Food Safety Authority of Ireland Bill, 1998: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 11, subsection (2), line 32, after "representative" to insert "and shall in particular include at least 8 persons representative of consumers".
The amendment is self explanatory. It relates to the section on the consultative council and seeks to include on the council at least eight persons representative of consumers. It makes a very important point in the context of the legislation and establishes a principle which, I am sure the Minister agrees, should be taken on board, particularly in relation to the Food Safety Authority. The views of consumers should be heard and represented in its structures.
The establishment of the authority is a very welcome and positive landmark and our amendments are designed to ensure greater public confidence in its operation. I know the Minister agrees that total confidence on the part of the public in the authority is extremely important. The importance of confidence in the quality of our food cannot be overestimated in terms of marketing our food at home and abroad. A large section of our economy relies on the quality of Irish produce sold here and exported. I ask the Minister to seriously consider the amendment, to agree to the importance of including consumers in the legislation in a way that not just pays lip service to the notion of taking their views on board and to include consumers on the consultative council.
I support Senator O'Meara's comments. The Bill must be seen to be about consumers. The fact they are not mentioned in the subsection in the context of membership of the council is very serious. The Bill should be given the importance it deserves. I am delighted it has been brought forward and it should provide for a sizeable body of consumers on the council. The Minister has stressed that consumers will be put on the council, but it would be wise to include such provision in the legislation. Too frequently producers take over such bodies as they have enormous interests and are very well organised. In other countries we have seen what can happen where food safety legislation is too easily influenced by producers.
It is essential that consumers are seen to have a strong voice in the legislation, something Senator O'Meara's amendment would allow for. Nobody is asking for consumers to have a majority voice on the council. However, giving them one third of the seats would make a big difference.
I do not agree with the amendment. The consultative council will have to be fairly widely based and I expect it will include consumers, producers, manufactures, etc., in any event. We are all consumers: we live in a consumer society. Everybody on the council will bring their own background and views, which will be consumerist, to it.
I presume the primary function of the Bill is to ensure everything to do with food, including presentation, is brought to the highest possible standard, something with which we all agree. I have no problem with the amendment concerning representatives of consumers being on the board, but, as Senator Fitzpatrick said, we are all consumers. However, I support the amendment. The primary issue is that food safety and presentation be brought to the highest standard.
I am not prepared to accept the amendment. A number of amendments were put forward on the composition of the consultative council during discussion of the Bill on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The Government undertook to again examine the issue and, having done so, agreed to increase the number of ministerial appointments from six to 12 and provide for one nominee of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and one of the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. These are in addition to two nominees of the Minister for Agriculture and Food and one nominee of the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources provided for in the original draft Bill. Apart from these nominees, the Minister for Health and Children will make seven appointments while the board will nominate the remaining 12.
As the consultative council will provide the authority with a consultative forum, it is essential it be as representative as possible. Having looked at the board's appointees and the nominations of other Ministers, the Minister will use his seven appointments to ensure a proper balance in representation. For this reason the section should not be prescriptive as to the groups covered by ministerial appointments.
I agree with Senator O'Meara that this is a landmark Bill and that the safety of food is of utmost important to the country. The issue is central to our economy as we export up to 90 per cent of our produce.
Senator Henry said it would be wise to include such provision in the legislation. However, section 12(4) states "for the purpose of promoting higher standards, the Authority shall endeavour to consult representatives of consumers, producers, retailers, distributors, caterers and manufacturers and, where appropriate, official agencies about the activities or other measures to be undertaken.".
As Senator Fitzpatrick pointed out, we are all consumers and it is in our own interest to have the highest standards. The 24 members of the consultative council, regardless of who they are, will be consumers in one way or another. Senator Burke also mentioned that fact and agreed with Senator O'Meara. As I pointed out, we went through this during Committee Stage in the Dáil and this was the type of scenario with which we came up. The board will be representative of the consumer. The consumer will be king or queen as regards the Food Safety Authority Bill, 1998.
The Minister of State outlined the appointments which will be made to the consultative council and the additional appointments agreed when the Bill passed through the Dáil. I am sure he will agree Members of this House are entitled to express their views on the Bill and the amendments.
The Bill does not refer to the interests of the consumer. The Minister of State said the appointees would be consumers, but that does not go far enough. As Senator Henry said, this issue is about the consumer. Unfortunately, for too long and for obvious reasons, such as our agriculturally based economy, the interests of the producers and those selling food have been to the fore. Those interests have been the first to be heard and responded to. Unless we state in legislation that the voice of the consumer shall be heard, it will not be. It is not sufficient to say we are all consumers because that does not mean we will be heard, although I hope we, as legislators, are heard.
When I go into a supermarket I am a consumer and unless I am represented on this representative council by people who are appointed purely to represent me and other consumers, there is no guarantee the voice and concerns of the consumer will be heard. The voice of the consumer must be paramount and to the fore. I am disappointed with the Minister of State's response. He said appointments will be made by Ministers and the Minister will have total discretion in terms of who to appoint. However, the legislation does not state that the Minister, in making those appointments, must take the consumers' point of view into account.
We may be consumers, but I wish the Minister of State was in the House yesterday for the motion on Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations to hear the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food, Deputy Ned O'Keeffe, a farmer, talk about the need to police the producers more rigorously when discussing the level of tuberculosis and brucellosis, of which this Minister of State would be well aware. There has been little reduction in these diseases in some counties for a long time. The producers, retailers, distributors, caterers and manufacturers are better organised than consumers, who are much more disparate and are represented by one organisation only. It would be worthwhile trying to ensure seats are kept for them.
The Minister of State mentioned the Ministers who will be in a position to nominate to the council. Apart from the Minister for Health and Children, I have grave doubts that any will nominate consumers as all seem to be from the producers side of the fence.
A problem I have is how does one define a consumer. Should these eight people come from the Consumers' Association of Ireland? Should it be the nominating body? Another problem I have, which is more fundamental, is that we live in a democracy and whatever Government is elected represents the feelings of the people at that point. The Government should be given as free a hand as possible to nominate the people it believes are best suited to whatever board to which it has nominating powers. That is a fundamental principle of democracy. If we try to tie a Minister's or a Government's hand, we are creating a democratic deficit.
