Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1993

Vol. 137 No. 6

Animal Remedies Bill, 1993: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.

Amendment No. 1 is out of order as it involves a potential charge on the public Revenue.

Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

I am disappointed that amendment No. 1 is not considered in order and I would dispute the issue of the cost to the Exchequer. However, there are a couple of points on section 3 I would like to raise with the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland.

The first point relates to section 3(2) (a) (v) which refers to the representation of the different persons on the consultative committee, and who they would be. This provision states that:

one or more organisations prescribed, for the time being, for the purpose of this subparagraph which, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of persons whose profession or occupation relates to livestock farming or the keeping or rearing of animals...

I assume that the prescribed organisations would be the IFA, the ICMSA or bodies of that nature. For An Bord Glas, the bodies involved were designated in the relevant Bill whereas in this case they are not. Can the Minister of State give an assurance that it would be a body such as the IFA or the ICMSA, a national body, he would have in mind for this consultative committee?

There is one other body he might consider, and that is, the Irish Livestock Exporters' and Traders' Association, which would be adequately qualified for the purpose of the consultative committee. Perhaps the Minister of State would give some indication of the types of bodies he has in mind for this committee, not just in the farming area but some of the other bodies representing consumers for instance.

I would like to refer to the point made by Senator Dardis with regard to specifying the different organisations which should serve on the consultative committee. Another sector the Minister of State has not specified are the meat processors, the factories and the slaughterhouses. These people are in possession of more facts than anyone else, a point I made on Second Stage, because nearly 90 per cent of all animals slaughtered are slaughtered by this sector.

From talking to butchers in particular, I have been given reason to believe they will be able to tell which animals are fed angel dust. As they have that type of information it would be beneficial to specifically appoint these people to any committee the Minister would consult and not just leave their appointment to the whim of the Minister. The Minister of State should consider this point and give us an undertaking that this sector would be represented on the consultative committee because they know what the cattle have been fed.

The Minister of State mentioned on Second Stage that he wanted the co-operation of all farming organisations, and especially those which will be represented on this consultative committee. It is important that he would have the co-operation of the farming organisations, and that the farming organisations approve of this legislation. I mentioned on Second Stage that there was one farming organisation which seemed to be silent about condemning the use of illegal drugs on cattle. Other organisations recommended introducing legislation while this organisation, the IFA, is conspicuous by not condemning the use of illegal drugs and not supporting this legislation which is of benefit to the livestock trade and the beef industry.

I take this opportunity to thank Senator Dardis for tabling the amendments, although one of his amendments has been ruled out of order because of financial implications.

The purpose of the advisory committee is to advise the Minister in relation to the making of regulations under the provisions of the Bill. That is the sole purpose and function of the advisory committee. It will make available to the Minister expertise and knowledge that might not be available in the Department itself. There are many qualified people in various sectors of the industry who would have strong and positive views and who could advise the Minister in relation to the regulations.

In response to the importance of that committee I agreed in the Dáil to increase the level of representation from five to nine members, and I did that on the basis of a strong case made by the Deputies that I should endeavour to take in the broadest level of representation from the various sectors in the industry. Provision has been made by amendments made in the Dáil to allow for nine members. To assist Senator Dardis with regard to how that committee will be constituted we have endeavoured to divide the various constituencies which would be representative of the agricultural and food industries.

There are nine members on the committee. The Minister for Health will have one representative because of the health aspects. There will be one person nominated by the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland representing the pharmacists. One person will also be nominated by Veterinary Council who will be broadly representative of the veterinary surgeons. One person will be nominated by bodies who are representative of persons engaged in the manufacture, distribution or sale of animal remedies — examples would be the Federation of Irish Chemical Industries, Irish pharmaceutical manufacturers, the sellers of animal remedies and ICOS. In addition, there will be one person nominated by representatives of persons engaged in farming or livestock production. I want to assure Senator Dardis that the IFA, the ICMSA and the United Farmers' Association are entitled to apply for representation on the consultative committee.

It is our intention to put an announcement in the papers requesting interested organisations to seek representation on the committee and I hope that each constituency grouping would themselves decide on their nominee to the consultative committee. I would prefer that they would do that rather than submit a number of names from which I would have to choose. There is sufficient unity within the various constituency sectors to be able to achieve that objective and I hope that will be the outcome. In addition, there will be one representative from the food industry, which includes organisations such as CBF, An Bord Bainne and the co-operative movement. Again, such organisations would be requested to forward one nominee. There will also be a nominee from the Consumers' Association of Ireland Limited representing the broad area of consumers in the country. I believe consumers should have a strong voice regarding the control of animal remedies, especially in relation to the food chain.

