Before we proceed with the amendments to the Report Stage of the Abattoirs Bill, 1987, I would like to remind Senators that the proposer of an amendment has the right to reply on that amendment but no other Senator may speak more than once to each amendment. Where two or more amendments are discussed together the right of reply rests with the mover of the first amendment. Now we take Government amendment No. 1. Government Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 1 and the amendment to amendment No. 1 is related.
Death of Former Oireachtas Member. - Abattoirs Bill, 1987: Report and Final Stages.
Government amendment No. 1:
In page 6, to delete lines 6 to 13 and substitute the following:
"which is used for the occasional slaughter of a pig, or for the slaughter of an animal which has been injured by accident and the slaughter of which is necessary to prevent its suffering and——
(a) such pig, or such injured animal, is maintained for farming purposes on such farm by its occupier, and
(b) the meat from such pig or such injured animal is intended for consumption only by the residents on such farm:
Provided that, for the purposes of this Act, the onus of proving that —
(i) the conditions specified at paragraphs (a) and (b) of this definition are complied with, or
(ii) an animal (other than a pig) which is slaughtered is an animal which has been injured by accident,
shall lie on the person seeking the benefit of such proof;".
On Committee Stage I indicated that I would be bringing forward these two amendments. Amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 1. On amendment No. 1, basically this restriction of the home slaughtering concession confining it to the killing of a pig or an injured animal to prevent suffering arises from the trade's claim that serious abuse could result otherwise. I accept the trade's concern in the matter and that the concession, as it stood, needed some tightening up. The facility to kill a pig for its bacon on one's own farm without being subject to the Bill's controls reflects a farming tradition in this country. I could not, however, agree to the amendment proposed by Senator Ferris, Harte and O'Shea which seeks to extend such facility to lambs also. The trade too would not welcome such an extension.
To formally make provision for the slaughter of lambs on farms would offer far greater scope for abuse to unscrupulous individuals than does or will the killing of a pig, essentially because a lamb is a fresh meat product. Already the Department of Agriculture and Food have had reports of sheep carcases of dubious origin reaching city markets. Additionally I feel that the payment of a veterinary inspection fee of 55p per animal will scarcely deter a farmer from having his sheep slaughtered in a licensed abattoir. Indeed, in the long term it might be necessary to move in that direction with pigs also. In other words, should it be found after a reasonable period of the Act's operation that the whole slaughtering concession is being abused, the Minister of the day would have the power under section 2 (3) (c) of the Bill to redefine an abattoir. Amendment No. 6 will ensure that the farmer exercising the home slaughtering concession of the pig or an injured animal would not be required to have the meat of such animals stamped with a health mark.
A Chathaoirligh, I need your guidance because while I have no problem whatsoever with the Minister's amendment to the Bill at this stage, what I want to find out is do I have to await the passing of the Minister's amendment to move my amendment to his amendment?
No, you may move your amendment now to his amendment.
I move amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1:
To insert "lamb" after "pig" wheresoever it occurs.
The Minister disappointed me when he referred to my amendment in the middle of moving his own. I wanted to check the debating procedure by which I would have an opportunity to move an amendment to his amendment. I have no objection whatsoever to and indeed, I welcome the Government amendment outlined by the Minister and thank him for having met the concern in the trade about likely abuses that could have occurred and have occurred as a result of unauthorised slaughtering of animals for human consumption. It is as a result of the trade interest in this and our own interest on all sides of the House that we accept that there have to be restrictions on the slaughtering of animals for home consumption in what would normally be considered a non-abattoir situation.
Last week, when we were debating the tradition of killing a pig, it was pointed out that in other parts of the country it is also traditional to kill a lamb and there was concern on both sides of the House that the word "lamb" should be inserted as well as "pig". In the case of bovine animals unless they were injured and it was required for humanitarian reasons, slaughter would not normally be allowed. I want to take issue with the Minister in that I never suggested for a moment that more than a lamb would be included in my amendment. It does not say "lambs". I am aware of certain areas in the country where there is widespread killing of lambs at farm level and these lambs afterwards find their way onto the market. For that reason I included an amendment to suggest "a lamb". The Minister as somebody with a lot of knowledge in this area, coming from a professional background in the industry and with his brief of responsibility for food in particular must be aware of the fact that there are farmers who legitimately kill a lamb for their own purpose and their own use and their own private consumption. If the Minister allowed this amendment after "pig" and also allowed a lamb to be killed, all other animals would be subjected to the rigours of this Abattoirs Bill and he would certainly have the support of the trade and of ordinary farmers who will now feel restricted in that they will be unable legitimately to kill a lamb for their own purposes as they do this very day. If we are not reasonable in passing legislation which will be operable on the ground, it will be open to abuse and contempt by people we would hope would be supportive of what the Minister is trying to do in bringing forward a Bill controlling the proper killing of animals for human consumption.
I formally move my amendment to the Minister's amendment to "lamb", not "lambs", a provision which could be abused, and the rest of the section would remain the same. That would also apply where the word "pig" occurs in any other part of this Bill. That may mean that the Minister would want to amend the Bill on the next Stage and the next Stage available will be in the Dáil. Forgive me if I have not included an amendment to all other sections that mention the word "pig". I though using these words "wheresoever it occurs" would have covered it. I now realise after consultation that it would not necessarily cover any section except this specific section. I formally request the Minister to consider inserting "lamb" and that will not be open to abuse. In last week's debate the Minister will find support for this contention from all sides of the House — Senator Connor and Senator Hussey who reflect different views from different constituencies. I think it is not unreasonable.