I subscribe to the comments made by Senator Fitzpatrick pertaining to appointments to the board. The Minister of the day is elected by the people and, consequently, he or she should have the authority to nominate. It is the ultimate form of accountability which is important, especially in this matter.
Will the authority have any say in the control of conditions in which fish are transported after landing? A number of the older fishing vessels are not equipped to transport and to hold fish for any great length of time, although the new ones have refrigeration facilities. Will the Food Safety Authority take any action to ensure the right conditions obtain in the transportation of fish which has been landed?
I agree the consumer must be consulted and that they are paramount. However, this must be broadly based and take everyone into consideration. This is in the interests of the farming community and producers because one cannot sell poor quality food anymore. Producers know we need the correct standards and it is in their interests to achieve the highest standards.
The consultative council will provide the authority with a consultative forum. It is essential that it is as representative as possible because that is only fair. There will be 12 nominees to the board. Naturally, it will be in the board's interest to ensure good representation from those concerned with the consumers' interests. That is the reason this Bill was introduced. The consumer was clamouring for such legislation. When discussing the issue previously we said Senator Quinn was the first person to recognise this need. He is a retailer but recognised the direction in which the food area was going. He set about ensuring that the consumer knew about quality, traceability and safety. This legislation deals primarily with safety; but, as one can see, the consumer is coming more to the fore all the time. There are sufficient safeguards to ensure the consumer will be consulted.
As regards fish transportation, the Bill covers the production and transportation of produce over land and sea. The environmental health officers will have a function in that regard.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 12, subsection (7), line 7, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
This amendment is self-explanatory. The Bill states the authority may publish the opinions of the council and the amendment proposes to substitute the word "shall" for "may". This is an important amendment because there is an enormous difference between the words "may" and "shall". One could say the Minister of State may be in the House tomorrow rather than he shall be; there is a huge difference in emphasis. We are trying to ensure the views of the council are made available to the public and are published.
We discussed the representative nature of the consultative council. The Minister of State is of the view that it is broad based. I hope consumers are well represented, especially with regard to the appointments to be made by the Minister for Health and Children and by the board. It is very important that the opinions of the council be published and that the legislation sends a strong signal in that regard.
Section 14(7) states: "The Authority may publish the opinions of the Council". This provision is too weak. If we are of the opinion that the council is an important body and that the views of the council are important, especially to the wider authority, it should not be beyond the bounds of possibility for this legislation to represent that view. In doing so, it should provide that the authority shall publish the opinions of the council.
I hope the Minister of State accepts the amendment. It encourages openness and transparency, which is what the Government wants. If these reports are not published, information will be told to one person at a time. This will result in leaks. Nothing is worse than rumours, which are always more dramatic than factual reports.
I support the amendment and I urge the Minister to accept it in a time of openness and transparency.
This amendment was proposed and rejected in the Dáil. I accept Senator O'Meara's point that the Seanad does not necessarily have to accept what happens there. However, I am unable to accept this amendment. It seeks to substitute the word "shall" for "may" with regard to the publication of reports and opinions. Such an amendment, if accepted, would serve only to undermine the independence of the authority. It is envisaged that the consultative council will provide opinions on a broad range of issues. It is also expected the authority will act in a sufficiently responsible and transparent way to ensure that all opinions of the council important from a food safety and public health point of view are published. The authority must be free to give appropriate responses to the opinions it receives and it is essential that the ultimate message it delivers to the public is not clouded by a multiplicity of mandatory reports.
I do not agree the provision in the Bill weakens the position. We do not wish to be too prescriptive. It is important that sufficient room be left for the authority to take on board what is important. Many matters may be discussed. Some may not be as important as others. We do not wish to undermine the authority, but wish to leave it with a certain latitude and freedom to recognise what is and what may not be important. Not every discussion or proposal may be worthy of circulation.
I accept that point. However, the provision encourages secrecy, which is endemic in the culture of our State institutions. This will only change under specific direction. It may emerge in the public domain that the consultative council expressed an opinion on a matter of major public concern. The media would then demand the publication of this opinion, which may be acceded to under protest. However, if everything is in the public domain as a matter of course that would not arise, nor would the question of leaks.
Confidence in the Food Safety Authority and in food safety is a huge matter of public interest and concern for many reasons, including health and economic. If food safety issues arise in beef, chicken, eggs and so on and it transpires that the council had given an opinion which was not published, there would be an immediate demand for its publication. The failure to publish at the outset would also make it appear that attempts were made to conceal information. This would send the wrong signals and would undermine the basic principles the legislation seeks to establish, including public confidence and a relationship of confidence between the Food Safety Authority and all the bodies that relate to it.
It is not feasible to publicise all information on these issues at once. The scientific committee is one of the most important committees to be associated with the authority. Many issues may be discussed by the consultative council which may not be important and may not be scientific but which provide the opportunity for people to express their views. For example, hear-say could be considered. The most important thing regarding food safety is the science aspect. The authority will be wise enough to take on board what is important and not to publish reports that would not stand up to critical analysis.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 14 agreed to.
Sections 15 to 20, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 21.
Question proposed: "That section 21 stand part of the Bill."
I asked a number of unanswered questions on Second Stage which I indicated may be more appropriate to Committee Stage because they related to specific matters. This section makes provision for the authority to charge for services. Is it envisaged that it will be self financing? Will charges in respect of services supplied by agencies to the authority be retained by them or will they be remitted to the authority?
There is no provision that the authority will be necessarily self financing, but there can be charges for certain services. An allocation of £2.38 million has been made for the authority for this year. This will change in subsequent years. The authority does not have to be self financing.
Will charges in respect of services supplied by agencies to the authority be retained by them or will they be remitted to the authority?
That will be for the agencies to decide. They will be on a contract basis to the authority as such, but they will have their modi operandi. We will not interfere with them in that regard.
If a member of the authority calls on a small butcher shop or meat processing plant, will the agency charge for advice given and such like?
The present position, where it has the right to do so, will pertain for the interim period.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 22 to 30, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 31.
Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill."
This section, which sets out the composition and appointment procedures for the proposed board of the authority, was debated at length in the Dáil. It appears the composition of the board will be at the discretion of the Minister. The section does not set out any criteria the Minister should use in making appointments to the board. What is the thinking behind this?
