This meeting has been convened to consider Committee Stage of An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill 2003. I welcome the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, and his officials. With the agreement of members I suggest that we try to conclude business today. With that in mind we might sit until 8 p.m. and review progress then. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 1.
Amendments Nos. 1 and Nos. 25 to 27, inclusive, are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, subsection (2), lines 16 to 18, to delete all words from and including "may" in line 16 down to and including "one." in line 18 and substitute the following:
"(other than Part 4) may be cited together as An Bord Bia Acts 1994 to 2004 and shall be construed together as one.
(3) The Registration of Potato Growers and Potato Packers Act 1984 and Part 4 may be cited together as the Registration of Potato Growers and Potato Packers Acts 1984 and 2004 and shall be construed together as one.”.
I thank the committee for agreeing to take these related amendments together. The purpose of this amendment is to amend the collective citation consequent on the introduction of a new Part 4 to the Bill. Part 4 provides for amendment of the Registration of Potato Growers and Potato Packers Act 1984, and I am proposing an amendment to section 2 of the Act to provide for removal from the register of growers or packers who are no longer growing or packing potatoes and, for reasons of transparency, to have the register available for inspection.
I am also proposing an amendment to section 3 of the Act to require that the registration number of the grower and the packer be given on packed potatoes. The proposed amendment of section 3 removes the option to display either the grower's or the packer's registered number on the packaging in all cases where potatoes are being sold. It is very much in the interests of consumers that when they go into a supermarket they will from hereon have the grower's number and the packer's number on the pack.
Growers have made representations to me over the past couple of years saying that they have to cope with imported potatoes, with people not knowing what they are buying or who they are buying it from, and that we should have better labelling and traceability. I said I would seek to do that. The difficulty then arose that to introduce legislation takes a fair length of time, and I might be waiting another 18 months or so. As this Bill was going through the House it provided me with an opportunity to introduce this straightforward technical amendment so that people, on purchasing a bag of potatoes, will know the identity of the grower and the packer. That is what this amendment is about.
The potato sector is an important sector of the horticulture industry. For example, in 2003 a total of almost 34,000 acres of potatoes were planted, realising a farm gate value of more than €100 million. On an annual basis Ireland produces approximately 450,000 tonnes of potatoes. Over the past decade the sector has consolidated, with the top 200 growers now accounting for 80% of the production area. Irish retail multiples have largely consolidated their supply base of potatoes through five key potato packers. This has brought about a tighter supply base and assisted in fostering greater controls on traceability, quality and food safety.
The retail market value of potatoes is estimated to be in the region €162 million. The Registration of Potato Growers and Potato Packers Act has been in operation since 1984 and has worked well. I am bringing forward the amendment to section 3 to reflect current demands and expectations in regard to the traceability of food. The purpose of the amendment is to provide full traceability of the bag or pack of potatoes back to the primary grower.
At present the potato packer's number is shown on the package in the case of the majority of sales at retail level. While traceability is available to the Department via the packer's number, it is not immediately obvious to the shopkeeper or consumer. Today's consumer wants to have this information readily available and will often purchase food on the basis of the knowledge of the origin of the product. Traceability, quality control and food safety have become a feature of retail sales due to various health scares and a comprehensive traceability system provides assurance both to the seller and the buyer.
Of course, in very recent times we had a scare about potato disease. The industry was quite concerned and worried about it and made its views known to me. That is why I am using the occasion of this particular Bill to bring about this amendment. The proposed amendment to section 2 will facilitate the updating of the register and allow for the deletion of entries in the register which clearly do not reflect current reality given the consolidation in the number of growers and packers. I am also making provision for inspection of the register to ensure that the traceability route is fully in place.
The Act applies only to potatoes grown in the State and will not affect imports. Imports are required to have a plant passport label issued by an official body. This label may show either the official registered number or the official packer number in accordance with EU regulations. Imports mainly comprise new season Mediterranean potatoes and potatoes for the potato chip trade. This amendment is proposed to advance my overall policy of providing maximum information to consumers on the origin of the food products they consume. I commend it to the committee.
I support the principle of this amendment and the specific issue in question. The registration number of the grower is more important than that of the packer. We are often deceived when we see details of the packer of goods; we are more interested in the actual origin of the product. When I purchase potatoes in a shop will I be able to find out, in the retail outlet, who grew the potatoes or will I have to consult the register elsewhere? I understand the number of the grower will be shown on the pack but not the name.
