I hope I will be permitted to make a few general comments. I was not present for Second Stage because I had been invited by An Bord Bia to speak at the Horizons conference. I support the objectives of the Bill. The attempt to bring customer interests on to the board is worthy. My only criticism is that it is a pity this did not happen sooner. I urge the Department to remain more customer than producer driven, as evidenced by the Horizons conference organised by An Bord Bia.
An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill, 1996: Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I considered tabling an amendment to this section because the board will now consist of a chairman and 14 ordinary members. When the 1994 Act was presented it provided for a membership of nine and one of the primary objectives of the 1995 Act was to increase the membership to 11. This Bill provides for a further increase. I welcome the provision for a consumer representative on the board but it could be catered for without having to increase the numbers on the board. The nominee of the Minister for the Marine was also included.
The 1994 Act indicates that the ordinary members shall be appointed by the Minister and specifies that one shall be an officer of the Minister, one shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Tourism and Trade and that the chairman and persons appointed should have a knowledge or experience of the food industry and consumer requirements. At the time we argued that "consumer requirements" was not strong enough and my party tabled an amendment to the effect that a representative of the consumer associations should be included. We also tabled an amendment to the 1994 Bill to do with Bord Iascaigh Mhara and the Minister for the Marine.
Given my outstanding record in having amendments accepted eventually, I thought that if I tabled an amendment the fears I expressed last week about there being another amendment Bill next year would come to fruition. To spare the House having to deal with another Bill next year I resisted the temptation to table an amendment. However, the board is getting to the stage where, with a membership of 14, it becomes unwieldy.
The 14 members of the Bill will represent a wide spectrum of interests. There should not be a reduction in the membership. The majority of county councils, for example, have at least 21 members. A membership of 14 is reasonable. I welcome the inclusion of a consumer representative.
Under subsection (4) (b) one ordinary member shall be appointed on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of consumers. Can the Minister of State give an indication of the organisations the Minister has in mind? It is a wide field and there are many organisations representing consumers. The Minister has a difficult job and picking one organisation will make it even more difficult. Without pinning it down to the last organisation, I would like the Minister to give us some indication of the organisations about which he is thinking.
I ask the Minister to clarify who and what organisations he deems fit to represent the consumers' interests. Will we be back again next year to broaden the board further because certain consumers were not represented? I ask him to clarify what organisations he believes are fit to represent consumers on this board.
In answer to Senator Dardis, the board is now more representative and inclusive. Its composition and the expertise on the board will enhance the food industry and I am confident that it will be most effective.
We all acknowledge that the consumer is the person of whom we must take most account and we must examine consumer tastes and market our products to suit consumers here and abroad. It is important therefore that there be a specific and identifiable consumer representative on the board, nominated by an organisation which the Minister deems to be a recognised consumer organisation.
I cannot say who may be nominated. The Minister will be nominating that person, but it has not been decided yet. The person will be identifiable as a consumer representative; that is as far as I can go at this stage.
On Senator Kelleher's point, the Bill is all inclusive and I cannot see the need for further additions in the future. All the members of the board are consumers. I emphasised that point to Senator Dardis last year. We went further this year and we have now an identifiable place on the board for a consumer, which is very important. I do not envisage any changes to the board in the foreseeable future.
We are talking about meat and livestock; the Minister is aware that my own hobby horse is the fish industry. However, it is all food and An Bord Bia looks after food. Could the Minister name the person who represents fish processors on the board? I believe they have been left out and I am making my case for the fishing industry. They should be properly represented on the board.
I do not wish to be repetitive, but there is a reasonable possibility that the board is becoming too big and unwieldy. This could lead to a less effective board. I agree to some extent with what Senator Dardis said about keeping the numbers small. Nevertheless, within that small board there should be a position for consumer interests.
I agree with Senator Kelleher's point; the Minister has not indicated how that person will be identified and selected. I presume a number of consumer organisations will make representations to the Minister and, after some examination, he will, in his wisdom, decide who should be on the board. I am not certain that is the best approach. If you put representatives of various organisations on boards, it would be better to write that into legislation and refer to them specifically rather than having a loose arrangement where, for instance, somebody who might have no contact with any consumer organisation could be the Minister's appointee.