Previous legislation setting up various bodies has been passed in this House and various categories, interest groups and areas of expertise have been set out in general terms. That is not the case in this Bill. I followed the debate in the Dáil and I am aware of the answers given there in regard to having a wide pool of talent available and ensuring various groups are represented. What criteria will be used for selecting people for appointment to the board? Will any provision be made, as exists in semi-State companies, for the election of members of staff to the board of the authority? Senator Feargal Quinn spoke about consumer representation during the Second Stage debate. Will the Minister give us an assurance that consumer interests will be strongly represented on the board?
Selection of members for appointment to the board will be made from a wide variety of interests in the food sector and from suitably qualified people. The section is not prescriptive. The current Food Safety Authority board comprises people from a wide variety of backgrounds — science, agriculture, executive and so on. The board will be broadly based, yet will be sympathetic to and knowledgeable about the food industry.
Will it be knowledgeable about consumer interests? The Bill's rhetoric is strong on consumer interests but the legal provisions to ensure consumer representation and to ensure the consumer is king are not provided. The Minister has not given any assurance about the strength of consumer representation. Will provision be made for the election of members of staff to the board?
The measures contained in the Bill are consumer oriented. One cannot be overly prescriptive in specifying the kind of people suitable for appointment to the board. Members of the board must be cognisant of the consumer's importance. That forms the background to the Bill. The consumer will be consulted. We are talking primarily about food safety. Consumers may have other interests in food quality in regard to taste, appearance and so on, but the issue of safety is of paramount importance as far as the Bill is concerned. The people appointed to the board will be under no illusions whatsoever as to their remit and will be selected sensitively.
I accept the Minister of State's comments. At the end of the day, the consumer is the judge. It is possible to obtain a range of opinion in the science area; indeed, it is possible to get experts and scientists to say almost anything nowadays. In assisting the public to judge the validity, strength and accuracy of the advice being offered to them, it is vital consumer interest be directly represented on the board of the authority.
There is a constant problem in regard to what consumers believe. The 15 members of the scientific committee will be drawn from a broad range of scientific opinion and the Deputy can rest assured the advice they will give will be the best and most up to date available. Reputable scientists must be believed. The board must consult with the scientific committee and, having done so, must make its decisions.
I have no problem with that. When the advice comes back from the scientific committee, it must be assessed and decided on by the board. I am seeking an assurance that consumers will be properly and well represented on the board of the authority.
It is not possible to provide the metaphysical certitude the Senator is seeking but it is possible to provide moral certitude. We cannot go beyond that.
It is a long time since I studied either metaphysics or morals. I merely want to know whether consumers will be represented on the board.
There is some danger in appealing to the scientific committee as it is also appointed by the Minister, a fact which I consider to be a fault in the Bill as it does not allow for sufficient independence.
The scientific committee is independent, but if it were appointed by the board it might feel beholden to it. It is preferable for the committee to be appointed by the Minister in order that members can express their opinions freely and not have to look over their shoulders at the board. The scientists are in a stronger position by virtue of the fact the committee is appointed by the Minister.
I believe it is worse for members of the committee to be obliged to look over their shoulders at the Minister.
I want to put a straight question to the Minister: will consumers be represented on the board?
They obviously will, as everyone is a consumer. I am sure the Minister will take the Senator's concerns into consideration when appointing the board.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 32 and 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 19, subsection (4), line 27, to delete "Minister following consultations with the".
The Minister stated earlier that the scientific committee is one of the most important elements of the Bill. The fact the scientific committee is appointed by the Minister diminishes its independence. It would be wiser to allow the authority appoint the committee. It does not show much confidence in the authority not to allow it appoint its own scientific committee. The committee must be seen to be independent. If there was any question that its members were the Minister's pet poodles, it would spell the end for the committee. The Bill does not provide any scope for the Minister to consult with the Science Council, the food economics unit in UCC or any other relevant body. The Minister will have complete responsibility for the committee.
Sadly, we have experienced problems in the past where Ministers made appointments to boards, some of which were tainted with suspicion. The first item on today's Order Paper is the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, which will increase the number of members of An Bord Pleanála. Senator Ryan pointed out that, given the problems experienced in regard to appointments to the board, it might have been wiser to debate the issue. We are now sanctioning another board to which ministerial appointments will be made. I would have thought it would have been wiser for members of the scientific committee to be appointed by the authority, given the responsibility it will have.
If you are going to give the authority real power and independence, let them make the nominations to the scientific committee. This committee will not only be looked upon from a national point of view, it will be important on the international stage. One of the valuable aspects of this legislation is that it will cover national and international food suppliers, unlike in the past when there was one set of regulations for supply on the home market and another for produce which was sent abroad.
The reality of political life is that if anything goes wrong with the Food Safety Authority, the Minister, not the chairman of the board, will be in the firing line. We saw that during the debacle with the Blood Transfusion Service Board; it was the Minister for Health of the day who was answerable. The same would happen here regardless of the way appointments to the committee were arranged. In the eyes of the public the responsibility would lie with the Department and the Minister of the day. If that is the reality we should leave the appointments to the board and the scientific committee to the Minister.
I am not prepared to accept this amendment regardless of the cogent arguments which have been put forward. It is envisaged that the principles of openness and transparency will be key factors in the operation of the Food Safety Authority. It is not appropriate that the board of the authority should have sole responsibility for the appointment of the body from whom it will receive scientific advice.
This does not mean the Minister does not trust the board, as was suggested here last week, but rather that he wishes to guarantee the independence of the scientific committee. The consultative process provided for in the Bill ensures that the board will have an input on appointments but will not be in a position to exert undue influence. This provision ensures that the independence of the scientific committee is not compromised.
Senator Quinn mentioned the role of the scientific committee in ensuring the credibility of the authority. The question of consumers' perception is fundamental to the issue of food safety. It is important, therefore, that the board of the authority is seen not to exert undue influence over those from whom it receives its scientific advice.
As the Minister for Health and Children will be responsible to the Oireachtas for the activities of the Food Safety Authority, it is only fair and reasonable that he should have the final say in the make up of these bodies.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 20, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following new subsection:
"(14) Advice furnished by the Scientific Committee to the Board may also be furnished to the Consultative Committee and the chairperson of the Scientific Committee may from time to time meet with the Consultative Committee to discuss such advice.".