I appreciate the importance of this measure to the potato industry and I know of the concerns within the industry. Notwithstanding these, other areas of traceability which are equally if not more important have come to my attention in recent months. The title of this Bill does not indicate that one might find this measure therein. However, I appreciate the drafting difficulties and the urgency of dealing with this matter. In view of the fact that we have facilitated this concept in this Bill, could we include similar amendments for other products on Report Stage? I am thinking of beef and other meat products, for example.
I too welcome the amendment in principle. The important issue is traceability, identification and recognition of the origin of a product. We have had much debate recently on many aspects of traceability of other food products and anything that enhances that is to be welcomed.
I query the location of the amendment in this Bill. However, I do not object to it in principle and I support it.
I welcome what is being proposed by the Minister. Anything which improves labelling and makes clear the origin of produce is to be welcomed. I hope this measure will be applied across the board. There should be full traceability of produce on sale as well as registration of growers and producers.
I welcome the Minister and his team to the committee and I congratulate him on this decision. The production of quality food will be vital for Ireland's farmers in the future. This is an important step.
I am not concerned about the placing of the measure in this Bill. It is necessary and I hope the Minister will make similar provision for the traceability of other food produce. This is a big issue. We recently experienced the effect of avian flu on the chicken industry and we remember the steps necessary to prevent the entry of foot and mouth disease into Ireland. The Minister is also to be congratulated on his leadership at that time. It is important that we protect our food and trace what goes into our shops.
I welcome the Minister and his officials to the meeting and I welcome the Bill. Coming from a rural and agricultural background, I know the difficulties experienced with regard to markets and I commend the Minister for what he has done in that area over the years. Our primary rural industry is agriculture and we must ensure that everything possible is done to ensure our produce continues to be held in high esteem throughout the world. Any measure which contributes to this must be welcomed. For this reason I welcome the Bill and thank the Minister for his efforts.
I wish to be associated with members who have thanked the Minister for bringing forward this Bill. Last year I met the Minister in the company of a group of growers from County Meath and from his own county. Traceability and labelling was very important to them and they welcome this measure very much. Growers in my own county were involved in the purchase of the chip factory in Northern Ireland. This is a welcome cross-Border initiative by farmers in Northern Ireland and the South. I am sure the Minister and other committee members also welcome this development.
I appreciate members' support for this amendment, which is a sensible one. It was requested by the chairman of this committee and by representatives of the potato industry who wanted Irish potatoes to be clearly labelled as such. The ring rot programme which arose in recent months caused concern that we might import disease into the country without knowing it. The more traceability and transparency we have, the better.
I note the request to have as much information as possible available in supermarkets. I will arrange to have the register circulated to all supermarkets. I will also put it on the Department website so that people who have a problem with potatoes they have bought can quickly identify the grower and packer. That is in the best interest of the industry.
It is amazing that a country which is so closely associated with the humble potato imports almost all potato chips sold in the country. I recently called into a McDonalds and in trying to chew the potato chips I got the impression that they were not locally grown. I suspect they were imported. I am not sure whether they were actual potatoes because they were a very chewy type of product.
I am very pleased to see the link-up between potato growers north and south of the Border. I was very taken by a photograph on the front page of this week's Irish Farmers Journal of Mr. Ian Paisley who was waxing eloquent about this cross-Border development. I wish it well. It would be very nice if a greater volume of the potatoes used in the chip trade were Irish grown.
If similar proposals are proposed on Report Stage will they be ruled out of order?
There would be some difficulty with that. I am concerned about labelling of beef in the catering industry, for example. This is Commissioner Fischler's area of activity and I have written and spoken to him about it. We have been promised a report on this matter and my latest information is that the informal meeting of the Council of Ministers in Kerry on 9, 10 and 11 May next will discuss this report and the possibility of extending labelling from retail outlets to the catering industry. I hope to make progress in that regard through the European Commission services, specifically at the meeting in Killarney in May.
Would it be appropriate also to address concerns about other imported fruits and vegetables? I appreciate there are particular issues regarding potatoes. Would the same requirements apply to other imported products and could that issue be addressed on Report Stage? I understand the reason beef is in a separate category and acknowledge that it might come under a different heading and so on. However, surely the same requirement for other fruit and vegetables might be important in the traceability and origin of such products.
That may be more appropriate for another occasion.