Do I take it that any number of organisations can make representations to the Minister to be appointed to represent the consumer but that the Minister can nominate somebody totally unconnected with consumer information? Is the Minister of State saying that many of his constituents from north Kerry would be eminently suitable to be on this particular board although their only qualification might be their political affiliation rather than any knowledge or expertise in the consumer industry?
Fianna Fáil are handy at that.
I support the point made by Senator Daly. It is desirable to specify the organisations. The Consumers Association of Ireland would be a body that springs to mind immediately and I am sure it is the intention of the Minister and the Department to have somebody from such a body represented on the board. This is something I would welcome but I believe it would be useful to specify the organisations. I would hate to see an ad hoc organisation presenting itself as the body that should be considered for nomination. The practice in the past where the membership of the board was extended to producers was specifically designed to include representatives of the IFA and the ICMSA. The Irish Cattle and Stockowners Association might also have claims to a position.
The Minister of State has referred to the size of the board. There is nothing inconsistent between my argument that the board should be small and his that it should be widely representative. There would be scope with a board of 11 or 13 to have that representation. What is at issue here is the number of people the Minister can nominate directly thereby having an in-built majority on the board, not the quality or the broadness of the representation. That can be accommodated within a smaller board. From a business point of view it is more desirable to have a board that is cohesive, small and easily managed than one that is large and diverse.
In response to Senator Fitzgerald, the Minister for the Marine is confident that Sarah White of the Department of the Marine represents the fishing industry and the fish processing industry. He is happy with the present arrangement.
On Senator Daly's point, the purpose of this Bill is to nominate a consumer to An Bord Bia. That consumer will be nominated by a recognised consumer body nominated by the Minister. This was the approach adopted for the Meat and Livestock Board. This Bill is very narrow in its focus which is to appoint a consumer to the board nominated by a body that is recognised as one that looks after consumer interests. I am convinced that this is the right way to do it. If it could have been done previously, it should have been done. We are strengthening this board and making it more representative.
I thank the Minister of State for his straightforward and honest answer. I am not against the Bill; I totally support it and I have no intention of holding it up. However, I must voice my opinion and protest. The Minister is probably the only person involved in the fishing industry who is satisfied with the person on the board representing the fish processors. I have no objection to that person one way or another but will the Minister, for argument's sake, pick a civil servant to represent the consumers? Will he pick a civil servant from the Department of Agriculture. Food and Forestry to represent the livestock people? To the best of my knowledge, never once in the history of this State has the Department of the Marine nominated a fish processor or fisherman to any of its committees. I am not blaming the Minister; I am just voicing an opinion on behalf of those who have lobbied me.
In all fairness, it is time that a person from the fishing industry and the fish processors, nominated by the Minister of State or the Minister, was appointed to the board. If what happened in the case of the fish processors happened in other organisations, there would be a board of 12 or 13 civil servants and that would defeat the purpose of the board.
Enough said; I do not need an answer. There will be an uprising by fishermen and fish processors and I ask the Minister to make sure that a person from the fishing industry and the fish processors will be nominated to the board.
Having worked in the fish industry, I know that An Bord Bia is important. Bord Íascaigh Mhara has its own marketing set-up. While I would never agree with civil servants on boards, nevertheless they represent the fishermen, the processors and the industry in general on this particular board. That is what is important at this stage.
Down the years, irrespective of the board, many interested outside parties believed they should be the one to represent an interest. I worked alone as Minister of State for Fisheries for three and a half years and I had great difficulties. I assembled a board, acted as chairman and involved all the industry. It was impossible to satisfy them because there was always a section who felt it should represent the fishing industry.
If you appointed a processor to An Bord Bia, the fishermen would not be satisfied; if you appointed a fisherman, the processors and the industry in general would not be satisfied. That has always been the approach. To a degree, picking one person to represent the fishing industry on An Bord Bia was an afterthought; it was because of the debates in both Houses. It is impossible to have every area of the fishing industry represented; there would be as many as 20 board members.