This amendment is designed to ensure that the advice which is furnished by the scientific committee to the board would also go to the consultative committee and that the legislation reflects our desire that there be communication between the scientific and consultative committees. This would be important because the scientific committee, as set out in the legislation, has a central role. The consultative committee would be dependent on the opinions of the scientific committee before it would make decisions on many issues. It is important that the legislation reflects that and ensure that all elements of the wider authority — the board of the authority, the consultative committee and the scientific committee — work together and communicate with each other. The legislation should reflect that we consider it important that that happens.
When we finish here the Bill, as amended, is all that is left. It is the legislation which will determine how this agency works. We have all said how important it is that the authority works as well as possible. The object of the amendment is to ensure that happens. I ask the Minister to note the language in the amendment —"may" and not "shall". It is our desire that this happens and we are not making it compulsory. It is our wish that the culture of this organisation would be one where communication is good. That is the best way to ensure the authority works well and has the full confidence of the public.
This amendment was tabled and defeated during the Dáil debate. It is not acceptable. It is an operational matter for the authority to facilitate communication between the structural elements of the authority provided in the Bill. It is inappropriate to provide for such arrangements in detail in the text of the Bill. We do not like to be too prescriptive. There is enough latitude to let the authority get on with its work.
We use the term "may" in the amendment. We are not making it prescriptive, it is aspirational, but it would be in the legislation and would reflect our view in that regard. I do not agree that it would be inappropriate to insert the amendment.
I accept the import of the word "may" but this is the best we can do. We do not want to tie the hands of the authority. The more open it is, the better the chance it has to move forward.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 34 agreed to.
Sections 35 and 36 agreed to.
SECTION 37.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 21, lines 36 to 41, to delete subsection (7).
It is interesting that the chief executive officer will be excluded from the main board and the boards of the scientific committee and any sub-committees. The Department of Health and Children has a lack of confidence in the chief executive officers appointed. It is the only Department which does not appoint chief executive officers to boards. The chief executive officer was not appointed to the Medicines Board. Last week we debated the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill and it made provision to appoint the chief executive officer to the board. Senator Quinn tells me the chief executive officer is on the board of virtually every semi-State body. It is the modern practice to appoint chief executive officers to boards and it would be wise to show confidence in the chief executive officer.
The gentleman appointed is doing an excellent job and we can only hope that his successors will be as good. It is essential that the chief executive officer is on the board. I cannot understand why it has been decided to keep the chief executive officer off the board. This is a downgrading of his position and apparently is contrary to best management practice. This happens in the private and public sectors and I would like to know why the Minister of State considers it best to keep the chief executive officer off the board? Arguments that this will make him seem more independent or less under the wing of the authority are not convincing as they do not rely on whether or not he is on the board.
Senator Henry is correct. I know of no health board which has a chief executive officer as a member. The chief executive officer attends board meetings but is not a voting member. I have an open mind as to whether this is a good idea. However, all boards which deal with the public interest or consumer affairs, such as health boards, are highly political. It may be a good idea that there is a clear separation between the political responsibility of the board to fulfil its public function, the chief executive officer's responsibilities to carry out the board's instructions and the Department. Senator Henry will remember that the then proposed chief executive officer of the board said at a subcommittee meeting that we are not dealing with rocket science but public health.
I support the comments of Senator Fitzpatrick on the exclusion of the chief executive officer from the board. I have been a member of a health board for many years and it would be ludicrous to have a chief executive officer who has an administrative-executive position taking policy decisions. There should be a clear separation of roles. It would not be correct if a county manager had the power to elect the chairman of a county council. I subscribe to the provisions of this section.
I cannot accept this amendment. The role of the chief executive within the authority is, as the title suggests, an executive role with certain defined statutory functions, such as the serving of closure orders, section 53, and prohibition orders, section 54. The Bill provides that the chief executive may attend meetings of the board, the scientific committee and its subcommittee and may speak at and offer advice at such meetings. The right to attend meetings of the board and the scientific committee ensures that the chief executive is central to the decision making process of the authority yet enables him or her to retain autonomy so that his or her statutory functions can be independently discharged.
In order to create and maintain his or her independence within the authority, it is essential that the chief executive is seen to be at one remove from the board and the scientific committee, particularly in the area of scientific advice, where the two bodies concerned may not always be in agreement. This is a situation which pertains and works to the satisfaction of all concerned in the Irish Medicines Board.
I am not in the least comforted by the remarks of Senators Fitzpatrick and Glynn. Is this to be a highly political board? I did not think it was going to be such. I was alarmed enough by the thought that there were going to be ministerial nominations for both the board and the scientific committee, now I am told that it is going to be a highly political board. Is this true? This board is totally different to a health board. People are elected to health boards so they can be as political as they like. However, I thought this was going to be an independent body.
I could be facetious and say that everyone in Ireland is political in one way or another.
There are political appointments to health boards.
I do not think the board will be political in the way feared by Senator Henry.
I hope not. I am disappointed that the Minister of State is not accepting this amendment, as Senator Quinn had hoped. I hope that Senators Fitzpatrick and Glynn are not right when they say that this board will be the same as a health board. That would be terrible and quite different to what one imagines as an independent board giving advice on one of the most serious issues, both nationally and internationally and from a health and economic point of view. It is essential that the board is seen to be independent. It would be terrible if it was seen to be a political institution. I am very worried by the remarks made in the House. I am sorry that the amendment is not being accepted and Senator Quinn will be very disappointed. In view of the work he has put into the food industry, semi-State and educational bodies, this is particularly disappointing as he has vast experience in these areas which other Senators do not have. Senator Quinn's words must be looked at carefully.
I make no apology for saying that every board appointed by every Minister has been a political board and long may that continue. I believe in the supremacy of the democratic right of Governments to make appointments. This board will be no different to any other board in that respect.
I can understand the motivation behind Senator Quinn's amendment. However, without being in any way derogatory, he is approaching this issue from a commercial stance. His track record is second to none in that area. From a commercial viewpoint there are good reasons as to why the chief executive officer should be a member of the board of whatever company he or she runs. However, in public bodies such as health boards and safety authorities, there has to be a clear division between the political and administrative functions. Making a chief executive officer a voting member of a board would be wrong. There is nothing to recommend that approach in public life.
