I would like to ask the Minister for Agriculture what is meant by the phrase, "which are kept on such farm", at section 2 (a). This is in respect of animals which are allowed to be slaughtered for human consumption in a place situated on a farm. I would like the Minister to tell me how long must such animals be kept on the farm. Must they be on the farm for a year, a month, a week or must they be on the farm from birth?
Abattoirs Bill, 1987: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
On the same section and on the point raised by Senator Mullooly, on Second Stage I asked the Minister to explain further the definition of the word "animal" because on page 6, section 2 (1) (b) "animal" means cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses and all other equine animals. There are other animals which are disposed of at butchers shops for human consumption and they are not in the bovine, ovine, porcine or equine species. I am worried that the definition is so tight that it might not be possible for a butcher who would have a demand for other animals, game in particular, which are not defined in this section, to be precluded from selling them under this section. As the Cathaoirleach is aware and as I hope the Minister of State is aware also, there are certain parts of the country in which there are demands for animals to be sold, butchered and offered for public sale apart from those defined in this section. Perhaps the Minister in his reply would confirm that the animals I have mentioned are not specifically precluded because there is a growing demand for other animals in certain parts of the country.
What the Minister is concerned about is improving the hygienic conditions in which animals are being slaughtered. There is concern that the proper hygiene is not adhered to when killing an animal on a farm. It is in the interest of the farmer and his family that this concern is expressed — to ensure that they would not be subjected to any lack of hygiene vis-á-vis those who would be buying meat over the counter. I appeal to the Minister to take the necessary steps, under section 2, to ensure that if animals are killed by a farmer a health stamp is provided on the meat for the benefit of the farmer and his family.
It is the trend at present that people who wish to kill animals for their own consumption take them to a competent butcher to have them slaughtered and properly packed for deep freezers. The day has long gone — this Bill will take it further down the road — when people killed animals in their own backyards for their own consumption and without any proper facilities. Most modern day farmers and anybody using the meat for their own consumption would welcome the animal being killed by a competent butcher. I welcome the section where provision is made to ensure that all animals for consumption are killed in a properly supervised abattoir that has been licensed.
The purpose of this section is to allow traditional slaughtering of an animal for consumption on premises, or on the farm or in the place where the animal is held. There is a home slaughtering concession provided for in the definition of abattoir. Traders in discussions with the officials in the Department of Agriculture expressed their concern that there could be abuse of this facility. While traders were anxious for the total abolition of this concession I would not go that far because suitable modification of the concession confining it to the slaughtering of a pig or an animal injured by accident where slaughter is necessary to prevent suffering would best meet the case of all concerned. I propose at Report Stage to introduce an appropriate amendment. I do not want to see any large scale slaughtering at home.
More and more people are going to their local abattoir or their local butcher to have slaughtered an animal for household consumption and to have it suitably packaged for deep freezers and so on. It is not a very widely used occupation nowadays but nevertheless there are isolated areas where an individual might want — and tradition may take a hand there from time to time — to reduce suffering. I would not like to prohibit that completely and so I propose at Report Stage to introduce an appropriate amendment.
In relation to what Senator Ferris said regarding game animals, they are covered by hygiene regulations and butchers would not be precluded from selling them. Such animals are dealt with in an abattoir and section 39 (3) of this Bill will cover them.
I thank the Minister for his commitment on Report Stage to suitably tidy up this section which would be a reflection of the views of the Members on all sides of the House. We do not want to preclude people from having the facilities on the occasional situation, particularly for private purposes, but we do not want it to be so loose that the overall thrust of the Bill and our concern for the consumer as expressed by Senator Hogan, would be lost sight of. If there is a standard to be achieved by anybody slaughtering animals for anybody's use, in the interests of public hygiene everybody who kills an animal in that way should be subject to the same type of regulations. There are exceptions and the humanitarian exception is important. On section 42 on which I have put down a suitable amendment I will deal with this further. It tightens it up and still requires the authorisation or approval of the inspecting veterinary surgeon to be also responsible to private killing. This would eliminate an abuse of the section.
Senator Ferris we are dealing with section 2 and then we will get on to section 42.
Sections 2 and 42 are interrelated. I am anxious to ensure that there would be uniformity in regard to the regulations. This would stimulate the movement of private slaughtering into a recognised abattoir which is desirable but I do not want that made obligatory. I do not think anybody, including the trade, want it made obligatory.
I am not convinced by the Minister's assurance about the slaughter of animals on the farm. The Minister was the first person to refer to abuse. It is all right to say you would allow a man to kill a pig because it was traditional in some places to kill a pig twice a year but that tradition has gone now nearly everywhere, as we all recognise. When somebody wants to kill a lamb, a heifer or any other animal for a deep freeze he employs the local butcher. It is more to do with packaging than killing. How will we be assured, if this section goes through as it is, that the law will not be abused? If you allow a man to kill one animal for consumption on the farm without having regulations about stamping and so on, what is to stop him from killing two or three animals and giving them to his neighbours and what is to stop his neighbour from giving them to somebody else? The proposed legislation is pretty loose and should be tightened up.
Perhaps it would help at this stage if the Minister would indicate the type of amendment he intends to bring forward on Report Stage. The fundamental weakness in this section of the Bill is that it allows farmers to kill animals for home use. The fear is very real among consumers and among people involved in the industry that this leaves the toe in the door and could lead to widespread abuse. I understand the arguments along humanitarian lines which the Minister has advanced and I do not quarrel with them. It would be a great pity to see an animal left in pain for a great period of time if it was not possible to arrange for the speedy killing of such an animal. It is very important that we should have strict and rigid controls and that the consumer could be perfectly satisfied about the bona fides of all meat on sale. It would be a pity if excellent and welcome and long awaited legislation were to be left with what is an obvious area of weakness.
Perhaps the Minister could allay the fears expressed by Senators from all sides of the House and indicate the sort of amendment which he intends to bring forward on Report Stage. I welcome the Minister's open-minded approach to this legislation. I am very pleased that he has had such extensive consultation with all the interests who are obviously concerned about this legislation and, in keeping with that spirit, perhaps he would give us the indication which I request.
I am very pleased that the trade have been so positive about this legislation and have called to the Department regularly to discuss it in a very positive way. They put great pressure on me to expedite this legislation and to get it through because, of course, people in the trade are generally traditional people and are very proud of their profession and the job they do. The fact that there are some operators in the business bringing it into disrepute is of no advantage to anybody. I pay tribute to the people in the trade who were so generous in their attitude to the legislation.
The whole idea of this section is to facilitate the occasional killing of an animal in a remote area or perhaps on an island off the coast. Certainly from my own knowledge I do not think this activity is by any means widespread. It could not be carried out to any great extent. I propose to introduce an amendment on Report Stage allowing the farmer to slaughter a pig or an animal injured by accident, where slaughter is necessary to prevent suffering. That will tighten the controls. I do not envisage any widespread use of this activity. Certainly the meat concerned is for household consumption rather than for retail outlets because under this Bill meat which is made retail outlets will have to be stamped.
Concern has been shown by the trade and by individuals in remote areas who traditionally have been killing animals for household use and this legislation will allow them to carry on that tradition. If any abuse occurs I will, by order, disallow the activity but I do not think that will be necessary. The controls will be tightened up sufficiently to allay any fears which anybody might have in this regard.
I welcome the Minister's suggestion that he will introduce an amendment on Report Stage. It may be that in certain parts of the country there has not been abuse but there are other parts of the country where there has been abuse. There are butchers who are known to travel from place to place and who kill animals not alone for the householder but also for other people.
The Minister did not answer the question raised by Senator Ferris. I presume he was talking about the slaughter of deer. Deer are becoming reasonably popular and they are being killed not alone for use by people who kill them but to be sold in butchers' shops and in certain other areas. Do deer come under the aegis of this Bill?
Do I take it from the Minister's reply that the amendment will eliminate everything except a pig or an animal to be killed for humane reasons?
That is correct. Deer are not covered under this legislation.
As I understand it food and hygiene are covered by separate legislation. I want the Minister to define the word "animal". I did not wish that a butcher would not be able to sell this meat, but he can do so under other legislation.
This is a section dealing with interpretations and definitions. I want to check with the Minister on the definition of the word "knackery" which is included in the interpretation section. It states:
"knackery" means any premises used for and in connection with the collection, delivery, supply, slaughter, storage, skinning or cutting up of animals or parts of animals which are not intended for human consumption, and "knackery" shall include any premises which are used— (a) as a knacker's yard, or (b) for the cutting up of dead animals, or parts of dead animals, for sale as dog or pet food.
Can the Minister explain the difference between a knackery and an abattoir? There are people who will use abattoirs and will also want to use some of the products of an abattoir for sale not for human consumption but as pet food or other such foods for which there could be a demand in a particular area.
