Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1999

Vol. 160 No. 5

National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill, 1999: Committee Stage.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 4.

Amendment No. 2 is related to amendment No. 1 and they shall be taken together by agreement.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, line 38, after "business" to insert "; provided that the Minister may by regulations phase in the applications of this Act to food businesses".

I acknowledge the Minister's response to the comments made by Senators yesterday on taking this Bill. Today we will deal only with Committee Stage and Report Stage will not take place until the autumn.

The Minister will recall the comments of Members of the House about the scope of the Bill. While we welcome the Bill in principle – there is widespread acknowledgement of the need for it and hope that it will be beneficial in restoring confidence in the industry locally and internationally in Irish beef – there is a fear that by not covering the product from farm gate to consumer plate, as outlined by the IFA, it will not go far enough to restore that confidence.

Amendment No. 1 addresses that. Its intent is to apply the scheme right across food businesses. This amendment will give the Minister the power to phase the Act into such businesses. I recognise that the drafting of the Bill means it would be too much to expect that the Minister would widen the application of the Bill in such a significant fashion. The amendment does not ask the Minister to do that. It asks him to extend the scope of the Bill by phases and ensure the protection afforded by the beef assurance scheme extends as far as possible. In doing that the Bill would be strengthened, consumer confidence would increase and the legislation would have a greater effect than the Minister first intended.

I support the amendment. Senator O'Meara wants to ensure that the assurances of the Bill go all the way from the farm gate to the consumers' table. The Minister may say that food hygiene regulations take over at the farm gate but we would prefer better continuity, with a clear link between the assurance this Bill will give from the birth of a farm animal to its slaughter.

Farmers want to play their part in this assurance to the consumer. Any connection to fouling before the product has left the farm should be clear and consistent. If food is spoiled at some stage between the farm gate and the consumers' table, it should be clear that it does not reflect on the farmer. Under the beef assurance scheme the origin of the product, be it beef or dairy produce, will be clearly stated. Fouling can take place after the product leaves the farm. Farmers would be concerned to ensure that there would not be an ill reflection on them because the chain had broken down somewhere. The Minister may convince us by talking about the food hygiene regulations and the environmental health and veterinary officers who attend ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections in abattoirs to give their assurances but one can see how the chain can break down.

I support the amendment. I understand the point which the Minister made yesterday. He told us that he is trying to cover one part of the garden while other gardeners look after other parts of it. Unless this is customer driven, we will not get to the meat of it.

If we are to ensure confidence and trust on an international basis, it must be driven from the final "close to the customer" option. That is why I urge the Minister to reconsider this measure which solely deals with producers. It would be much better if we included a wider variety of businesses. I will raise this on Report Stage but, given the few months the Minister has before then, I hope he will realise that unless we make this a consumer and customer driven assurance scheme, rather than one driven by the producers, it will not achieve the high level he wishes.

Businesses such as caterers, restaurants, butchers' shop and supermarkets should be included in the Bill on Report Stage. The Minister has said those areas are covered by other legislation. This Bill, which could then enable us to trace produce right to the consumer, would be a more useful way to deal with the matter.

I too support the amendment because the Bill is aimed solely at the primary producer. From the farmer's gate to the consumer's plate there are missing links. Out of the 300 or so reported cases of BSE, 90 per cent can be traced back to feedingstuffs. The Bill is aimed at the primary producer and sufficient emphasis is not placed on the other aspects of the food industry. I support the amendment because it deals with the final links in the food industry. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I ask the Minister to have a serious look at this amendment with a view to accommodating this side of the House.

Before dealing with the amendments, I am pleased to accede to the wish of the Seanad that Report and Final Stages be deferred to October. I like initiating legislation in the Seanad, particularly at this time, given that the Dáil has gone into recess and the Seanad is going into recess. I hope during the summer months there will be public debate on this measure. Judging by the print media today, there will be much public debate on it. I hope the interested bodies will hold seminars on it and that it will be teased out between now and October. I ask the Leader of the Seanad and the Cathaoirleach to make time available on Report Stage to consider the matter further. The last thing I want is to rush this legislation through either House of the Oireachtas. I had a choice of waiting until the Dáil resumed, but I thought this was a much better way of dealing with it. The experts in the Department and the various other bodies will have an opportunity to give this measure much consideration during the summer months.

Specifically on section 4, the legislation does not apply to food businesses except in so far as such a business may deal only with participants who are approved under the Act. The amendments tabled by the Labour Party would provide for the application of the legislation to food businesses on a phased basis. The proposed amendments are based on a misunderstanding concerning the actual scope of the Bill. Food businesses will not escape the net of the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill. Such businesses, which include butchers, supermarkets, grocery stores and all other food outlets, are already strictly regulated under the food hygiene regulations which come under the Department of Health and Children. The point was made here yesterday that there is greater confidence in having these matters declared public health issues. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is under the remit of the Minister for Health and Children.

As Minister for Agriculture and Food, I introduced the Animal Remedies Act and the regulations provided for in the Act. The word "draconian" has been used a number of times to describe that Act. Farmers are in jail because they have been prosecuted under that Act. The Department of Agriculture and Food takes its responsibility seriously in relation to the safety and purity of food. Consumer protection is of vital importance.

I agree that confidence is essential and that one must have confidence in the regulatory authorities. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is doing an excellent job and has an excellent reputation. Under section 3(c) there is provision for the further development of the links with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. Thus, the food retail outlets, butcher shops, restaurants and so on have been omitted from the registration, inspection and approval processes under this legislation. To include them in these provisions would constitute a duplication, would be wasteful in terms of resources and could lead to a two-tier overlap and an anomalous process of registration, inspection and approval. Everybody involved at that end of the business knows there are EHOs and public health inspectors.