This broadly represents the number of constituency areas that I propose to deal with in terms of nominating bodies to the consultative committee. There are also the additional two members which I will nominate. I have already assured the Dáil that I will be taking an objective approach to this. For example, I will see the people nominated by the various organisations I have outlined to this House today. If it becomes apparent that others would be in a position to give sound, professional advice and to make a contribution to the consultative committee, then I would consider my two nominees on this objective basis.

I believe it is reasonable that the number of people on the consultative committee should be restricted to nine. However, if other organisations, such as the Irish Cattle Traders and Stockowners Association, wished to have a nominee on this committee will they be excluded? Presumably the Minister is not going to designate particular organisations as being most appropriate for inclusion.

That is the case. An advertisement will be placed in the newspapers advising the public and the various interested organisations of the opportunity for the organisations to nominate representatives to the consultative committee. However, as advised, I hope that, because of the constituency structure that has been established in the first instance to ensure the best possible agreed representation, the various interested organisations within each constituency, for example the agri-sector with which Senator Dardis is concerned, would come together and agree their nominee. That would be the preferable way to deal with what I believe to be an important matter.

There is a related matter. Under the terms of the Bill, the Minister makes an appointment on the nomination of the particular bodies. Does this mean the Minister does not have discretion? In other words, if the bodies, between them, agree to one particular person and that person is nominated, does the Minister not have discretion to accept or reject that person? It appears from the way the Bill is phrased that the Minister would not have this discretion. Perhaps he could clarify this point?

Under the provision in the Bill the Minister does not have discretion. However, with regard to ensuring the success of the consultative committee, I believe it would be better for the individual constituency organisations to select or nominate a person to the Minister for appointment to the committee. I believe that is the more desirable, effective and transparent way of proceeding. I do not have to remind the Senator that if I were to become involved in the selection process I would leave myself open, despite my intention, to accusations of political interference. I assure the Senators in this House today that this is not my intention, and I also gave that assurance in the Dáil. I believe it is preferable to allow the organisations to nominate their own representatives and I am confident they will nominate those who are best qualified to serve on this important committee.

Having listened to the Minister's advice on the construction of the consultative committee, notwithstanding the comments made by Senator Dardis, I have no difficulty with the various organisations proposing their own nominees. If the Minister interfered in any way I believe he would be immediately accused of political interference, especially as there would have to be good reason for interfering in the nominations to most committees.

The Minister did not deal with my comments about food processors, factories and slaughterhouses. I note that the pharmaceutical industry, veterinarians and the chemical industry have been included. I accept that the pharmaceutical industry and the veterinary profession must be represented but will the inclusion of the chemical and pharmaceutical industries not lead to a certain amount of duplication?

Any consultative body must incorporate the entire industry it serves and in this case, there is nothing more important than the slaughterhouses and the meat factories, yet they have not been mentioned by the Minister who has retained to himself the nomination of two members to the consultative committee. This is acceptable, but I ask the Minister to consider ensuring that the meat industry is represented on the committee because it has plenty of information which will be useful to the committee.

The Minister will appreciate that it is important to have people on the consultative committee who will communicate with the people involved in the meat industry. There were suggestions in both Houses on numerous occasions that some of them were encouraging the use of growth promoters in order to raise the standard of cattle. It is important therefore, that these factories are represented on the consultative committee.

I understand that the Minister mentioned six interested bodies and the nominee from the Department of Health and the Minister's two nominees. There is one nominee to represent the farming interests but there are many farming organisations and, as I understand it, each will submit a nominee to the Minister. Is that the case? If so, will the Minister then decide which nominee will serve on the consultative committee? Could the Minister also clarify the nature of the organisations to be represented on this committee? Will there be somebody to represent the consumers interests?

First, I apologise to Senator D'Arcy. I overlooked responding to an important point he made regarding representation from the meat industry itself. I agree with him that people in our meat factories may be in a better position than any other sector to identify, almost at grass root level, animals that would appear to have been treated with illegal substances. It is my wish that this sector of the agri-industry would be represented on the consultative committee but it will fall within the ambit of the food sector generally.

As I explained, various constituencies for the purposes of nominations were created, grouping various organisations together. I regard the meat industry as falling within the constituency of the food industry. For this reason I believe the views of the meat industry will be considered at that level. Since as I am sure the Senator is aware the food industry has an umbrella organisation dealing with the meat industry, it will receive communications from my Department and it will also, I presume, respond to our public notices in the newspapers, etc. I take the Senator's point that I will have the opportunity to nominate two people and I will use that flexibility to take an overview of the situation when all the other people have been nominated. I want to reassure Senators that I will use these two nominees for the purpose of filling any obvious vacuum which may arise as a result of one particular sector not being represented. Two members is not many but I will have flexibility in relation to their nomination and I will keep the Senator's view in mind.