As the committee knows, a few years ago I established a labelling group which provided a valuable study and report to me. I also established a liaison panel with consumers which carried out a survey and produced a report recently. The overwhelming view of people is that they want to know the origin of the food they purchase and to have full traceability. I will facilitate that in every possible way that I can because it is a minimum requirement. That is why I am using the vehicle of this legislation for potato growers. This Bill, however, is not suitable for addressing some of the other issues. Some of them come under EU regulations. However, I am actively seeking to have the most comprehensive traceability of the origin of products available to consumers.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, before section 4, to insert the following new section:
"4.—Within two years of the transfer day, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing the cost, benefits and effectiveness of the amalgamation effected by this Act.".
I hope the Minister sees fit to accept this amendment. I have tabled it because one of the issues that came through in all the contributions, including those from the Government side, was the concern that Bord Glas may be subsumed into Bord Bia and that the horticultural aspect may be drowned out.
We often pass legislation that is not acted upon. The Education Welfare Act 2000 is a classic example where we spoke about welfare officers and so on, only to discover a few years down the line that they were not in place. It would be no harm to examine how the amalgamation effected in this legislation will work. The Minister probably has ideas about amalgamating more bodies into Bord Bia or whatever so it would be beneficial to see how this amalgamation operates.
The review would be important in establishing the effectiveness of the amalgamation. The Minister knows my thoughts on amalgamation of other food-related bodies. Based on these aspirations, I would like to see how this amalgamation actually works, how effective it is, whether it is cost-effective and effective in terms of delivery of a quality product to the consumer. A wider frame is emerging around the food area, and we will amalgamate Bord Bia and Bord Glas. There are many food agencies and this amalgamation is not the best one to do first. There will, presumably, be reasons to debate the likely co-ordination of other food agencies, and it is important in that context to see how effective this amalgamation is. I certainly support the amendment.
The principal Act provides under section 22 that the annual report and accounts shall be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas before 30 June each year. Therefore, a mechanism already exists to determine the effectiveness of this amalgamation without the need for specific legislative provision.
I know that the committee has been assiduous in meeting various bodies, and my understanding is that it met Bord Bia fairly recently. I am sure the committee will continue to do that so that it will have an occasion annually to talk with the new body and board. The committee will debate its set of accounts and performance fully. I accept that Deputy Upton is in a good position to deal with amalgamated bodies because, from a political perspective, she has recent experience of this, but the annual report and accounts and the committee's annual meeting with Bord Bia will be quite adequate. For those reasons I do not propose to accept the amendment.
What section did the Minister say refers to the laying of the annual report before the Oireachtas?
Section 22 says that the board shall submit to the Minister an annual report of its activities and the activities of every subsidiary board not later than three months after the end of each financial year.
We appear to have a different version.
I am referring to the principal Act.
That is fine. I will look at this again. We will not be able to amend the principal Act on Report Stage as it would be outside our remit. I will look at the principal Act and perhaps come back to this on Report Stage. I am happy to withdraw the amendment. There will not be a subsidiary board when this amalgamation proceeds. The board will obviously publish its annual report, but I am concerned that this annual report will not convey the effectiveness of this amalgamation. The section to which the Minister refers talks about the activities of subsidiary boards, but this will be a subsidiary board.
The main board will have a number of subsidiary boards, including the horticulture, beef and consumer food subsidiary boards. I am sure that, when Bord Bia came before this committee recently, members were able to debate and discuss the full ambit of its activities.
It is part of our work programme that we can bring in Bord Bia at any stage.
I am happy to withdraw the amendment but I think I will return to this on Report Stage because there should be a more concrete requirement to deal specifically with the amalgamation.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, paragraph (a), line 22, after “produce” to insert the following:
"produced according to traditional or organic methods and excluding genetically modified inputs".
I make this argument on the grounds that, from a health and safety point of view, the jury is still out on genetically modified produce. As well as this, I do not believe it would be beneficial to the name and status of agricultural produce. I ask for this provision to be included. Also, in page 6, paragraph (b), line 28, after “of”, I ask to insert the words “non-genetically modified”.
The proposed amendment is to make specific reference to the exclusion of genetically modified crops from the scope of this Bill to prevent the promotion of GM foods. I do not believe this Bill is a suitable vehicle for dealing with important matters such as GM foods and their appropriateness, effectiveness and safety. The general attitude towards such foods is a policy matter and this legislation is not the appropriate vehicle for making general policy amendments. I appreciate the point being made by Deputy Ferris. There is a great deal of sensitivity about GM foods.