I support the amendment moved by Senator Ferris. The concession, I believe, is relatively small because in his introductory remarks today the Minister said he is allowing the killing of a pig because it is a tradition on farms. There is also a tradition on farms for killing a lamb or at least it has become a very well established practice in more recent times, I admit, since the introduction of deep freezing on farms. Most farmhouses have the facility of deep freezing and since lamb is fresh meat it goes into that place for keeping. The Minister should not be intransigent on this point. Senator Ferris has been careful to say "lamb" rather than "lambs" and for that reason we see this as being an eminently reasonable thing to ask. We feel the Minister should concede the point.
I cannot concede this point for the reasons which I have outlined and they are essentially the trade are against it — that is No. 1. As a concession, because of the tradition of killing pigs and because that is a cured product and could not find its way onto the market as readily and would not be open to abuse we confined home slaughtering to a pig or an injured animal to prevent suffering. As I said, for the reasons outlined, I cannot concede the point.
Is amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1 withdrawn?
In view of the Minister's comments it would be an unnecessary abuse of the privilege of this House if I forced a vote on this. I think the Minister will find, with all due respect to him, that by the time this Bill gets through the other House — I should not reflect on that — he will have conceded the point I am making in this amendment. I will leave it at that. I will let sleeping lambs lie.
I may as well be shot for a pig as an animal.
Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1 agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 2:
In page 11, lines 24 and 25, to delete "or such longer period as the Minister may allow" and substitute "or for the period then unexpired of the term of the licence, whichever is the longer".
These amendments also arise from the Committee Stage debate. The House will recall that I accepted the principle of Senator Ferris' Committee Stage amendment to section 13 of the Bill. Here Senator Ferris proposed in lieu of the two months extension of the licence on the death of a licence holder to extend its validity until its normal expiry. I mentioned then that to avoid a situation where that amendment might act to the disadvantage of some, where the licence was within two months of expiry, it would be best to cover both eventualities. Accordingly amendment No. 2 will do that in the case of an abattoir licence while amendment No. 5 makes similar provision in relation to knackery licences.
I welcome Government amendments Nos. 2 and 5 which deal with abattoirs and knackeries. This is along the lines of what I suggested in a previous amendment but it is better in that it takes account of the eventuality which the Minister has outlined which could discriminate against the holder of a licence, particularly the widow of a licence holder. This is a better amendment and gives the best of two words, so to speak. I welcome it and the trade will welcome the fact that the Minister has conceded the principle involved in what I was trying to do on the Committee Stage.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 3 is consequential on amendment No. 4. We will discuss amendments Nos. 3 and 4 together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, line 16, after "many" to insert "subject to subsection (2)”.
I will deal with amendment No. 4 first because amendment No. 3 is consequential on it. If amendment No. 4 is agreed and accepted I hope the Minister will concede amendment No. 3. I am not sure if the order of the debate will allow me to do it that way because it is difficult to speak about amendment No. 3, about inserting after "may" the words "subject to subsection (2)". It is only a presumption that the next amendment will be approved and that that wording will come into play.
I am suggesting an intermediary body or intermediate period of time which would elapse between the decision of somebody to revoke a licence and the constitutional and legal right of the licensee to go into a circuit court to claim discrimination or otherwise against the authorised officer. I am trying to overcome the difficulty the trade will experience if we leave the legislation as it is. In a spirit of co-operation following the Minister's efforts in this regard I am suggesting that there should be another appeals forum. I am suggesting these words but they may not necessarily suit the Minister. I am making the case that it is appropriate that, before we go down the road of legalities and into a circuit court, another intermediate period will elapse which will allow the licensee a forum in which he could discuss with the authority responsible for the granting of the licence — in this case the county council — circumstances surrounding the decision of the authorised officer to revoke his licence.
I am not removing from the Minister any of his rights of powers under the Act. I am not removing the licensee's powers and legal rights under the Constitution to go to court in that eventuality, but I am suggesting an intermediate period. I am also putting a period of time on it which would make it imperative that it would not be left to drag on. If the authorised officer was correct in his first concern about revoking a licence, a person would not be allowed to trade indefinitely without having his case heard properly. I am putting in a period of 30 additional days to allow time for dialogue to take place between the holder of the licence and the county council. It is a reasonable amendment.
The Minister knows from his discussions with the trade and discussions with his advisers in the Department and officials who have put a lot of work into this Bill over a period of two years or more that the views I am expressing in this amendment are the views expressed by the trade. If we do not go someway towards meeting their concern about this section it will be a pity but we will lose the positive response we have from the trade at the moment. It goes without saying that if we do not have their fullest co-operation in this legislation and in its operation we will have done a disservice to the Minister's aim of putting some order and responsibility into the area of abattoirs and the killing of animals for human consumption.
This is a reasonable amendment. I do not want to be repetitious but I am confined to speaking once on each of these amendments on Report Stage. I am proposing amendment No. 4 which states:
(2) Pending the lodgment of an appeal under subsection (1), the applicant for, or the holder of, such a licence may appeal the refusal or revocation to an Abattoir Licence Appeals forum which shall be established for this purpose in each local authority area. The membership of each forum shall be on a voluntary basis...
It is not obligatory on any council, or any county, or any butcher in any area to avail of this if they do not need it, because it is voluntary. The amendment goes on:
...and shall not exceed seven and shall consist of members of the County Council concerned, the Irish Domestic Meat Trader's Association and the Department of Agriculture. Each forum shall be empowered to dismiss or allow the appeal and direct the Minister accordingly. Where this subsection is invoked, the prescribed period for the lodgment of an appeal under subsection (1) shall be extended to 30 days.
What I want is an independent, voluntary forum to which butchers and the Department would have access. If the Minister is as convinced as I am that this will rarely need to be invoked, why not have it in place. It would be reasonable to expect the trade to have recourse to some independent view on why they allowed themselves to get into a situation where any authorised officer would have a problem.