I have a query which relates to the amendment which has been ruled out of order and to section 3 (5) where it states that the consultative committee shall meet whenever summoned by the Minister. I do not see this as a major difficulty but it might be the case — I know that it would not be the case with this particular Minister — where the Minister of the day would not want these people to meet to suit his own purposes. It seems the committee do not have discretion to regulate their own affairs. Subparagraph (6) states that they may regulate their procedure but they do not have discretion as to when they will meet. According to the wording in the Bill they will do so at the will of the Minister and, from my point of view, that it unsatisfactory. If the committee was an embarrassment or if the Minister of the day did not want to co-operate, he could decide that there will be no meetings and a situation could result where there is a consultative committee, which has been established by the Legislature, but it never meets.

I understand the point the Senator is making but the House must keep in mind that the Minister cannot make any regulation without first consulting with the consultative committee. If the need for the introduction of or the making of a new regulation arises, no matter how well intentioned or how important that regulation might be in the Minister's mind, he cannot bring it in without first consulting with and getting the advice of the consultative committee.

The regulations and the effectiveness of the new regulations which are now being brought in will be the subject of ongoing review and almost daily monitoring by the officials within the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. They obviously will be in a position to bring to the attention of the Minister at an early stage if there was a weakness in any of the regulations which may eventually be introduced in terms of the application of the requirements of this Bill. The Minister in turn would immediately call together his consultative committee for the purpose of seeking its advice and getting its guidance in relation to the structure of any new regulation which might be required under this legislation. While I understand the circumstances Senator Dardis is identifying, there is no danger of any Minister being able to ignore the existence of the consultative committee because if he were to do that he would be closing the door in relation to his own powers to make regulations which are provided for in this Bill. Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

My comments relate to compound feeds which may have a feed additive of the nature of some of these substances we are discussing. Is there an onus on the manufacturer of the feed compound to state on the label the animal remedies which are included? One can think of things like Romensin which is used in beef cattle production. Anywhere I have seen a compound with Romensin in it, it is stated on the label. Is there a statutory obligation——

I am glad the Senator is giving me the answer but I would prefer the Minister to tell me on the record. I appreciate the Senator's assistance but it is important to get this information on the record of the House. Where there is an animal feed compound which has an animal remedy included, I want to ensure that all that information would be on the label of the feed compound bag so that everybody knows what is included.

I take the Senator's point. This Bill makes very specific provision in relation to the labelling of all of these products, from the limited requirements with regard to the bulk identification of imported products through to the small product purchased by farmers. It is required that on each label at consumer level there will have to be a full, accurate and detailed description of all of the active ingredients contained within that package, container or bottle or whatever the container might be.

With specific reference to additives within the overall compound business, the existing regulations require that these items be specified on the outer wrapper or outer container of the remedy. If one looks at any label on the proprietary animal food product, it does refer to these additives if they are contained in the product. Existing legislation requires that that be the case.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 5 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 16.
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

Section 16 states: "A person shall not obstruct or impede an authorised officer, member of the Garda Síochána or officer of Customs and Excise ..." I think the Minister should make that stronger and request that the farmer should co-operate with these officers. This is very important. In the initial stages of TB and brucellosis testing there were serious problems with farmers not co-operating with the officers. A great deal of pressure and effort went into that trying to condition farmers to bring them around to thinking they had to get this job done and that it was in their own interest to do so. In this situation a very small number of people are involved and I believe there should be something in the Bill where, if a farmer is suspected of abusing the system, so to speak, he should be made to co-operate with the officers concerned whether they be gardaí or customs officers. I read this section this morning and I feel it is not strong enough. It just states that a person shall not obstruct; obstruction is one matter, co-operation is another. Can this be amended on Report Stage by inserting a paragraph or even a sentence requesting a farmer to co-operate with the officers concerned?

I agree with the sentiments expressed by Senator D'Arcy. Particularly in relation to this legislation, it would be most desirable that there would be a very high level of co-operation between the farmers and the various agencies of State, including the Garda Síochána and the customs officials.

I am sure the House would wish to identify with a word of thanks and tribute to the State agencies, the Garda Síochána, the Customs and Excise officials and the officials in our Department who have been involved in trying to eliminate all the remedies which have threatened our basic food industry and which have also threatened the agricultural industry and the income of individual farmers.

Sometimes there is an impression when one is introducing legislation like this that we are all anti farmer. That is not the case and I want to make that point very positively. In the earlier debate here and in the Dáil, the point was made that only a small number of farmers are abusing this aspect of the food industry. It is also important to say that only a small percentage of our overall meat production is in any way affected by it and that the bulk of beef products in Ireland are of an extremely high quality. Consumers need not be worried and concerned, whether they are Irish consumers or consumers in one of our international markets on which we depend so much.