I was involved in discussions in Brussels on regulations and directives for GM foods. Many regulations have been put in place to provide security in terms of people's concerns regarding GM foods. However, I do not believe this Bill is a suitable vehicle for dealing with such matters. For those reasons, I cannot accept the amendments.
I tabled these amendments because I believe the matter should be dealt with in this legislation. Acceptance of the amendment would strengthen the marketability of Irish produce in so far as we would be putting in place a mechanism where traditional and organic methods, as against genetically modified foods, are promoted and highlighted. It is a statement that would advance the credible status of Irish produce.
I appreciate Deputy Ferris's point and the sincerity in which it is made. I have taken into account, in all measures I have introduced, our support for traditional and organically produced food. Earlier today during Question Time, I gave an indication of my support for the organic sector. For example, under the rural environment protection scheme, REPS, people who undertake organic farming are supported in that regard to the tune of €18,500 per annum.
I also established, in association with Bord Bia, a sub-group, the Taste Council, to support and enhance artisan food producers. This is an opportune time for Ireland to become involved in the production of artisan or cottage-type foods. Approximately 40 different types of cottage cheese are produced in Cork, many of them introduced by non-local people who settled in the area. The locals then undertook courses in cheese-making with FÁS and so on. Some 46 or 47 products indigenous to the Cork area are now produced under what is known as the Fuchsia brand.
I hope, when members of the European Union come to Killarney, that we will be able to provide them with an opportunity to taste traditionally produced organic foods under a locally produced label. I appreciate the Deputy's intention but I do not believe GM foods can be properly dealt with in this Bill. They are not referred to in it and we are not trying to promote them.
What I am seeking to do is to define agricultural products. They are clearly defined in terms of production but we are leaving the provision wide open to a future definition which will include GM. That is the position from which I am coming and is why I argue this point so strongly. I do not believe GM has any place in traditionally produced agricultural food. The provision as it stands is wide open. I am simply trying to ensure it is clearly defined so there can be no misunderstanding of what is meant by the term "agricultural produce".
I do not have anything further to say on this matter. I have made my position clear. I support the production of traditional organic foods. I have at all times, in conjunction with Bord Bia, tried to promote and encourage the production of organic foods. Last week, I attended a food exhibition in Birmingham in which 17 local producers participated, almost all of them small producers. I am unable to accept the amendments.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, paragraph (b), line 28, after “of” to insert “non-genetically modified”.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 8, line 9, to delete "2001" and substitute "2003".
This amendment seeks to ensure we take account of the updated Companies Acts recently signed into law.
I accept this amendment. The collective citation of the Companies Acts is also being proposed. It follows the enactment subsequent to the initiation of this legislation in the Seanad of the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Act 2003.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 9, paragraph (a), line 3, to delete “less” and substitute “fewer”.
This matter was raised in the Seanad by the great linguist, Senator Quinn, where he pointed out some interesting notations and uses of the English language. In particular, I accept what he had to say during the Second Stage debate in that the term "not fewer" is more appropriate than "not less". In other words, we should use the words "not fewer" when referring to people and "not less" when referring to plants, flour or butter and so on. While the term "no fewer" might be equally appropriate, the term "not fewer" is being recommended as this term already appears in the principal Act. I commend the amendment to the committee.
Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am happy not to move amendments Nos. 7, 10, 13 and 14, which are in my name.
Amendments Nos. 8, 12 and 19 form composite proposal and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I am happy not to move these amendments.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, paragraph (a), line 5, after “horticulture” to insert the following:
"and that not less than two of the persons appointed shall be persons having knowledge or experience of organic production methods".
This is self explanatory and would add to the intent of the Bill. Amendment No. 11 seeks to insert in page 9, paragraph (b), line 9, after “Employment” the following: “and that all other positions be open to public competition from those suitably qualified”. This amendment is also self explanatory and I urge the Minister to accept both.
I appreciate that Deputy Timmins has withdrawn his amendments.
Deputy Ferris referred to amendment No. 11 instead of amendment No. 15 which is included with this group.
We are dealing with amendments Nos. 9 and 15. The question of an additional criterion of knowledge of the current debate on genetic and modified organisms is not necessary within the overall context of knowledge of the food industry and could be viewed as being unfair to current members. Many of the current and new members will have substantial knowledge of organic production and will be quite capable of representing those interests on the board.