I am not suggesting that all butchers would be in a position to provide certain foods that could be prepared as dog food. I hope the Minister for Industry and Commerce does not think I am trying to disturb his particular bailiwick because I am not. Congratulations to him and his family on producing a firm that makes dog food. Demands are made on local butchers in some areas for cuts and pieces of meat which are specifically for animal use and not human use. Perhaps the Minister would redefine the word "knackery" in that context.
The main point in the definition of "knackery" is that a knackery is a premises which handles animals or meat not intended for human consumption. By way of inserting this in the Bill the provisions in relation to knackeries are contained separately in the Abattoirs Bill, Part III. Arising from a 1982 survey of abattoirs and knackeries conducted by the Department of Agriculture and Food the premises listed at (a) to (b) of this definition were found to be the main types of plants engaged in the handling of dead or casualty animals. Meat and bonemeal and rendering plants are also, of course, heavily involved in the handling of animal waste. They are not, however, being included in this definition as they will be the subject of a separate statutory provision in a Processed Protein Order to be made under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. This Order will embrace such matters as the transport, reception, handling, processing and storage of animal waste. These processing plants are, at any rate, a step up from the common knackery and the controls in this Bill alone would not adequately cover their operations. Similarly, registered swill premises are being excluded from this definition so as to avoid duplicate sets of controls. A survey conducted by the Department in 1982 indicated that there were 112 knackeries in existence. The main definition of a knackery is that it is a premises which handles animals or meat not intended for human consumption.
I thank the Minister for his clarification of that point but can he give me the opposite side of the story? Is an abattoir which is registered for the killing of meat intended for human consumption not precluded from producing meat which finally might find its way into a preparation for dog food? Is there anything to preclude a butcher from deciding that particular cuts of meat which was perfectly killed, bled, hung and so on are more suitable for a client who would require it for dog food or otherwise? Is there anything in that definition that would preclude him from doing that? Some butchers have a sizeable trade in that kind of food outlet for pet owners which would not be intended as the meat would come through an abattoir. I want to be quite clear that nothing in that definition would preclude meat which has come through the process as eligible for human consumption being used by the butcher for dog food. This is legislation and I want to see that it is done properly.
I can imagine what Senator Ferris has in mind. If a portion of an animal which is killed in an abbatoir is condemned by a veterinary inspection later, then no doubt that portion of meat in another process would be known as offal and would go to a knackery and be used as pet food. That might be what Senator Ferris has in mind. That can and will arise if inspection of meat is to be carried out by a veterinary surgeon. Portions of meat will be found to be not fit for human consumption because of laceration or otherwise of the animal prior to killing. It may have a blood tinge through it that would not be presentable for people. I see no regulation in the Bill to prevent that from happening. I am not pre-empting the Minister.
Yes, there is nothing in the regulations here which would preclude an abattoir or a butcher from making available any portions of meat for pet food or for non-human food. In fact, some pet owners are very particular about food——
I know.
——that is good enough for their pets.
Gourmet cat food.
Senator O'Toole made a point about a butcher or an abattoir sending meat or portions of meat to a knackery. There is no difficulty about that either.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
The section does not exclude public abattoirs. It refers to existing abattoirs. The Minister will know from his experience that public abattoirs have not been the most successful establishments because what is everybody's responsibility is nobody's responsibility. I welcome the Bill in that it gives to people in the trade responsibility for their killing process and the cleanliness and hygiene of their own abbatoirs. The Minister in this section defines a certain number of them. I asked on Second Stage whether this Bill excluded public abattoirs.
Meat from public abattoirs is not required to be stamped under this Bill. It will be stamped under the provisions of the Fresh Meat Acts so that does not apply to this section of this legislation.
I asked the question because I felt that it excluded meat coming from public abattoirs. The Minister is now assuring me that the meat from public abattoirs will be also required under existing legislation to be stamped and will have the same status as meat coming from private abattoirs.
Yes, all meat for human consumption at retail outlets will have to be stamped.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 9, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Amendments Nos. 1, 13 and 14 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 10, lines 11 and 12, to delete subsection (6) and substitute—
"(6) The amount of the appropriate fee shall vary each year in accordance with the percentage increase or decrease, as the case may be, of the Consumer Price Index for that year".
We have had discussions with people involved in the trade and with people generally in the agricultural sector and they were anxious that this type of amendment would be put into legislation. In the past the experience of most people with Governments of all shades was that when a Minister for Finance was in difficulty he usually looked at the most likely area of income, usually related to the doubling of levies or the increasing of fees.
The trade, who are so co-operative with us in this area of legislation, are anxious that by amending it in this way we provide that the appropriate fee would vary each year in accordance with the percentage increase or decrease. The Minister and his Government are promising every day that the cost of living will go down and that the consumer price index will reduce, and they are basing all their philosophy on that. On that understanding I hope that these fees can be reduced. However, I am more anxious that they be not increased over and beyond the normal accepted CPI for any year. The reason that other amendments are bulked with this one, particularly amendment No. 13, is that they are consequential on this one, and I hope that the Minister will concede this in other sections.
Our experience with all Ministers has been that it is easy with the stroke of a pin to double levies. Levies have been doubled. The farming organisations complain that their disease eradication levies have been doubled, often without consultation. While we have the opportunity to debate them in the House when a regulation is made, it is presumed that if the Government have sufficient votes in either of the Houses they can decide to double levies for any reason. That is why I am anxious that in legislation we should put some limit on what powers the Minister might take unto himself by way of regulation, to increase fees.
It is not unreasonable to have it indexed linked. I put down the amendment in the hope that the Minister would understand the concern of people in the trade that they could find themselves agreeing this year to a level of fees agreed in consultation with them but that next year or the year after it could be doubled and so put smaller butchers in rural towns out of business, irrespective of the fact that the Minister might come back, by way of regulation, before the Houses of the Oireachtas. The trade accept that to have the Bill up and running and to allow councils to employ veterinary surgeons and inspectors, some income is necessary. This acceptance is based on the premise that if requirements are pitched at a certain level, generally speaking, that level would be contained. I am concerned that we legislate for this philosophy of trying to pin things down to a consumer price index. In view of Government commitments in this area the Minister should not have any problem whatsoever in conceding what is an amendment in principle.
I support Senator Ferris in this amendment. The first amendment deals with the licensing of abattoirs. The licensing of the 800 or so private abattoirs in the country, it is estimated, will bring in about £40,000. We do not quibble with that. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 refer to section 44 of the Bill which relates to the veterinary fees. The Minister stated on Second Stage that the amount of money generated under these headings, that is, the collection of slaughter fees from the farmers, was estimated at £1.4 million annually. I expressed misgivings on Second Stage as to whether that £1.4 million would be adequate to finance the inspections as laid down by the Minister, because the new level of inspection is far more intensive and involves far more working hours in terms of professionals and back up services than applied heretofore.
It is estimated that it will take £600,000 to pay the salaries of 26 or 27 local authority veterinary inspectors. In addition, all these veterinary inspectors will have a corps of veterinary surgeons working with them carrying out the inspections. We find that about £0.8 million is allocated towards that. That amount cannot pay the corps of veterinary inspectors needed, about 150 throughout the whole country. It is costing at least that amount of money to pay the corps of veterinary surgeons who operate for the local authorities under the present regulations. Under this legislation we are creating a new post and we are expanding the role of the corps of veterinary inspectors, those veterinarians who will go to the abattoirs and carry out the ante-mortem inspections and post-mortem inspections. Ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections were no part of the requirement under existing legislation as operated by the local authorities.
Our fear is that the Minister will find that in the first year of its operation the expense will burgeon out of all proportion, in terms of what he has laid down here, and he will have to come back to the Houses of the Oireachtas to increase these fees quite drastically. These fees will bear very heavily on the people in the meat trade and on the farmers. At the moment farmers are paying two-thirds of the cost of disease eradication. Disease levies are yielding about £20 million and the annual expenditure on disease eradication here is about £30 million. While there is a good deal of public comment about the cost of these schemes, it is often overlooked that farmers nowadays are bearing the greater part of the cost. Our party will support Senator Ferris' amendment because we have the misgiving that the amount of money the Minister specifies in this Bill to finance this is totally inadequate. There will be no way out other than for those fees to be greatly increased in the very near future.
These amendments seek to vary the level of veterinary inspection fees each year in accordance with the consumer price index. The fees are intended to provide a self-financing basis for the departmental and local authority veterinary service to be provided and it will be determined solely on that basis. The veterinary inspection fees are the same as those currently applicable at the export plants. The export plant fees are not linked to the consumer price index and were last increased in January 1984. Separately linking the fees for domestic abattoirs to the consumer price index, as suggested, would give rise to an anomalous situation between the home and export sectors and more particularly, the cost factor would be lost sight of in that the actual cost of inspection would not be taken into account and there would be an annual increase irrespective of the cost.