I agree that co-operation is most essential but in the absence of co-operation, there is a positive provision in the Bill under section 2 where it will be an offence — and indeed a very serious offence which will carry the full rigours of the law in terms of the provisions contained in this Bill — if a farmer or someone involved in the trading of these illegal substances does not co-operate with the various agencies or representatives of State agencies. It will be a very serious offence and they will be subject to the substantial fines which have been imposed as a result of this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

I wish to refer to the issuing of identity documents to persons who are appointed by the Minister or acting on the Minister's behalf. I realise there is an earlier section which deals with the type of people involved. What type of official in the Department will be responsible on the ground for implementing this legislation? Will they be agricultural officers or are there people already in a position to implement this legislation?

My understanding is that there is sufficient flexibility in the staff structure of the Department to enable officers to be authorised to act on behalf of the Department and involve themselves in investigating the illegal use of any of the substances referred to in this legislation. The Department's veterinary staff are also involved on an ongoing basis in our meat facilities. Senators will be aware that the agricultural officers throughout the country have been involved, and will continue to be involved, as will the agricultural inspectors and other officers of the Department who may be authorised by the Department to involve themselves in the implementation of the regulations.

The Bill also makes provision for the proper and correct identification of all of these officers. The officers will have a composite identity card which they will be required to present when they approach farmers or visit farms. We have taken strong action to provide the level of authority that is needed. In the past perhaps that level of authority was not always available but it will be available in future under these new regulations and also in the area of the identification of the officers involved.

The Minister's point is a reasonable one. Nobody would like a situation where people could come into farms willy nilly. As it is, many people living in the country are worried about strangers around their property, particularly elderly farmers who are living alone. We are all aware of some unfortunate incidents that have happened, so it is important that the officers should be in a position to produce some formal identification. I note that under section 10, dealing with the appointment in writing, a warrant of appointment is issued to authorised officers.

At this stage the farming community have taken their responsibility on board. All responsible farmers know the damage they can do to their industry by using these substances, and the damage that has been done by some people. There is no point making good law unless the law is implemented and I think the Minister accepts that point. I appeal to him to ensure that the resources are made available within the Department so that when we enact this legislation, the Department has the teeth to carry out its remit in fulfilling its obligations under the legislation, otherwise we are wasting our time. People will just carry on unless there is a proper monitoring procedure. We can introduce all the penalties we like but we have to uncover the crime in order to make the penalties fit the crime.

I agree with Senator Dardis. One can have consultative committees and law but if not implemented, it is of very little use. Practically 95 per cent of farmers want the use of all steroids eliminated from the system. The markets grow year after year and our green image gets better but these people are damaging us now. I would like an assurance from the Minister that officers will be active on the ground and that people will know.

I made the point previously about the small percentage of farmers — just 2 per cent — who are securing U grades for 40 per cent of their cattle. I am not just saying this, I checked it with the factories and they know exactly who these people are. The Minister should have a list of these names in his office and it should also be given to the Garda Síochána; I know there is a list available at the moment. This is a clear indication that some farmers are abusing steroids — this 2 per cent. That is why I make the point about the factories being involved in the initial stages on the consultative committee. The Minister must be able to tell them what he thinks and they must be able to tell him what is happening in their factories.

The question of identification and having officers on the ground is important to ensure that these people will be brought to justice quickly if they continue to use this illegal substance. There should be no dragging of feet on this matter. On a number of occasions the Department has identified areas where these people are caught but I have seen few people prosecuted. I do not understand that. There were a couple of cases in my own county but nobody was prosecuted. I understand the cattle were confiscated but that is not enough. An example has to be made of these people because they are ruthless and they are damaging our good name and the beef trade.

Like Senator Dardis, I would like to hear the Minister's assurance that sufficient officers will be made available so that they they will be able to identify in the factory these people who are securing U grades for 40 per cent of their animals because it is physically impossible to obtain that level of standard in respect of grading.

I would like to reassure both the House and the Senators that there will be a sufficient number of officers to implement the provisions in this Bill. At present, there are more than 500 officers of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, now duly authorised to carry out investigations in relation to the provisions in the Bill. We are positively moving into a new era of control as a result of these provisions and it is my wish that there would be the level of co-operation, to which Senator D'Arcy referred earlier, with our officers in terms of finding those who are involved in this illicit trade and we propose to deal with it under a number of specific headings.

First, we want to tackle the source of the importation of the product and we will get from the Garda, the Customs officials and the officials in the Department, the level of co-operation we need to identify the sources of this product. This information will be vigorously pursued. Second, we have the distribution chain, which is difficult to cope with and identify, but if we get the co-operation, which I expect, in relation to the distribution chain, we would go a long way towards removing the source from individual farms. From a farmer's point of view, it is a question of levelling the playing pitch. The vast majority of farmers, who are complying with the food requirements and the use of substances in terms of treating animals, would positively wish and expect us to level the playing pitch for them because they are being put at a strong production disadvantage by a small number who are using these illegal growth promoters.