I am also concerned that if there is not a voluntary, informal forum in place butchers who are unfortunate enough to be penalised by a licensing authority or an inspecting officer will be reluctant to look for their rights in a legal process because the ensuing publicity which would surround that appeal would be to the detriment of their business. In that case everybody would be considered guilty whether it was proven or not. I suggest that the Minister should allow the forum suggested in amendment No. 4 and, if amendment No. 4 is agreed, amendment No. 3, I hope, would follow.
Somebody has to second Senator Ferris' amendment.
I formally second the amendment.
In substance these amendments are similar to those proposed to this section by Senator Ferris on Committee Stage. I could not accept his amendments then and I cannot accept these amendments now. As public health would be the over-riding consideration, recourse to the circuit court as proposed in the Bill is the proper way to cater for appeals on refusals or revocation of licences. An abattoir licence appeals forum for each of the 32 local authority areas would only give rise to diverse rulings. One of the reasons responsibility for licensing of premises is being granted to the Minister under the Bill is down to the different approaches to licensing by sanitary authorities. One could anticipate similar divergencies in the case of the suggested appeals forums. Moreover, their constitution would prove contentious if not extremely difficult, having regard to the typical Irish situation where we have in existence three separate trade organisations — The Irish Domestic Meat Traders Association, the Irish Master Butchers Federation and the Irish Meat Wholesalers Association. Additionally, we have the possibility of butchers on such forums being either directly or indirectly in competition with appellants.
The refusal or revocation of a licence is a serious matter and the decision to do so will not be taken lightly. As I pointed out on Committee Stage, every concession will be afforded to proprietors of unsatisfactory premises and they will get up to five years to get those premises up to standard. Appeals to the Circuit Court will be a last resort and each case will have to receive very careful consideration before a decision is taken to refuse or revoke a licence. Equally, the effects on public health of allowing grossly unsatisfactory premises to operate will have to be considered. The reporting hierarchy within the Department will ensure complete objectivity in the matter of inspections of premises and ensure that all the facts are established before the application comes to the Minister for a decision.
The Department's approach to licensing of premises will be: (a) to keep the premises up to licensing standard which, if it is, a licence will issue; (b) if the premises is not up to licensing standards but can through improvements be so brought, a permit as provided for under section 17 will issue. In this connection it is important to point out that, under the terms of section 17 (3), a permit will have the same force and effect as an abattoir licence. A premises would need to be in a very poor state not to qualify even for a permit and so it is envisaged that the number of cases arising which would not qualify for either a licence or a permit would be very small indeed. Moreover, it would have to be conceded by everybody concerned that the protection of public health might not be served by granting either a licence or a permit in the case of premises of very poor hygienic standards.
A final consideration is, of course, that any intermediate type of appeal system which might be introduced for abattoirs would have to be repeated for knackeries in Part III of this Bill. Again, in relation to knackeries, any appeal system outside the courts could be difficult to establish in regard both to their scattered location and the different activities that take place in these premises. For that reason I cannot accept these amendments.
I am disappointed that the Minister could not see way to giving this type of forum a place within the Bill. I was at pains to ensure that all the powers the Minister was retaining to himself, which are necessary under the Public Health Act, and indeed the control of slaughtering of animals for human consumption, would remain. I was trying to have a safety valve in between. I accept the Minister's assurance that in the granting of licences people will have an opportunity over a period of years to get their premises up to the standard required. It is difficult to frame an amendment without being specific in some instances. I had to put in "refusal" or "revocation". Needless to say, I am more worried about the revocation of licences because people will have an opportunity to bring their premises up to standard. That is accepted by all of us, and accepted by the trade, as being a necessary part of the interim period between the passing of the legislation and the bringing of it into full effect.
Applying for a licence and not getting one now just because the premises was not up to standard would not worry me unduly. It is appropriate that we should be strict about the application of licences and the granting of them. That is where the first error would be made if we were lax about them. I welcome the Minister's assurance that we will be responsible in doing that and I think the trade want it that way as well. I want the trade to be that they will.
I am worried about the revocation of licences which were granted because the premises and the people reached the required standards but suddenly, for some obscure reason, the licence is revoked. There are usually surrounding circumstances which could right themselves next day. If we leave the Bill as it is, that person will have no other recourse but to go to court. It is an unfair burden to put on the trade, to have to go to a court in order to get their rights. I was asking for an extension of time to allow some intermediate discussions to take place to find out why the person's licence was revoked. I have no doubt whatsoever that 99.5 times out of 100 the veterinary officer's decision to revoke would be upheld by this interim forum. I have to legislate for all eventualities and I cannot rule out the possibility that in some areas there might be a reason, discriminatory or otherwise, a person might genuinely lose a licence and an injustice might be done.
It is a pity that innocent people, as I would consider them then, should have to go to court to prove their case and the very process of proving their case will lose them customers. For that reason I am sorry but I must press this amendment or for some assurance from the Minister that between now and the passing of this legislation in another place he and his officials will look at the strict way in which the section is written and see how difficult it is for people in the trade not to be upset about this. Unless I can get an assurance that the Minister will favourably look at this, I will have to press formally for this amendment to be accepted by the House.
In a matter of this kind the protection of public health should be our main concern. I am satisfied from what the Minister has said and the safeguards he has put into the Bill that anybody who has to appeal or whose licence has been refused or revoked will get a fair deal. The danger I can see in this amendment is that there would be a lack of uniformity in coming to decisions. If we have an appeals tribunal in each local authority area we will have an awful lot of problems. First of all, there will be a lack of uniformity because there will be no set standards for each local authority area. That is the danger I see in it. I see also the danger of influence being used on local councillors if they were members of this appeals board or members of the trade because they would be dealing possibly with their own friends and their own neighbours. I am sure Senator Ferris can well understand the type of influence that would be exercised on a member of an appeals board if some of his friends or neighbours were being refused a licence or his licence was being revoked. That is another danger that I see in this.
