I was addressing this Sinn Féin amendment. The Minister had indicated he would accept the amendment while proposing some amendments to it. I welcome the amendment and the fact the Minister is accepting it. The amendments he will propose make eminent sense. I had outlined how cumbersome it would be to take a criminal prosecution. I welcome the fact there is the possibility of a criminal prosecution because it is a deterrent, but is it clear who will prosecute the offence? I did not think it was. Is it prosecutable by the Director of Public Prosecutions? Is it prosecutable at the behest of the regulator? I am not certain. In any event, a criminal prosecution is an onerous endeavour that would potentially tie up the regulator. I welcome the fact that the possibility of criminal prosecutions is there. However, I do not think it achieves the purpose of this legislation, which is to obtain information. There should be a civil enforcement mechanism alongside the criminal one. While I welcome the amendment, it is unusual for a regulator to only have the power of criminal enforcement and not to have any civil enforcement mechanism. The regulator should be able to forget about the criminal issue and ask for any relevant information. The regulator should have the power to go to court to get access to the relevant information but it does not have that power. I welcome the amendment but more is required.
Agriculture and Food Supply Chain Bill 2022: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 14:
In paragraph (d), to delete “the regulator shall be authorised to”.
I move amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 14:
In paragraph (d), to delete “agri-food” and substitute “agricultural and food”.
I move amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 14:
In paragraph (d), to delete “(vii) salary, and” and substitute “(vii) salary.”.
I move amendment No. 4 to amendment No. 14:
To delete paragraph (e) and substitute the following:
“(4) Data referenced under paragraph (d) of subsection (3) may be in paper or electronic form, held by a business involved in the agriculture and food supply chain, or otherwise on their behalf.”.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 11, after line 33, to insert the following:
“(7) Where the regulator believes that data relating to a business obtained under paragraph (d) of subsection (3) is or is likely to be of a commercially sensitive nature and is not in the public domain, the regulator shall not publish the data without the consent of the business (notwithstanding section 51).”.
I move amendment No. 17a:
In page 11, after line 33, to insert the following:
“Power to require information
13. (1) The regulator may, by written notice (referred to in this section as an “information notice”) served on a person in the agricultural and food sector, require the person to give to the regulator, within such period and in such form as may be specified in the notice, any information specified in the notice that the regulator may reasonably require in performing its functions.
(2) The period specified in the information notice under subsection (1) may be extended at the discretion of the regulator on the written application of the person on whom the notice is served.
(3) A person on whom an information notice is served under this section may, within 7 days beginning on the day on which the notice is served on him or her, appeal in the prescribed manner against the notice to the High Court and in determining the appeal the High Court may, if satisfied that it is reasonable to do so, confirm, vary or cancel the notice.
(4) Where, on the hearing of an appeal under subsection (3), a notice is confirmed or varied, the High Court may, on the application of the appellant, suspend the operation of the notice for such period as in the circumstances of the case it considers appropriate.
(5) A person on whom an information notice is served shall comply with the notice before the later of—
(a) where no appeal is made against the notice under subsection (3)—
(i) the end of the period for bringing an appeal under that subsection,
(ii) the end of the period specified in the notice for the purpose of giving the specified information, or
(iii) where the period referred to in subparagraph (ii) is extended under subsection (2), the end of that extended period,
or
(b) where an appeal is made and the information notice is confirmed or varied or the
appeal is withdrawn—
(i) the day following the day on which the notice is confirmed or varied or the appeal is withdrawn,
(ii) the end of the period specified in the notice, or
(iii) where the operation of the notice has been suspended in accordance with subsection (3), on the expiration of the period that the High Court considered appropriate for the purpose of that subsection.
(6) Where a person fails to comply with an information notice made by the regulator under this section, the regulator may on the expiration of the period set out in subsection (5) apply to the High Court for an order requiring the person to comply with the information notice.”.
To return to what I said earlier, it is a potential deterrent that a failure to provide information may be a criminal offence. It could be a criminal offence if all the hoops have been jumped through. It is a cumbersome procedure because regulation has to be made and must specify it as a criminal offence. Off the top of my head, I recall from our discussions when last we debated this Bill that there is a further hoop to be complied with in advance of which criminal prosecutions can be taken. That is great, but it is unusual for a regulator not to have any civil power to obtain information. This Bill is all about obtaining information, in particular where there is a lack of clarity at the moment. There is a fair degree of clarity in terms of what primary producers are being paid and what consumers are paying but there is no clarity in between. Whether this Bill succeeds or fails will be on the basis of what clarity, if any, it brings to bear on the commercial relationship between processors and retailers. It is all well and good to say we have the power to make a regulation requiring the provision of some information and making it a penal provision and compellable. We can do all of that and legislate to the effect that it may be an offence if a body corporate, which may or not be based in the State, does not provide the information. In such a case, the regulator could then move to take a criminal case. However, it is incredibly cumbersome and is likely to tie up the regulator's resources.
I propose that in tandem with that, the Minister would allow the regulator to seek certain information.
Essentially, this would enable the regulator to require the person by written notice, referred to in this section as an information notice served on the person in the agricultural and food sector, to give to the regulator within such a period and in such form as may be specified any information specified in the notice that the regulator may reasonably require in performing its function. The period shall be set out. A person on whom the information notice is served may, within seven days beginning on the day on which notice is served on him or her, appeal in the prescribed manner against the notice to the High Court and the High Court would have the power to confirm, vary or cancel the notice and, obviously, suspend the operation of the notice for such period as in the circumstances of the case it considers appropriate. Otherwise, the person shall comply with the notice before a particular date and where the person - of course, "person" includes legal or natural person and, therefore, companies - does not comply with the information notice, the regulator can go to the High Court ordering the provision of the information.