With regard to the appointment of a qualified horticulturalist, it will be open to the Minister of the day to appoint more than two persons and, if he or she sees fit, to include a horticulturalist. However, it would be too restrictive to make this compulsory. I am sure future selectors will have regard to the suitability of people. At present, the members of both Bord Bia and Bord Glas are eminently suitable and I have not had any complaints about their appropriateness to adequately represent the industry. This will continue in future and, under the circumstances, I am unable to accept the amendments.
I apologise for reading the incorrect amendment. I meant amendment No. 15 which seeks to insert in page 9, paragraph (d), between lines 17 and 18, the following: “(c) the current debate on genetically modified organisms.’.”.
I support amendment No. 15. While I agree with the Minister's earlier stance on the exclusion of GMOs from the substance of the Bill per se, it would not be a bad idea to include on the board somebody who has expertise in the area.
I also support amendment No. 15. The debate on genetically modified foods and organisms has not yet taken place in this country but it will impinge significantly on future production. Whether one is for or against, it is important that expertise is available on the board to deal with issues which may arise concerning genetically modified organisms. This is a specific area which requires a specific type of expertise. It is important to recognise this and incorporate this expertise on the board. While I did not support the amendment which excluded genetically modified foods, I believe it is important to have expertise available on the board to deal with issues which will inevitably arise regarding genetically modified foods.
For the reasons outlined, I am unable to accept these amendments. An additional criterion of knowledge of genetically modified organisms is not appropriate to a State board. I value the expertise of Opposition Deputies, especially that of Deputy Upton. Knowledge of GMOs is particularly appropriate in Departments, the Dáil and the EPA, but I am not convinced it is a requirement for a State board. This is a general policy area which is best aired in the Dáil, Seanad and on this committee. For these reasons I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 21 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 9, paragraph (b), line 9, after “Employment” to insert the following:
"and that all other positions be open to public competition from those suitably qualified".
I thought we had spoken on this. I have already addressed the matter and urge the Minister to accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 9, paragraph (d), between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(c) the current debate on genetically modified organisms.’.”.
Amendments Nos. 16, 23 and 24 are related and will be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 9, line 21, after "members" to insert ", not less than six of whom shall be women".
I am willing to withdraw amendment No. 16 in favour of amendment No. 24 in the name of Deputy Upton.
The issue of gender balance on State boards needs to be spelt out. This amendment seeks compliance with the requirement to ensure that not less than 40% of the members of such boards are men and not less than 40% are women. This amendment will implement the existing Government decision regarding the 40% gender balance. I simply ask that there would be inserted into the Bill the specific requirement that the Government already has in place. I think the legislation is weak as it stands and does not encourage one to ensure that there is a gender balance and that the 40% requirement is met.
I have taken account of the desirability of appropriate gender balance in the current wording in section 19(9) of the main Act. Over the years, I have sought to ensure that at least 40% of State boards are composed of women. I cannot say the same for nominating bodies and, in this board, there are a number of nominating bodies. To my certain knowledge, every time a vacancy arises from a nominating body I write to the organisation concerned pointing out the obligation to ensure that there is adequate gender balance. To date, I have not received the nomination of any woman from the nominating body for a State board under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture and Food.
I am aware that, in other bodies, trade unions have a statutory nomination and it would be interesting to see how many women they have nominated. I suspect it is a low number. As far as ministerial appointments are concerned, I can only speak for myself. On many of the boards under my aegis, quite a number of nominating bodies have membership of boards as of right and I am trying to make up the 40% from the few ministerial appointments that are left. It makes it difficult. I call on nominating bodies to have greater regard for gender balance in their nominations to State boards. I am of the view that, in section 19(9), the desirability and encouragement which is given to nominating bodies to provide for gender balance is adequate, as is the current wording. I am therefore unable to accept the amendment.
The wording of the Bill as it stands is a real let-off and is taking the easy option to some extent. I acknowledge the Minister's point about the difficulties associated with nominating bodies. I believe that the nominating bodies should be more than just encouraged to respond. I have no doubt that the majority of these organisations which are nominating bodies have a gender balance available to them. The 40% quota is quite a modest request at this stage of our development and evolution in terms of equality and gender balance and should be taken on board. It is important that it would be emphatically written in that we would meet with the existing Government decision regarding the 40% quota.