We have been talking for a long time about this type of legislation. The Minister is giving sufficient time to everybody in the trade to get their act in order, get their premises straightened out and I am sure he will not use the big stick on anybody; everybody will get a fair deal. In the final analysis the best body to deal with it would be the court because they would have a uniform plan; they could decide without any local influence and that is very important. For that reason I think this amendment is really not necessary.
Is amendment No. 3 withdrawn?
No, I am sorry.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 28.
Tá
- Bradford, Paul.
- Bulbulia, Katharine.
- Connor, John.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Daly, Jack.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ross, Shane P. N.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Níl
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cullimore, Seamus.
- de Buitleár, Eamon.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Eogan, George.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Friel, Brian.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Donal.
- McEllistrim, Tom.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- McKenna, Tony.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- Mulroy, Jimmy.
- O'Callaghan, Vivian.
- O'Connell, John.
- Ryan, William.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Harte and Daly; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.
Amendment declared lost.
I will not move amendment No. 4. I would have moved it if I had won the last vote. It would be inappropriate to have the words inserted now. However, I am not conceding defeat.
Amendment No. 4 not moved.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 5 has already been discussed with amendment No. 2.
Government amendment No. 5:
In page 17, lines 33 and 34, to delete "or such longer period as the Minister may allow" and substitute "or for the period then unexpired of the term of the licence, whichever is the longer".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 6 has already been discussed with amendment No. 1.
Government amendment No. 6:
In page 25, to delete lines 35 to 38 and substitute the following paragraph:
"(b) meat from an animal slaughtered in a place situate on a farm which is used for the occasional slaughter of—
(i) a pig which is maintained for farming purposes on such farm by its occupier, or
(ii) an animal which is so maintained and which has been injured by accident and the slaughter of which is necessary to prevent its suffering,
and the meat from such pig or such injured animal is intended for consumption only by the residents on such farm;".
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related and may be discussed together.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 26, line 8, after "Regulations" to insert the following:
"and the unfitness for human consumption of any such carcase or any such offals, as the case may be, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of veterinary examination Regulations, and the said Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930, shall be construed and have effect accordingly."
On Committee Stage I mentioned that this section needed to be strengthened to remove any doubt or interpretation as to whether veterinary examiners in export meat plants and licensed bacon plants can condemn meat under the veterinary examination regulations of this Act as the section intended.
These amendments copperfasten the section and essentially we are spelling out what is meant by "unfit for human consumption". The veterinary examination regulations referred to in this section will be made on foot of section 39 of the Bill. These regulations will take account of all diseases and conditions which are or may be harmful to the wholesomeness of meat and, as a consequence, to public health. The regulations made under this Bill will specify clearly the precise grounds on foot of which meat of animals may be declared as unfit for human consumption and the marking, storage, destruction and disposal of such unfit meat. This section, therefore, together with the amendments will ensure that the same criteria for condemning meat as being unfit for human consumption will apply both to domestic abattoirs and export meat plants.
I have no problem with these amendments. It is to be welcomed that the Minister is strengthening and tightening up any section of the Bill that could be open to misrepresentation or could lead to the opposite of what all of us want to get out of this legislation. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 which deal with the fitness of meat for human consumption are welcome. I am supportive of the Minister's efforts in that regard. I am saying that on the basis that the Minister might have misinterpreted in some way my previous worry that an opportunity should be given to people to get in line and that they would not be discriminated against unfairly. I welcome the two amendments. Overall they will be good for the trade and business and certainly will be of benefit to consumers.
I agree with amendments Nos. 7 and 8. It is very important that there should be no shadow of doubt left in this regard. Our main concern should be to protect the general public and the people who will buy meat and use it. We should protect them and make sure there are safeguards so that people are not allowed to put on sale meat that is not fit for human consumption. The two amendments the Minister has introduced will give the trade the precise grounds on which meats can be condemned as unfit for human consumption.
It is very important that everybody should know exactly where they are going, that the general public is protected and that the trade know exactly where they stand and what they have to do. It is important that that section be strengthened by those two amendments.
I welcome the amendment but I have one regret. This amendment strengthens the hand of the veterinary inspector in determining the fitness of meat for human consumption. Until now the role for determining this was in the hands of the environmental health inspectors. In this Bill the role of the environmental health inspectors in this area is eliminated. We should not forget that this grade of officer has acquired over the years a great measure of expertise in determining the fitness of meat for human consumption. I raised this on Second Stage. With hindsight perhaps we should now give a little more thought and discussion to this during the progress of the Bill through this House. I find it regrettable that the role of the environmental health inspectors is being eliminated. I do not wish to cast any aspersions on the veterinary profession but their experience in this area has not yet been established. The experience of dealing with this type of inspection was well vested in the health inspectors. From that point of view I find it regrettable that they will now have no role in this.
Amendment agreed to.
Government amendment No. 8:
In page 26, line 14, after "Regulations" to insert the following:
"and the unfitness for human consumption of any such carcase, any such bacon or any such offals, as the case may be, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of veterinary examination Regulations, and the said Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935, shall be construed and have effect accordingly."
Amendment agreed to.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 26, line 30, to delete ", or the variation of the fee specified therein,".
I have a problem in that I am finding sections which need to be amended presuming the next section will be allowed to be amended. It makes it more difficult to be absolutely precise because the amendments are consequential on one another. If amendment No. 10 is agreed then amendment No. 9 will become operative. In that regard I have no option but to discuss the two amendments together.