It is a much faster, snappier way to get the information. It is all well and good to say we have criminal deterrents, and I welcome the amendment as it considerably strengthens the Bill, but it still is incredibly cumbersome. It will take a very long time. This is a much snappier way for the regulator to get information. I would urge the Minister to consider this. If the Minister is not prepared to consider it for today, I would urge him to at least give a commitment to look at it for the Seanad - I appreciate it has come very late in the day - because it is about making sure this regulator has the powers to perform its function.
The key power the regulator needs is the power to get information that is not in the public domain that will not be readily handed over. Tesco, SuperValu, Lidl, Aldi or anybody else - Carrefour, Waitrose, etc. - who might come into the Irish market at some point in the future will not hand over any information they do not have to hand over. ABP, Dawn, Queally and any of these companies will not give any. It is fair to say they have made a huge success of their businesses but they have not done so by being soft touches. They certainly are not giving out information. There is very little information. I do not know if the Minister has much but I know farming groups have been calling for it for years and getting very little. Consumer groups are calling for it. There is very little information on the relationship between the processors and the retailers.
If this regulator is able to get that information, it will be a success because it will be able to shine a light on where the profits are being made. If it is not able to get that information, it will inevitably fail. It can mount whatever criminal prosecutions it wants, but it will not change the fact it does not have the information required to do its job successfully. That is the purpose of this amendment.
The amendment is based on existing provisions in law, particularly the health and safety Act but also, with regard to the power to go to the High Court, on the civil aviation regulator which has that power. I do not know whether the latter power is utilised often, but if it is not utilised often, I dare say it is because the power exists.
Of course, it may be that somebody will say the regulator does not have the power or that the information the regulator is seeking is not properly set out in the statutory instruments that are made, but if that is the case, at least there is a speedy mechanism to do so because a person has to go to the High Court within seven days of getting the information notice and a new statutory instrument can be made curing any deficiencies. What is accepted at present is a cumbersome criminal prosecution that will trundle on for years, as criminal prosecutions must to ensure fair procedures, due process, etc., and then maybe find out that there was some inadequacy in the statutory instrument.
To reiterate, it is a snappy way to get information. It does not criminalise anybody but it will give the regulator the power to get the information I believe it needs. We all believe it needs information. That is why the office is being set up.
I urge the Minister to accept the amendment or at least to look at it further. If the Minister will not accept it today, I ask him to at least give an undertaking to look at it further in the Seanad.
I support Deputy McNamara's amendment because it is important to attain transparency as to what is going on. We know what the farmers would like. Deputy McNamara said we know what the farmers are getting at any time, we know what the consumers are paying at any time, but we do not know what is happening in between.
A year or so ago, farmers' costs rose dramatically, mainly fertiliser costs and the cost of diesel, oil and anything connected with oil such as plastics for silage bales and plastic covering. They are all still practically double what they were in 2021. Even the white diesel has not come down in proportion to petrol. White diesel has come down. I have been calling for transparency in this for quite a while now.
I cannot understand how, when the cost of oil started to go up, green diesel and home heating oil were all around 38 cent a litre, they went up gradually and crept up to 90 cent a litre, and then all of a sudden they went up to €1.48 a litre. That was practically three and a half times the original cost but yet it has not gone down to €1 today. We will see now.
Following the increase in the farmers' costs, they had to put up the cost of their produce and, accordingly, the consumer paid the resultant cost included. Whatever cost was decided to be put on by the retailers or by the multinational supermarkets, we do not know how they came to decide the cost they were charging for the litre of milk, the loaf of bread or whatever. All those food items increased dramatically. Now we see that, taking the milk alone, they are reducing it but the price to the farmer is reduced dramatically. Farmers borrowed to improve their systems and it is only a few years since they were told to increase production. When they are in that vein, they have to continue. It is not like a water tap they can turn off. When they are in a mode, they have to remain going.
I am saying to the Minister that we need regulation and transparency as to what is happening in between with the multinationals. Of course they are collaborating because if one of them drops the price, they all seem to be able to do it. Then when they increase it, they all seem to be able to do it. I wonder what kind of trading practices they are subscribing to. Producers depend so much on the last cent they get for their produce to remain viable and keep going.
Farmers are at times lambasted for getting payments in the post and it is said that they are being seen after, but we know, as do others, that is only compensation for not being paid properly for the produce in the first place. All those things need to be taken into account.
We see the price of milk has reduced so much in a few months and we need to get to the root of it to see what is happening because farmers' costs are still very substantial.
The price of white diesel has reduced somewhat, but the price of fertiliser is still double what it was in 2021, before the co-operatives and the sources of fertiliser raised their prices. They had bought it at a low price in 2021 and held it back until the spring of 2022, when they doubled and trebled the cost of it. I have been calling for some kind of an investigation into what is going on in that regard because farmers are hit when something like this happens, but so too are consumers. Everyone is complaining about the cost of food. It is still very expensive and wages are not going as far as they were. The increases in these prices have a domino effect.
I will support Deputy McNamara's amendment. We need to know what is happening between when the product leaves the farmer's gate and when the housewife buys it over the shop counter. An awful lot happens in between. Any regulator needs to have power to suss out what is going on and ensure fairness will be applied both ways, that is, to the farmer and to the housewife.
I thank Deputies McNamara and Healy-Rae for their contributions, logic and rationale in the context of the amendment. I listened to them and we also gave this a lot of thought before the debate. I understand what Deputy McNamara's amendment seeks to achieve, but it concerns something the Bill, as it stands, will allow, as he pointed out, to be done through regulation. It is important the Minister has the capacity to empower the regulator to be able to access information as appropriate, but I believe, as I have made clear from the start, that the best way to do that is through the regulatory powers with which the Bill will provide the Minister. The benefit from that point of view is that those powers can be adjusted over time, if necessary, to ensure they are appropriate to make sure the regulator will be as effective as possible and have the powers and capacity to do its job and fulfil its purpose.
In summary, I understand the merits of the amendment but the Bill, as it stands, will provide for it. It will be covered by regulation and that has been accommodated within the Bill.