If Senator Fitzgerald analyses the matter, he will see the Minister has made a good decision with regard to the fisheries end of it and I welcome it. He has nominated a civil servant, who works in a fishing industry marketing board, to represent all sections.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
The argument about the size of the board applies here also. I am not going to repeat what I said on section 2, but the original Bill provided for five persons who shall represent producers of livestock, four persons who shall represent the meat export trade, one person who shall represent meat traders who sell meat by wholesale or retail for consumption and one person who shall represent the livestock export trade on the subsidiary board. One consumer against that number is a small lobby. I am not saying additional consumers should be involved but it would have been generous if some of those organisations had forfeited one of their seats on the board.
I am a political realist and I am prepared to accept that when people are given seats on boards they are reluctant to relinquish them. However, the weight of interest from the industry compared to the single voice of the consumer on this board is disproportionate. It would have been better to keep the board at its original 11 and to ask somebody to forfeit a seat rather than creating an additional seat for the consumer. I recognise the political difficulties the Minister would confront in trying to achieve that objective, although I suspect that, had he tried to achieve it, he would have gained considerable support in this House.
Will increasing the number on the board help to resolve the crisis in the beef industry? We cannot sell our meat and our live export markets have been closed. Rather than increasing the number on the board, we should address the crisis in the meat industry. I ask the Minister to look carefully to see what can be done because jobs are at stake. Many factories are only operating on a one day week.
As regards the comments about the consumer versus the other members of the board, I presume that, after the BSE crisis, every member of the board will have a consumer interest.
I thought they had before now.
They had but I presume they will realise even more the importance of the consumer to the producer and the processor. I do not agree with Senator Dardis about reducing the number on the board because they represent a wide area. Every member of the board realises the importance of the consumer to the market because, if we cannot satisfy the consumer that a product is safe, they will not buy it. Nominating a person to the board who represents consumers can only be good
I agree with Senator D'Arcy. The existing members of the board will ignore the consumer at their peril. Because of the BSE crisis and because the consumer is more discerning about food, anybody involved in An Bord Bia will look at changing consumer tastes before their own vested interests. It is in their interests that the consumer is confident and happy with whatever products An Bord Bia promotes. Adding a consumer representative to the board will focus people's attention on consumer demands and needs and it will strengthen the subsidiary board. A consumer representative should have been included before now. This Bill will ensure the board is properly balanced.
As regards Senator O'Brien's point, we are discussing An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill, 1996, not the BSE crisis. However, in light of the experience with BSE, it is very important to have a consumer representative on An Bord Bia and the subsidiary boards. Unless we are conscious of and satisfy consumer needs, we will lose the battle with beef. We have to focus totally on consumer tastes and needs. An Bord Bia has been in operation for only a year and a half and it has been successful to date. From my dealings with it, I have confidence in its expertise to ensure that our food industry will grow to the extent we wish over the next four years and that we will be able to realise the targets set in the food programme. This debate will strengthen the focus of An Bord Bia.
I agree with the Minister of State that this Bill will strengthen its focus. It is a step in the right direction but I do not believe it goes nearly far enough. I urge the Minister of State not to exclude from consideration the almost suicidal step of removing the whole of An Bord Bia from the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry at some point and putting it under the aegis of another Department. While this is a step in the right direction, the ideal situation is to have An Bord Bia so customer driven that it is not even part of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. The Department of Enterprise and Employment, or almost any other Department, would be better in the long term to prove the case. I am not suggesting that will happen at this stage but I urge the Minister to keep it in mind for a future occasion.
When the original Bill was being debated in 1994, Deputy O'Malley argued the board should be under the aegis of the then Department of Trade and Commerce, which would support the point made by Senator Quinn. There is an argument that it is to the board's advantage in terms of overseas marketing to have it disconnected from perceived producer interests. However, I accept that as matters stand it is within the ambit of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, where it is likely to stay for the foreseeable future.