On Committee Stage I put down an amendment which looked for indexation of the word "fees". Many a case was made by the Minister and by members on all sides of the House that that may have tied the Minister's hands too much in that if the mention of money in any part of the Bill was index-linked the Minister might find himself in difficulty and be unable to provide either a proper service or the proper level of vetinerary inspection which might be required. I was acting on the advice of the Minister that, as a result of research by his Department, he had priced the cost of implementing the legislation and having it operable. For that reason I had no difficulty in trying to index link the fees once he had done that.
Because I did not formally move my amendment to this section on Committee Stage I felt it was appropriate, now that we are talking about health levies or levies that will be used for the purpose of disease eradication, that these levies would be subject to indexation. I am basing that argument on the knowledge that Governments, including this Government, the previous Government and the Government before that, have used an instrument of regulation in the House of the Oireachtas to allow them to increase, and in some place double, disease eradication levies. All sorts of reasons were given for doing that. It is because that instrument which was used in the past that the trade are absolutely fearful that the same will happen again in future if some safety valve is not written into the legislation to stop the Minister or any future Minister from unreasonably increasing the headage payments specified in the Table in Part V of the Bill. The fees should be index-linked otherwise people in the trade are going to be of the opinion from past experience that some future Minister will use this section to increase the levies payable.
The National Animal Health Council, of which I was a member for many years and which has been abolished, had overall responsibility in advising the Minister of the day and the Department of Agriculture on the methods to be used in the scheme of compulsory eradication of tuberculosis and brucellosis. These levies were inbuilt as part of the cost of the running of that scheme. Recently the leader of the IFA intimated that they are now the major contributors to the funding of the scheme. They are making a major contribution towards the scheme through these levies. Because of that they almost want to take from the Minister his responsibility for the compulsory eradication of disease.
I do not share that view. Irrespective of the private ownership of animals, the overall health of the national herd is the responsibility of the Minister for Agriculture and Food and no other voluntary organisation or farming body can take unto themselves the right to have the responsibility of deciding on the level of health of the national herd. Not alone do they not have the right but at European level they do not have the instrument whereby they can certify to their colleagues in the European Community that the national herd has achieved a certain disease status. As the Minister knows from experience in regard to brucellosis we have already achieved an OBF status which only he and his veterinary surgeons at departmental level could certify. We all have a responsibility to ensure that the national herd achieves a status which cannot be doubted by anybody in the Community in other parts of the world, including the Third World. No matter who contributes to the funding of the scheme the overall responsibility will lie with the Minister.
I agree that it is appropriate that the Government of the day should set down levies per head of animals destroyed for human consumption and that those levies should be put into an overall fund which would be used to maintain the health of the national herd. I am conscious that this section of the Bill was abused in the past and was used as a means of increasing the take for that fund. Even if all the money by way of levies was put into an overall kitty there still would not be enough to pay for the cost of creating a national scheme. I have argued at various levels that the State, and indeed the consumer, have a responsibility for the herd health status, both from the point of view of internal trading for human consumption and for the export trade, because the overall national interest is at stake.
I do not want the Minister to think that I do not consider that levies are necessary, because I do. I think they are a fundamental part of the industry's contribution towards the herd health status, which is our national responsibility. However, I am extremely concerned, as are the people in the industry to whom I have spoken, that this might be used in some way in the future for increasing the levies applicable, which at present are £3.25 per head for cattle, 75p per head for pigs and 55p per head for sheep. These amounts are accepted by everybody in the industry as reasonable and all I want to ensure is that in future they would be index-linked to any fluctuation that might occur in the money markets. In the last couple of days we realise the fluctuations there can be in the money markets. It was interesting to hear experts stating publicly the policies being followed by some of the nations who have been involved in creating the jitters in the money markets. Certainly, those policies would not be in line with my beliefs.
This amendment would index-link the levies in this section. It does not affect the licence fee, which the Minister will now be free to double or treble next year if he so desires, or if he requires it for the proper funding of the scheme. This animal health levy should be index-linked and I hope that the Minister will concede the point I have made. The Minister has overall responsibility for the national herd. A person can own animals, but the health status of the animals internationally is the Minister's responsibility and it can only be verified by inspectors and officers in his Department. It cannot be done by private vets, by IFA leaders or anybody else. Much as they would love to run this country, they must know that the buck stops some place when it comes to the verification of the national health herd status. I have always defended that status. The responsibility for this rests with the Minister and not with self-appointed advisers to the Government or the Opposition, particularly when it does not affect their own bailiwick in the economic development of the community. I am not making a case now for any particular section. I just want to ensure fair play. The indexation of these fees to the consumer price index is not unreasonable and I sincerely hope that the Minister concedes this.
I want to formally second the amendment proposed by Senator Ferris. My party's position on this is the same as that of Senator Ferris. It goes a little wider. I have made this point already. This is the third time I have raised it and I hope I am not boring the House. I hope it is within the rules of the House to make the point for the third time that our party do not believe the figures the Minister has laid down to fund this section. It is stated here that the total amount of money collected from inspection fees is £1.4 million. We agree that the payment of salaries to the veterinary officers in each of the counties is an easily determined figure at £600,000. That leaves £800,000 to pay a corps of 160 veterinary surgeons; the foot soldiers going from abattoir to abattoir and from town to town implementing the regulations.
I remind the Minister that spot checking by the veterinary corps under the local authority regulations at present costs £400,000 which is fully laid out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill. We are increasing the workload, I would submit as a conservative figure, by at least a factor of ten. The spot checks will finish as there must be an antemortem and a post-mortem examination of each animal slaughtered. There is no way that the programme can be financed with £600,000 when it costs £400,000 to finance the spot checking which excluded Dublin and Cork, two very large areas. Revenue was generated in Dublin and in Cork where there are quite a number of abattoirs but the remainder were subsidised out of public funds. If Dublin and Cork were subsidised out of the public purse in the same manner as other areas throughout the country, that figure of £400,000 would easily rise to £500,000 in my opinion.