In fairness, the pharmaceutical industry has generally behaved in a responsible way. Many of the products and drugs to which we are referring, even in relation to illegal growth promotion, were developed and produced by this industry for credible and genuine reasons to support the agriculture industry in the treatment of farm animals; it it the abuse of these substances that is the problem. It would be wrong to give the impression that somehow, the pharmaceutical industry is contributing to this menace. I have examined their work — the amount of money they are investing in research, for example, is commendable — and would like to remove the taint of guilt that may appear to be attached to this industry because it is not they but those who have devised illegal uses for some of these important substances who are to blame, especially foreigners who are involved in organised crime to the extent of importing these substances which eventually find their way into the distribution chain and on to some of our farms, although in a limited way.

In relation to the points Senator Dardis, Senator D'Arcy and Senator R. Kiely make on the implementation of the regulations, it is my intention and determination to ensure that they are fully implemented for the purposes of controlling this illicit area and, as I said, I hope we will get the level of co-operation needed. It is my intention to have discussions with the farming organisations, the meat industry and those involved in both the food chain and agricultural production for the purpose of assisting me in protecting our farming industry.

We are not condemning farmers but talking about the importance of the agriculture industry to our economy and the dependence of individual farmers and their families on the livestock sector for their income and livelihood. That is the purpose of this legislation. We also wish to reassure the consumers because, at the end of the day, they will decide what they will purchase or reject and unless they see we are implementing regulations which will eliminate the abuse of animal substances, they will not be happy with our food product. I can assure consumers that the amount of abuse has been minimal and the regulations we are now introducing will eliminate once and for all this serious threat to the agriculture industry and to the consumer, because we have to acknowledge the importance of the consumer and the need to supply them with healthy beef of the highest quality.

It may not be in order to refer to the Civil Service and the departmental officials, but I must say that, from my association with those who administer this scheme within the Department, there is a total commitment to introducing these kinds of regulations and in protecting the industry and the consumer, and I would like to pay tribute to them and to their colleagues, who are out in the field doing what can be a difficult job vis-a-vis the application of various regulations not only in this area but in others as well.

Question put and agreed to.
Sections 18 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 23.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 31, subsection (2) (b) (i), line 6, to delete "£25,000" and substitute "£50,000".

I welcome the fact that in the Dáil, the penalties in section 23 (1) were doubled, and the same should be done under subsection (2). The distinction is that while the first half has penalties of up to £100,000 for selling these substances or for obstruction of officials or gardaí and so on, the penalties in subsection (2) in the Bill as passed by the Dáil, are £25,000 and £50,000. These penalties are imposed on those personating Department officials, for possession of the drug rather than selling it and the condition of licence — referred to in section 20 (1)(c), "a term of condition of any licence or authorisation or any direction."

This amendment supports some of the points the Minister of State made earlier. There is the potential here to do great damage to our most important national industry and the penalties should reflect that. One could argue that the penalties for tax amnesties should operate within this Bill and that some of the penalties in this Bill would be more appropriate to the tax amnesty legislation but that is to be discussed tomorrow.

The users of these substances are both anti-farmer and anti-industry. Because of their ethical approach to business, there are people who refused to use these substances, went to the livestock marts and were put at competitive disadvantage, almost to the extent that some of them were forced out of businesss. I know a fairly large producer in the midlands who got to the stage that he could not compete with these gangsters when he went to buy the cattle he was over-wintering because he was not prepared to use these substances. We have a duty to defend those who operate their businesses within the law and we must ensure that those who operate outside the law do not get away with it.

The Minister referred to his officials and I accept their determination to root out this ill in society and in the agriculture industry. However, it is unreasonable to expect them, or the Garda, to uphold the law while being subjected to abuse and in some cases, assault when only minor fines are imposed. A fine of £25,000 or £100,000 may seem large, but in relation to the value of the products we are dealing with, it is a fairly small sum. For example, a large beef producer may have cattle worth £0.5 million in a feed lot. By using these substances, perhaps £50,000 per annum could be added to the output — I am not saying profit — of that feed lot. This puts these penalties into context. Since the fines in subsection (1) were doubled to £100,000 and to £250,000, the fines in subsection (2) should also be doubled to £50,000 and to £100,000. That is why I tabled these amendments.

The Minister referred to the pharmaceutical industry. He correctly said that this industry is, by and large, responsible and has produced products of value in terms of animal welfare. Apart from helping farm profitability, these products have alleviated suffering in animals, and this is to be welcomed. There are circumstances in which clenbuterol may be used legally. As far as I am aware, it may, and has been, used for horses over the years. A responsible chemical company may produce a product which will be beneficial to certain groups of animals but when administered to other animals it may have a deleterious effect. This issue must be dealt with in this legislation.