Studying the Official Report is always an interesting experience. We can all quote what people said and I am sure I have said things that could be quoted back at me — and probably will be at some future date. Senator D'Arcy's observations on 5 July 1994, when we were discussing the subsidiary board, are interesting. He tabled an amendment which stated that "a subsidiary board established under section 13(2) shall consist of a chairman and not fewer than five or more than eleven ordinary members". Perhaps I am being a little mischievous in reminding the Senator of that. He also said that "when appointing subsidiary boards, sectoral interests immediately come into play".
Senator Dardis should be careful not to embarrass the Senator.
I am sure the Senator has a thick skin and will refuse to be embarrassed. He stated:
When appointing subsidiary boards, sectoral interests immediately come into play. This should be avoided. Subsidiary boards should have a broader base than any sectoral interest.
He has, in fact, been arguing that in his most recent remarks.
It is also worth recording the fact that the present Minister of State, Deputy Doyle, was apoplectic in her opposition to the original legislation when it was being debated. She stated on 11 May 1994 in the other House that "the Bill falls so short of what is required and what Culliton and the reports of expert groups detailed as necessary that it is merely a window dressing exercise and does not deserve support". I suppose we all change when we have to, which is the nature of our democracy. However, it is sometimes worthwhile to go back over the record to see what we said in previous incarnations.
Window dressing is very important.
It would be a grave mistake to take An Bord Bia from under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture. We are trying to create a link between producer and consumer. If one takes it out of the Department of Agriculture, one removes a very important part of the link. I see how thinking within my Department is considerably influenced by the philosophy of the board. The farm representatives on the board preach to the farming organisations the philosophy of traceability, quality and the need to be consumer driven. If that link was not there between my Department and the board, the board would be less effective in its focus.
I understand where the Senator is coming from, but the main strength of An Bord Bia is that it is inclusive, from producer to processor to consumer. We will be seeing the effects of the board very soon. It is a focused and effective board, as it ably demonstrated two weeks ago with the input it had into the Horizons food fair.
I am confident this is the right way to go. I cannot see An Bord Bia being taken from under the aegis of my Department because to do so would be a grave mistake. The philosophy which the board is trying to expound, and which it will expound in the future, needs to be related down to farm gate level because that is where the product is obtained and where the quality is derived.
The Minister of State owes me 20p because I have a swear box for anybody who refers to the Department as the Department of Agriculture without stating it to be the Department of Agriculture and Food. The Minister of State twice referred to the Department incorrectly.
The Senator is picking on very small things.
It is not a small thing; there is a point of principle here. It is imperative that we think of the Department as a Department of Food, not of Agriculture. An Bord Bia will serve the link referred to by the Minister of State very well. However, it should be under a different Department. I am concerned at the overriding, powerful input of agriculture producers rather than consumers. This will not happen as long as the Minister of State continues to refer to the Department as the Department of Agriculture.
The Senator should give the Department its full title. It is the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
We are getting into technicalities.
To reduce it to even smaller detail, I agree with the Minister of State on the Horizons food fair. It was a terrific event. I am sure there will be concrete and positive results. The organisation was excellent and it portrayed Ireland in a good light. I was fortunate to be the recipient of hospitality at the Leopardstown Racecourse, which was part of the Horizons event. There was a menu on the table which had a list of sponsors, one of whom was stated to be the Department of Agriculture and Forestry.
We are getting away from section 3.
I realise we are getting into detail. The Minister of State said that traceability will become a major issue. Senator Quinn has had practical experience of this. It will be a major selling point that we can go back to the farm where the calf was produced and trace it through the system. When is it proposed that we will have such a system?
We are getting away from section 3.
The Minister raised this important point. I was not going to say anything about it.
We are dealing with section 3.
It is relevant. We need to know what we are going to do about traceability in terms of the consumer.
I am sure the Senator will find other ways of doing that.
The view expressed by Senator Quinn was rejected by the expert group on food and the food industry. The strategic management initiative is focused to a major extent on the food sector.