I also draw the Minister's attention, to the cost of a corps of 160 veterinary surgeons. From our experience of local authorities, £5,000 per veterinary surgeon is a conservative figure of remuneration and the total comes to around £800,000 if my figure are correct. Every penny of the allocation will be spent. The Bill provides that there must be the necessary back-up services. There will be no money to pay for back-up services or for the travelling expenses of these veterinary inspectors, which may be as great or greater — I am open to correction on that point — than the actual cost of paying them their professional fees for doing the ante- and post-mortem inspections. Another matter worries us. When we look at the Book of Estimates for 1988 we find it difficult to identify from what fund——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
You should look at the fund through the eyes of section 44.
There is a direct connection and, if you bear with me, you will see the relevance of the point.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
It should not be looked at too widely.
This is within the ambit of the Bill. I do not wish to get into an argument and I will be guided by you. If we look at the figures of expenditure for 1988 for the Department of Agriculture and Food we find that under the heading salaries, wages and allowances to officers of that Department, the funding for veterinary inspectors at least indirectly will be down as the figures are down by 2 per cent. The clear implication of that has to be that these fees as set out in the Bill will have to be increased drastically in 1988 to meet the real economic cost of implementing the provisions of this part of the section. Our party disagree fundamentally with it. We cannot accept it at this stage. We objected on Second Stage. It was part of our major objection on Committee Stage and it is our fundamental objection at this stage.
These amendments are precisely the same as those proposed to this section by Senator Ferris on Committee Stage. On Committee Stage I went into great detail as to why I could not accept the amendments and I cannot find any reason now to accept them. Essentially the measures under this Bill will have to be self financing. The idea that you can have deferred systems or proxy systems of paying for services has had a costly and disastrous outcome for the economy. The fees in section 23 are intended to provide a self financing basis for the local authority veterinary staff. It will be necessary to operate the Bill's controls and it should be determined solely on that basis.
The rates are the same as those currently applicable at exports plants whose inspection fees are not linked to the consumer price index and were last increased in 1984. 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. More particularly such linkage would have no regard to actual costs. Linking the fees to the consumer price index would only lead to a creeping bureaucracy referred to by many speakers in the debate on this Bill.
If it is found necessary to increase these rates at some future stage to keep in line with costs, the regulations so proposing and as provided for in section 44 (4) will have to be approved by both this House and the Dáil, so it will not be a question of the whim of any Minister of the day. The fees will have to be approved by both Houses of the Oireachtas and the Minister in introducing such regulations will have to justify with facts and figures whatever increase is sought.
I am disappointed that the Minister did not find it possible to accept the concept outlined in my amendment. I want to put on the record the motive for the amendment in case there is any misapprehension in anybody's mind about it. First of all, there is, of course, a difference between licensed abattoirs in rural towns and villages and abattoirs in export plants. I never suggested for a moment that there was not a difference. There is a difference and there will always be a difference. Factories have a resident veterinary inspectorate on duty at all times during the periods of killing to achieve the export status and standard. That is appropriate. This Bill deals with private abattoirs which require a different veterinary service. There will be one co-ordinating officer with overall responsibility who will have a back-up staff to visit abattoirs.
The only concept accepted by the Taoiseach for increasing anybody's salary is that it be either index-linked or by agreement and usually agreement is arrived at by index-linking it to the cost of living. If there is an increase in the veterinarians' salaries naturally it will be based on the cost of living and the fees will automatically adjust to the cost of living to compensate the Minister for the additional costs. That is one difference I see. Secondly, although it is the same amendment as I had on Committee Stage the Minister will remember that, whereas the amendments were all discussed and debated together, I did not formally move the amendment to this section because one vote was taken on the debate involving all the other sections which I was trying to index-link as well.
As a reasonable legislator I consider that the Minister made a good enough case, that some flexibility was required even by way of regulation for increasing income in the event of the cost of the provisions of this Bill being above the present estimate in the Department. That is why I allowed flexibility in the licence fees which can be adjusted up and down to recompense the Department for the cost of the provisions of the Bill. This is a specific and deliberate amendment and was discussed in the overall context of index-linking other areas of income. I did not formally move this.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the amendment withdrawn?
No.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 19.
Tá
- Bohan, Edward Joseph.
- Byrne, Sean.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Doherty, Michael.
- Fallon, Sean.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Fitzsimons, Jack.
- Friel, Brian.
- Hanafin, Des.
- Haughey, Seán F.
- Hillery, Brian.
- 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.
- Cregan, Denis.
- Daly, Jack.
- Fennell, Nuala.
- Ferris, Michael.
- Harte, John.
- Hogan, Philip.
- Kelleher, Peter.
- Kennedy, Patrick.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McDonald, Charlie.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Norris, David.
- O'Shea, Brian.
- O'Toole, Joe.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Ryan, Brendan.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey; Níl, Senators Harte and J. Daly.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Is amendment No. 10 being moved?
Both amendments Nos. 9 and 10 were discussed together and I feel that the last vote reflected the views on that. It would be unfair to move it separately, although I am disappointed. I am not formally moving amendment No. 10, although I have discussed it and I understand it was included in the last vote. I also want to be reasonable.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Bill reported with amendments.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I would like to speak on this Stage because I find myself in the unfortunate position that, because of some of the ministerial deletions or refusals to accept amendments, I have to oppose the Bill in total. I have listened very carefully to the considered series of amendments proposed by Senator Ferris and I am worried by the rejection of some of them, particularly section 42 (3) (b) which seems to me, as a result of a ministerial consequential amendment, now effectively remove from control the private slaughtering of animals. This worries me because this is a matter that this House has had the opportunity of discussing once before as a result of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Bill, 1963 — the only Private Members' Bill successfully introduced by an Independent through this House. It was introduced by Senator Professor W. B. Stanford. He also encountered difficulty in the area of controlling precisely these situations because in section 29 he had envisaged, as the parliamentary record shows, precisely this kind of area. Due to pressure from the industry this section of the Bill eventually fell.