In relation to liquid milk, there are dairy produce inspectors and, perhaps, veterinary inspectors. Given that there have been com plaints that the standards applying in one situation are different from those applying in another, there is a need for standardisation and unification. The whole object of this exercise is to get standardisation at the highest level and to reduce fragmentation, overlap and ambiguity. It would be senseless, fruitless and worthless to introduce legislation and to have inspectors if there was one weak link in the chain. Given that the food chain is the ideal host for contamination, bacterial growth etc., we cannot leave any weak link in it.

For those reasons I cannot accept the two amendments but I will look at them over the summer. I hope that other interested parties will look at them also. In the Dáil Members will have the opportunity to table amendments and on Report Stage we can have a look at these matters in the light of the debates which will have taken place on this measure during the summer.

Is amendment No. 1 being pressed?

I appreciate the Minister's response and his open-minded approach to the whole issue. We are all coming from the same place on this. We all want to ensure the beef industry is re-established at a proper level, that it is allowed to grow, it is promoted and its potential is realised at every level, as a result of which the economies of our communities and the international economy is enhanced. I totally accept the Minister's bone fides, his opinion and his far superior knowledge of the statutes and so on. Trust and confidence must be restored. I have no doubt Senator Quinn agrees that this is a delicate area.

Because I come from an agricultural background I can believe in the product. I know where it comes from and how it is produced. I have total faith that the vast majority of producers and processors are doing their utmost to ensure that what appears on the table is the most superior product. Consumer confidence in our product, particularly abroad, has been severely dented. To restore that confidence we have to bend over backwards. While this measure goes a considerable distance towards doing that, my deeply-held fear and concern is that it does not go far enough. Confidence, once broken, and trust, once damaged, is hard to restore. If we truly believe in the potential of our product and its future, we will not only have to bend over backwards but be seen to do so. The Minister talks about duplication, the potential for overlap and so on. I believe that is a risk worth taking. There is already duplication, given the considerable amount of legislation passed over a number of years in relation to the food sector.

I mentioned yesterday the issue of the tailings pond outside Nenagh where several agencies such as the EPA, the health board and Teagasc were involved. Therefore, there is duplication, but if this is necessary, so be it. If this is what is required to ensure the problem is solved, let that be the case and let us learn from the process. However, let us not fall short of where we wish to be, let us go beyond that. We will not then have a problem, merely a little space to play around with. If we fall short of our target, we will have a serious problem on our hands.

The Minister, in the legislation, has given the industry an opportunity to show what it is made of. I know from contact with the agricultural sector, in my family and my community that there is a strong desire on the part of the industry to show the public, the European Community and the wider customer base that it is determined to always apply the highest standards. Let us show that determination and go further than we need to go to assure customers, who possibly do not know the industry as well as we do, of our genuine desire and belief in the product and the standards of the product. Rogues or cowboys who transgress should be isolated and eliminated from the process. The industry must ensure good standards and this is what the amendments propose to achieve.

Amendment No. 2 proposes the inclusion of the words "in order to assure the quality of beef throughout the food chain from farm to table". It could not be more simple or clear. I am not saying that I have less confidence in the food regulations. Anyone who visits a butcher's shop and listens to those involved in the industry knows how strictly the regulations are applied and how onerous they are, and rightly so. However, confidence is a very delicate issue. Friends of mine, who do not have the same contact with the agricultural sector as I do, have a lot less confidence in the industry than I have. I have every confidence in the industry but many women, particularly parents, do not have the same confidence. One story about BSE, CJD or any such crisis raises serious questions in their minds. There is an opportunity here to go further than we need to go to restore that confidence and I appeal to the Minister to consider this.

In relation to gaining confidence in the industry, I agree with the proposals in the Bill. The amendments can be considered over the coming months. Confidence in the industry was restored by the Minister and his officials following the BSE crisis. At the time, some cowboys within the industry believed they had a money-making machine and carried out illegal acts which led to the spread of BSE. Unfortunately, some people suffered as a result of this. I compliment the Minister and his officials who moved swiftly to ensure that these cowboys were eliminated from the industry – many of them were at a financial loss. I hope these people who tried to spread BSE for financial gain continue to lose money in the future. A small number of cowboys were involved in the spread of brucellosis and so on. This Bill will strengthen the Minister's hand in ensuring that the quality of our food is top class in the future.

I appreciate what the Minister said and the fact that he has given us the summer to work on the Bill. However, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. I would like the Bill to have the power to convince foreign buyers that the food chain has been brought together from beginning to end. This is why I urge the Minister to give some thought during the summer to maintaining the link referred to by Senator Connor and to ensuring that link is capable of being enforced. I have great confidence in the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, but I would like to see the link maintained throughout the chain.

As Senator O'Meara said, everyone wishes to ensure the highest standards in the food chain and that the legislation is as comprehensive as possible. I would be the last person to introduce legislation which would leave a glaring gap. There is no such thing as being almost sterile, the whole chain must be fully tightened up. However, by regulating production at farm level or primary production and processing, this Bill will regulate the sources of supply. Therefore, all the sources of supply and all the beef products in supermarkets and restaurants will have to meet the standards set out in the Bill. Under the scheme, they will be obliged to source their supplies only from approved participants. The Bill proposes that non-compliance will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties are provided.