In 1985, the Government in giving their approval for the drafting of this Bill stipulated that this measure should be self-financing. The main costs arising under the Bill will be the funding of an additional corps of full time veterinary inspectors to be employed by local authorities. Their employment is provided for under Section 35. The most economic and simplest way of covering this cost is to provide for a veterinary inspection fee to be charged on each animal slaughtered. This is the system in operation at the meat export plants where this Department provide the veterinary supervision. The system has now been adopted for the home trade under this section with the same scale of fees applying to the home and the export plants. A similar scale of fees for both the home and the export sector will ensure no distortion in supplies and price, particularly in the case of pigs. The estimated revenue to accrue to local authorities from these fees is £1.4 million annually.
While the estimated additional cost of employing full time veterinary staff in the 23 areas now without such staff is £0.6 million annually, the balance in receipts of £0.8 million will enable local authorities to provide such back-up services as are necessary, as well as covering the remuneration of the corps of part time veterinary inspectors employed in the local authority veterinary services. The cost of the latter is estimated at £0.4 million per annum. While overall, the proposals in the Bill will be self-financing, there are nine areas, Cavan, Laois, Leitrim, Longford, Monaghan, Offaly, Roscommon, North Tipperary and Waterford County where revenue from veterinary inspection fees will be insufficient to finance full time staff. It is anticipated that suitable combinations of areas can be made to finance the cost of full time staff from the aggregrate revenue on inspection fees in these areas. In this connection, section 35 of the Bill allows for such combinations.
A small number of local authorities, Dublin, Cork and Waterford, currently charge veterinary inspection fees on slaughterings under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Act, 1983. I oppose the amendments concerned. They are not relative to the costs involved. Under the legislation, if there is an application for an increase, the application would come before both Houses of the Oireachtas and would have to be debated and passed by the Oireachtas. There will be sufficient safeguard for any major increases of any kind. In fact that situation is adequately covered. Rather than having annual increases I would hope that there would be no increase for a considerable length of time.
The Bill provides that the scheme be self-financing. According to the information I have, the same level of fee applies to the export meat factories and that sector is not expected to be self-financing. According to figures at the Minister's Department, as I understand it, they only pay about 70 per cent of the total cost of the veterinary examinations of animals in meat factories.
It is not a like with like comparison between what takes place in a meat factory and what would take place in an ordinary butcher's abattoir because it is bound to be much more costly to carry out the inspection in a whole series of butchers' abattoirs as against in a meat factory where one has the long runs and the economies of scale, where vets are there over a single day to inspect four, five or six hundred slaughtered animals. To translate that number of animals into the ordinary family or high street butcher's abattoir, to inspect the slaughter of 500 or 600 animals, one would need many more veterinarians because of the scattered locations and it would mean also many more man hours of work. Consequently, the costs of this kind of inspection have to be much greater than would apply in a meat factory. It is from this that our fears arise. We feel that the amount of money that has been allocated in this regard is totally inadequate but since the Minister feels it is adequate, we are entitled to ask that he so amend the Bill to provide that any increase in the future would be linked to the consumer price index.
First, we want it to be absolutely clear to the Minister that all of us, those of us who are legislators and those in the trade, accept the principle of self financing to improve the standard and reputation of our products at butcher level. In other words, the trade is prepared to pay by way of levies and fees for the implementation of the scheme. Rarely in the history of this State have a particular sector openly come forward and accepted that principle of self financing. The Minister has at his disposal the figures to show the amount of fees required to give that service. He has confirmed that there are 23 local authority areas which with full time veterinary inspectors will require an input of £0.6 million. We all know that it is imperative to have back-up services available as well because it will not be physically possible for one veterinary inspector in any one county to be able to give the kind of service that the trade will need. Back-up services will be required. The Minister and his Department have also costed what they anticipate that fee will be, that is, £0.8 million. That is a total of £1.4 million. All those figures, including the cost of veterinary surgeons and the cost of back-up services, will be index-linked in that they will not be allowed, by Government policy on pay and otherwise, to exceed the cost of living or the consumer price index. Because of the points made by Senator Connors and our experience in other areas, we are worried that fees might be doubled, not as a source of funding under this particular legislation but as an easy way to improve the coffers of the State because the legislation allows it to be done. That is our only worry. Our experience with the last Government and with this Government has been that levies for disease eradication were just arbitrarily doubled despite political promises to halve them. The man who pays all that at the end of the day is the farmer. In accepting the Minister's figures the trade are prepared to put in this money to ensure that it is self financing but we want to make sure that that would be increased in the future in line with the consumer price-index. I accept that in three or four years' time it may be necessary to actually double the amount of permanent staff involved and then certainly the Minister would require to come back to the House with a new regulation giving the reason for increasing the levels above and beyond the consumer price-index, whether it is based on increased demand or the fact that the existing services as the Minister projected would not be capable of giving the kind of coverage, service and inspection that we want and that the trade wants. It is in that context that we are anxious to pin this one down. We are accepting the figures the Minister produced in the beginning. The trade are accepting them too. We are accepting that the only reasons they could be increased at all would be because of increased wage demands. We cannot just leave it wide open as a Government could, for the purposes of increasing their own overall tax take, use this section of the Bill, as they have used other levies, as a source of funding.
Finally, I agree with Senator Connor that in the other area of inspection the Minister has always, both in this House and in the Dáil, assured the farming organisations that the amount of levies were never sufficient to cover the actual cost of veterinary inspection at the factory. One section is being subsidised but the Minister is expecting the private sector here, the smaller butchers, to be responsible for their own funding. They have accepted that principle but we want to pin it down so that in future this section will not be abused. I am sure the Minister will not abuse it but we are anxious to pin it down. If the Minister wants to go over and beyond that for a specific purpose he is welcome to come back into the House and we will discuss it.
Níl mórán eolais agamsa ar chúrsaí airgid chomh fada is a bhaineann sé le beithí no muca a mharú agus ní shin atá i gceist agam. Séard atá mise ag smaoineamh air ná sláinte an duine agus cé chomh glan is atá chuid de na háiteanna seo ina maraítear na beithí. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil sé an tábhachtach go ndéanfaimíd scrúdú ar an gceist seo.
My concern is with those abattoirs which are not involved in the meat export business. Those factories which market their meat abroad come under very strict inspection and as a result the standard of hygiene is very high. It seems that the standard of the non-exporting companies — these would include the small local licence holder — is much lower. These so-called abattoirs are not subject to the same rules of inspection as those exporting their meat. Some do not even meet the basic standards of hygiene and I know that some do not even have hot water which means that they cannot sterilise their equipment. As for disposing of the offal, in some cases this is at times dumped on the beach and left for the sea to carry away. I would be very concerned at the health hazard in these establishments. Indeed, were it not for the fact that many Irish people like crispy rashers, many of us would be suffering from a dose of tape worm. If we were to compare the standards of the exporting meat factories with some of these local establishments, one could get the impression that as long as we keep the foreigners healthy, it is quite acceptable to poison the nation.
I am well aware of the concern of Senators Ferris and Connor in connection with the levies charged but there is very little between what they are saying. Senator Connor is worried that sufficient moneys are not made available in the levies that are being provided for in this Bill to cover the implementation of it. Before the Bill was drafted I am sure some guidelines were issued and I have no doubt that regulations relating to the export trade were the first to be considered.
In my view the levies mentioned in the Bill are no more than estimates. The provisions of the Bill will have their teething problems and there is no doubt that it will be necessary to review the matter within a year and consider the amount of money required. It is suggested in the amendment that the levies should be index linked but we must remember that the consumer price index may drop or escalate in the coming year. Therefore, the Department have no way of ensuring that they will have sufficient money to implement this scheme. The only way to ensure that sufficient money will be available is to use the levy that applies to the export trade as a guideline. When we see how much money is recouped after one or two years we will know by how much we should increase or decrease the levy. As matters stand we have to accept that the levy will be increased in the future. I agree with Senator Connor that this scheme will cost more to implement than the export scheme because of the need for inspections throughout the country. Until the Bill has been in operation for some time we will not be in position to assess the cost. There is very little between what is proposed in the Bill and what is suggested in the amendment and in view of that I appeal to Senator Ferris to withdraw his amendment. In my view it is not fair to link a levy to the consumer price index. In the final analysis money must be made available to implement the provisions of the Bill whether through levies or subsidisation by the Department.
I agree with Senator O'Toole. Levies have become an important feature of Irish farming in recent years. The officials in the Department must have done their sums when preparing the legislation and had a fair idea of the amount that will be collected. It is proposed that the scheme will be self-financing but if the levy is to be index linked there is no guarantee that there will be sufficient funds at the end of the day to implement its provisions. It is important that the Minister be given power to increase the levy by way of regulation if he finds that the scheme is not self-financing. We should wait some time to see how the scheme is operating and if it is found that sufficient money is not being raised the Minister can increase the levy as he sees fit.