This is worrying. It is particularly worrying because Professor Stanford at that time isolated clearly four legitimate interest areas: the public in general, who are covered fairly effectively by what the Minister proposes; owners or users of animals, in this case farmers, currently the law enforcing agencies. Senator Ferris has called amendments on this to the point of a vote and they have been defeated. But, very significantly, a fourth further interest group was isolated by Professor Stanford, and that is the rights and conditions of the animals themselves. There has been very little discussion of this.
Two of the world's great religions, which are represented as minorities in this country, the Jewish people and people of the Moslem faith, recognise that the taking of life, even of an animal, has a spiritual dimension and needs to be controlled in all circumstances so that the dignity of that animal and our own dignity as human animals should be protected. This is a growing concern of the Irish people as was illustrated last week when there was an attack upon a butcher's shop in Fairview by the Animal Liberation Front, who take a very extreme point of view, but it does indicate that there is a growing concern. This is important because the way in which we are seen to treat animals can and must have an effect upon the psychological and spiritual welfare of those involved in this process. I view this matter with reinforced concern because, as a Senator, I am a recipient of various journals which I would not normally take. I have here a publication called Food Ireland and on the back of it there is an advertisement for a machine and——
Senator Norris, with the greatest respect, we are now on the Fifth Stage of the Abattoirs Bill. Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report Stage are all behind us and I cannot tolerate a Second Stage speech on this Stage. Perhaps you could bear with me, make your point and your objections, and leave it at that.
I will have to be guided by you, a Chathaoirligh. I take it in that case that my final point should terminate at this stage or do I have an indulgence to conclude that point?
You may, of course, Senator.
I am most grateful for your indulgence. My point may be a little bit outside, and I accept your ruling, but I think the wording of the advertisement shows an attitude that can grow if we are not very careful about this delicate area of our experience as human beings. It is an advertisement for a certain kind of machine used in the food processing industry. It is callous in the extreme. It speaks of a centring bracket fitted with a centring pin which ensures that the animal remains in the correct position during evisceration so that an eviscerating spoon moves unhampered and smoothly into the bird. I need not continue. The least fortunate aspect of this advertisement is the fact that it then degenerates into fairly jokey advertising of its product. I simply state that as an example of the degeneration of attitude and comparison that can happen if we do not treat the death, even of an animal, with respect. In the parallel debate that took place in 1963 Senator O'Donovan made precisely this point with reference to the Second World War and the increased technology that was available in that war for the processing of human deaths.
I will conclude my remarks by expressing my gratitude to the Cathaoirleach for allowing me that margin of tolerance. It is with the greatest regret that, because of these deficiencies in the Bill which I believe could have been largely cured by acceptance of Senator Ferris very well thought out amendments, I have to oppose the Bill.
I tried to make an addition to a Government amendment, which we accepted today, to include "lamb" in the list of animals that could be destroyed at home for human consumption. My amendment was not allowed and lamb is now excluded from that list. I am aware that lambs are killed at home for human consumption and, under the terms of this Bill, a lamb's leg will have to be broken before it can be destroyed. That will lead to inhuman treatment of the lamb. That is the consequence of not allowing the amendment. I want to ensure that animals will be humanely destroyed.
There is an exclusion in the case of larger animals. They can be destroyed without veterinary inspection, or otherwise, only in the event of one of them being injured. The Minister excluded "pig" because it is a custom to kill pigs for home use. I wanted to exclude lamb because it was also a custom to kill lamb for home use. To comply with the wording of the Bill the lamb would have to be injured, accidentially or deliberately, before it could be killed for human consumption. That is an inadequacy in the legislation. It does not take account of the overall thrust and operability of the Bill. I know people kill lambs for their private use.
I am concerned about the revocation of a licence which is referred to in section 16. The Minister has set down the legal procedure to be followed. Perhaps he will clarify one point. Where it is intended to revoke a licence a period will elapse from the service of the notice of the intention to revoke that licence. A period of 21 days is mentioned in the Bill and the licensee will be allowed to make representations to the licensing authority within that period. Perhaps the Minister, in his response, will clarify that matter. The trade welcome the fact that a period will elapse from the date of the service of notice of intention to revoke and the actual revocation. The 21 days mentioned in the Bill are close enough to the period of 30 days I proposed in my amendment. If the Minister confirms the introduction of that intermediary period in which people will have an opportunity to make their case I might be able to convince the people who will be operating this legislation that it is not unreasonable and that with the Minister's knowledge and approval they will have some recourse to dialogue and discussion, particularly with the licensing authority. Obviously the Minister has overall responsibility in this area. Perhaps, when replying, he will clarify that matter so that I can go back to the people with whom I have been trying to have dialogue in the course of this legislation to ensure that we still have their support. We had their support when the Bill was launched initially. They met the Minister and his advisers and they made submissions about fundamental changes that were needed. The Minister has not conceded any of those changes either to me or to the House, except the one which brings animals destroyed on a farm for human consumption within the terms of the Bill.
The Minister excluded a particular animal, the sacrificial lamb which will now have to be injured, deliberately or accidentially, before he can be killed for home consumption. That is inoperable. I will have to convince the trade, and farmers will also have to be convinced, that they will be breaking the law if they kill a lamb for home consumption. Anyone who knows anything about rural Ireland will know that is ludicrous because it is an everyday occurrence. I would not condone the widespread killing of lambs privately for commercial use because we would be going against the whole concept of the Bill and there would be access to unmarked meat on the market by operators who would sell it in the housing estates and elsewhere. We would be bringing the whole legislation into contempt.