A regulation has to have some principles and policies for whoever will make it - presumably the Minister - to be able to stand over it in court if it is challenged. While the power to seek information is a general one, strengthened by the previous amendment tabled by Sinn Féin, which, in fairness to the Minister, he accepted, that does not in any way mean there will be an enforcement mechanism if the information is not provided, and that is what I have been harping on about since the start of Report Stage, three sessions ago. It is all well and good to say the regulator will have the power, by regulation, to look for information, but it is about what will happen if it is not given the information. There has to be a specific power to allow the regulator to go to court to get the information, but there is no such power as far as I can see. There is the possibility of a criminal prosecution for a failure to adhere to the regulations, but that is a slow, cumbersome process that I do not think will result in the fast transfer of information, which the regulator will require to be successful. I tabled a previous amendment that would have provided that beef factories would automatically have to provide a lot of information daily, but that was not accepted, so now I am saying the regulator should at least be able to seek specific information and that there should be a process whereby if they do not provide that information to the regulator, it can go to court and seek a court order compelling the provision of the information.
It is very important that the regulator have powers to chase up these traders, in a legal sense, if they do not give the information requested. A regulator can ask all the questions in the world, but if it does not get answers, where is it to go? That does not make any sense, so I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, which makes the utmost sense.
As I said, I take the points the Deputies made in regard to the need for the regulator to have capacity to require the information, but I am satisfied the powers provided in the legislation, as it stands, to be able to do that by regulation will be strong enough and, importantly, flexible enough to ensure they can work efficiently and that the regulator can be empowered to get the information it needs.
Moreover, section 80(2)(g) clearly provides the Minister with the power to make regulations and provide, through regulation, for "the collection of price and market information to address issues of lack of transparency and information asymmetry in the food supply chain". In that context, very significant penalties will be in place where somebody does not comply with that. The section states:
A person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of regulations made under this section that is specified in the regulations to be a penal provision ... commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction to a class A fine, or ... commits an offence and is liable ... on summary conviction, to ... imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months [as well as the class A fine] or ... on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding the greater of €10,000,000 or 10 per cent of the aggregate turnover of the person in the financial year in which the offence was committed or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 3 years, or to both.
That is pretty heavy. The objective of the legislation is to ensure this will be taken seriously, and the penalties where it is not taken seriously are severe. I believe the provisions we have in place will achieve that.
The Minister is repeating pretty much what I said earlier. It is true there will be a criminal enforcement mechanism, and that is the only thing he has pointed to because there can be a fine on conviction. That will be a criminal conviction, so the regulator is going to have to get into the business of mounting criminal prosecutions and maintaining them, which is a very onerous process, as I said earlier. At the end of all that, even if a conviction is secured, it will have taken years because criminal trials, especially on indictment, take a long time. A corporation is not going to be imprisoned, yet this is going to be directed at corporations. While there is the possibility of substantial fines, it will have to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt, with all the protections that are, rightly, afforded in a criminal trial to the accused.
That is a very burdensome onus to meet, so burdensome that I dare say this regulator will not mount any such prosecutions. The reason this Legislature has moved away from that model over the past 20 years relates to the fact it is so burdensome, in parallel with company law, competition law, health and safety and so on. By the way, health and safety legislation also allows for criminal convictions, but there is also the power to seek information and a mechanism to enforce that, if the regulator is not provided with the information, that is a lot less burdensome, namely, a civil enforcement system.
It is bizarre that the Minister would set up a regulator, which is a civil entity, and not give it civil enforcement powers. It seems that it is designed to fail. I am not saying the Minister has designed it to fail or that he wants it to fail, but it seems that it is designed to fail. I am sorry but I do not have much confidence in his Department, and I have said that, to be a fair arbiter between producers and processors. That is why we need the mechanism to go to the courts to say that a person has legitimately asked for that information, he or she wants it, and wants an order compelling the provision of that information.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- McNamara, Michael.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Cahill, Jackie.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Martin, Catherine.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Matthews, Steven.
- McConalogue, Charlie.
- McGrath, Michael.
- McGuinness, John.
- McHugh, Joe.
- Moynihan, Aindrias.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Murnane O'Connor, Jennifer.
- Naughton, Hildegarde.
- Noonan, Malcolm.
- O'Brien, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Richmond, Neale.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 12, line 22, after “law” to insert “and anti-competitive actions in the agrifood supply chain”.
This amendment is now even more important, given the debate in recent weeks around food prices. We have seen a lack of transparency, particularly regarding the gap between when produce leaves the farm gate and when it appears on supermarket shelves. When we saw the beef protests outside factories, the big issues at that time concerned cartel-like behaviour and competition. That was the beginning of all of this and of the calls that came for the establishment of an agrifood regulator, which is now happening and which is welcome. However, every farming organisation has been clear in saying to the committee, to us as individuals and, no doubt, to the Minister that we need the regulator to have the power to look at competition issues. It is no secret that in the beef sector we have seen issues regarding competition and cartel-like behaviour for decades. The Minister has said many times that this legislation and the establishment of an agrifood regulator is about protecting farmers. If so, we need to listen to farmers and farm organisations and to give this regulator the powers to look at anti-competitive actions.
If the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, had the powers we are seeking for this agrifood regulator, then the farm organisations would not be seeking these powers for the regulator. It is so important. On Second Stage, the Minister said the agrifood regulator will become the designated national enforcement authority for unfair trading practices.
If that is to be the case, then we need the regulation to have the power to look at competition issues. As I said, if that could be done by the CCPC, the farm organisations would not be seeking this in the first place. I believe this amendment can only be positive. It is particularly positive for the farmer in the first instance. This is about ensuring transparency and it is about ensuring fair play. I know this amendment was discussed on Committee Stage. I hope the Minister has reflected on it and I hope he will consider accepting it this evening.