When dealing with the terms and conditions of licence, covered by fines of £25,000 and £50,000, we must remember that we are dealing with large operators. that is why penalties should reflect the seriousness of the crime. If sufficient penalties do not exist, illegal operators will gain. Furthermore, we must support officials in their work and penalties must reflect their efforts.

I have listened to Senator Dardis and although I do not agree with everything he said, I accept that many large farmers use these substances. However, a number of farmers with medium sized farms also use these substances. I believe the penalty should fit the crime. This is a serious crime, but £25,000 for a first offence is a hefty fine and if increased to £50,000, it will be much more difficult for them to pay.

Last week a case relating to a betting fine was brought before the court in my town. A bookmaker refused to add tax to a docket and received a £60,000 fine, mitigated to £30,000 which he will be unable to pay. The amount of money involved, as far as the State was concerned, totalled £42. Perhaps he has been committing this offence for a number of years and that was why the court imposed such a large fine for one offence.

Fifty thousand pounds is a substantial fine and will be a deterrent. One has a better chance of getting £25,000 than £50,000 from a farmer. A prison sentence is also a great deterrent, although I know a number of farmers who served prison sentences to avoid paying fines. I understand if one serves a prison sentence, one need not pay the fine. I do not know how this will operate under this legislation. A £25,000 fine is adequate; a farmer can afford to pay such a fine but if it is increased to £50,000, only 4 per cent of farmers could pay.

The punishment must fit the crime and farmers using illegal substances are committing a serious offence. Such farmers are doing untold damage to the beef industry and to their fellow farmers. Furthermore, our beef industry will lose credibility. Senator D'Arcy referred to a farmer in his locality who used these substances and who was unable to pay the fine imposed. Substantial fines must be imposed to deter those using these illegal substances.

Nothing I am proposing is at variance with Senator D'Arcy's position. This legislation states that on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £1,000 will be imposed. On conviction on indictment, a more serious matter, a fine not exceeding £50,000 will be imposed. The words used are "not exceeding £50,000", it does not say that someone should not be fined £5,000 or £10,000, according to the judge's discretion taking into account their means or the scale of the crime. This legislation also provides for imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, a serious penalty with which I would not quibble. A fine of £25,000 relative to a five year prison sentence seems small. We should increase the fine to £10,000 for each year of imprisonment. Those guilty of a second offence and who have been twice convicted on indictment must face severe penalties.

Senators will be aware that since it was first circulated, a number of amendments have been made to the Bill in the Dáil. I accepted a number of appropriate amendments and as a result of the debate in the other House, this Bill has been improved. I accepted an amendment from Senator Dardis's party which sought to increase the fines. As Senator Dardis said, we have doubled the fines in relation to indictable offences. I have no problem with Senator Dardis's point and I am not opposed to it in principle.

However, I am anxious to enact this legislation as soon as possible, particularly at this time. I ask the Senator to consider withdrawing the amendment on the basis that I accept the principle of what he is saying and that the aspect of the amendment which he is moving here today could be dealt with by the Minister by way of regulation. I appeal to the House since we have had such a high degree of co-operation both in the Dáil and the Seanad to give me the opportunity to bring this Bill to a successful conclusion, have it signed by the President and brought into law as quickly as possible.

I share the Minister's desire to have this legislation enacted speedily. It is in everybody's interest to do so speedily because we must deal with the problem of the use of illegal growth promoters. I understand the technical difficulty involved and that were the Minister to accept an amendment today, the Bill would have to go back to the other House. Perhaps we need to look at our procedures in that context, but that is a discussion for another day and perhaps it is not within the Minister's remit. I urge him to do whatever can be done, perhaps through other legislation, to ensure that these penalties are increased. If he gives me an assurance that he will do his best to deal with it some other way I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

I give that assurance to Senator Dardis, and I thank him for his constructive approach. He made the point that the fines should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence, but the possession of a drug or a drugged animal is a serious offence and will therefore come into the category which makes provision for the maximum level of fine and prison sentence. To that extent, he can take some consolation in relation to this point. He also pointed out that clenbuterol is a legal drug which is administered to horses. However the dosage administered for the treatment of animal diseases is approximately one-tenth the strength needed for growth promotion. I also understand that it is a very expensive drug and one which would not be used extensively by the veterinary profession.

I congratulate the Minister on the quality of his technical advice.

I acknowledge that.

I accept the Minister's assurances and I will withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Section 23 agreed to.
Sections 24 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."