I thank the Minister for listening to me during the past three weeks. We tried to make relevant what was technical, complicated and perhaps, uninteresting legislation. I tried to ensure that we would continue to have the support of the trade and the industry. Perhaps the Minister's response might bring back some of the support we may have lost in the past couple of weeks. I had difficulty in convincing the Minister that amendments were necessary in order to make the Bill operable. He will have a long hard road in dealing with this legislation in the other House where the numbers might not be as great as they are here and that might create some problems. Perhaps I should not comment on the other House.
Senator Ferris, it is not like you to make a threat like that to the Minister.
The Minister knows it is not a threat. I am putting the facts before him. If the Minister in his summary is going to concede everything I have asked for it will be on the record of the House.
We will not be opposing the final passage of the Bill in this House. We have had a good debate. We found the Minister a little obdurate but, at the same time, he was forthcoming on a number of issues. I was particularly pleased that last week, while not conceding on the amendment proposed, he did concede — I raise this because it is a major worry to the people in the trade, the high street butchers as I would prefer to call them — that there are very wide implications in the regulations laid down for abattoirs regarding size, location, appliances, etc. There are very wide monetary or economic implications for the people who operate the trade on the high street and those who retail meat. Naturally we have to be thoughtful about those people.
The subject of cruelty was raised by Senator Norris and I had hoped that this Bill would, if anything, improve the level of humane slaughter of animals at abattoirs. It certainly was a worry that proper humane standards were not always observed in private abattoirs where there was not proper inspection.
I alone raised a point on Second Stage that did not generate any interest, that is, that I felt that some standards in our meat export plants are not humane. I agree it is not fully germane to this Bill but there is a high percentage of ritualistic slaughter of animals in our meat export plants at present. That is a direct consequence of our Third World contracts, particularly with Islam countries.
I am a farmer and I have not had the direct experience of seeing a ritualistic slaughter of animals but I know this method of slaughter, referred to in the 1983 Act as the Mujtahiddan slaughter or the Islamic rite, as it is more correctly called today, is rather slow and, by our standards, is cruel since the animal is not stunned prior to the ritualistic slaughter which is quite prolonged. That is a necessary part of our contract to sell meat to those markets. I ask the Minister to consider the question of ritualistic slaughter. The Kosher Rite method of slaughtering animals is not operated on a large scale any more but some years ago it was used significantly in our meat exports to Israel. We sell a lot of meat nowadays to Libya, Iran, Egypt and North Africa, the Islamic part of the world. I cannot approve of this method of slaughter.
I, too, express my thanks to the Minister for the way he has approached this legislation. The debate we have had here over the past few weeks has helped to tease out some of the problems that affect the trade. Those problems have been brought to our notice by people involved in the trade.
The purpose of this Bill is to provide certain standards of veterinary control and hygiene at local slaughtering premises which provide meat for the home market and which would be on a par with those already operating in the export market. In order to do that it will be necessary for abattoirs to secure a licence from their local authorities and to get that licence certain conditions must be fulfilled and certain standards of hygiene are required in slaughtering premises.
Senator Hussey, that is a Second Stage speech. I have checked Senator Norris who is a newcomer but I do not wish to check an ex-Minister.
I am summarising briefly what we have discussed during the past week or two. If I am out of order, I apologise. The legislation before this House will be for the betterment of the trade and that is our main concern. Those of us who saw the horrible film on television some months ago will never forget the type of meat being dumped on the market that humans were being asked to consume. Anything we can do in this House to correct that should be supported. The measures in this Bill will help to wipe out that illegal trading. The main purpose of this legislation is the protection of public health and I believe the measures in this Bill will provide that protection.
I welcome Senator Norris' scholarly contribution on this Stage of the Bill and I appreciate his turn of phrase but, notwithstanding that, I concede that the extension of home slaughterings to sheep or lambs would not in any way reduce the degree of cruelty or introduce a more humane system. We have gone out of our way in this Bill to confine traditional slaughtering or killing of animals on the farm to a pig or an injured animal to avoid suffering. The Slaughter of Animals Act, 1935, governs the humane slaughter of animals. The Council of Europe has in operation a convention on the slaughter of animals and the 1935 Act meets its provisions.
In relation to Senator Ferris' question on the revocation of a licence, before revoking an abattoir licence pursuant to section 15 of this Bill, at least 21 days notice in writing will have to be given to the licence holder and I am sure, in the tradition of Irish public life, representations will be made to the appropriate Minister to ensure that a fair hearing is given to the licence holder. The situation would have to be very grave before the licence holder would be taken before the Circuit Court.
I appreciate the remarks of the various Senators on the Bill and on my contributions to it. I try to be reasonable at all times and I go out of my way to avoid any confrontation even though I do not succeed at all times. I want to thank the various Senators for their very well-researched contributions to this Bill. It is acceptable legislation. The trade, the Department, the inspectors and the health boards very much appreciate the upgrading of legislation so that meat for human consumption will be of the highest possible standard both for the home market and the export market.
Is Fifth Stage agreed to?
I do not wish to be obstructive so I will resist the temptation to call for another vote or to oppose the Bill. I wonder if you could advise me if there is a facility to record a conscientious dissenter because of the reservations that I have expressed without calling for a vote or being disruptive.
I understand that you will have to go through the procedure of having a vote if you want it on record. What you have already said will, of course, be on record.
I suppose the fact that it is on record, even if not technically, is good enough and therefore I will abstain from calling a vote.
Question put and agreed to.