I too make no apologies for my comments. I have been a member of a local authority for almost 20 years and of a health board for the past 18 years. Senator Fitzpatrick is correct in stating that there is a clear difference between the private and public sectors. Appointing a chief executive officer to a board may be advisable in the private sector; however, a line must be drawn in the public sector where there is the issue of accountability. It would be ludicrous if the chief executive officer of a health board or the Food Safety Authority was in a position to elect the chairman or take decisions other than administrative decisions. It is an administrative position and should remain so. Administrative matters are the reserve of the chief executive officer and he or she has the final say in the context of that role. However, policy matters are the reserve of board members. Someone must be accountable and who better than someone elected by the public — the Minister. That is common sense in action.
I do not want to be the judge of this. This issue will certainly generate a great deal of controversy. It can be argued either way. Senator Henry pointed out that the practice in the private sector is that the chief executive officer is a member of the board. However, the Irish Medicines Board is working well. Any problem people have had with governmental boards has been that the chief executive officer did not act quickly enough in making decisions. Sometimes people cannot wait for boards to make decisions before they take action.
It is important that the chief executive is seen to be at a remove from the board and the scientific committee in this area. Advice will come from both the scientific committee and the board and this may differ slightly. A judgment must be made so it is important to have someone who can act in an independent fashion.
If the arguments of Senators Glynn and Fitzpatrick about why the chief executive officer should not be on the board are followed up, we should recall the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill and remove the chief executive officer from that board. That legislation stated that the chief executive officer should be on the board. We argued in favour of it last week and against it this week.
I am extremely disappointed to hear that appointments will be made on a political rather than a merit basis. It will be a serious deficit in the appointment of the board and the scientific committee if that is how it will be done. Appointments to boards such as these should be not be political. The best people in the country should be appointed to them.
I wish to turn the argument slightly. If Senator Henry were Minister for Health and Children, I do not believe she would accept this amendment. She would also be extremely upset by the argument which implies that Ministers act from ulterior motives, behind closed doors and with no public interest in mind. To make that insinuation about any Minister, regardless of the party to which they belong, lowers political debate. If we allow such arguments to go unchallenged, it is not surprising such a poor view is taken of the political process.
I wish to correct Senator Henry when she said appointments would not be made on merit. They will be and it would be foolish for any Minister not to appoint the proper people to any board. As my two colleagues have said, we must have faith in the political process. We are elected. Many people appointed to boards are not as accountable as elected representatives, especially Ministers, with whom the buck stops. We have seen this full well in many other situations. I do not accept the argument that they will not be appointed on merit. Regarding the board and the scientific committee, the Senator may rest assured that merit will be the first criterion in any appointment.
I thank the Minister of State for saying that members will be appointed on merit. Perhaps I misunderstood Senator Fitzpatrick because I thought he said that appointments would be political.
My concern is that the Department of Health and Children appears to be the only one which does not display confidence in its chief executive officers by putting them on boards. I do not believe I have been given a good argument as to why it is the only Department which does not do so. Other Departments do it and it seems that, for them, these people are suitable for appointment to boards. The Department of Health and Children is the one with which I would be most involved. There are excellent people in the position of chief executive officer so I find it difficult to understand why, if chief executive officers are suitable for appointment to boards in other Departments, the Department of Health and Children has decided they are not. I will not press the amendment because it will not be accepted. Were it pressed to a vote, we would lose.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 37 agreed to.
SECTION 38.
Question proposed: "That section 38 stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Gallagher: This section deals with the appointment of staff by the board and the transfer of existing staff covered by other relevant sections. It sets out the terms under which staff would be transferred and the general criteria for it. Is it envisaged that all staff currently employed in food control will eventually be transferred to the authority?
It is difficult to say because some are employed on a contractual basis and it may differ from sector to sector, such as agriculture, marine, etc. I could not say all staff, but in the final analysis the contract basis should be phased out and the staff would be transferred to the new authority. I cannot give a timescale for that but it is what is envisaged in the long term.
I thank the Minister of State. Regarding staff who do not wish to transfer to the proposed authority, the Minister said in response to my concerns expressed on Second Stage that the trade unions and staff representative organisations would be consulted and I welcome that. Even with that process completed, what would happen if members of staff did not wish to transfer to the authority? Would they be compelled to do so?
That will be a matter for the individual agencies. They, rather than the authority, will have to straighten out that issue, in the interim period at any rate.
Is it correct to say that compulsion is not being ruled out at this stage?
No, that cannot be inferred from the statement I made. There will be negotiations if that situation arises in individual agencies. It would not be a matter for the authority but for the contracting agencies at this time.
Regarding the transfer of staff to the authority, the Minister of State said that this would happen over a period of time. If agreement has been reached with staff organisations and there are still individuals within any of the organisations from which staff are to be transferred to the authority who do not wish to transfer, will they be compelled to do so?
The modern way of doing things is not by compulsion. There must always be negotiations. I would not see such a scenario arising.
Is it correct to say then that the staff will not be compelled to transfer against their will?
I do not envisage that but it will be a matter for the individual agencies to deal with it, pro tempore at any rate.
I wish to clarify this. Is the compulsory transfer of staff being ruled out?
I would not see compulsory transfers being an issue. That is only my opinion. I cannot speak for the authority.
Services are currently provided in non-food areas, such as nursing homes and tobacco regulations, by health board staff such as environmental health officers. What will happen to those services and duties of health boards if the staff are transferred from the health boards to the Food Safety Authority?
Those services will still continue with the various agencies. They will not be primary functions of the Food Safety Authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 39 agreed to.
SECTION 40.
Question proposed: "That section 40 stand part of the Bill."
I ask the Minister to delete section 40(1)(d) and (e) in which members of a health board or of a local authority, be it an urban district, corporation or county council, are precluded from being on the board or, if they become members, are obliged to resign from the board. This is a terrible decision. Other legislation has provided that members of local authorities cannot be appointed to certain boards but this legislation provides that members of the authority cannot be a member of a health board.
Members of health boards come from all sections of society and include doctors, nurses and lawyers. It would be a miscarriage of justice to include subparagraphs (d) and (e) of section 40(1). They should be deleted. The Minister does not have to appoint them as members of the authority and he can omit anybody who becomes a member of a local authority or health board, but a member of the Food Safety Authority should not have to resign on being elected by the people. Under this section, if the people decide to elect a person who happens to be a member of this board to a local authority, he or she must automatically resign from the board.