I support the amendment. I was interested to hear Senator O'Toole say that there was nothing much between the amendment and the provision in the Bill. I cannot agree with that. There may be a lot of pounds, shillings and pence between what is suggested in the amendment and what is in the Bill. The people who have to bear the brunt of that phenomenon in Irish life, the creeping levy, will be directly affected by this estimated expenditure. In my view it is more a guesstimate than an estimate. The consumption of meat is dropping and it is extremely difficult for those engaged in the trade to make a reasonable livelihood. While we recognise that this scheme must be self-financing the new levy amounts to a further charge which will make it all the more difficult to run a profitable business. The Minister should give some guarantees, such as those suggested in the amendment, to those who are prepared to cooperate in the implementation of the provisions of the Bill. I firmly support the amendment.
I support Senator Ferris's amendment which was tabled because of the worries of organisations and traders arising out of the activities of past Governments in regard to levies. We must remember that farm organisations tried to link the emotive farm tax to the consumer price index and that eventually, they achieved their aim. That amounted to a precedent in regard to levies. Senator Hussey, a former Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, gave the best reason why the Minister should agree with the amendment before us, that the officials of the Department had costed the scheme. If those officials are happy with the costings there should be no problem in linking the levy to the CPI, unless those officials have plans to breach Government guidelines on pay. We must accept that the figures contained in the explanatory memorandum were arrived at following an investigation of the level of activity in the trade. If those figures are correct the Minister should not have any difficulty in accepting the amendment.
I support the amendment because I am aware of the genuine concern of those in the trade about fees. They are concerned about the ability of Ministers to impose a dramatic increase in levies for any reason. The attitude of those involved in the meat trade to the Bill has been responsible. They have indicated that they are willing to operate its provisions and will co-operate in any effort to eliminate any problems that exist. However, they are concerned about the levy and, as they have been fair in their reaction to the Bill, we owe it to them to consider their views.
I appeal to the Minister to be as fair as possible to those involved in the meat trade. Most of the concerns are owned by families who have given a great service down the years. The people involved are responsible and I would not like to see any of them put under pressure by the imposition of levies. We have sad memories of other levies. VAT, which was introduced in the early sixties, has got out of control. Those involved in the meat trade are not like some of the super stores that disappear overnight and leave a lot of blood in their trail. They are all very responsible people and respected in their various areas. I appeal to the Minister to be as flexible as possible because, as previous speakers have said in connection with the various levies on farming, they have snowballed in the past. I would not like to add any further burden onto those people. As I said, they work long hours and they are well known by their customers to be very responsible people.
I have one other fear. In a statement last week by the leader of the largest farming organisation in the country he said that his organisation would be in favour of the complete abolition of all disease levies and that farmers themselves would pay for at least one round of testing each year. As spokes-person for my party in this House, I could not agree with that because of the impact it would have on small farmers. Obviously, it is a very attractive proposal to a Government very badly stuck for cash. It is a sign of the times we live in. I would like the Minister to comment on the proposal that, if the Government were to take up this suggestion of the farming organisation that there should be an abolition of all of these fees — and as I said, that would be very attractive to the Government — it would be passed over to the farmers. Certainly it would be very attractive to small farmers, but what guarantees have we, if that were to take place, that these fees proposed in this Bill would be abolished?
The fundamental theme of this Bill is to establish confidence and introduce a new set of regulations to make sure that the home market is on a par with the available export market. For long enough there were two standards, one for export and anything would do for the home market. I am glad all concerned with this legislation, for example, the trade, were most responsible in their consultation with the Department, as also were the consumers, the farmers and everybody else. The legislators here generally welcomed it.
The upgrading of standards requires monitoring by veterinary inspectors and that costs money. In preparation for this legislation, the Department carried out a surveying exercise last year on the estimated costs of this legislation. It was found that the rates which are applicable would be adequate. I have outlined the amounts to be brought in annually under this and the annual costs as well. As Senator O'Toole said, we will not know the detailed costs until the legislation is in operation for some time because it is new legislation.
For the reasons I instanced in my earlier reply to Senator Ferris' proposed amendments to these sections, I cannot agree with the request for a linkage of fees to the consumer price index. As I said, it is arbitrary and it bears no relation to the costs. At any rate, any proposal for an increase would have to come back into this House and into the Dáil and I am sure that the trade, who at all times have been facilitated in their consultations with us, when their request for an increase comes before the Seanad and the Dáil again, will make their views known in relation to it. The legislation requires that it be self-financing and that is what it sets out to do. If we want requires that it be self-financing and that is what it sets out to do. If we want it done properly, we will have to have adequate fees. There is no question of making money out of this legislation. It is so important that we monitor the whole operation properly and a requirement that an increase in fees should be brought before both Houses should be adequate. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment.
I would not disagree with the Minister's preamble to his reply. I think he would agree that the contributions made by Senator Hussey and Senator O'Toole, if anything, are proof positive of the absolute requirement that there should be some stop put on future Governments or future Ministers using this legislation. There is no way any of us can visualise what future demands might be made on the trade in this area. I have to congratulate my colleague from South Tipperary, Senator Seán Byrne, who is a farmer and knows exactly what this means. We know from our experience, working together on opposite sides of the fence but at least working in the same interests, that there is a dread in people's minds about the words "levy" and "fee" because they have been used by Governments to get in additional funding.
Nobody from either side of this House would deny the Minister's need to have the power to get additional funding if that is required in the future. As a compromise, I suggest that he should put down an amendment of his own on Report Stage that if, through some unforeseen circumstance additional funds are required in an administrative capacity which his Department and himself and the trade do not now foresee, that should be facilitated. We could have a debate at that level if in the future additional demands arose that we know nothing about now. I think the people in the trade would accept that, too. We are talking here about what is included in the legislation now and the level of fees that have been set, based on an examination done by the Minister and his Department over the past 12 months and, indeed, by the previous Government and by interdepartmental groups with which I worked in preparing this legislation. We put up what we considered were reasonable figures, based on what we thought the need was.
In fairness, I cannot withdraw the amendment on principle. I ask the Minister to concede it and to consider putting in a suitable amendment on Report Stage to protect his own interests in the long term. That could then give him the facility to bring a regulation before this House for a special reason, which we do often. We did so under all sorts of legislation dealing with the State sector and the semi-State sector, bringing in resolutions requiring additional capital to be put in. Generally speaking, the Minister would have had support in this House for increasing certain figures that were included in legislation.
We are not taking any powers from the Minister but we are putting down the amendments as a matter of principle so that he will realise that these headings alone should be index-linked to something. We could think of no fairer linkage than with the consumer price index because that is the only index that could create an additional demand in these three fee headings that are mentioned in my amendments. We are asking the Minister to accept these amendments or put in an amendment of his own on Report Stage to give himself the other overriding power. However, it would need then to be substantiated by a genuine reason. If for some reason outside his control or his knowledge he might have to have twice as many permanent veterinary surgeons, we would have to look at the matter. He is basing it now on the required amount with the back-up service and we feel that he has researched it well and that the figures are as close as possible to what he might need and the trade have gone along with him.
Our experience in this area is that if you do not put a lid on it, Governments can ignore the overall consequences of what they are doing and, as Senator Byrne has said, enough people have gone out of business. We certainly do not want to put the small butchers in every town and village in Ireland out of business. They would feel they would have no control over these fees or licence charges or whatever in the future. We do not want to be calling divisions on this Bill because it is a non-political Bill. It is a non-contentious Bill, in a way, and we want it to be as applicable as possible to the sector that will operate it on the ground. If the Government do not have co-operation, they can legislate until kingdom come to no avail. Now that we have the trade on our side, let us be reasonable with them. If the Minister concedes this amendment, he will have gone a long way towards getting the confidence of the trade that has been so supportive of what he is trying to do.
I do not want to be repetitive but, like my colleague, Senator Ferris, I appeal to the Minister to see the arguments that we are making. I tried to point out that this Bill requires that the fees collected be enough to finance the working of the Bill. The fees collected in factories carry no such requirement. As I pointed out, 70 per cent of the cost of inspections at factories is funded from the fees collected at factories where it is economical to do so. We are moving into an area where it is much less economical to do so and obviously these fees, the same as those which apply in a factory, cannot carry the full economic cost of these inspections.
Our party do not quibble or disagree with the amount of money that it would take to pay the salaries of 23 additional veterinary inspectors, £0.6 million, but one area where the cost will burgeon out of control is the corps of veterinary inspectors who will have to assist the county veterinary inspectors. At present with much less work to do, it costs the local authorities almost that amount of money to pay them. You are going to double, treble and probably quadruple their workload and their travelling but you have not provided an adequate amount of money. We must try to defend the people in the trade and the farmers who are quite prepared to have the additional bill passed on to them when the total cost of that aspect of the Bill is fully realised.