Regarding Senator Dardis's point, the Minister stated at the Horizons food fair that he is considering traceability seriously and he intends to do something concrete about it. He is working on it at present with Teagasc, An Bord Bia and other agencies. The traceability system must be totally credible. There is no point having it in name only; it must be foolproof. It must be clearly demonstrated that every piece of meat put on the supermarket shelves can be traced. The Minister is working through the permit system with Teagasc at present. Knowing the Minister, he will honour the commitment he gave at the Horizons fair.
The Minister invited me to the Horizons exhibition in the RDS. I was most impressed by the fair and it did much good in terms of the promotion of the food industry.
I am also concerned about traceability. The dairy sector has traceability and there is no reason why the beef sector should not have it also. The sooner this can be done the better and I am pleased the Minister is exploring ways of implementing it as soon as possible. The Government made a big mistake in regard to the appointment of Ministers. There was a Minister for Food in the previous Administration and this was essential. The current Government increased the number of Ministers——
We are certainly moving away from the section now.
——but there is still no Minister for Food.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
I wish to be clear about a matter I raised on Second Stage to which the Minister responded in his reply. The Bill proposes that the Act "shall not affect the appointment under the Principal Act to the Board or a subsidiary board established under section 13 of the Principal Act of any person holding office immediately before the passing of this Act." However, in his reply to the Second Stage debate, the Minister mentioned section 14 of the 1994 Act. I understand the purpose of the provision; otherwise it was possible that the appointment of people to the board would be open to legal challenge. The measure rectifies that point but I am somewhat confused about the various sections and I ask the Minister to provide more detail.
My understanding of the section is that the board has already been appointed and a consumer representative will now be appointed. The purpose of the measure is to ensure this will not affect those appointed previously.
The last two.
Two appointments are to be made. However, the people appointed previously will not be affected by the two subsequent appointments.
The Minister explained that point in his reply to Second Stage, but I want to tease out the matter.
The section was included on the advice of the Attorney General to ensure the legality of the last two appointments to the board following the 1995 Act. I am sure there is no difficulty with the measure; it is not complex. Its purpose is to ensure that the last two appointments, involving representatives of the two farming organisations, which were made by order following the 1995 Act could not be challenged in any way. The section is a safety mechanism which has been included in the Bill on the advice of the Attorney General.
I understand the reason for the section. However, my confusion is that the Bill refers to section 13 of the Principal Act but the Minister mentioned section 14 of the 1994 Act in his reply to Second Stage. It may be an error, but I am confused because section 13 of the 1994 Act deals with subsidiary boards. I am not questioning the principle of the measure; I am concerned about the detail. The Bill refers to section 13 of the Principal Act but the Minister mentioned section 14 in his reply to Second Stage.
In my understanding section 14 enabled the Minister to make the order to appoint the two people to the board. The reference to section 14 was in the context of the mechanism which enabled the Minister to make those appointments. I am assured the provision in the Bill will ensure nobody can question the legality of the previous appointments. That could easily happen nowadays and it is not an attempt to get something in through the back door. It was included on the advice of the Attorney General to ensure no difficulties arise in the years ahead. I am confident the measure will not pose any difficulties. The Senator may have some reservations about it, but they are unfounded. There is no hidden agenda. The purpose of the measure is to ensure that mistakes will not be made.
I accept the Minister's assurance that nothing underhand is involved. However, there is an inconsistency as to whether the measure relates to section 13 or 14. The Bill states section 13, but in his reply the Minister referred to section 14. It is almost a technical point.
Section 13 refers to the appointment of the subsidiary boards while section 14 refers to the appointment of the board in the Principal Act. This is the difference. Section 14 of the 1994 Act refers to the appointment of the board members, while section 13 refers to the appointment of the subsidiary board members. Perhaps this explains the point.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
On a number of occasions recently I have endeavoured to raise with the Leader of the House the issue of the disposal of milk. An Bord Bia has a central role to play, given its involvement in marketing. Other Members referred to the beef industry, but I object to the fact that the Minister has not availed of the opportunity to expand this section to make special provision to deal with the severe crisis in the dairy sector industry at present, particularly in my constituency. I do not wish to bring a local issue into national legislation, but there is a major crisis in the beef and dairy sectors at present. There is a responsibility on the Minister to take some initiatives in that regard and I expected him to expand the section. The explanatory memorandum states the section has no financial implications other than the usual implications.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The matter being raised by the Senator is not relevant to the section, which deals with the short Title of the Bill.