There are about 4,000 members of health boards and local authorities. They are precluded from membership of this board and if they are members of the board they must resign on being elected to a local authority. The Minister nominates people to health boards and by so nominating them he precludes them from membership of the board of the Food Safety Authority. The Minister of State should seriously reconsider these provisions.
All nominees to these boards are political nominations. However, the impression is being given that anybody who is involved in politics, regardless of whether it is at local or national level, should not be involved in any other areas.
Like other Senators, I have been in public life for many years and I have been a member of many boards. However, political recognition for public representatives is now not being given in areas outside politics. The experience politicians have gained over many years in public life is also not being recognised. One gains a great deal of experience from membership of various boards and authorities. We are prepared to give recognition to chief executive officers at national level in the case of health boards where chief executive officers have been appointed to the board of the National Health Authority.
However, this section provides that any person who is a member of the Food Safety Authority and who becomes a member of a health authority can no longer be a member of this authority. That is a serious development. It begs the question as to whether one should become a member of this board or give one's services to a health authority as one cannot do both.
I accept there is political bias in local authorities and in the Houses of the Oireachtas. However, there is a different situation in the health boards. Will we get the best from people if we tell them that if they are nominated by a relevant authority or association to a health authority, they cannot be members of the Food Safety Authority board? That is not fair to the person who secures such a nomination.
The two most famous words in politics are "may" and "shall", the Minister may or shall. The word "may" should be used in this section. It is important not only for the reasons I have mentioned but also for the Minister. The Minister should have that authority and should not lose the benefit of a person because the person has been nominated to another body. That is particularly relevant in the case of a health board. If a person becomes a member of a health board, he or she should not lose his or her membership of the Food Safety Authority board. That is not the way to get the best from people. In addition, people get experience from participation on health boards. Health and healthy food are extremely important and a board member should not have to choose one or the other.
A good argument has been made on this issue. The section does not cast a slur on elected representatives to either body. The provisions are included on legal advice probably because health boards and local authorities might be contracting agencies. I would not object to the Senators' arguments in other situations but that is the basis for the inclusion of these provisions in this legislation.
I accept the Minister of State's argument. However, a person who works for the health board or for a local authority——
I am sorry to interrupt but the Minister of State is urgently required for a vote in the Dáil. I propose the adjournment of the House for 15 minutes.
I propose to make an amendment to the Order of Business at that stage.
Mr. Cregan
Is the Minister of State not paired?
I understood the Minister of State was paired when he was due to appear before the Seanad.
The House has agreed to suspend business until 1 p.m.
Sitting suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 1 p.m.
I take on board the point made by the Minister about the conflict of interest regarding contractual business with the health and local authorities. It is possible however we could have a farcical situation where a county manager or a chief executive of a health board appointed by the Minister could sit on this board where all those contracts are made, but a publicly elected person, a local authority member or a member of the health board cannot be appointed. I cannot accept the Minister's viewpoint.
The last Government accepted an amendment here which referred to local authority members being appointed to the board of the Dublin Port Authority. The point has been made that the Minister does not have to appoint a member of the local authority or health board to any of those authorities. But the previous Government did accept an amendment whereby a local authority member could be accepted. Again, I ask the Minister to delete section 40(c) and (d) because of their reference to elected members of a local authority or health board. I cannot see a conflict of interest if they are appointed by the Minister or elected to the health board.
Unfortunately, a general impression has been created by several Governments that public representatives at either national or local level should only be involved with one authority. The previous Government reversed this position because we made a very strong argument with regard local authority members in particular. The board of Bord Gáis now consists of local authority members, something which was not possible in the past. The board are answerable to people at levels relevant to authority members, particularly in the Cork region. For example, a former Lord Mayor of Cork is now a member of its board. That broke the mould as regards public representatives being appointed to the boards of national authorities. The late Councillor John Carroll was a member of the board of the national Health Authority which was as a result of arguments made by public representatives on behalf of local authority members.
Senator Burke mentioned section 34 in regard to who can be nominated by Ministers. The Minister can make 12 appointments under this Bill. There is a danger that you can give the impression that you are biased against public representatives. I do not want to be seen in such light. But because a person is appointed a member of a health board, we should not lose the benefit of their experience and ability. There are some organisations which insist on dismissing people when they become members of a health board. Consideration should be given to this by the Minister. If a person becomes an employee of a health board or involved directly or indirectly in regard to contract work, that can lead to a very dangerous situation. Senator O'Meara raised this point about using the words "shall" or "may". This can be a compromising situation.
There will also be a contradiction in terms between one Minister and another because, under section 34, relevant Ministers can make nominations. Will we be able to get the best people to stand for office at local government level if they cannot get recognition elsewhere? Will we be able to entice professional people to stand for public office? These people will not be asked to represent local authorities at national board levels. This situation has gone on for far too long and we should not allow it to continue.
I would like to put the record straight. It was during the time of the last Government, the Rainbow Government, that the former Minister, Deputy Rabbitte, dealt with the Bill. Many Opposition Members should remember the occasion because they were visiting the JFK on that particular evening. It was Senators Mooney, Daly and myself who took a stance on behalf of local authority members that enabled the people mentioned by Senator Cregan to be represented on those boards, not members of the Fine Gael Party. I have the greatest respect for Senator Cregan as a businessman and an excellent Senator who has made a major contribution to the House.
It was accepted by the Government.
The amendment was accepted because nobody called for a division.
We advised on what should be done.
I support most of the sentiments expressed by Senator Burke and Senator Cregan. People who wish to enter public life in a voluntary capacity should be encouraged and not punished as proposed in the legislation. The Minister, the Government and particularly the civil servants should take note that such provisions will not be considered lightly in the future.
Local authority representatives do not appear to be popular with anybody. The Government and all political parties appreciate the effort made by local public representatives on behalf of the people. County councillors are the salt of the earth in terms of the voluntary contribution of their time, effort and expertise to making Ireland a better place for the underprivileged and all those they represent. It is a disgraceful suggestion that people should be debarred from membership of the board of the authority because of their membership of a local authority.
