bodes badly for the new regulator if the only reason the Minister has given for the watering-down in 2021 of the protections contained in the 2016 regulations is that the 2021 regulations were being made pursuant to the unfair trading practices directive of the European Union, which subsequently came into effect, rather than by the then enterprise Minister pursuant to a groceries Act of 2007. A precursor to the regulator, therefore, brought them in pursuant to the unfair trading directive, and that is a worry for me. Why were all the protections, provided for in what we might call the then Minister, Deputy Bruton's, legislation given it was secondary legislation made by him at the stroke of a pen, watered down? Why were the protections he brought in watered down in 2021 given that in 2020, a Spanish royal decree implemented exactly the same EU law, namely, the unfair trading directive, which this is seeking to implement? Who got to whom? Why was the subsequent one, in 2021, so much more favourable to retailers and so much more detrimental to producers, when we are talking about protecting producers? I welcome the specific powers contained in the Bill, but is there a power to stop hello money, for example, which is a huge problem in the sector, to prohibit the practice of returning unsold goods? I see that the Minister’s officials are nodding and I welcome that. Nevertheless, we cannot get away from the fact the protections of 2016 were watered down in 2021 and that is a trend I want to be reversed, which is why I introduced the amendment.
I want to ask the Minister a direct question. Will he instigate an investigation into what has happened with fertiliser and the exorbitant cost of it? A cartel is operating. We have even been told the larger co-operatives have asked the suppliers that import fertiliser not to supply it or to hold up the supply to the smaller merchants, and that is very serious. It looks to everyone out there, down our neck of the woods anyway, as though the co-operatives are doing everything possible to keep the price of fertiliser up. If it were not for what happened in the North of Ireland, where it is available - we make no apologies for bringing it down - the cost of fertiliser would be still at the same level as last year. I am asking the Minister please to follow that up and instigate an investigation into what has happened. This is serious. It has driven up inflation and the price of everything. When farmers have to charge more, shops have to charge consumers more. It has directly impacted on the financial well-being of the country.
Likewise, why is green diesel still being sold at a higher cost than it should be, given the prices of white diesel and petrol have dropped? The price of green diesel has not dropped at the same rate. Will the Minister follow up both issues? This is important. The whole country depends on food.
I did, in fact, refer to the amendment when I stood up. I referred to the then Minister, Deputy Bruton, having the foresight to introduce the regulations in 2016 and asked why they had been watered down by the then Minister of State, Deputy Troy. At whose behest? Who has their hands on the handlebars of power in this country? It is certainly not na hAirí or the Government, because we have allowed ourselves to become - I will not use the word I was going to use - puppets for big business. How come they could do it in Spain, yet we cannot? When we had a robust system, the Government watered it down.
The Minister tells us about an office being set up and everything else. Plenty of offices have been set up, with brass plates, expensive furniture and costly quangos and boards, but they are toothless, useless and fruitless. We have to serve the people we are elected to serve and look after our primary industry. That was the way it used to be in this country anyway until the Government began undermining, blackguarding and downright discriminating against farmers.
The Minister of State, Deputy Heydon, is a farmer and I think the Minister is too. I do not know what is going on, but in this House, in all the assemblies and even in Teagasc, our own are being terrorised. They are attacking, cannibalising and turning on our own people. Teagasc told farmers a couple of years ago to get more cows and now it is demonising them, bringing out reports and getting the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, to compile reports. The EPA should be out policing villages and examining the raw sewage in the Leas-Cheann Comhairle's constituency, my constituency and everyone else's constituency that is being pumped into rivers and streams, not trying to frighten farmers, demonising them and telling them they are not clean and are causing environmental hassle. They have become scapegoats and the parties in government have allowed them to become scapegoats, forever kicking them up and down the road. Farmers have always supported and fed us but they will not be able to feed us if they are not there.
I thank the Deputy but his most recent contribution was not related to the amendment either.
Was it not?
It was not related to it at all.
That is the Minister's interpretation. In that case, why did the Leas-Cheann Comhairle not direct me to speak to the amendment?
We might have to swap seats.
As for Deputy Healy-Rae, his points, while valid in respect of agriculture, were not related to the legislation either. He spoke to-----
It was about unfair trading.
What we are setting up here is a food regulator. It is about the goods farmers produce coming off the farm, whether that is meat or milk-----
(Interruptions).
Please, I gave great latitude. Let the Minister respond.
----and working with and putting transparency into the food supply chain to ensure there can be fair play, fair income and proper transparency throughout the food supply chain for farmers, putting a strong statutory office and regulator in place, with a team to be able to do that.
As the House will be aware, there is a challenge with regard to fertiliser, which was a very difficult issue last year because of the Ukrainian challenge. I responded as Minister by allocating a grants scheme of €1,000 for farmers to help with the cost of fertiliser. I have done that again this year, with another €1,000, which I prepaid last autumn. We now need to see what is happening in the international market arising from reductions in the price of fertiliser, which will, thankfully, be transferred to the market here. We have been seeing that but we need to see it fully put forward. That said, it is not directly related to the Bill.
To respond to Deputy McNamara, who asked about hello money, that is dealt with in the Bill, as are many other unfair trading practices. Importantly, the Bill gives power through regulation to the Minister to add to that in a way that is practicable in order that it can be effective. I hope power will be given, through the Dáil and thereafter the Seanad, to allow the Minister and the Government to be able to do that into the future, and that is what this is all about.