One of the matters we discussed on Second Stage was the problem of analytical procedures. If we are bringing a case to court, we must produce empirical evidence that these particular substances have been present in the carcase, and their presence must be verifiable by analytical procedures. How confident are we of the ability of science to show that these particular substances are present in the carcase? I made the point on Second Stage that any person working in the boning hall of a meat factory can tell when they put the knife into the carcase whether it has been treated with these substances but that is no good when we come to court. It may be that the boning hall expert knows, but we have to produce more substantial evidence. How confident are we that if we have a carcase to which these drugs have been administered, we can say within ten or 15 days of administration, that that particular carcase was implanted with clenbuterol? Can science tell us that?

At this stage we can be confident that the procedures for testing for the use of these illegal subtances within specified periods are accurate and reliable. Technology is improving all the time and in this country we are keeping abreast of European technology for the purpose of being able to identify within the factories carcases which have been illegally treated. I hold the view, however, that it is more effective to deal with the use of illegal growth promoters at field level. Senator Dardis and Senator D'Arcy made a point in regard to the butcher in the factory who can say with a fair degree of certainty that an animal has been treated. We use visual indentification of the carcase in the factory as a means of doing field checks where we can be even more positive in identifying the use of the illegal substances.

We are approaching this matter under a number of headings. We are tackling the problem on the factory floor as well as on the farm and in relation to the administration of the drugs outside the factory. This has been the situation within the Department for a considerable length of time, but perhaps the technology was not as advanced as it is today, nor were the problems at European level as serious as it is today. However we are benefiting from the development of technology and applying that technology to Irish industry.

We are using a practical method, the observation of the carcase in the factory, as a means of alerting us to the possible use of the illegal product at farm level. By a combination of improved technology, identifying the carcase in the factory and following up with a field investigation, together with the level of co-operation that Senator D'Arcy spoke about, and the continuing support of the agencies of State in preventing the importation of clenbuterol in the first instance — because that is where we will make a major breakthrough — Members can take it from me that under all these headings a positive job is being done by the Department.

The Minister will agree that those who are using this substance are cunning, and his Department has had great difficulty identifying any of them. The Minister used the phrase, "a specified period" in relation to the withdrawal period, which is 21 days. The substance is withdrawn from the feed and then the cattle are sent for slaughter. Is the test so sophisticated it can identify that the illegal substance has been used, is the Bill good enough to secure a conviction based on tests in the factory after a withdrawal period of 20 or 30 days? This is the system that has been used over the years. When the substances were legal in the 1970s they were withdrawn for 21 days or 30 days, and the same thing is happening with clenbuterol. I would like to know how sophisticated equipment can cope with the withdrawal period.

Identifying cattle that have been treated with this illegal substance is a useful exercise central to the successful implementation of this legislation. The greatest heartbreak for a farmer is to discover that cattle from a disease-free herd have been identified at the factory as being infected with TB. Farmers do not deliberately infect their herds with TB but the use of illegal growth promoters is deliberate and illegal. If it can be identified on the factory floor and if prosecutions can be brought, it would be the greatest deterrent to farmers or cattle dealers against using illegal growth promoters.

It has been established that there is no definitive withdrawal period in relation to the use of these illegal substances. There are, of course, specified withdrawal periods in relation to the legal use of many veterinary products. You can take it from me that advanced technology will be able to identify the use of an illegal growth promoter far beyond what some farmers might recognise as being a satisfactory withdrawal period. With improvements in advanced technology, even minute quantities of products used for growth promotion can be identified in carcases. That line is being vigorously pursued along with on-field identification which I regard as being the more effective way of obtaining positive evidence on the use of these substances. Section 9 of the Bill, for example, allows the results to be dealt with in cases where there is evidence of the use of these substances in other words, it gives us the power to deal with such cases.

I am encouraged by the Minster of State's reply because I do not think it would be very helpful if the suggestion went out from this House that after 20 or 30 days anyone was safe. I would like to see a constant improvement in scientific detection so that no one would be under the impression that because they have administered this substance 20 or 30 days before slaughter they are going to get away with it. I know from dealing with plant chemicals that parts per billion can now be unquestionably detected quite easily. That has led to other implications because people now get worried about one part per billion in a material which would otherwise be safe. It is important that nobody should have the impression that their crime will not be detected, and I am glad the Minister of State has given that reply.

I welcome what the Minister of State said, and I take it that, irrespective of the withdrawal periods, a conviction can be obtained based on the Department's factory tests. I welcome that because the inability to obtain convictions was the major point on which the legislation appeared to fall down before. I take it that the Department now has sophisticated tests which are sufficient to guarantee a conviction.

I also welcome the Minister of State's assurance and statement, and I hope there will now be convictions arising from the detection in meat factories of illegal growth promoters in cattle.

In relation to Senator Dardis's comments, technology has now moved so far that we can detect clenbuterol at a level of 0.5 parts per billion. So let nobody be under any illusion that we cannot identify the illegal use of these so-called animal remedies.