First, I would like to support Deputy Kerrane on that. We touched on the issue of the regulator during last week’s debate. Having a regulator without teeth is the same as not having a regulator at all. We have seen the operations of some large conglomerates, particularly over the past 20 years. I highlighted in the past in this Chamber what happened to the farmers and the people who were involved, for example, in the production of vegetables in Ireland. There was a phoney price war where some conglomerates started virtually giving away vegetables at crazy, ridiculously low prices. That had an effect on the producers at the time. What they were doing was sinful. They were squeezing those people. If you were, for instance, a farmer who concentrated just on growing carrots, then that was your production and you were set up for that. These people then started virtually giving them away for nothing and for far below the cost of production and it was ultimately the farmer who was going to pay for that.
These conglomerates - I will not give them the satisfaction of naming them - are the larger supermarkets that over the years have closed down the smaller shops. At the start of my contribution, I should have said that I am the owner of a small shop. I want to declare that but I feel that empowers me to know what it is like. I have been a retailer for more than 30 years. I know what it is like to employ people on a small scale. I know what it is like to provide a service on a small scale to rural areas. I have seen the way small shops have been squeezed out. In the parish where I am from, there had been 26 shops and there are two today. When we speak about all these big people coming in, building a lovely, big shop and creating 70 jobs, there is nothing said about the 150 jobs they displaced, because they closed down all the smaller shops. The parish I come from is not unique in that. It had 26 and that number went down to two. That is replicated up and down the length and breadth of the country. When you see these big supermarkets and when you think they are great, just remember that an awful lot of small counters were closed to allow those places to open.
They play with their suppliers. What I mean by saying they “play” with them, it is like the example I gave of the person who might be selling carrots and nothing else. They are sucked into having their purchaser take all their produce from them. They have them under their thumb. That is what these people specialise in doing. They take on farmers, they take their produce and it is at their price. If they want to have a phoney price war, like what we have seen going on in the past couple of weeks with bread and milk, who do they want to pay for it? They want the farmer to pay for it. The farmer cannot afford to pay for it, because production costs what production costs. Over the last 18 months, we have seen a massive increase in the cost of fertiliser, feed, electricity, energy, basic inputs, diesel and the costs of harvesting. All the basic input costs that farmers have to pay have risen enormously. Their costs have gone up enormously but, unfortunately, their income has not. It is the exact opposite. It has stayed the same or, in many cases, it is less.
This is why a regulator has to have teeth. It has to be able to ensure fairness for the person who is supplying the food to the big shops. There also is the whole situation with regard to beef. Again, I am a person who in small way produces beef every year and sells it, so I know exactly what it costs to produce a kilo of beef. I know exactly what it takes, whether that relates to the feed, the time you put into it, the cost of buying animals, what you get for selling them and all the costs you have to take out of it. It is a terribly small margin. That is when everything goes right. If you have any bit of hard luck at all, for example, if you have a pen full of animals and something happens and you lose one animal, well that is it. That is the ball burst and the game is over. You will lose in that whole pen of cattle, then, because you will not have anything. You will make nothing for your trouble. We have to be so conscious of that.
If you look at the price of beef or pigmeat and what it makes versus what it is costed out at over the counter, there is an awful difference. Somebody is making money. Somebody, somewhere along the line is making a lot of money but it is not the farmer. As a small retailer, I can tell the Minister it is not the small retailers. The big conglomerates have an awful lot to answer for. They are the only people who are fearful of a regulator. The small retailers of Ireland have nothing whatsoever to fear from a regulator. It is these people who buy three and four pages every Sunday. They have our Sunday papers spoilt now. There is no good any more in buying a Sunday paper because it is like buying a paper of advertisements. Who wants to pick them up? I will not name them, because that would be wrong. Yet, when you buy a mainstay Sunday newspaper and turn a page over, the next thing is there will be a double page about some shop. If you go over another few pages, there will be a double page about some other shop.
These are the people who are screwing the farmers at the end of the day. It is no wonder they are able to buy advertisements in the Sunday newspapers that cost tens of thousands of euro every Sunday. They are able to afford it. The small retailers cannot afford it because the small retailers are only trying to keep their doors open. I hope the regulator will have teeth, will be meaningful, will have a purpose and will be of benefit to the consumer and the producer, because they are the important people; the people on both sides of the chain.
I support this amendment and urge the Minister to support it. The amendment itself is fairly simple, but it goes to the heart of a debate that has been going on for a number of years. I have recounted that I have followed this Bill from its very inception, because I was part of the deliberations at the European Parliament and trilogue discussions in respect of the EU directive on unfair trading practices. As has been recorded in this House on a number of occasions, I voted against it on the basis that I did not think it was strong enough, as well as the fact that it did not include a ban on the below-cost selling of fresh food produce across the European Union. I believed that would have been the greatest single opportunity to make a discernible difference to both farmers and consumers and to ensure we have fairness and transparency across the sector.
Of course, the greatest opponent of that at that particular time was the person who Ireland had sent to represent us at the European Commission, Phil Hogan. He vociferously rejected that on the basis that such measures were best implemented at a domestic level. I argued against that. Particularly because of issues regarding below-cost selling, I felt they would be best and most effective on an EU-wide scale. I also cautioned that some Governments would take a minimalist approach.
Many of us were very concerned when the unfair trading practices office was first established in the Minister’s Department. Essentially, for most of its inception, it spent nothing on anything other than the payment of its staff. It did not investigate cases and did not receive complaints. When that was followed by the heads of this Bill, a huge amount of concern was shared across parties, particularly by the members of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. Subsequent to that - I am on record as saying this - the Minister made very welcome changes on foot of the report compiled by the committee on the draft legislation that was then presented.