Having listened to the case made for the amendment it is clear that there is complete acceptance of the fees laid down in the Bill by the people on the other side of the House. Everyone in this House accepts the fees as laid down. The only issue which divides the House is that if this Bill is to be implemented sufficient moneys must be provided to do so. The Bill seeks to give the Minister power to introduce regulations in both Houses of the Oireachtas to do that if necessary. Linking it to the price index, as has been suggested in the amendment, may not be sufficient. What you are saying is that you agree with the Bill, but if a sufficient amount of money is not provided you want it linked to the price index so that it cannot be implemented. That is the difference between what you propose in your amendment and what is proposed in the Bill. I ask the proposers of the amendment to withdraw it at this stage because of the very small difference between it and the Bill. What you are saying is that you accept the Bill and the fees contained in it but that you only want them increased from here on in according to the price index at the time. That may not be sufficient to finance the implementation of the Bill. Therefore you are preventing the implementation of the Bill by pursuing the amendment and I ask you to withdraw it because the Bill cannot be implemented if it is linked to the price index.
I do not accept that the Bill cannot be implemented. We are accepting the figures which have been presented by the Minister and the Department as being the moneys required to implement the Bill and to provide the service. To ensure that the service can be continued at the same level in the future we are asking for the fees to be index linked. We are proposing that the Minister increases the fees having regard to the cost of living and consumer price index and to every other norm used by every other sector, particularly the sections that are most likely to cause an increase in the administrative costs. So far from inserting an amendment that will make the future operation of the Bill impossible we are inserting an amendment that will ensure its efficient operation. We are trying to protect the legislation and we do not want to leave it open to any Minister to bring in a regulation that will double the fees next year.
I do not want to remove any powers from the Minister. If the Minister can come back with a good case and a proper amendment which will allow him in certain circumstances to make certain increases — which could only come about if he has not researched his original demands properly — we are prepared to listen to it. The Minister can protect himself by tabling a Report Stage amendment. The principle of licence fees is included in this amendment and that is a good thing. It would be most reassuring for people in the country, for farmers and everybody else, if for the first time fees were linked to the cost of living and consumer price index. If this had been done before we went into a budget deficit we would not have the problems we have today. The different sectors tended to forget the consumer price index in the demands they made. We are all guilty. There was a lack of regard for the overall good of a nation, for Ireland Limited. The sky was the limit for many people in their demands and in the concessions which were given to them. Here is one way of ensuring that in the future some regard will be shown. I cannot withdraw the amendment. I hope the Minister will accept it in the spirit in which it is suggested and that our colleagues on the other side will support it in the same spirit.
We all realise that this legislation is very important and urgent for the protection of butchers and victuallers and that it needs to be financed. I would not like to see any undue financial hardship being put on people who will have to pay the fees. A levy is to be introduced and the word "levy" is not liked by many. Having it index-linked could be dangerous. If the Minister finds at some future stage that he has to increase the levies and increases them in relation to the price index and still finds he has not enough money, where would the extra money come from? I believe the Minister will be very reasonable if he has to increase the levy and will not put any undue hardship on those who will have to pay it.
This section has been very well discussed. In response to Senator O'Toole, there is a major difference between what the Minister has stated so far and what my party feel. We genuinely feel adequate financing has not been provided to implement the provisions of the Bill. We are particularly worried, as I said before and I do not wish to repeat it, that there is a variable, which is very difficult to predict, which allows about £800,000 for the payment of the corps of veterinary inspectors. We are talking about 160 vets. On top of that a clerical or administrative back-up must be provided in order to have the necessary administrative work carried out. We find great difficulty in accepting that that can be financed nationally by a sum of £800,000. We feel that it will wind up costing several million pounds because there is no doubt that when you increase the workload to the level envisaged in the Bill, which is needed and we fully support the idea of post and ante natal inspections——
We are on amendment No. 1 to section 10. Are you still on that amendment?
Yes. We are talking about the costing. For that reason my party disagree. We wish to protect the farmers and those involved in the meat trade on the high street against fee increases. Next year the Minister will probably introduce a 100, 200 or 300 per cent increase.
I can see a certain amount of merit in the case Senator Ferris has been making. Certainly, he has argued it very well but I can see problems arising from index linking the fees because we are also discussing amendments Nos. 13 and 14 with amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 1 refers to the licence fees and amendments Nos. 13 and 14 refer to the inspection fees. In the Bill the inspection fees are pegged at the same level as the inspection fees applicable in the export meat plants and the inspection fees in the export meat plants are not index-linked. If the inspection fees for animals slaughtered in abattoirs were index-linked and the inspection fees for animals slaughtered in export meat plants were not index-linked then two different levels of exports fees would apply to animals depending on the premises in which they were slaughtered. If this amendment were accepted in relation to both the licence fees and the inspection fees we could finish up with a very anomalous situation vis-á-vis the meat export plants.
Every regulation which has been brought out, and in particular, those brought out during the past 20 years, in relation to a local authority, health board, the Department of Agriculture or whatever the case may be, turned into a monster within about five years regardless of what Government were in power. What we have in this country is a creeping bureaucracy. It has gone mad. It is like a vulture, eating up the taxpayer's money as if there was a machine in every little corner of the country to print money. I appeal to the Minister when this Bill is passed to see to it that much of the unnecessary — and I stress the word "unnecessary"— red tape is eliminated. Regardless of who operates a scheme for a road grant, house grant or the inspection of a public house for cleanliness there are fleets of officials involved and in case one of them has to slip out of a car he has to have one or two assistants with him. This is where the money is going.
Politicians of all parties shed crocodile tears about the poor taxpayers and our national debt. Let us get our own house in order. Let us cut out a lot of this red tape and the end result might be to help someone to stay in business and lighten the tax burden for the people who are crucified. I appeal to the Minister to have as little red tape as possible in connection with these regulations. Cut it out. We are the laughing stock of Europe because of the bureaucracy we have set up in the past 25 years at enormous expense and at least 50 per cent of which is unnecessary.
I see very little between us in this argument. Senator Connor said the financing proposed would not be sufficient to meet the costs and that he could visualise an increase of maybe 300 per cent in a year or two. If that is so index linking the fees is not going to solve the problem either and the Minister will have to go back to the meat trade and the farmers and increase the fees if this scheme is to be self-financing. The Minister will not go to the Minister for Finance and say: "We are so many million pounds short. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to give us the money?" He will have to go back to the trade and to the farmers to try to make up any deficiency that might be there. I see very little dividing us on this amendment because all accept that it has to be self-financing. I would be afraid that index-linking the fees may not solve the problem and, at the end of the day, the Minister will have to go back to the trade to get any shortfall that might be there.
The proposed fees under the Bill were set following a survey by the Department last year. The fees were set to ensure that the measures under this Bill would be self-financing and there is no question of making any money out of it. If we accepted the amendments we would be opening the door to the creeping bureaucracy Senator Byrne spoke about. Although he used the analogy of a vulture I think the analogy of the octopus is more commonly used. I will not go into the details here but merely say that there is a colleague of mine down in the south western part of the country who is a trade unionist.
Should it be found necessary to increase the fees at some future date to keep in line with costs, this House and the Dáil will have an opportunity to debate the increase. I go along with what Senator Ferris said in that whatever party feel obliged to increase the fees and bring in a measure to this House and the Dáil will have to have very good reasons in circumstances which would warrant an increase and it would have to be justified. There would be no question of any party in Government coming in in a few years time and saying: "We want to increase the fees by 100 per cent or 500 per cent." The increases in the fees will have to be justified and the circumstances surrounding them will have to be made known to the Members of the House and voted on. I gave an assurance when introducing this legislation that we would facilitate the trade in vetting proposals before any regulation may be introduced here in the future. Those safeguards will ensure that whoever comes into the House to increase the fees will have to outline in very great detail and justify the reasons for the increase.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- de Buitleár, Eamon.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Connor, Nicholas.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Loughrey, Joachim.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McMahon, Larry.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and M. O'Toole; Níl, Senators Harte and Hogan.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Section 10 (3) states:
Where an application is made pursuant to this section for the grant or renewal of an abattoir licence, the Minister shall, before considering the application, cause the premises to which the application relates to be inspected by an authorised officer of the Minister.
I should like to ask the Minister if the authorised officer will be the veterinary inspector for the area? If not, would he say what qualifications the authorised officer will be likely to have? In the interests of uniformity of standards the authorised officer of the Minister for the purpose of inspecting such premises in relation to licence applications should be the veterinary inspector for the area.
Authorised officers of the Minister who conduct this licensing inspection in the main will be veterinary inspectors from the meat export plants who at set times will visit the premises in their locality. In the remoter areas it may also be necessary to draw on veterinary inspectors at the district veterinary office who would have previous meat experience on a consultative basis. It is envisaged that the full-time veterinary officer employed by the local authority would be invited to accompany the Minister's authorised officer when such licensing inspections are taking place.