I do not wish to speak any further to the amendment save to correct the record of the Dáil. The new, watered-down amendments in 2021 were not made by the then Minister of State, Deputy Troy, as I previously said. As Minister of State, he did repeal the regulations by the then Minister, Deputy Bruton, but the new, watered-down regulations were, in fact, made by the Minister, Deputy McConalogue, in 2021. It is important to clarify that given Deputy Troy is not in the House. Other than that, I will press the amendment because I do not think there is any point in speaking further to it this evening.
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, may I make a clarification?
I do not think there is time for a clarification. I have been more than lenient in regard to Deputies speaking to the amendment and at this point-----
I cannot understand how the Minister could say that-----
-----the Deputy will have to take his understanding elsewhere.
What has happened with the fertiliser is not unfair trading and it is not related to the Bill we are discussing.
Please, Deputy. I am going ahead with the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
“(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the Minister may make regulation requiring any or all of the following:
(a) Meat processing plants may be required to report to the regulator on each designated reporting day with the following information for each cattle type:
(i) the prices for cattle (recorded in euros per kilogram weight) established on that day, categorised by—
(I) type of purchase, including grades, and age,
(II) the quantity of cattle purchased on a live weight basis,
(III) the quantity of cattle purchased on a dressed, or dead, weight basis,
(IV) a range of the weights of the cattle purchased,
(V) the number of cattle purchased that were Bord Bia quality assured,
(VI) any premiums or discounts associated with—
(A) weight, grade, or yield, or
(B) any type of purchase;
(ii) the terms of trade regarding the cattle, as applicable;
(b) Meat processing plants may be required to report to the regulator, on the first reporting day of each week, the following information applicable to the prior slaughter week:
(i) the quantity of cattle purchased through a forward contract that were slaughtered;
(ii) the quantity of cattle delivered under a formula marketing arrangement that were slaughtered;
(iii) the quantity and carcass characteristics of meat processor owned cattle that were slaughtered;
(iv) the quantity, basis level, and delivery month for all cattle purchased through forward contracts that were agreed to by the parties;
(v) the range and average of intended premiums and discounts that are expected to be in effect for the current slaughter week;
(c) Meat processing plants may be required to report to the regulator, on the first reporting day of each week, the following information for cattle purchased through a formula marketing arrangement and slaughtered during the prior slaughter week:
(i) the quantity (quoted in both numbers of head weights) of cattle;
(ii) the weighted average price paid for a carcass, including applicable premiums and discounts;
(iii) the range of premiums and discounts paid and the basis for same;
(iv) the weighted average of premiums and discounts paid;
(v) the range of prices paid;
(vi) the aggregate weighted average price paid for a carcass;
(vii) the terms of trade regarding the cattle, as applicable;
(d) Meat processing plants may be required to report to the regulator, each reporting day information on boxed and/or vacuum-packaged beef sales, including:
(i) the price for each lot of each negotiated boxed beef sale (determined by seller-buyer interaction and agreement);
(ii) the quantity for each lot of each sale, quoted by number of boxes sold, and
(iii) information regarding the characteristics of each lot of each sale, including:
(I) the grade of beef;
(II) the cut of beef;
(III) the trim specification, and
(IV) any age specification of the beef;
(e) (i) The Minister may establish a programme of swing price information reporting to the regulator that will—
(I) provide timely, accurate, and reliable market information,
(II) facilitate more informed marketing decisions, and
(III) promote competition in the swine slaughtering industry.
(ii) The Minister may for the purposes of subparagraph (i) introduce such regulations as may be required to establish a programme of swine price information.
(iii) The Minister may establish and implement a price reporting programme in accordance with this section that includes the reporting and publication of information required under this section;
(f) (i) The Minister may establish a programme of mandatory mutton and lamb price information reporting to the regulator that will—
(I) provide timely, accurate, and reliable market information,
(II) facilitate more informed marketing decisions, and
(III) promote competition in the lamb slaughtering industry.
(ii) The Minister may for the purposes of subparagraph (i) introduce such regulations as may be required to establish a programme of mutton and lamb price information.
(iii) Whenever the prices or quantities of lamb and mutton are required to be reported or published under this section, the prices or quantities shall be categorised so as to clearly delineate—
(I) the prices or quantities, as applicable, of lamb and mutton purchased in the domestic market, and
(II) the prices or quantities, as applicable, of any imported lamb and mutton.
(iv) Information required under this section for meat processing plant owned lamb or mutton shall include quantity and carcass characteristics, but not price;
(g) The Minister shall review the information required to be reported by meat processing plants under this section at least once every two years.”.
Amendment put:
The Dáil divided: Tá, 56; Níl, 66; Staon, 0.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Berry, Cathal.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Canney, Seán.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzmaurice, Michael.
- Funchion, Kathleen.
- Gannon, Gary.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Guirke, Johnny.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kenny, Gino.
- Kenny, Martin.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Shanahan, Matt.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Smith, Bríd.
- Smith, Duncan.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Brophy, Colm.
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Flanagan, Charles.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Lowry, Michael.
- Madigan, Josepha.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McAuliffe, Paul.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Darragh.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Connor, James.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
Staon
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Michael McNamara and Michael Fitzmaurice; Níl, Deputies Hildegarde Naughton and Cormac Devlin.
Amendment declared lost.
Debate adjourned.