It was a significant improvement. Likewise, the Minister's engagement at committee level was welcome. We secured agreement on a number of what I would consider to be important amendments. All of that is welcome. However, the fundamental deficiency remains in regard to the ability of the regulator actually to regulate. Therein lies the need to insert this clause, which would empower the regulator to investigate anticompetitive actions in the agrifood supply chain. That is crucially important because it goes to the heart of the issues that have been raised with us since the days when farmers took to the gates of factories throughout this State. I firmly believe there are anticompetitive behaviours. I would go as far as to say there are cartel-like behaviours operating particularly within the meat industry in this State. The difficulty is that it is the only area where randomly, we are told, every single Friday virtually all meat factories offer virtually the exact same price to every beef farmer. That is not natural. That is not a normal way of doing business. To disagree slightly with what one speaker said in regard to the CCPC having powers, it could be argued that the CCPC might have powers but will not use them. In fact when complaints were made in respect of the meat industry and the prices that farmers were receiving from the factories, the CCPC categorically said it had found that there were no anticompetitive practices going on. It was only subsequently when we engaged with the CCPC that we found out it had never actually engaged with the factories or the meat industry at all. This is bizarre. When we engaged with the CCPC it said that we had to bring it the evidence. That is the equivalent of going into a Garda station to report a suspected crime and being told by the garda to solve it and then come back to him or her.
We need a regulator that is focused on the agrifood sector. That is what is required in this instance. That is what Sinn Féin's approach to this has always been. I welcome the fact that we will have this body established and that progress is being made. I welcome the fact that it is hopefully going to be operational quickly. We will support the legislation in order to establish it. However, there is a chance here to provide the regulator with the powers it needs to ensure we can address many of the consumer issues that have been prevalent over recent weeks and the unfair situation that farmers have been placed in for far too long. This is the opportunity to do it. If this regulator does not address it, I suspect a future Government will have to do it at some stage in the future, but let us get it right now. Under a Sinn Féin Government, strengthening the regulator will absolutely be a commitment. The Minister has gone a long way, but let us go the full way and give this regulator the power it needs to be able to regulate and support our primary producers.
We need to give the agrifood regulator teeth to investigate certain rules that apply at meat factories, such as the four-movement rule. My contention and that of all the farmers is that the four-movement rule is unfair, as is the 30-month rule whereby farmers are penalised when cattle are more than 30 months of age by the time they go to the factory. I have been raising these issues for many years. When a carcass is hanging off the rafters, how do you know what age that animal was? That rule is totally unfair, as is the four-movement rule. The factories need to be challenged about those two issues. They need to be made to give an explanation. I firmly believe they would get the same price for beef that does not comply with these rules as they get for beef that is under 30 months or for the cattle that do not go over the four movements. We need to get an honest answer to that because farmers are being penalised unfairly.
The other aspect affecting farmers in regard to beef relates to cases where an animal is not the right colour. The right colour at the present time is a gold or white Charolais or a red Limousin. An animal can be equally good if it is a grey Charolais or a black Limousin. According to the farmers, and I believe them, there is no reason cattle of the same weight or the same quality should not make the same price. That needs to be investigated because farmers are suffering because of colour. That is very unfair.
We need to give the regulator the powers to follow up these matters because this is the difference between a producer making a few bob or not doing so. There are inconsistencies that need to be investigated. If this regulator is going to be worth his salary, he needs to have powers to follow up those matters. To me and to many others, these issues do not make any sense. The rules or ideals that they seem to be following are hurting farmers and producers. When people have the steak on their plate or a bit of boiling beef in the pot, I do not believe they know what colour the skin of the animal was before it was slaughtered. Fairness needs to be seen to be carried out in this regard.
There are many other issues that need to be questioned. I am still asking at this late stage why the cost of green diesel has not come down. I ask the Minister to follow that up because so many farmers cannot understand why it is double the cost of what it should be.
I thank Deputies Kerrane, Michael Healy-Rae, Carthy and Danny Healy-Rae for their contributions. We had a significant discussion on this matter on Committee Stage as well. I outlined the position in relation to it then. I worked to be collaborative to make sure that the office we bring in here serves farmers and primary producers well, is effective and has the powers necessary to do its work. I acknowledge the role that all Oireachtas Members have played in that regard during pre-legislative scrutiny and right through the process. The joint committee, on a cross-party basis, put together the pre-legislative scrutiny report after meeting many stakeholders across the sector. There were 20 recommendations made in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. I accepted 18 of them either fully or very substantially. Likewise, throughout the process I looked at and assessed in detail the various amendments that were put forward with a view to accepting those which I believed would assist the Bill.
This will be the first time there has been a statutory independent office bringing transparency to the food supply chain and with the particular objective of bringing fairness in respect of primary producers and I want to ensure that office works well.
There are two issues on which the Deputies opposite and I disagree. Deputy Carthy referenced one of them, namely below-cost selling. The other is the role in respect of the application of competition law and anti-competitive practices. I outlined in detail on the previous occasion the reasons I do not believe below-cost selling will serve either farmers or consumers. One of those reasons is that below-cost selling was tried for a long time in this country and it did not work. That is why it was done away with in the mid-2000s. We had below-cost selling and it did not work. As it added cost but did not benefit consumers or farmers, it was discontinued. We have been there and tried that and it did not work. We have to learn from that.
In addition, I gave an example relating to whether below-cost selling would work in the context of our biggest product, namely, beef. I outlined that as 90% of the beef produced in Ireland is exported, no matter what price one is forced to charge for it within the Twenty-six Counties, that will only apply to 10% of the total beef production. Only one tenth of the animal that is sold by a farmer will be sold at that price. The other 90% of the beef will be sold at world market prices - the prices on all the international markets into which we sell. For every extra euro, for example, that is charged to the consumer, only €0.10 would go to the farmer, and it would only be Irish consumers who would be paying those higher prices. I gave the example of Northern Ireland. If a certain price had to be charged in the Republic, prices in Northern Ireland would be more in line with the world international prices and the price at which the other 90% of our beef was being sold. Consumers in the Republic of Ireland would be paying a higher price but it would have a negligible impact, if any, on the price farmers would be getting. I do not believe that would achieve its purpose, which should be to try to improve farm family incomes. All it would do would be to hit the incomes of all families within the Republic. It would have a negligible impact on farm family incomes.