I welcome the Minister's commitment that there will have to be a good reason given to the Houses of the Oireachtas before there is any unwarranted increase granted in the future. I will hold the Minister to that undertaking.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."
Section 11 (2) states:
An abattoir licence may contain a condition limiting the class or number of animals that may be slaughtered in the abattoir to which it relates, or in such part of such abattoir as may be specified.
I can understand how the number of animals could be limited but how can we limit the class? Could the Minister say what is meant by that?
On the same section — where the Minister may make regulations in consultation with the local authority in the functional area involved in this — on Second Stage I suggested that there will have to be a standardised set of regulations throughout the country, that whatever is required of butchers in Dublin will also be required of butchers in the country and vice versa. That would mean that whatever size of premises is involved per animal the same measurements will apply.
When replying on Second Stage the Minister confirmed that that would be his intention. I should like the Minister to confirm that the same set of regulations will apply to everybody. That would ensure that everybody would have the same opportunity, the same time factor within which to bring their premises up to the required standard, so that there will not be different sets of regulations for different counties.
In reply to Senator Ferris, yes, the regulations will be standardised throughout the country. In relation to Senator Hussey's query, subsection (2) is necessary to ensure that premises which may not be large enough to have proper facilities for the slaughter of certain species of animals such as cattle or pigs will either not be allowed slaughter such species or, alternatively, be required to slaughter such species at time different from the slaughter of other animals. This is particularly important in the case of the slaughter of pigs where their screaming could terrorise other animals. Further pig slaughtering or some other operations might very well contaminate the meat of other animals. What is envisaged here is that particular species of animals will be slaughtered at particular times.
I take it that would be made clear to applicants when the licences are issued.
Yes.
Section 11 (3) states:
The Minister may assign to each abattoir in respect of which a licence is granted under this Act a distinctive number or letter, or number and letter.
Another section provides that meat slaughtered in a licensed abattoir will be stamped with a health mark. Will that distinctive number or letter, which is assigned to the abattoir, be incorporated in the health mark with which the meat originating in that abattoir will be stamped?
I could visualise a problem arising here. There could be confusion if there is not liaison between the veterinary inspectors and the people who will take their animals to an abattoir for slaughter. Has the Minister envisaged the provision of, say, holding pens in the event of animals arriving at an abattoir for slaughter having to be kept for a length of time by butchers, farmers or whoever delivers them. If there is not proper timing of kill at that abattoir there could be confusion about the holding of animals for any given length of time. I would welcome liaison to ensure that specified times be arranged by the veterinary inspectors, to ensure that killing would take place from the hours of, say, 10 a.m. to 11 a.m. or within the assigned hours so that there would not be people waiting in vehicles with animals lying about in abattoirs for hours without having the veterinary people there. If there is no veterinary person there, is it possible for a kill to take place? I understand from the provisions of the Bill that an animal will have to be inspected and clinically examined prior to and again after kill. Such liaison between the veterinary people on timing will be crucial to the proper implementation of the provisions of the Bill.
First, I should like to assure Senator Martin O'Toole that there will be liaison between an abattoir, the veterinary inspectorate and owners of animals. Subsection (3) is linked with the arrangements for the stamping of meat as contained in section 40. While the type of health mark has yet to be determined under the regulations, this subsection will permit an identifying number or mark relating to the abattoir to be incorporated in the health mark. This will be very important for tracing purposes and also for the prevention of any abuse that might otherwise occur. It will be possible by means of this mark to identify the abattoir, the veterinary surgeons and the owner of the animals.
I welcome that assurance. I will leave my comments on the marking of meat and the killing times, in respect of which I have put down a specific amendment to the relevant section. I am anxious that confirmation would be forthcoming where the actual mark on the meter would be put because problems have arisen in the past but I will leave it to another section. I welcome the fact that a distinctive number or letter or both could form part of the actual health stamp in the future. It would be ideal for tracing and the butchers would like it as well if they achieved a standard. It would be identified with them and they could not be blamed for other people's mismanagement.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 11, subsection (2), lines 24 to 26, to delete "for the period of two months, or such longer period as the Minister may allow, after the death of the licence holder" and substitute "for the remaining period of the licence".
I hope the Minister will be in total agreement with what I am suggesting in this amendment. The section, as it stands, would require a widow or widower of a licensee — in some circumstances — to apply within two months for a continuation of the licence. The length of period could be at the Minister's discretion. In order to tidy up this section, would it not be better if the Minister agreed to my amendment which would allow the period of licence to continue up to the expiration of the licence as would normally happen if the licensee was still alive. That two months period is the time a widow in particular would be in the most traumatic period of her life and the last thing she might think of would be to reapply for the continuation of the licence although she might have, and probably would have, a qualified butcher or staff on hands to continue the business which would be part of her livelihood. I see absolutely no reason why the licence should die with the licensee. There is probably an exception in that a driver's licence would die with a person who had it — I do not think they are required in heaven yet, or in hell for that matter.
A butcher should be treated the same as a publican or anybody else in that the premises themselves are the places that are licensed. The licensee is the responsible person but there should be absolutely no reason whatsoever why a widow or widower of a deceased person would be obliged to apply again within two months of the death to have a licence continued. It does not make any sense to me. Perhaps the Minister might give his reason for it. I take it that all these licences are annual or whatever period a licence would last for irrespective of the fact that the licensee might unfortunately die in the meantime and, of course, the premises will continue to be subject to veterinary inspection in any case. It will be obligatory on the personal representative to continue the same standard as would have applied when the licensee was alive. In my opinion it is a reasonable amendment. I sincerely hope the Minister can see the reason for it, that the period would be a very traumatic period and somebody might just lose their means of survival by default.
What Senator Ferris has said is fine if a situation were not to arise where the licence holder died within a matter of weeks or days of the date of the expiration of the licence. If that happened and if Senator Ferris' amendment were to be adopted then the licence would expire possibly in a matter of days after the death of the licence holder.
I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment in relation to the section. The Minister will have to understand that we are talking mainly about family businesses, particularly in rural Ireland, where the spouse or another member of the family is involved in the business. The annual review of the licence is a sufficiently tramatic experience for many people in a family business, and rightly so, in order to adhere to the necessary hygienic standards which the consumer requires and which as legislators we require. We could have a situation where after the death of the owner of the business the spouse or the member of the family may not want to continue with the business and they would be left with no licence and, therefore, would not be able to dispose of the particular slaughter house involved. A slaughter house is only operable or only as good as the necessary licence available to the person operating it. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. There should be the same treatment in this case as in given to the family publican or the family grocer who can transfer their businesses without any impediment of this sort. There should be a safeguard for the spouse or the member of the family in disposing of that particular asset at a very important time in their lives.
I am concerned about this section because the family butchers, especially in rural parishes or rural villages like my own, are actually diminishing throughout the country. I would like to see him protected especially if his son is an apprentice in the trade. To suspend or terminate a licence after two months would be very hard on those people. I hope the Minister will take that person into account. I know he has his reasons for inserting this section and he will probably give them to us but he should not make it hard especially on the family butchers in rural parishes where they have maintained the identity of rural places in case they are wiped out completely.
Without being repetitive I agree with the amendment put forward on this side on the House by Senator Ferris and indeed what has been said on the far side of the House. Of all licensed types of livelihoods I do not know if this kind of requirement is applied anywhere else. Say, for instance if a publican dies, his licence does not automatically cancel, abolish or abrogate two months after his death. I feel that it is eminently reasonable to ask that at least the licence be allowed to run its full course. Senator Mullooly makes the point — I do not quite understand it — about a licence coming up within a few weeks of the expiry of the licence on the decrease of the licence holder. The Department of Agriculture will be notifying each licence holder each year that the expiry of their licence is coming up. They will be giving them due notice that it is time to reapply for the renewal of their licence. Regarding the death of the head of the family who may be the licence holder, it has been pointed out that it would be a very traumatic period of mourning for these people and they might automatically lose their licence through an oversight because of their pre-occupation with a very dramatic and traumatic event in their life. I plead with the Minister that he would as a matter of reasonableness see that the argument we are making and the reasoning behind that argument.
I am full of reasonableness and I am going to be very magnanimous in relation to this amendment. This amendment proposes to substitute for the words "for the period of two months" the words "for the remaining period of the licence." If the remaining period of the licence is only a few days or a few weeks it would be to the disadvantage of the holder. I propose, to avoid that kind of situation, that a more appropriate amendment would be "for a period of two months or for the remaining period of the licence whichever is the longer after the death of the licence holder" and I will bring this forward on Report Stage. A similar amendment will be necessary under section 28 and, as a consequence a similar provision will apply to permits granted under the Bill. Assuming acceptance by Senator Ferris to the addition to his amendment, the appropriate changes to section 13 and section 28 will be brought forward on Report Stage.