Section 28 provides for the appointment of authorised officers to check whether this provision is complied with. Section 5 outlines the classes of persons to whom the Act applies and empowers the Minister to amend the list of participants by regulation. Amendment No. 2 proposes to add the phrase to the provision allowing the Minister to amend the list of participants "in order to assure the quality of beef throughout the food chain from farm to table". This proposed amendment appears to follow from a misunderstanding about the scope of the scheme and the supposed exclusion of the food businesses. Food businesses are covered by the Bill in so far as it is necessary without the creation of a two-tier registration and approval process. The language proposed in the amendment has the right aspirations but there is no requirement for its inclusion in the legislation. Its inclusion would indicate that the experts in the Department of Agriculture and Food who introduced the Bill in the Houses of the Oireachtas, which did not allow for inspection of retail outlets and restaurants, were very lackadaisical. This would send a wrong signal to consumers in that it would give the mistaken impression that the Bill as drafted is not all-embracing and comprehensive. This area of the business is covered under the hygiene regulations. Section 3 allows for inter-linking with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland.

I am very finicky about food. I am always pleased when visiting Senator Quinn's supermar kets because one could eat their dinner off the floor, as it were. The supermarkets are spotlessly clean. I would have no hesitation in turning around and leaving a dingy or untidy supermarket or restaurant. One would need to be long in a premises to notice untrained personnel doing the most awful things such as letting a piece of raw food fall on the floor, picking it up and putting it back on the shelf. That is absolutely terrible. Similarly, under no circumstances would I return to a restaurant if I did not feel confident about having nice food. One only wants properly prepared, wholesome food which does not make one feel bad in the morning. I do not expect a gourmet meal every time I go out.

For these reasons I cannot accept these amendments. However, I undertake to consider them over the summer months for Report Stage.

Is amendment No. 1 being pressed?

If I withdraw the amendment, may I resubmit it on Report Stage?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 4 agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

I would like the Food Safety Authority to be involved in issuing the certificate referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d). They refer to a participant being the holder of a certificate of approval. If approval is given it should be on the basis of food safety. The Minister talked of avoiding duplication. The Food Safety Authority has all the necessary expertise and I would like it to be locked into section 6. I urge the Minister to consider this, if not today, then over the next few months. I wish to bring up on Report Stage the issue of approval if the Minister is unable to do this.

I will of course give this consideration. As a formal amendment had not been tabled, I did not have an opportunity to check it out comprehensively. I again state the Bill contains provision in section 3(c) for the further development of the measures which the Senator talked about. If after teasing this out fully, we consider it appropriate to consider the measure proposed, I would be pleased to do so.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."

This section refers to the regulations regarding the disposal of non-compliant animals etc. It states:

The Minister may make regulations in relation to the seizure, detention, destruction and disposal of animals, carcases, meat and feedingstuffs, produced or in the possession of persons in contravention of this Act.

I know this gives the Minister power to make regulations, but obviously live animals are envisaged here. What is to be done with live animals or carcases? Are they in any way to be recycled into the food chain for the production of meat and bonemeal? Reactor animals in abattoirs go straight through to the food chain because they are not deemed to carry tuberculosis. Does the Minster intend complete incineration of everything or does he envisage situations where this product is recycled into something else?

I want to make it absolutely clear there are no circumstances under which contaminated meat can enter the human food chain. Risk material of any kind is destroyed by incineration. We have facilities for that. As farmers are aware, it is becoming a feature of the industry more and more because of the cost involved. Some time ago there were plans for a charge of £3 per head for the cost of incineration and disposal. It is very important for consumer confidence that they are assured contaminated, infected or unsuitable products of any kind are not allowed into the human food chain. We have the strictest controls.

Senator O'Meara said it is important to go beyond the spirit of the legal requirements. Supermarket chains and buyers are going way beyond it and demanding the highest of standards. They do not look to what legislation or expert committees say, they want newer production systems to measure up to what they decide will guarantee to their consumers food which is safe, hygienically produced and complies with Q marks, ISO/9000 standards and the HACCP system. Every part of the system must be of the highest standard, as must be the disposal of any risk material excluded from the human food chain.

I agree entirely with subsection (2) which states the cost should be recovered from the defaulter. Would the Minister consider it should be the duty of the Minister for Health and Children to protect the health of the nation in this case? Would he consider handing this responsibility over to the Minister for Health and Children, rather than its being within the remit of the Minister for Agriculture and Food? We are talking about health, safety and security for our citizens and I think the expertise for that already exists in the Department of Health and Children. I doubt I will receive an immediate answer in favour of this proposal in this case and if not I would like to include it in an amendment on Report Stage.

This section deals with the regulations regarding disposal of non-compliant animals. Senator Connor referred to animals which react to tests for TB. After they are killed in the abattoir, it could be established they might not have TB at all. However, the farmer must get a certain price because they were recognised as TB animals under the test, even though they did not show up as reactors afterwards in the factory. I do not know whether they go into the food chain. The Minister said they do not. However they did not have any disease and it seems unfair to the farmer. This issue should be examined and there should be a foolproof examination for TB.

There is much emphasis, and rightly so, on standards and guarantees to the consumer. As I said yesterday, we are all consumers. We are all aware substantial tonnage of meat, including beef and fowl, is imported. What assurance is offered to the consumer for that? I presume it has a market here. We are putting enormous emphasis – and rightly so – on our own product but how is the consumer to differentiate? The Bill states people providing for market outlets can only deal with certain suppliers. However, what is the position regarding importation?

I am not sure the Senator's question is relevant to section 7 with which we are dealing at present.

I accept the Cathaoirleach's direction on the matter. However, perhaps you will tell the Minister when he may answer it.

The Minister may wish to comment now on the question raised by the Senator.

Regarding section 7 and whether an amendment should be introduced to place certain aspects of the legislation under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children, I do not intend to give way to the Minister for Health and Children this afternoon. However, when the Food Safety Authority was set up, the Department of Health and Children did not have a full structure in terms of a chain of officers down to the level of supermarkets and food outlets. In practice, the Food Safety Authority has contracted staff from the Departments of Health and Children and Agriculture and Food. However, they are under the aegis and authority of the Food Safety Authority. Officers are seconded from the Department of Agriculture and Food and they work under contract with the Food Safety Authority on public health matters. They have expertise in the veterinary and public health areas. There is no need to introduce an amendment but if one is tabled on Report Stage, I will consider it.