There is also the context of all the challenges we have relating to the Border, such as in respect of fuel prices and so on. As I said on the previous occasion, there are such challenges from Louth right across to Donegal. Where would people buying meat for their family go to buy it? If they live close to the Border and there is a high price on one side of the Border but a price that is more representative of world prices on the other, not only will they go across the Border to buy their meat, they will also be taking other business with them. We can imagine what retailers would think about that. That is why I believe below-cost selling would not achieve the objective of trying to ensure farmers get fair play. As we know from the many years it was in place, it would not do that but, instead, would add red tape and cost to the supply chain and extra cost to the consumer while having no impact on the income of farmers. The Deputies opposite and I disagree on that.
It is open to Sinn Féin to take a different approach if it ever gets into government in the future. It can decide to introduce below-cost selling. Should it wish to apply that to the Twenty-six Counties, it could include as part of its offering to the Thirty-two Counties for a united Ireland that it would charge the Six Counties a higher price for beef. That would not be attractive to consumers anywhere, however, and neither would it be of benefit to farmers. The Sinn Féin Deputies and I disagree on that.
The other point on which we disagree is the issue to which the amendment pertains, namely, the application of competition law and anti-competitive practices. I am setting up the regulator to make sure we bring transparency to the food supply chain to get fair play for farmers and ensure they get fair reward and price for their produce. Ultimately, that is the price that is available on international markets, which is where the vast majority of the food farmers produce is sold. It is about transparency in terms of the price that is available on international markets and how that is traced back to the farm gate to make sure farmers are getting fair play. Deputy Kerrane has tabled a one-line amendment proposing that the agrifood regulator should cover anti-competitive actions in the food supply chain. We already have comprehensive law in respect of competition law and anti-competitive practices. One line in the Bill is not going to replace the reams of legislation it took to put anti-competition law in place for the CCPC. It simply would not put the architecture in place to do that. Rather, it would lead to confusion and duplication. This office will have the capacity to refer any unfair or competition issues it encounters to the CCPC to carry out that role. That is what it is obliged to do and it is what it will do. The CCPC has the investigative powers. It has comprehensive architecture legislation in place to be able to do that. Deputy Kerrane and I disagree on this point. A one-line amendment to comprehensive legislation designed to do many things to ensure farmers get fair play simply will not achieve what the Deputy hopes it will achieve.
Whether the scope of the amendment is one line or ten lines, it still gives the regulator the powers we want to it to have. Those powers relate to anti-competitive practices. If these anti-competitive practices exist and the Minister believes they exist and the law to deal with them is already in place, why is nothing being done about them? If there is significant law in place and the CCPC has those powers, it has not done anything about it and clearly does not intend to do anything about it because we are still at the same point, particularly in the beef sector.
As I stated, much of this came about when farmers took to the factory gates. The big issue at that time was the lack of competition. That is not being dealt with in this legislation. If the CCPC is doing its job, then why are the farm stakeholders and organisations that came before the committee - the Minister referred to the high level of engagement - seeking for the regulator to have these powers? Why are the farm organisations and farmers on the ground asking for the regulator to have these powers if the law is there and working? It is clear that is not the case. The Minister should reconsider this. He has spoken many times about this legislation serving farmers and protecting farmers. There are issues relating to competition. Farmers are suffering as a result and that is why we want the regulator to have these powers. The Minister should reconsider his position.
This goes to the heart of the Minister's position on all these things. To take him at his word, his remarks would suggest an appropriate mechanism to deal with anti-competitive practices is already in place. That is not the experience that was conveyed to us by every farm organisation and farmer we met. Deputy Kerrane is 100% right in respect of the entire debate around the beef protests and the wider and larger antagonisms within the agriculture community, particularly in terms of how farmers are treated by what they consider to be cartel-like operations. Those issues are not being dealt with by the CCPC. That is the overwhelming evidence the agriculture committee received. Unless the Minister is able to outline how he will ensure those anti-competitive practices are being addressed, his answer is, "Tough luck; just continue to face them."
As regards below-cost selling, for the umpteenth time, Sinn Féin wants a ban on below-cost selling across the EU. We believe that would be the most effective mechanism to deliver. Our amendment that the Minister rejected simply called on the regulator to be able to identify the cost of production in order that there would, at least, be transparency in that regard. Let us take the Minister's words at face value, however. He stated that a ban on below-cost selling would mean that only consumers in this State would pay more for Irish beef, for example, and that consumers everywhere else would be getting it cheaper.
This is to say that 90% of Irish beef would be sold below the cost of production. It is an implicit recognition on the part of the Minister that Irish farmers go through periods where they are being paid less for the product they are producing than it costs to produce it. This is the greatest argument in favour of the approach we have taken.
The Minister cited the groceries order, which was previously in place. It was removed by a Fianna Fáil Government, not at the behest of the consumers or farmers, but at the behest of Eddie Hobbs and the big corporate supermarket chains, which Deputy Healy-Rae referred to, so they could increase their operations at the expense of many rural communities, as we know.
As a follow-on to my earlier contribution, I recall one very late and cold night protesting with others at the gates of the factory in Bandon, and also above in Limerick. Having listened to those people and taken away conversations we had that night with the producers of beef, I have a fair question to ask the Minister. There is no harm in asking this question. He is bound to have an opinion and I would love to hear his answer to it. Does he have confidence in the system we have in Ireland today of price setting - I will not call it price-fixing, but maybe I should - the price of beef? Does he have confidence in how that price is arrived at every week, every fortnight, and every month? Given the price a farmer gets for a kilo of beef at the factory, after working hard to produce it and to bring it to the stage of slaughtering, does he have confidence in that system and confidence in the price? Does he believe it to be fair and equitable? He is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine. He is the person at the forefront of agriculture in Ireland. A lot of people seem to forget, and many politicians here seem to forget, that we are still predominantly an agriculture-based economy. We very much appreciate the foreign investment that comes into this country and we appreciate very much our tourism industry but we very much appreciate our family farms and all types of farms, be they large, small or medium. Does the Minister have confidence in the structures we have at present? If he does, I would like to hear him say that he does. If he does not, I would like him to say he does not, and why. We also ask this question on behalf of the Irish Farmers' Association. I am a fully paid-up member of the IFA, and have been since I was 18 years of age. I will continue to be a paid-up member. I ask the Minister this question on behalf of the IFA and other organisations because I know they would like to hear his answer. I definitely know that the beef producers of Ireland and the farmers of Ireland would like to hear his answer. I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach for his indulgence.