The Senator is demonstrating his experience as a parliamentarian.
I am aware of the limitations on what I wish to raise but on the numerous occasions on which I endeavoured to raise this issue, the Leader of the House said that I would have an opportunity when the An Bord Bia Bill came before the House to put these issues on the record.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Not on this section, I am afraid, Senator Daly.
The reason I am doing it is because this section is the collective title and construction of the Bill and I suggest to the Minister of State that he could have constructed the Bill in a way which would take account of the serious crisis in the dairy business.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
These are points which would have been relevant at Second Stage, Senator, when there was an opportunity for Members to discuss what the Bill might contain. We are now on Committee Stage and we must deal with the provisions of the particular section we are dealing with.
On section 6, could I ask the Minister of State whether it would be possible at this stage to expand the section to take account of the crisis in the dairy business? He will be aware that in relation to the oversupply of milk in the co-operatives, even in his own constituency and mine, there is a very serious problem where 500 small farmers in the severely handicapped areas of west Clare have received massive bills for over £1,000,000 and I cannot see what An Bord Bia——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have given Senator Daly a lot of leeway. He has made his point and perhaps the Minister——
Perhaps the Minister might take the opportunity to give some indication of whether, if he cannot do it under this section of this Bill, he might have some other plans in mind to deal with it.
You have to hand it to the Senator, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, he has done very well.
The Senator has done really well in the Clare Champion.
I am sure even the Senator would accept that, although it is very important that the matter is raised, it has nothing to do with this particular Bill. We did have a debate on it in the Dáil last week. It came up on the Adjournment and I would suggest to the Senator that it is a matter that should be debated in this House, because there is a major problem at the moment as regards leasing of milk quotas and it is something that deserves a debate in this House, not on this Bill.
The Minister of State will be back.
The Minister of State will be aware that there are angry farmers in Millstreet looking for his head, apart from a few other heads, but there is a serious crisis in the dairy industry presently with hundreds of jobs being threatened. Farmers' incomes are being decimated.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I understand that this matter has been submitted for the Adjournment and may be taken this week at some stage, so there may be an opportunity for the Senator to speak.
I do not wish to pursue it now. We were being technical a few minutes ago about whether food, forestry or agriculture were mentioned. The ordinary farmer reading what has taken place here this afternoon would be shocked and horrified that we were being so technical about minor details and losing sight, perhaps, of the present overall crisis in beef and milk. He expects something positive from here about how it can be tackled and dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I thank the Members for their constructive contributions.
This is a useful Bill. It is nice to see the consumers being represented on An Bord Bia because they have the final say on the quality of food. We were delighted to co-operate with the Minister on the Bill.
Senator Dardis spoke about consistency a few minutes ago. I welcome the Bill and I cannot understand how it took so long before we established a Bord Bia. It has done a good job so far and, by adding a consumer to the board, it will do a better one. It would be a big mistake to separate An Bord Bia from the Department of Agriculture——
And Food.
——because what we should have here is the producer, processor and consumer working hand-in-hand to produce the best possibly product.
I welcome the provision of the Bill whereby consumers will now be represented on the board. I thank the Minister of State and his officials for the way in which they have dealt with this legislation. I hope it passes speedily through the other House and that it becomes law quickly. I look forward with confidence to the Minister of State returning to us once again next year with the next part of the Bord Bia saga.
Fishermen.
I join with the other Senators in wishing the Bill well. This Bill provides the final link between producers, processors and consumers. That is what is important. Experience of BSE makes the producer realise how important the consumer is. The debate in the House has been very healthy. There were no great amendments made to it because it was only concerned with providing a place for a consumer on the board. There was no need for any amendments, but the debate was good. We wish the Bill well.
Question put and agreed to.