The area of imported food is most important. Ireland is ahead of many countries in having the Food Safety Authority.

That is the Senator's point.

Many other countries do not have such an authority. Ireland demands the highest standards from its farmers, processors and retailers, but recently in the west a huckster was trading in beef from Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela. Poultry meat is imported from other countries but we do not know what they were fed or what residues the meat contains. We do not know how safe it is and this is a huge problem.

I have proposed at the Council of Ministers that there should be a food safety authority covering all the EU and that a Commissioner – perhaps one of our own – should have responsibility for food safety and consumer protection.

How about the Minister?

I also proposed that at the next round of the World Trade Organisation negotiations there should be an insistence on standardisation in relation to hygiene, quality and safety. There is no point in Ireland doing everything correctly if others are not doing so and there is a weak link in the chain. For example, people go into chippers and elsewhere for quick bites to eat and sometimes it is difficult to know what type of food they receive because it is covered. Even assuming one knows it is chicken, there is no traceability whatsoever. I hope and expect to make progress on ensuring global protection is provided to consumers because Ireland is a major importer of food. It is a relevant point.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill."

I am concerned about section 8, particularly with regard to the proposed length of time. I have a suspicion that Ministers for Agriculture and Food are likely to be bullied by the farming lobby. Senator Callanan would tell me that would never happen, but there is a danger of it occurring. We should protect ourselves by ensuring that the soft option can never be taken by a future Minister for Agriculture and Food. This Minister would not allow it to happen.

The section states that a person who immediately before the commencement of the legislation was engaged in this area shall apply for the grant of a certificate of approval under the legislation. However, it also states "ending 12 months after such commencement or such longer period as the Minister may allow". There could be a long per iod before it comes into action if a future Minister was to take the soft option. I ask the Minister to consider whether this provision could be improved to ensure the soft option is unlikely to be taken by a future Minister. A period of 12 months after such commencement or such longer period as the Minister may allow will give too much freedom. I ask the Minister to consider this matter. If he does not do so, I intend to introduce an amendment on Report Stage.

Sections 8 to 11, inclusive, deal with applications for and approval of certification. What are the practicalities involved in a farmer making an application for certification? What will be the role of others, such as those who deal in livestock? I presume cattle dealers must also have certification to enable them to trade in animals. What penalties will be imposed? Will they extend to withdrawal of a farmer's identity card? Every animal on a farm is now well identified by its identity card and its number is also repeated and displayed on the tags in its ears. Will the identity cards be withdrawn from farmers who fail to comply with these sections?

My perspective is slightly different because other Senators' comments have concentrated on farmers and animal production. I wish to deal with the trade in feedstuffs. What detailed controls exist and are exercised in relation to feed compounders? There is a school of thought that meat and bonemeal is still available in Ireland. This should never have been produced in the first place for animal feed, particularly in the bovine sector. What level of control is currently exercised? What controls and level of supervision does the Minister intend to extend in that area? Many people have no doubt that some of the ingredients that are imported may not meet the required standard. What controls are in place and what additional controls does the Minister propose to introduce to ensure that nothing from the feed compounders sector would be a possible source of contamination?

Section 8 places a duty on existing farmers, feed manufacturers or traders, cattle dealers or exporters of live animals, abattoirs, assembly centres, marts and meat plants and new entrants to apply for a certificate of approval within a 12 month period of entry into force of the legislation. Following enactment of the Bill, over a 12 month period producers will seek approval and inspectors will visit. The vast majority of farmers will be approved or they may be asked to carry out minor improvements. They will fail to secure approval or have their registration revoked only for serious breaches. The idea of the 12 month period is to allow time for inspections throughout the country. My view is that producers and farmers will readily accept the provisions of the legislation. They must do so in any event. There is provision for payment on a quality basis, for grading systems and an objective system. Already, good quality animals are making more than poor quality animals at marts. There is differentiation.

Feed is vitally important because people are anxious about recycling of material. Media attention was focused on the recycling of poultry offal in dog food, which is sickening to think about. Under the Animal Remedies Act, which became law in recent years, strict regulations were introduced. There is stringent monitoring of where meat and bonemeal are purchased and who buys them. The provender millers are visited on a regular basis. If they sell to a farmer who states he will feed the meal only to non-ruminants, the farmyard is checked. If, as on some farms, different rations are blended for animal feed, the entire equipment must be cleaned in case any contamination is left. The regulations are extremely strict. Recently in County Cork a farmer was sentenced to five months in prison, which shows this is a no nonsense business. There is no room for complacency.

The Act was put forward by the Department of Agriculture and Food, which also supervises and ensures adherence to the regulations. The Department and I are serious about this matter and there is no question of intimidation. We are also serious about our responsibility for the good name of Irish food and consumer protection, and our track record in that regard is exemplary. It exceeds the strict legal requirement and standards of many countries with which we do business.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."

I may have sounded pernickety earlier but I have serious difficulty with "provisional approval". Would the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform issue gun licences to everyone with provisional approval and take a licence away only if the holder did something wrong? This measure is just as dangerous for our economy. It is ridiculous that everyone will be approved until inspected. No independent body would have made a suggestion such as this and the approval is devalued if it is so easily obtained. We would not consider allowing everyone to have a gun licence until we are able to check whether individuals are behaving themselves. That may sound like an exaggerated comparison but I ask the Minister to rethink this before October. I would be unhappy with this system because it is dangerous and will not achieve what the Minister wants. I will be thinking about this during the recess and hope to introduce an amendment on Report Stage if the Minister does not find a solution.