We have the Leader programme, the enterprise boards and other splinter groups organised and appointed by various Governments but only the local representatives are answerable to the people. Senators and Deputies must ask the public to re-elect us on our record in the Houses of the Oireachtas. This is the strength of appointing public representatives to many bodies.
A conscious decision was taken many years ago to debar Senators and Deputies from membership of various boards. Since time is of the essence and our job is legislating. I agree with that decision. However, if a person serves on a local authority and has made a major contribution in their field, there is no reason he or she should be debarred from membership of a board. Why should a doctor or a nurse be debarred from membership of this board? They are experts in this field. Will people who are not experts and who have no experience making decisions on expenditure of taxpayers' money be appointed? That is ludicrous.
We must take account of the advice of the Attorney General regarding a conflict of interest. That aspect must be sacrosanct when it comes to decisions on the expenditure of taxpayers' money. The Minister's comments must be accepted in that regard. However, Ministers and their officials should think carefully before introducing legislation in the Seanad in the future which debars local authority representatives from membership of boards. I speak for all Members in that regard.
Many Senators are elected directly by local authority members. They are wise men and women elected by the people in their areas. They make a voluntary contribution in the majority of cases and this is not recognised by the public or the media. Local authority members are extremely generous with their time in contributing towards better communities. The extent of their voluntary commitment to the people and their communities is unimaginable.
I support the sentiments expressed by Senator Burke and Senator Cregan but I ask them to withdraw their objections. They will receive full support from me as Leader of the House and the Government side in the future for their views.
I can claim some credit for the amendment to which Senator Cassidy referred. At that time I made the point that people should not be excluded by virtue of their membership of a local authority or other local body. This has become a standard provision in legislation. It was contained in three Bills in recent weeks, including the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill which was introduced by the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I made the point then that, as a general principle, people should not be excluded from boards by virtue of their membership of a local authority, a health board or the European Parliament. In the context of the Industrial Development (Enterprise Ireland) Bill, I accepted that members of local authorities should not be on the board of that body because there is a potential fundamental conflict of interest. The body will deal with the allocation of industry and jobs to particular areas and there is potential for difficulty. However, I do not understand the difficulty in this Bill. It is retrograde that it has become a standard provision in legislation.
Much expertise, knowledge and wisdom are available on a voluntary basis from people who are members of local authorities. Section 41 contains a provision regarding declarations of interest. If people are nominated to the board, there is an obligation on them to declare any interest which might be associated with their membership. This is a safeguard.
We have reached a point where political correctness is excluding people who have a contribution to make. One wonders why people would bother to put themselves forward for election to local authorities or other local bodies—
——if, by virtue of that public service, they are excluded. Interest groups have been given statutory positions on boards — for example, in the Bord Bia Bill. I accept farmers and consumers should have a role in that board, but if interest groups are allowed under law to have places on boards, members of local authorities should also be allowed to be members of boards. This principle should be taken on board at some level by the people who draft Bills.
I support the comments of the previous speakers. When the county enterprise boards were first set up, members of local authorities were excluded. A change was then introduced which allowed a certain number to become members of boards. As a member of an enterprise board I find that when a difficulty arises which requires local knowledge, the members of the enterprise board from the business, community and trade union sectors always look to the local authority members for advice and guidance because they are in touch with the situation on the ground.
I agree thoroughly with the points made by other speakers. This provision has crept in under various Governments in recent years and appears now to be standard. I welcome the comments of Senator Burke and Senator Cregan and I particularly welcome the marker put down by the Leader on this matter.
I have been a member of a local authority for almost 20 years and I was nominated to the Seanad by a local authority organisation — the Association of Municipal Authorities of Ireland which I am proud to represent. The approach of successive Governments and particularly Departments appears to be that local authority members have nothing to offer. The media never miss an opportunity to bash local authority members. They must consider them as some type of alien life form.
I have been a member of a local authority for almost 20 years. The authority includes farmers, butchers, solicitors, teachers, nurses and businessmen. This is the type of collective expertise available in local government. I subscribe to the views expressed on this matter. I would love to meet any member of society who can contribute more than local authority members.
Reference was made to the county enterprise boards. I made it quite clear to my group on Westmeath County Council that I would not be considered for membership because the county manager had, in essence, the power to appoint members. In deference to our then county manager, he said the groups should pick their own members but the fact is that he had the power to appoint them. So much for the belief in the powers of local authority members.
I have met many people in my county and around the country who had to leave local government because they could not afford to continue as members. They were giving so much time to this unpaid job that their businesses suffered. Those people are lost to the local government system and to democracy.
I take the point made by the Minister of State in regard to legal difficulties. However, as the Leader said, let it be noted by all and sundry that this House will not stand for local authority members being kicked around. They have a great deal to offer in every walk of life and should not be precluded from membership of any board. It is time we put down a marker for the future in regard to sections of Bills which preclude local authority members from membership of public boards.
I agree with the sentiments which have been expressed. I supported the Minister earlier in regard to the section which allows the Minister to make appointments to the scientific committee and the general board. I am now supporting him in excluding certain categories of people from the board, that is, elected public representatives, mostly local authority members. I find it difficult to do that but we are subject to time constraints and the Bill must be passed.
However, we should send a copy of the debate on section 40 to the Attorney General and the parliamentary draftsman. They should pin it up in their offices so that it is in the forefront of their thoughts when they draw up future Bills. We are not here to undermine the political process or to exclude publicly elected representatives from the exercise of their duties as long as there is no conflict of interest between their public duties and their board membership.
In general, I agree entirely with what Senators are saying and their principle is correct. I thank Senator Burke for raising this issue. However, this is not a universal situation; as Senator Dardis pointed out, this is particular instance. Our legal advice on this issue is that there might be a conflict of interest. Senators can readily see where that might arise in this situation. However, I agree entirely with their stance on other issues in regard to members of health boards and county councils. I thank Senator Cassidy for his remarks on how we might resolve the issue on this occasion. This points up the value of this House in scrutinising certain aspects of Bills and shows there is value in having a Seanad.
I appreciate the points made by the Minister of State and the Leader of the House, Senator Cassidy. I hope there will be no further instances of this. Local authority members have been debarred from boards in several Bills. However, there is an added provision in this Bill in regard to the health boards, which is why I raised the issue and have spoken so often on it. I hope we will not see a recurrence of this in the House. I ask the Minister of State to bring this back to his colleagues so that we will have no further cases of elected members of local authorities or health boards being debarred from board membership.