It will be possible to get a conviction on those results?

On the basis of the evidence that will be available as a result of these tests, we will be able to bring those cases to court.

I welcome the emphasis the Minister of State has put on the consumer in this Bill. I know that parts per billion may not matter but the consumer does not want any adverse substances in the food chain. It is not only a question of domestic consumption because the quality and purity of our goods is the basis on which they are sold abroad. This Bill enforces that aspect and I welcome it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 33.
Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill."

I understand that a Supreme Court hearing is pending in relation to the use of illegal substances. May I ask the Minister if this has any effect in respect of the implementation of this Bill?

I do not have to remind the Senator that the matter is sub judice and it would be improper of me to——

It is likely that any question arising from any hearing could be deemed to be sub judice and as a result it would not be in order to discuss the matter.

Question put and agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Members of this House for their co-operation in dealing with this Bill. The debate has been characterised by a positive appreciation of the matters we are seeking to address and there has been unanimous support for the principles and policies which the Bill seeks to establish as part of our statute law.

I must put on record my appreciation of the positive, constructive and non-contentious manner in which the Bill was debated by this House and, in particular, the fact that the Members are as anxious as I am to bring the Bill into law at the earliest possible opportunity. I do not wish to imply that the expeditious passage of this Bill suggests any element of rubber stamping or lack of consideration of the serious matters it deals with by the Members of this House.

It was clear from the quality of the debate that the Members had done their homework and were fully aware of what this legislation sets out to achieve. It is a measure of the attention they paid to it that the basic purpose of providing a comprehensive basis to ensure the safe and responsible use of animal remedies and the protection of the integrity and safety of the food chain was fully appreciated and supported by all Members, regardless of political affiliations. It is clear that on these matters the Legislature and the Executive are of a single mind and that should send a clear message to would be offenders that they will find little sympathy for their cause amongst the Members of the Oireachtas.

The passage of this Bill is indeed timely. At present, new proposals from Commissioner Steichen to tighten up controls and enforcement of the law in relation to the use of illegal growth promoters are under consideration. Some of the measures which the Commissioner wishes to introduce are already law in Ireland and many more are contained in this Bill. The passage of this Bill is also a clear signal of support for the Commissioner in his efforts to restore quality and confidence to the European meat industry. More importantly, it is a very clear message to consumers of Irish meat that unilaterally we are prepared to apply the strictest measures to ensure the quality and safety of the food we produce.

Encouraged by the solidarity which I have found in the Houses of the Oireachtas I can go forward to the Agriculture Council and insist that the problem of illegal growth promoters be addressed as we are doing by imposing strict controls and severe penalties rather than by crude measures, such as carcase weight limitations which penalise the good law abiding farmer as well as the offender and do nothing to address the problems of dealers and traffickers in such substances.

Finally, a lot of attention has been focused on the problem of illegal use of animal remedies. This is not unusual in view of the attention which this topic has received in recent times and consequently dealing with these problems is one of the principal functions of the Bill. However, it is not the only one. It must be remembered that the aim of this legislation is the protection of all consumers and of the livestock and food industries and it should create an environment in which these interests will prosper. I assure all those who supported its passage to date that the legislation when enacted will be vigorously enforced in all our interests.

On behalf of my party I thank the Minister for the way he has conducted this Bill. It is important legislation which must be enacted quickly. I hope it will have the desired effect of assuring consumers, at home and abroad, that they can rely on the quality of Irish food. The Minister will have our support when he goes to the Commission in Brussels and outlines, in no uncertain terms, the responsibilities of other countries in this matter. The issue of carcase weights is of lesser importance than this problem.

I thank the Minister for the manner in which he has answered our questions. I also thank his officials for their expertise. There is a refreshing absence of the term "in relation to" in the Bill. I only found it once in the first page of the Bill. The "in relation to" disease is not so manifest in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry as it is in some other Departments.

I join with Senator Dardis in thanking the Minister for the way he conducted the debate. He was straightforward and answered questions as they were asked.

We leave this House happier as a result of this Bill being passed and we hope it will have the desired effect. We want to be rid of these 2 per cent of farmers. I am glad scientific methods have improved to the extent that they can be used to identify the use of these substances. That had previously been a problem. I look forward to seeing users of these illegal substances being brought to justice during the next six to eight months.

I concur with the previous speakers in congratulating the Minister on introducing this important legislation. I also compliment Senators on their co-operation in ensuring the passing of the Bill. I thank the departmental officials. With regard to Senator Dardis' concern about language, I would say that the Minister always uses farmers' language and has done so today.

I congraluate and thank the Minister for the introduction of the Bill. I often wonder if the people who use these illegal substances ever think of what they are doing to themselves. I do not think they do.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.30 p.m. and resumed at 6 p.m.
Top
Share