For practical reasons we cannot inspect the country on one day. When a young person applies for a driving licence he or she gets a provisional licence and learns to drive. Within a relatively short time the young person comes up to standard and, we hope, continues to drive carefully. Under this legislation people are deemed to be approved until an inspection takes place. If someone does not reach the standard they must take action to do so, and there will be a renewed inspection or audit. There were demands for an annual or biannual audit. We will decide on the frequency of the audit to ensure the standard is maintained. That is why this provisional system will obtain from the beginning. We will look at this matter because the Bill will not be enacted until mid-October at the earliest. We may have a chance to come back to it on Report Stage.

Senator Quinn's point is important but I agree with the Minister that we must start somewhere. It is like a new driver starting with a provisional licence. What are the staff implications for inspections, getting the scheme running and issuing licences? Will there be a great need for staff or will a staff complement be available to ensure that licences are improved quickly? It is important that this happens.

The intention is to have adequate staff to give approval expeditiously. There will be a cost, as with all these things, but this is a multi-million pound industry and we must consider above all the safety and image of Ireland as a food producing country. This concerns confidence in the safety of food, not only our confidence but that of our visitors, because we have a big tourism industry, and our customers at home and abroad. The opportunity far outweighs the cost.

I thank the Minister for his response and look forward to seeing whether he can do something. I am unhappy with subsection (5), which states: "The Minister shall by order fix the date for the termination of the period of provisional approval". This seems far too vague and I hope the Minister will consider making the measure more definite.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."

This section refers to the grant of certificates of approval to farmers and I ask the Minister to fill in the details. When a farmer applies for approval he is inspected by a departmental official. What does this inspection entail? Is it an inspection of the animal housing or holding areas? Is there an inspection of general hygiene on the farm – for instance, waste man agement? What would one be likely to see on farms which did not receive approval?

This section deals with inspections. The level of inspections on Irish farms is at an all-time high. There are 40,000 farms in the REP scheme and 10 per cent of those are inspected. There are 500,000 applications for headage and premium payments and, again, roughly 10 per cent of those are inspected every year. Every herd owner is inspected annually also. Are we now to have an army of inspectors? The task envisaged in the Bill to inspect every herd owner in the country is a mammoth one. How does the Minister propose to go about it? Senator Connor asked about the criteria that will be used by the inspectors. We have no indication of the criteria that will be used in the inspection process.

We already have a substantial amount of what some people call red tape, or inspection, in Ireland. For example, calves are registered at birth, there is the controlled movement system, the CMMS – about 70 per cent of marts already comply with that – and farm to farm notification. There is a great deal of traceability and information on cattle. In relation to the specific inspections of farms, the precise procedures for inspection, particularly in relation to the inspection of farms, will be drawn up with the social partners, the IFA, the ICMSA and ICOS because we operate under consensus and social partnership in Government. The procedures are under discussion with the relevant organisations and with the representative farming bodies. It is expected that we will find agreement in the very near future, thus the legislation is confined to introducing the principle of mandatory inspections. The detailed conditions in regard to the timing, frequency, format and coverage of the inspections have been omitted deliberately as it is considered inappropriate to include them in primary legislation. These conditions will be finalised in agreement with the interested parties once the statutory basis has been established. We are providing primary legislation and putting the matter of beef assurance on a statutory basis so that regulations can be introduced under the Bill to provide for the detail.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
Question proposed: "That section 11 stand part of the Bill."

I take this opportunity to ask the Minister a question which he might have answered while I was briefly absent from the House. This section relates to the requirement for certificate of approval and is in a sense a repeat of what has gone before. In respect of the role of cattle traders – we call them cattle dealers – the section states that no person shall produce, trade or otherwise handle animals, carcases or meat for human consumption etc. How are cattle dealers to be licensed, if that is the correct term, or certified under the Bill? What form of inspection will they come under? What type of return will they have to make to be certified to continue their trade when this legislation becomes law?

This matter, which relates mainly to keeping records, is covered under section 8. Many people felt there was a fairly simple tracking system in relation to farmers who have farmed in a particular area for generations and who deal with their local mart, butcher or supermarket. In the case of dealers who had rented land, however, and who bought and sold cattle, the position was a little more difficult. The obligations under this section relate mainly to the keeping of records of animal movements. Animal health and welfare considerations will come into effect also because animal welfare is vital. Consumers want to know that cows and pigs are being reared in a humane way and they are right. Cruelty has no place either in the animal or the human world. To answer the specific question raised, it concerns mainly the keeping of records which can be made available to the inspectors when they call.

Play Mozart to the cows.

The section states that no person shall produce, trade or otherwise handle animals but many farmers let their feed lots in the winter to factories. That is happening more frequently now throughout the country, particularly in the case of people who are in the REPS and who have sold off their stock. They have silage or feed in their yards and they take in cattle on a weekly or monthly basis. Will the legislation impact on those farmers who require that type of income to stay afloat?

Yes. The provisions of the Act will apply to the people the Senator mentioned. There will be an obligation on those specific operations to come within the scope of the Act.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill."

I spoke yesterday on Second Stage about visits to supermarkets in other parts of the world which do not sell Irish beef and about my anxiety to see Irish beef being sold in these supermarkets. We are all anxious to strengthen the Bill to the extent that supermarket buyers, caterers or restaurants throughout the world will buy beef from Ireland because they know it is of top quality because it has been guaranteed. I was concerned when I read that the Minister "may" make regulations for reinspections. The word should be "shall" make regulations regarding reinspections. There is a serious doubt in the minds of some people that if a person is inspected once, there is not a definite, controlled reinspection formula. I ask the Minister to consider replacing the word "may" with "shall". I intend to raise this matter on Report Stage if the Minister does not find an opportunity to do so.