At those gates in Bandon and in Rathkeale, I recall being asked several times by farmers why were they not being paid for the fifth quarter. The fifth quarter is every other bit of the carcase, which the farmer does not get paid for, yet the factories are getting paid for that. If this food regulator is to have any real purpose or benefit to farmers, the regulator needs to go after that issue because farmers are being short-changed. They are not paid for all of the animal. They are not paid properly at times even for the part of the animal they are being paid for. They never get paid for the fifth quarter. Factories are raking it in in this regard. They need to be followed up to see about it. We appear not to have had any power to follow this before. I ask the Minister to give the regulator the power to follow these people. They are all doing the same thing and they are acting like a cartel. Someone used to say that if it waggles like a duck and it quacks like a duck, then it must be a duck. There is something going on there with these factories. It seems an eternity ago since we raised this and since the farmers had to go through these protests and do nights and days out in the rain and the cold. We appreciate the struggle they went through at that time. It seems like an eternity since those questions were asked, yet we are still here in the Dáil and we still do not have answers for the people. I am asking the Minister to ensure that whatever power the regulator has, he or she will have the power to follow this up as well.
I thank Deputies Kerrane, Carthy, Michael Healy-Rae and Danny Healy-Rae. My objective in this legislation is to introduce something that will make a real difference on the ground, will bring transparency and will be implementable and effective.
I explained earlier about the below-cost selling and the example of beef and how that approach would not benefit farmers or consumers. That had been our experience with the groceries order, which was discontinued because it was not working and was not effective. Should he have the opportunity, Deputy Carthy is welcome, at any stage in the future, to reintroduce something that did not work in the past, added costs and did not benefit consumers or farmers.
I am about following through on a commitment that I gave in opposition, and on which Deputy Ó Cuív before me had initiated work as spokesperson on agriculture. It is one of the reasons we went into government. It was to deliver something meaningful that prioritises farmers and works to give fair play to farmers.
Amendment No. 18 seeks to provide for the regulator to be responsible for "anti-competitive actions in the agrifood supply chain”. There is reams of legislation covering that very issue under the Competition (Amendment ) Act. There is reams of legislation. By just putting one line in, it does not provide the legal architecture-----
Is the Minister happy it is being done?
-----to do what the Deputies are trying to claim it will achieve.
Is the Minister happy that anti-competitive practices are being addressed?
If the Deputy feels there are issues and challenges there, the way to do that is to amend the legislation when the architecture is in place, not to introduce one line in another Bill.
Is the Minister happy with the situation as it stands?
To touch on that point, and also on the question raised by Deputy Michael Healy-Rae, I am bringing in this legislation to ensure there is fairness, oversight and transparency in the food supply chain, and to be able to give that confidence to farmers, as well as the practical effect that there is fairness in the food supply chain. That is what this food regulator legislation and setting up this office is about.
We are just going around in circles. I asked whether the Minister was satisfied that anti-competitiveness practices are not ongoing. I again make the point, and it is not one he responded to, that if the laws are there and if the powers exist in legislation, my question remains. Why has every farming organisation and stakeholder involved in this legislation sought that this regulator would have these powers? It does not make any sense. If the powers are already there and are so effective, why are the farming organisations and farmers on the ground, many of them since the beef protests that took place many years ago, seeking this power for the regulator? If it is as the Minister said, they are wasting their time because the powers are already there and it is already working. The problem is it is not working. That is the whole point. We will not agree on this but I intend to press it.
Tá
- Andrews, Chris.
- Bacik, Ivana.
- Barry, Mick.
- Boyd Barrett, Richard.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, Martin.
- Buckley, Pat.
- Cairns, Holly.
- Carthy, Matt.
- Clarke, Sorca.
- Collins, Joan.
- Collins, Michael.
- Conway-Walsh, Rose.
- Cronin, Réada.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cullinane, David.
- Daly, Pa.
- Doherty, Pearse.
- Donnelly, Paul.
- Ellis, Dessie.
- Farrell, Mairéad.
- Fitzpatrick, Peter.
- Gould, Thomas.
- Healy-Rae, Danny.
- Healy-Rae, Michael.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kelly, Alan.
- Kerrane, Claire.
- Mac Lochlainn, Pádraig.
- McGrath, Mattie.
- Mitchell, Denise.
- Munster, Imelda.
- Murphy, Catherine.
- Murphy, Verona.
- Nash, Ged.
- Nolan, Carol.
- O'Callaghan, Cian.
- O'Donoghue, Richard.
- O'Reilly, Louise.
- O'Rourke, Darren.
- Ó Broin, Eoin.
- Ó Laoghaire, Donnchadh.
- Ó Murchú, Ruairí.
- Ó Ríordáin, Aodhán.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Pringle, Thomas.
- Quinlivan, Maurice.
- Ryan, Patricia.
- Sherlock, Sean.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stanley, Brian.
- Tully, Pauline.
- Ward, Mark.
- Whitmore, Jennifer.
Níl
- Browne, James.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burke, Colm.
- Burke, Peter.
- Butler, Mary.
- Byrne, Thomas.
- Calleary, Dara.
- Cannon, Ciarán.
- Carroll MacNeill, Jennifer.
- Collins, Niall.
- Costello, Patrick.
- Cowen, Barry.
- Creed, Michael.
- Crowe, Cathal.
- Devlin, Cormac.
- Dillon, Alan.
- Donnelly, Stephen.
- Duffy, Francis Noel.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Farrell, Alan.