Thank you. I am prepared to accept the Minister's suggestion on this because it will now allow the personal representative of the licensee to hold his or her licence for the remainder of its period or two months whichever is the longer. It would be up to the licensee's representative to have it as long as possible in that traumatic period. I accept that as being a genuine effort to ensure that no unreasonable demands are made on the representative. If the Minister gives me an assurance that he will introduce a ministerial amendment on Report Stage to do what is suggested in my amendment and what he suggests, I would accept that as being the better way forward.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 13 agreed to.
Sections 14 and 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are consequential on amendment No. 4 and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, subsection (1), lines 17 and 18, to delete "Circuit Court" and substitute the "Abbatoir Licence Appeals Board established under subsection (2)".
It is only appropriate that when an amendment is consequential on other amendments we would take them together. I hope the Minister will accept my amendment. The following legal process is set out at section 16 (1):
Whenever the Minister refuses to grant or renew, or revokes, an abattoir licence, the applicant for, or the holder of, such licence may, within 21 days after the date of the service of the notice of, as the case may be, the refusal or revocation, appeal to the Circuit Court against such refusal or revocation.
I am suggesting a different formula from that suggested by the Minister. I do not think it is necessary to legislate for somebody's civil rights. Anybody would have the civil right to go to a Circuit Court in the event that they felt they had been treated unjustly by Minister or anybody else. The Office of the Ombudsman is available in the event of public officials not treating a person justly. There is no need, therefore, for separate legislation in that respect.
In the event of a butcher having made his case for the granting of a licence and for some reason unknown to him or because of some stipulation laid down by an official, a veterinary surgeon or whoever might have inspected his premises, the licence is refused, he will be required to go to court in order to be able to avail of his rights.
I am suggesting the use of a non-statutory forum as opposed to the need for legal proceedings. I suggest a type of abattoir licence appeals board. If the Minister accepts that principle, it will involve representatives from the county council, from the Irish Domestic Meat Traders Association, from the Department and from other such butchers' organisations that exist. I specifically mentioned the Irish Domestic Meat Traders Association because I have been in touch with them and I know they represent the smaller family type butchers. My proposal would not rule out any other registered butchers organisation should the Minister wish that they be included on the board. If problems arise, they could be discussed at such a forum. The Minister could have the power to nominate to that informal board some independent chairperson who might look at the case for and against.
The reason for my suggestion is that if for some reason a butcher is unable, in the ordinary course of events, to have his licence granted or approved he would be required to go into court to make his case. The moment any family butcher has to go to court to prove his case he has automatically lost the credibility of the public on the basis that he was in court. You would have the banner headlines "Butcher appears in court over licence". Everybody would think there was something desperately wrong with the premises while the matter involved might be very simple. It might be an administrative matter or it could be that the inspector in question was suffering from the effects of the night before and refused to approve a licence. He could, for instance, have had a row with the butcher on the local football field or at the golf club. We are all human.
When somebody is given authority I would like to think that authority would be used in the common good. I am asking that a non-statutory appeals system be set up. I recognise that the Minister and the veterinary profession will have to have overall regard for the good of the consumer. I would not rule out that cases might arise in which the Minister might avail of this non-statutory role. I am quite sure that the local authorities — I am a member of two local authorities — would welcome this type of forum in which we would discuss with people the opportunity of having their case made in a confidential way and which would not put them out of business by having to go to the extremes of taking a civil court action.
I realise that common law exists and will allow a butcher that process if he feels that all the other systems have been stacked up against him and that he is unable to get his way. He might find that he has to go to court and I think civil law would allow for that. I am asking the Minister, under this section, to set up a non-statutory group of people who would consider impartially whether a person should have his licence renewed, revoked or withdrawn. The Minister will have the co-operation of everybody in the meat trade, the local authorities, his Department, the Department of Health and so on in making appointments to such an appeals tribunal. The tribunal would look at the problems arising and try to keep people out of court. Every day many people have to go to court. It is a very expensive process. It is so expensive to go to a higher court that it would make it almost impossible for a family butcher to get his rights. He would have to expend a lot of money to get somebody at senior counsel level to advise him. I am suggesting, as an interim procedure, that the Minister accept this amendment in the spirit in which it is made.
Subsection (2) of this section provides that subject to there being no danger to public health the premises may continue to be used as an abattoir until the appeal is mentioned in the Circuit Court. The area that worried me is where it says: "subject to there being no danger to public health". Who decides that there is no danger to public health? Is it going to be an authorised officer from the Department of Agriculture and Food, from the Department of Health or maybe even from the Department of the Environment?
That is a question on the section and we are dealing with the amendments at the moment. We will come to the section later.
I thought we were taking all these subsections together.
No, we are taking all amendments to the section together.
I appeal to the Minister to try to bring about a situation where bringing people into court could be avoided. As Senator Ferris said, the expense alone is frightening. They have an open door to charge what they like. If a case goes to a higher court it costs more. Because a butcher is dealing with food, his reputation could be destroyed by having to go to court. It would be a different ball game if the owner of a licensed premises was in court because of serving drink after hours. The pint of Guinness would not be open to question in such a situation but in the case of a butcher the quality of the meat he was selling would be open to question. Having regard to the nature of his business and also to the cost involved, I appeal to the Minister to bring about a situation where a butcher would not be hauled into court.
I support the amendment and reiterate what Senator Byrne has said about the expense of going to court over, perhaps, a minor offence. The situation could arise where a dirty cloth is left lying around an abattoir or a licensed premises. The Department official in question might deem that sufficient reason to bring a case against the butcher involved. As Senator Ferris pointed out, there is tremendous danger of putting the butcher out of business because of the detrimental publicity such a course might receive. In regard to the tribunal alluded to in this amendment, a tidier tribunal might be required, a tribunal of not too many people. This would ensure that matters do not end up in court because no decision can be made. A representative of the Department of Agriculture, a representative of the local authority and a nominee of the various butcher's organisations — in any town in rural Ireland anyway a nominee of one of the butchers' organisations would be sufficient; perhaps it would be different in the larger cities — would meet the case. In a minor case like that three people could resolve the situation without bringing the matter to the expense of a court hearing and putting the family business in jeopardy.
We are attracted to Senator Ferris's amendment. We read later on in the Bill that the Minister will make regulations that will give powers to officers of his Department to implement the conditions laid down in this Bill. We know what happens. An officer is given a statutory duty to carry out a certain task and that officer can interpret that statutory duty as statutory authority to do it. If he does not like a certain member of the meat trade there is nothing at all to prevent him perhaps expressing some little vindictiveness against that person, saying he was carrying out his statutory duty and his statutory authority by refusing the grant of a licence. In his report to his superior he could state that a certain premises was unsuitable not because the premises was unsuitable but because for his own reasons his relationship with that person might not be very satisfactory. For that reason we find the provision very limited.
We are not altogether happy either that, even on an appeal, a member of the trade will have to take extremely drastic action in having to go to the Circuit Court with all that implies and all the cost it involves. Under section 16 (4) (a) the Circuit Court has power to dismiss an appeal with or without costs. Under paragraph (b) the court may allow the appeal, with costs, and direct the Minister to grant or renew the licence, or to cancel the revocation. The part of the subsection we are worried about is: "and the decision of the Circuit Court on an appeal under this section shall be final save that, by leave of that Court, an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court on a point of law".
I am sure it is not the Minister's intention that anybody would have to go before the Circuit Court or, indeed, before a board as proposed by Senator Ferris in his amendment. In section 11 the Minister sets out quite clearly the guidelines necessary. If the applicant for a licence adheres strictly to those conditions very few cases will go on appeal to the Circuit Court. That should be the aim of the Department's officials who will be carrying out the inspections and so on. So far as possible dialogue should take place between them and the owners of the abattoirs and it should not be necessary to go before the Circuit Court.
Before the Minister replies I want him to know my view on a couple of points. While I accept the case made by Senator Hussey, we are dealing in a real world. It will happen that on the morning of a visit by one of these inspectors some matter for which we cannot legislate could arise through no fault of the applicant. We want to make sure that in such a case a person is not put to the trouble of going to court, because he might as well close down and go away if he has to do that to get the licence. The reason I put down the condition of voluntary basis was that it should be an optional matter in areas but at least there would be a process in between where a person would have been refused a licence and rather than go to court there would be some intermediary body to consider the application.
On amendment No. 4 I talked about membership of the board being voluntary. It would be tight and should not be more than 11 for obvious reasons. In some administrative areas you could have more than one butchers' organisation. I want to be very impartial. I have mentioned that one organisation I want included is the Irish Domestic Meat Traders Association, but I do not rule out the right to representation from organisations like the Irish Master Butchers Federation. They may require to be represented on the board and rightly so. I would think that the Minister would require his Department to have access to such a non statutory appeals process. You can keep the numbers as tight as you like and not more than 11, but within that 11 you will be able to have representatives of all the people who would be involved. That process would take place before it would be necessary to go to court. Nobody can take the right from a butcher to go to court if his livelihood is in jeopardy. It will be in his own interest to have that provision. I am suggesting an intermediary body. Let us hope that they will never have to be used but in the real world any day anything might happen and some people might be unfortunate enough to be at risk regarding the renewal of their licence through some unforeseen circumstance on a certain morning. Anybody who knows about retail outlets, slaughtering houses and all sorts of places which are hives of activity knows that something can happen, perhaps on the very morning the inspector is coming. I want a fail safe situation. I do not want to have everybody shepherded into court. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment on that basis.