I am happy to take into account Senator Quinn's remarks. I recall tediously going through the Irish Horseracing Authority legislation and "may" and "shall" came up regularly in the debate. The result of that was that one of the people involved subsequently named his horse "May or Shall". I am not a legal person but I understand there is quite a difference in the way both words interact. I will be pleased to examine the matter between now and Report Stage.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."

This section gives power to the Minister to establish and maintain a register of holders of certificates of approval. It states that the registrar shall contain "the full name and address of the certificate holder, the type of holding or premises, including the address to which the certificate applies, the number or letter, or both, assigned to each certificate . . . . ". Will the inspectors comment on whether the farmer has good buildings or that his holdings are run in a good way? Am I to take any implication from what I read in the section along the lines I have expressed? In other words, if comments are made that a place is not well run, there could be an implication in relation to the product the farmer is producing.

Section 13 provides for the establishment and maintenance by the Minister of a register. This is a straightforward provision concerning the establishment and maintenance of a register and the information to be contained therein. It applies only to the register on the holding or premises. It is very straightforward.

I would love someone to explain section 13(4), which states that the register may be established and maintained in a form that is not legible if it is capable of being converted into legible form. I am sure this can be explained very easily and that someone will take pleasure in doing so.

I have just been given the details in the nick of time. It is great to have good staff. This question was well anticipated, as is said in quiz programmes.

Questions may be raised about the meaning of this subsection, but it is a standard provision allowing for the register to be maintained in electronic form, that is, non-legible.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill."

This section makes provision for when an individual who is a certificate holder dies. If a family which owns a farm suffers a bereavement, the last thing the family will want to think about is reapplying for a certificate of approval to continue farming. The six month period should be extended to at least nine months.

Senator Caffrey's point is well worth considering. I congratulate the Minister on this as it seems a very wise introduction. If this section was not included there could be all sorts of problems, though Senator Caffrey's point is a good one.

The six month period should be more flexible. Sometimes the spouse of the deceased may not, for legal reasons, be able to take over a property for a period far longer than six months. The Minister should look at the matter of the transfer of holding again.

This provision is intended to allow for the case of a farmer dying. I think Irish people always have a humane attitude in these circumstances and we felt the six month provision included in this section was adequate. However, in light of the concerns raised, we can take another look at it. It is designed to deal specifically for circumstances in which a spouse may have difficulties and continues the effectiveness of the certificate until such time as matters are sorted out.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Question proposed: "That section 15 stand part of the Bill."

This section deals with the Minister's power to refuse a certificate of approval and seems quite fair, as there is a notice period of 21 days. Obviously the Minister will be negotiating with the farming organisations about the grounds for refusal, but can a refusal be made when animal welfare is a problem on a farm? Animals may be under-fed or not properly fed outside during the winter. They may have to spend periods feeding while up to their navels in mud. These are cases of cruelty separate from incidents of malnutrition or under-nutrition.

On Second Stage I referred to the widespread fodder shortages last year which led to much mal nutrition among animals. However, there is a small cohort of farmers who pay no attention to the welfare of animals, and their animals are emaciated as a result. One wonders if such people should be allowed to continue in farming. While the opportunity did not exist in the past, will inspections now lead to insistence on a much better level of animal welfare for the reasons I have outlined?

This section deals with refusals of certificates of approval. I am concerned that a future Minister might be slow to refuse a certificate and I can understand why. I want to strengthen his or her hand, but subsection (2)(a) provides that the Minister, when intending to do so, must notify the applicant with at least 21 days' notice in writing of intention to refuse approval. Subsection (2)(b) refers to a further 14 days where the applicant may make representations to the Minister. These 21 days plus another 14 amount to 35 days, or five weeks. If something is wrong, I would not like to think this is the very least period of time involved in an appeal. The wording refers to "at least" 21 days' notice and I believe that certificates will not be refused unless there is a serious problem. I know the Minister will say if there is a danger to public health it will not happen, but we are then allowing five weeks at the very least. I would like "at least" to be taken out of subsection 2(a); instead it should read "at most". This should be much stronger and if the Minister does not accept that, I am willing to work on a Report Stage amendment to overcome my problems with this section.

Perhaps the Minister can explain whether this subsection means that 21 days followed by 14 days is the very shortest length of time in which a farmer could continue to operate in a way that has caused concern.

This section relates to refusal or revocation of approval, which would be for serious breaches, including animal cruelty, disease, welfare, health, testing irregularities and irregularities in animal remedies. Subsection (2) outlines the notice that must be given to the applicant of this decision. At least 21 days' notice in writing must be given and the reasons for refusal must be specified. The applicant must be advised of his or her rights to make representations within a 14 day period and any representations must be considered by the Minister before proceeding with the refusal.

There is a provision in the Food Safety Authority Act whereby people who do not measure up to particular standards may be prosecuted. In some cases their animals are disposed of while in others the animals become virtual wards of court as a person is delegated to look after them. The fodder shortage led to a man making representations to me in the past 12 months. He came to my clinic to ask me to make representations on his behalf. An inspector had told him he did not have enough feed for the number of cattle on his farm. I pointed out that cruelty on farms could not be tolerated. He said the weather was improving and he was waiting for the grass to grow. The farmer saw nothing wrong in this. Needless to say, a prosecution took place and his animals were removed. There are already very strict animal welfare provisions in current legislation.

Some inspectors are helpful and give useful advice to farmers. Others are extremely strict and sometimes hostile to applicants. Inspectors sometimes come into farmyards without notice and farmers are expected to round up animals for inspection. I am not opposed to spot checks. At processing level they are particularly important, but at farm level people are entitled to be told in writing the reasons for the revocation of a certificate and the steps needed for the retention of certification. The provisions under this section are reasonable and applicants should be advised of the breaches they have made and given reasonable notice of revocation. The number of days allowed by this legislation is reasonable.