- Feighan, Frankie.
- Flaherty, Joe.
- Fleming, Sean.
- Foley, Norma.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harris, Simon.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Heydon, Martin.
- Higgins, Emer.
- Humphreys, Heather.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Lahart, John.
- Lawless, James.
- Leddin, Brian.
- Martin, Catherine.
- 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, Joe.
- O'Callaghan, Jim.
- O'Dea, Willie.
- O'Donnell, Kieran.
- O'Dowd, Fergus.
- O'Gorman, Roderic.
- O'Sullivan, Christopher.
- O'Sullivan, Pádraig.
- Ó Cathasaigh, Marc.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Phelan, John Paul.
- Rabbitte, Anne.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smyth, Niamh.
- Smyth, Ossian.
- Stanton, David.
- Troy, Robert.
Staon
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 14, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following:
“(4) The regulator shall report to the Minister within 12 months of its establishment date as to its ability to acquire data under section 12(3)(d), and make any appropriate recommendation so as to ensure the regulator is empowered to access or seize such data it requires to meet its obligations.”.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 16, line 3, after “buyers” to insert “, consumers”.
This is a straightforward amendment to insert the word "consumers". We discussed it on Committee Stage. Sinn Féin tabled an amendment that I think was ruled out of order. I agreed to look at it to see whether I would bring it back, which I have now done.
Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Amendment No. 22 is an alternative to amendment No. 21.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 16, lines 13 to 17, to delete all words from and including “(1) The” in line 13 down to and including line 17 and substitute the following:
“(1) The regulator shall consist of—
(a) a member (in this Act referred to as the “chairperson”) designated by the Minister to chair the regulator, and
(b) seven ordinary members,
of whom at least three shall be persons appearing to the Minister to be primary producers.”
We had a good discussion about this on earlier Stages of the Bill. The objective is to increase the number of primary producers among the ordinary members of the board from two to three. On Committee Stage, I committed to increasing the number of primary producers on the board from two to three and this is provided for in my amendment. I also considered that a slight editorial amendment was needed to provide for the option of the chairperson being one of the three primary producers.
I thank the Minister for taking on board our amendments in this amendment and the previous one. I am happy to withdraw our amendment and agree to the amendment the Minister has proposed.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 24, between lines 15 and 16, to insert the following:
“(2) Prior to an appointment under section 33(1), a proposed candidate for Chief Executive shall attend the relevant Oireachtas sectoral committee to discuss his or her strategic priorities for the role.”.
This is an amendment that was brought forward and discussed on Committee Stage. I understand the Minister may have had time to reflect on it between then and now. Again this is about transparency and accountability in what will be an important role that the regulator will play. It is important, given that this is a new and independent regulator, that it is accountable and we want to see it accountable to the Oireachtas Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine. It is a fair amendment, that the proposed candidate for chief executive would come before the committee and would be willing to discuss his or her strategic priorities for the role. It is important that we have that level of transparency and accountability from the beginning and I ask that the Minister might consider the amendment.
This is an amendment we discussed on Committee Stage and which I indicated I was not in favour of. As with many other organisations, their representatives often attend Oireachtas committees but the chairperson would do so, not the CEO before their appointment. It is the board of the food regulator that has responsibility for the strategic direction of the office, not the CEO, so it would not be appropriate for the CEO, in advance of his or her appointment as part of their recruitment process, for example, to attend an Oireachtas committee. It would be appropriate for the board and the chair to do so and that is what happens in so many other instances. I am not aware of any case whereby a CEO of an organisation, before their appointment and as part of their recruitment process, would attend an Oireachtas committee. That would not be good practice and nor would it be a good precedent to set in this instance. The regulator will be called upon to attend Oireachtas committees, and the legislation provides for the regulator's board and chairperson to attend before the committee, but not the CEO. That is why this amendment is not appropriate and why I am not in favour of it.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 53, line 21, after “the” to insert “agricultural and”.
This is an editorial amendment to replace "food" with "agricultural and food".
Amendment No. 25 has already been discussed with amendment No. 14.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 53, line 21, after “chain” to insert the following:
“(which may, in particular, include provision allowing the regulator to compel the provision of information referred to in section 12(3)(d))”.
I thank all the Deputies for their work over the thorough process that was involved in bringing this legislation through to where it is. I thank Members for the massive work they put in during Committee Stage and for the comprehensive pre-legislative scrutiny report that was afforded me. Right through this process my objective has been, as it was with Members, to ensure we set up a statutory independent office that will ensure there is transparency in the food supply chain and, in particular, that will make sure that primary producers and family farmers across this country get a fair deal and price for the work they carry out. I accommodated 18 of the 20 recommendations from the pre-legislative scrutiny report, either fully or substantially, in the Bill. On Committee Stage, and again on Report Stage, I examined the various amendments that were put forward in good faith and sought to accommodate as many as I felt would strengthen the Bill and the ultimate office of the regulator.
I thank everyone who contributed. It is an important moment for farmers across this country, for our food sector and for agriculture in Ireland that for the first time ever we will have an independent statutory food regulator in place. I am glad to report on the appointment of Niamh Lenehan as the CEO-designate of the new regulator's office. Whenever the Bill goes through the Seanad she will take over the role and lead this office out. I wish her well in that role and the important function she will carry out.
I also want to thank the staff in my Department, who are represented here today by assistant secretary Sinéad McPhillips, and in particular, Angela Robinson. Angela's team has done massive work throughout in bringing this legislation forward. As Members can see, it was a massive piece of work drafting the Bill, putting the policy together and working here to bring it through the legislative system so I thank Angela for the massive work that she, Ray and their team carried out. I thank those who are involved in the unfair trading practices unit as well, including Noel Collins and Aidan, for their work throughout that process. I thank Members, the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach, the Office of the Ceann Comhairle, the Bills Office and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel for their work in bringing this important legislation to fruition.
Cuirfear an Bille ar aghaidh chuig an Seanad anois.