These amendments concern the establishment of an abattoir licence appeals board for each local authority area, that is 32 boards consisting of members of the local authority concerned, the Irish Domestic Meat Traders Association and the Department of Agriculture and Food. It has been proposed that these boards will first hear appeals against refusal or revocation of licenses from which, should the need arise, there will be a further appeal to the Circuit Court. As public health will be the overriding consideration, it is felt that recourse to the Circuit Court as proposed in the Bill is the proper way to cater for appeals or refusal or revocation of licenses. A series of individual appeal boards, 32 in all, as suggested, could give rise to diverse rulings, and here we are talking about standardised regulations and standardisation of premises and facilities for the country. Indeed, one reason for this — that is, responsibility for licensing of premises is being granted to the Minister under the Bill — is the different approaches to licensing which obtained by the sanitary authorities in the past. One could anticipate similar divergencies in the case of the suggested appeals board. Moreover, the constitution of such boards could prove contentious having regard to the existence of three separate trade organisations. It is not unusual in Irish circumstances to have more than one organisation. There is the Irish Domestic Meat Traders Association, the Irish Master Butchers Federation and the Irish Meat Wholesalers Association. Refusal or revocation of a licence is a serious matter and any decision in that regard will not be taken lightly. In fact, it is a very serious matter and there is no question of the Minister or an authorised officer of the Minister, simply because he does not like somebody, revoking that person's licence. The matter is far too serious for that. We are talking about upgrading legislation so that the interests of the public and the consumers are protected.
In certain circumstances, where refusal is concerned a permit under section 17 in lieu of a licence will be granted to allow time for the premises to be brought up to standard with appeals to lie to the Circuit Court. In this case it will have to receive careful consideration before a decision is taken to refuse or revoke a licence. The revoking hierarchy within the Department will ensure that all the facts are established before the application comes to the Minister for a decision. Here, we are talking about extreme circumstances. If an officer goes into a premises and finds rats crawling all over the place and all over the meat, he is entitled to take a serious view of it.
In relation to publicity I cannot see how an individual who is abusing the regulations and his position could be saved from any publicity by a tribunal because I assume that the same publicity applies to that as to any court. I hope that, given a sense of responsibility, this will not arise. In the event, the fairest thing is to have recourse to the Circuit Court.
I am sorry the Minister is still relying on the courts. My amendments have not ruled out the courts. Indeed, I have been very specific in ensuring that people's rights are still protected, by their being able to go to court. Nobody on this side of the House or the other side of the House would advocate that a butcher who had rats running over his meat should get a licence. I do not suggest either that he could get a licence by going to court. It is a wrong example to use. None of the people in the trade to whom we have spoken wants to defend a person of that character. We are thinking about reasonable family people. I am suggesting this on a voluntary basis in each county. My amendments do not affect court procedures that can be availed of at present. I am asking for this on a voluntary basis.
The alternative is that the Minister's local butcher will contact him as his local TD to ring up the county manager to make sure that the vet does not take away his licence because something unusual happened that morning. Public representatives will be able to be judgmental in relation to butchers. I would rather see professional people involved in that kind of non-statutory or voluntary area which would have a semi-formal basis. The butchers, meat traders or meat wholesalers could nominate one of each of their people so that their interests would be protected and the Minister could ensure that the county council would be involved along with somebody from the health board if the Minister wishes. Let us have some way in which people can make an ordinary appeal on the basis of a genuine case of misadventure. We should not legislate that somebody could lose his licence without recourse other than to go to law. That is the last thing anybody would want, particularly in the area of the selling or killing of meat for human consumption.
We want to achieve a standard of which we can be proud. We have higher standards than any other country in Europe and we are aping them every day. Anyone who knows anything about how meat is killed, transported, produced or delivered in Europe will realise that our standards surpass most of theirs. We should be proud of this. In this section we are prepared to send people into court to get their rights. The Minister should realise that we are looking for voluntary non-statutory control, so that people could talk, and sit down and listen. Maybe at the end of the day they will still have to go to court because the evidence from the inspector will be such as to warrant that decision. That will not remove from the Minister or his office the right to revoke or refuse to renew the licence.
Nobody wants to take that power from the Minister and so make this Bill ineffective. We are protecting that power, but we are suggesting that there should be a mechanism, an in-between house, to give people the right to make their case confidentially. It would have to be confidential because we have to have the confidence of the consumer. This is a voluntary way. Only butchers who want to use this process would be expected to use it. I would like to legislate for the possibility of using that voluntary basis rather than depending on the court. I hope the Minister will see it in that light. Putting that process in does not remove from the Minister the overall responsibility he has to ensure that standards are maintained. Let us be reasonable. We are dealing with the ordinary real world. I hope the Minister can meet us on this.
In several other walks of life there is a non-judicial appeal system through which people who get into trouble in the licensed trade can appeal rather than having to go through a very costly judicial appeal system. At Second Stage we expressed the view that people other than officers of the Department might have a say in the implementation of these regulations. Heretofore, the environmental health inspectors had a major role and that has been eliminated in this legislation. The officer of the Department, armed with statutory powers which he will get when this Bill is enacted, can attend at a premises and for a personal reason can revoke a licence. This would only happen in the rarest of cases but it should never happen. If that kind of thing happens it becomes an absolute tyranny.
We appeal to the Minister to see the reason for the arguments we are making. The power in this legislation — a lot of power is involved because we are talking about somebody's livelihood — is too narrowly confined in the hands of a particular officer of the Department. The Minister knows how the system works, and he knows that he could not revoke the officer's decision if that officer insisted that, in his professional opinion a premises was unsuitable, even though that might not be the same standard he is applying to another trader just down the street.
I support the previous speakers in relation to the provision of an intermediary in order to decide whether a person should be sent to court for a minor offence. We are talking about minor offences. If a major offence is committed all of us here would certainly condemn it and would abhor any effect that would have on the consumer. We would not support any butcher who had rats crawling over his meat or a more serious offence than that. We must take this section in the context of the fines the Minister is imposing under another section of the Bill. You can be fined up to about £10,000. If the court to which you resort imposes serious fines up to that amount for minor offences like dirty cloths lying around a slaughterhouse or an abattoir, it will create tremendous fear in the family businessman who is willing to set up in a butcher's shop. There will be no incentive for such a person if he is to be bogged down with bureauracy and regulations, if he is to be inhibited by a vet with whom he does not get on or by the fact that he might be saddled with fines of up to £10,000 for minor offences. Either we meet the offence with the appropriate fine or we provide this third party.
The Minister fails to see the damaging effect which even minor publicity can have in a matter like this. In rural parts you do not have to put it on the paper for bad news to get out about a family business. I would not like to see any undue publicity being given to a minor offence which would jeopardise the family business and put it under severe pressure if the level of fines were imposed to their full extent of up to £10,000. I appeal to the Minister to give discretionary powers to the local authorities, or to the independent tribunal proposed by Senator Ferris, as a first effort to resolve a minor infringement of the regulations.
The position in this section is that we are trying to up-grade premises. We are trying to protect the consumer. We are trying to insist on public health regulations being recognised and, rather than closing down premises, the officials of the Department will be in consultation with the trade in trying to up-grade them. There is a period of up to five years to do so under permit. I had representations made to me that a period of five years was too long. Every facility will be there, in consultation with the trade, to allow people to up-grade their premises. I would have very little mercy on persistent defaulters or offenders under this regulation because the revocation of a licence will not be taken for a minor offence. It would have to be a serious and persistent matter. I cannot, therefore, accept the amendment. The present system under the section is the best under the circumstances.
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No, it is not. The Bill still allows what the Minister wants. The amendment does not remove the power and the importance of that power of the court. It just adds in this piece. That it is not unreasonable. I am surprised the Minister does not agree to this in principle because it is a voluntary arrangement. I had hoped that the Minister would agree to it. I am sorry he does not. On that basis I cannot withdraw the amendment. It is voluntary; it is not obligatory and it does not remove all the other sections about courts which are there in common law. I am sorry I have to disagree with the Minister but I feel we should leave it in as an interim measure and I think that the House would support that.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl 16.
Tá
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- de Buitleár, Eamon.
- Eogan, George.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Connell, John.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Níl
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Daly, Jack.
- Doyle, Joe.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- Norris, David.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and M. O'Toole; Níl, Senators Harte and J. Daly.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Progress reported: Committee to sit again.