The Bill makes provision for an applicant to be told whether or not he can continue to trade or sell animals during the period of notice or while the determination of revocation or certification is pending. We must be reasonable in all cases and this is a reasonable provision. A further tightening of the provisions in this section would make matters extremely difficult, if not impossible, at farm level.

My mind has not been put at rest. The Minister says we must be reasonable but I am concerned about protecting the customer. The refusal of a certificate of approval is a serious matter. The Minister's reasonableness will allow several weeks to go by, during which time much more harm could be done. I urge the Minister to reconsider the wording of the section to ensure that the objective of the Bill, which is to protect the consumer, will be achieved. I would like to see the wording of this section strengthened.

In the case of a serious breach, the Food Safety Authority Act provides for the emergency closure of a production unit. That provision already exists. Section 18 of this Bill empowers the authorised officer to seize or detain animals, restrict their movement or destroy animals, carcases or meat not in compliance with the Act. The Bill imposes very strict measures. Only in a case where some minor improvements will bring a producer up to the required standard will time be allowed for him to comply. Serious breaches which would endanger public health will not be tolerated and there is adequate provision in the Food Safety Authority Act to deal with that.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 16
Question proposed: "That section 16 stand part of the Bill."

The same problem arises in section 16 as in the previous section. This section provides for 21 days' notice of revocation and 14 days during which a producer may make representations to the Minister regarding the revocation. Subsection (2) provides that before revoking a certificate of approval the Minister shall notify the holder, by at least 21 days' notice in writing, of the intention to revoke the cerificate of approval and of the reasons for the revocation. It further provides that the person may make representations to the Minister in relation to the intended revocation within 14 days of the date of issue of the notification. Notice of 21 days will allow, in effect, much more than three weeks before the certificate is revoked. The allowance of 14 days in which to make representations adds further to this time. I urge the Minister to re-examine these provisions.

I would like to strengthen the Bill by inserting the provision that the Minister must, rather than may, revoke a certificate of approval if he or she is satisfied that the certificate of approval has been obtained by fraud. This would strengthen the Minister's hand so that he, or some future Minister, could not be coaxed to be lenient when such an important matter is at stake. Legislation sometimes ties judges' hands so that those convicted of certain crimes must be given a stipulated minimum sentence. If the Minister does not find a way to do this, I shall propose such an amendment on Report Stage.

The word "may" rather than "must" is standard in almost all legislation. I am advised that this is the correct terminology. The matter will be examined and we will return to it on Report Stage, in deference to Senator Quinn.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."

Although amendment No. 3 is out of order, it is important that this matter be discussed. If a producer is refused a certificate of approval his final recourse is to the Circuit Court. Taking a case in the Circuit Court is anathema to most small farmers. A farmer will only go to the Circuit Court if he is brought there by force. For this reason, section 17 is unfair.

A farmer might, for reasons other than regulations, refuse to comply with a requirement on a point of principle or because of stubborness. These factors are not taken into consideration in this section. Recourse to the Circuit Court in order to maintain one's livelihood is abhorrent to most farmers. It is contrary to the principle of the freedom to farm.

In the case of the revocation or refusal of a certificate of approval, can an appeal to the Circuit Court be made only on a point of law? Could recourse be made to the court on any other point? In such a case, legal representation would be required and this might impose a hardship on a small producer. Can the Minister clarify this matter?

I support Senator Caffrey. It is rather drastic that when a farmer has been refused a certificate of approval his only recourse is to the Circuit Court, not even the District Court. As the Minister will be aware, it is expensive to plea in the Circuit Court.

There is an appeals system in the Department which works well. I have had satisfactory results in making representations for farmers who appealed non-payments or penalties imposed on them. Of course, the penalty system is severe. The Department's appeals system under the charter of rights for farmers has generated a great deal of confidence in that it can be quite independent and objective. Perhaps the Minister should strengthen that system in the Department by which a farmer who feels aggrieved would have recourse to a system statutorily established in the same way as the social welfare appeals system, which is just a step removed from the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. That needs to be considered.

Most Senators with rural backgrounds understand farmers' resistance. It has never been part of the experience of these farmers to have seen the inside of the District Court. The Acting Chairman, Senator Finneran, knows what I am talking about. These farmers would be reluctant to appeal their case to a Circuit Court.

The Minister should consider the appeals system in his Department. It would need strengthening for these purposes because something fundamental is at stake here. The appeals system should be similar to that which operates in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs.

The former Minister, Deputy Yates, failed to do that. The Senator should go back to him.

I do not want to bring politics into this debate. The former Minister, Deputy Yates, established the existing appeals system under the charter of rights for farmers.

He made many false promises.

It is as good as the former Minister made it. I am delighted that the Minister, Deputy Walsh, has allowed it to function. I pay tribute to it in that it has functioned well.

My concern is different from that which has been expressed by Senators Caffrey and Connor. It appears to me that if one must appeal to the Circuit Court, the case will not be taken quickly. It may take months or longer. Does that mean the alleged offender is allowed to continue in operation during that period? If so, will the Minister reconsider that aspect?

The Bill refers to the Minister being "satisfied that there is no danger to public health" but we are talking about something which could endanger the Irish beef industry, which is very important. Therefore, it seems dangerous to allow somebody to make an appeal and continue operating while awaiting its hearing. We know from experience that appeals are used sometimes to extend the length of time one may allegedly misbehave.

I hope the Minister will rethink this matter. I will do some rethinking also and I may introduce an amendment on Report Stage if the Minister does not come up with something which will satisfy me.

On the production side the Bill covers more than small farmers – it addresses the processing and compounding – and we should see the section in that light. If there is a serious transgression, there is a serious way to deal with it.