The Minister of State is in a very serious dilemma. We are not here to delay the Bill but to make a point very strongly. Provisions such as this in regard to public representatives are becoming the norm in Bills, which I greatly resent. Members on both sides of the House should make it known that it will not be accepted in all Bills. There is now a section in almost every Bill which provides that public representatives should not receive recognition for various matters.
I am a member of an enterprise board. The best tactical politicians of all are the city and county managers. The manager leaves it to the local authority members to nominate the members of the enterprise board, who the manager then puts in writing as his nominees. Enterprise boards must deal with FÁS representatives, business people and so on. However, it is left to the public representatives on the board to make the serious decisions. Why are we not allowed to chair any of these authorities? Are we really saying that people who have been in public life for 20 or 30 years are not fit to chair a local enterprise board? There is no one better than a person who has been elected and has to knock on doors every five years.
I understand the excluding of Oireachtas Members. However, we should not knock ourselves. I am delighted three Government Senators are saying that civil servants responsible for these Bills should be told the views of this House and of public representatives.
It is not fair that a person appointed to the board by a Minister must resign if he is asked to represent his group at health board level. He should only have to resign from the authority if the Minister says he should. The words "shall resign" should be replaced by the words "may resign". The Minister should look very seriously at that, particularly in regard to health boards. Farming groups, educational authorities, environmental groups and community groups are represented on boards, but there are no representatives elected by the people. Public representatives have been knocked for too long.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 41 and 42 agreed to.
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."
This section relates to the disclosure of information. Is the Food Safety Authority covered by the Freedom of Information Act? If not, when will it be?
I am glad to inform the Senator it will be covered.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 44 to 47, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 48.
Question proposed: "That section 48 stand part of the Bill."
Will the board set out a proper consultation review and planning process prior to an agency being granted a service contract or having a service contract removed from it? Will there be an appeal system for agencies which have a service contract terminated by the authority? This will be very important to reassure staff working with those bodies. Will a process be set out which will be open and which will have an appeal mechanism beyond question?
That will be a matter for the authority, but I envisage the Senator's proposal being part of the operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 49 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 59.
Question proposed: "That section 59 stand part of the Bill."
This section refers to the transfer of assets and liabilities from former authorities. The Minister might consider a site in Mayo for the authority, as it would have many advantages, such as cheap house prices for staff.
The Senator will be killed in the rush.
The Minister of State cannot refuse.
I am glad to have the support of Senator Burke. If I can persuade the senior Minister I will have no problem bringing the authority to Ballina.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 60 to 65, inclusive, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
Legislation of this nature would not be required if the industry was doing its job properly. It is evident, unfortunately, that some of the lessons of the BSE crisis and other incidents in the food industry have not been learnt fully. That is why it is essential to regulate the industry under the aegis of the Department of Health. My party was very anxious that that Department, not the Department of Agriculture, should be responsible. It appeared at the time of the BSE crisis that we had learnt that the consumer, and the consumer's safety, dictates everything, but it now seems that we did not. Ireland needs to produce food of the highest quality that can be traded internationally with confidence. There must be full traceability from inside the farm gate to the supermarket shelf.
The Schedule refers to the Abattoirs Act. There have been references recently to the fact that small country butchers were almost put out of business by the cost of upgrading their slaughtering premises. Many of them must now purchase meat from outside agencies. I believe that that was correct, because there were instances of cattle being slaughtered and of meat being handled in circumstances that would not have been allowed had consumer interests been taken to heart. It should also be noted that many country butchers upgraded their premises at enormous cost to meet regulations they knew they had to implement. It is not easy, but there is no choice because the reputation of our food industry is at stake. This is of critical national importance.
I agree with Senator Dardis that this Bill should not be necessary, but it shows us that the industry has not responded as it should have to growing public concerns about food. It is clear that the Government has not taken on board the fundamental issue of the role of consumers. The word "consumer" does not appear in the Bill, which does not go far enough in this regard. I hope the Bill is implemented successfully and has the full confidence of the consumer. We will monitor this closely and I hope we do not have another incident like the BSE outbreak. Public confidence in the food we eat and we export should not be undermined. Somebody will now tell me that the word "consumer" is mentioned in the Bill, but it is not central to the legislation, which is disappointing given the debate on the memberships of the board and representative council. The Government should have enshrined the importance of the consumer in this Bill.
Senator O'Meara must have missed the word "consumer" in section 12. Senator Dardis is right in that this legislation should not be necessary, but environmental health officers would say that never was a Bill more needed. We have lax standards of food production, and Senator Dardis is right to say that we should have learnt our lessons from BSE. I will not mention E-coli — the fact that people must be told not to drink unpasteurised milk on their own farms because of the health dangers — or the food poisoning in Croke Park. I know I am speaking to a discreet audience and that is why I say these things sotto voce. There is so much that this Bill covers that I congratulate the Minister; whatever deficiencies are in it, its provisions are badly needed.
An extraordinary aspect of this were the different standards for food to be eaten here and that which was sent abroad. I felt it was interesting that if oysters were not good enough for the Cork market they could be shipped to Paris. It was an interesting way to look at food exports. I hope this Bill ensures improvements in all aspects of the food industry, although I wish the consumer was more to the fore despite being mentioned in section 12.
I thank the Minister of State and wish him the best of luck with the Bill.
I thank all Senators for their contributions. Food is a vital product for Ireland. Everyone has an interest in food, be they consumers, producers, importers or exporters. Senator Dardis is right in that we should not need this Bill, but we also import food from 270 countries. I know it will lead to higher standards which will be the best possible. We can never guarantee that another outbreak of salmonella, E-coli, etc., will not occur, but if it does we will have mechanisms in place to respond to it. We will always try to aspire to the highest standards. We are fortunate to be starting from a very high base in terms of food safety, having one of the best records in the world. I thank my staff and the Department.
I echo the sentiments of Senator Burke and thank the Minister.
I thank the Minister and the other Senators who contributed to the debate. With the passage of the Bill we will have far higher standards in the context of food from farm to fork.
Question put and agreed to.