I want the Minister to comment on that point. If the Minister revokes or refuses the licence of a farmer or factory and they wish to appeal that decision, what will the Minister's officials do? Will they seize animals or put in place a person to ensure that wrongdoing is stopped immediately? That needs to be looked at more carefully.

The issue on which Senator Quinn commented must be looked at by the Minister and his officials. If the Minister refused a certificate, which he would do for good reasons, by the time the matter gets to the Circuit Court a great deal of harm may be done to the beef industry if somebody is carrying on illegal activity. I hope the Minister will address that.

Section 17 provides for an appeals process to the Circuit Court against refusal or revocation of a certificate of approval. This is a standard provision and it is common to many Acts.

The amendment proposed to section 17(1) would replace the mechanism for appeal to the Circuit Court by an independent arbitrator. This would involve a potential cost to the Exchequer over and above that provided for by the Government in the approval of the Bill and the Cathaoirleach correctly ruled it out of order.

The appeals process through the Circuit Court has been used to good effect in existing legislation, for example, in the Abattoirs Act, 1988. I must be around here a long time because I remember introducing that Bill.

It might be useful to remind Senators that decisions to refuse or revoke approval will not be taken lightly and would be for serious breaches of the regulations only, examples of which would include repeated use of illegal hormones, growth promoters or angel dust or unapproved trade in cattle from the North – regrettably, there is some evidence that this happens from time to time. If there are strict regulations in place in this jurisdiction, they will deal with any weakness in the system with regard to a carousel of any kind, especially with currency changes, etc. Provision has been made in the section for the making of representations to the Minister in the event of a proposed revocation or refusal.

Section 17(2) contains standard provisions for the continuation of operations while the appeal is being heard. That will only happen if everything is in order and there is no danger to public health. Section 17(3) specifies that if operations are permitted to continue during an appeal, these operations are bound by the provisions of the Act.

Section 17(4) outlines the options available to the court to dismiss or allow the appeal and provides for an appeal to the High Court on a point of law. Senator O'Meara raised a question in that regard. There is no restriction to appeal the decision on a point of law only.

The Chair has correctly ruled that amendment No. 3 was out of order.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 16, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following new subsection:

"(2) Teagasc, where requested, shall provide clarification and assistance to any farmer requesting same in the completion of the returns required by subsection (2) for certification of approval”.

This relates to the cost of the implementation of the scheme. Small farmers, in particular, do not have the resources or the administrative capacity to deal with the paperwork involved in this new arrangement. They should get help, where necessary, from Teagasc.

I am sure the Minister will be able to explain to us why we must detail all the various methods of traceability here. I notice that there is no reference to DNA and I would like to see it mentioned.

Yesterday I declared that I have an interest in this matter. Trinity College Dublin and my company have worked hard on DNA testing. It seems to me that the Bill should mention every possible future method or it should not mention them all but state that whatever methods that exist should apply. If we are obliged to specifically list the various methods involved, I would like to see DNA mentioned. I intend to table an amendment on Report Stage if the Minister does not find it possible to include that.

I support Senator Caffrey. There is a high level of bureaucracy and red tape involved in farming nowadays. I know that because I am a farmer. My mind often boggles when I receive forms from the Department in regard to the registration of animals. As public representatives, we have met farmers who are being penalised or whose income supports or premia payments are being denied or delayed simply because they have made errors in their applications. I do not blame them for making errors; much of the documentation is very complicated.

The new registration books, issued to all herd owners, are quite intimidating for uninitiated farmers. This legislation will give full force to those books. The Department has statistics on the number of farmers who get into difficulty in relation to premium and headage payments, income supports and so on purely as a result of errors. The farm advisory service, which farmers must pay for nowadays, should be made available free of charge to farmers who experience difficulties.

The wording of the legislation will be totally foreign to many farmers – certainly to those in County Roscommon. Senators may well shrug their shoulders but they know these people. Senators Rory Kiely, Callanan, Moylan and O'Brien all contest elections in rural areas, Senator O'Meara comes from a farming background and they understand the difficulties involved. This is a real problem which affects the livelihoods of farmers.

The language in the legislation may prove intimidating and mind boggling for many farmers and they should be assisted. The provisions of section 19 impose a whole new layer of paperwork, red tape and bureaucracy which is totally foreign to farmers' natures. I know many farmers who still farm by traditional methods. Thousands of farmers throughout the country employ the same farming practices as their great grandfathers. Some of their methods have hardly changed since the 1930s and 1940s. While some of the paperwork required relates to income supports etc., a great deal of the paperwork relates to farmers' compliance with a whole range of new regulations which affect farmers in their role as marketplace producers.

I am in agreement with this amendment; whether I can support it is another issue. I referred on Second Stage to the mistakes farmers can make, especially with regard to the registration of birth, death or another event relating to animals required under this section. I realise that the section must be included for the purposes of traceability and the proper processing of the scheme.

I would go further than Senator Caffrey and insist that Teagasc, where requested, "should" provide – not "shall" provide – assistance. Teagasc offered every possible assistance to farmers with regard to area aid payments. The Minister referred yesterday to the importance of completing paperwork. He said that farmers spend 364 days a year doing the hard work but will not even spend a couple of hours completing necessary paperwork. My experience is that farmers would prefer to work for 366 days a year on the treadmill than spend even a minute on the paperwork required of them. Teagasc should assist farmers, particularly elderly and young farmers, to ensure they comply with the provisions of this Bill.

It is essential that Teagasc becomes involved. A substantial number of farmers are already on Teagasc's books. Farmers will require a great deal of expertise and assistance during the first few years of the implementation of the Bill's provisions. Teagasc is best suited to assist farmers in that regard and I hope the Minister will ensure its expertise will be made available to farmers throughout the country in order to ensure this important Bill is workable.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share