I will withdraw my amendment in favour of Deputy Upton's amendment.
I wish to support Deputy Upton. If memory serves me correctly, my colleague from Waterford, Deputy Deasy, stated recently that we should not be pandering to women.
Does the Deputy not agree with his colleague?
I do not agree. Certainly there is no danger of it with the agriculture-related bodies. Will the Minister to examine the concept of making this section more prescriptive to overcome the difficulty and concern he has about the approach of the nominating bodies?
I have made my points as clearly as I can. I accept the need for greater gender balance. I find it curious that some organisations hold great conferences discussing gender balance and the year of the woman, for example, yet when an opportunity arises to make a nomination to a State board, they do not use the opportunity to practice what they preach. I will examine the equality legislation which I believe covers State boards. There should be a strong section in equality legislation to overcome this problem.
Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 20 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 9, line 21, after "members" to insert the following:
"and not less than three of the persons appointed having knowledge or experience of organic production methods".
The purpose of this amendment is to improve the expertise and knowledge necessary. It would be beneficial to the project to have a person with experience of organic production methods.
These amendments relate to the qualifications for appointment to the sub-boards and this was discussed earlier in the context of the main board. I am of the view that knowledge or experience of the horticulture sector, which also includes within its definition horticultural production, encompasses knowledge or experience of organic production and familiarity with current issues. The members of the present horticulture board, which it is envisaged would become a subsidiary board of the new overall board, have knowledge and experience of organic production and are familiar with it. It is unfair to them to have these amendments specifically inserted. For that reason I cannot accept these amendments.
I am happy to withdraw amendment No. 20 but I wish to speak to DeputyFerris's amendment. While I do not agree with the concept of all members being familiar with the current debate on genetic modification, I ask the Minister to examine the concept before Report Stage.
I am unable to accept this amendment for the reasons I outlined. Members of the subsidiary board have a broad knowledge of the industry. Many of them are involved in organic production and they have a familiarity with and experience of it. I do not see the necessity for this amendment and, for that reason, I cannot accept it.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
"(2) All members appointed will be familiar with the current debate on genetic modification.".
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 9, line 27, after "Minister" to insert "following public competition among those qualified".
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 9, to delete lines 34 to 41 and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:
"(6) All members shall hold office for the period of 4 years from the date of their appointment.".
Section 19 is worded deliberately to ensure an element of continuity in the subsidiary board on a rolling basis. The three year term for subsequent appointees is the normal tenure of office for such boards. Section 19(6) states:
The persons who are first appointed by the Board to be ordinary members shall hold office as follows:
(a) 4 of such members shall hold office for the period of 3 years from the date of their appointment;
(b) 4 of such members shall hold office for the period of 4 years from the date of their appointment; and
(c) the remaining members shall hold office for the period of 5 years from the date of their appointment.
There will be a turnover of board members on a regular basis, which gives the opportunity for new blood while also allowing for some continuity. A number of years ago, members were appointed to a board for a period of five years and that was it. There was no roll-over or introduction of new blood. In recent years I have followed this system which I believe is the best formula. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 10, lines 11 and 12, to delete all words from and including "have" in line 11 down to and including "balance" in line 12 and substitute the following:
"comply with the requirement to ensure that not less than 40 per cent of the members of such board are men and not less than 40 per cent are women".
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 11, after line 8, to insert the following new section:
"PART 4
AMENDMENT OF REGISTRATION OF POTATO GROWERS AND POTATO PACKERS ACT 1984
23.—This Part comes into operation on such day or days as the Minister may appoint by order or orders, either generally or with reference to any particular purpose or provision and different days may be so appointed for different purposes or different provisions.".
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 11, after line 8, to insert the following new section:
"24.—The Registration of Potato Growers and Potato Packers Act 1984 is amended—
(a) in section 2 by—
(i) inserting after subsection (5)(b) the following:
‘(c) The Minister may cause an entry in the Register to be deleted if he is satisfied, as respects that entry, that—
(i) the registered grower of potatoes concerned is no longer a grower of potatoes for sale, or
(ii) the registered packer of potatoes concerned is no longer a packer of potatoes for sale.',
and
(ii) inserting after subsection (5) the following:
‘(5A) The Register shall be available for inspection by any person at such times and in such manner as may be determined by the Minister.',
and
(b) by substituting for section 3 the following:
‘3.—(1) A person who grows potatoes shall not sell such potatoes unless he or she is a registered grower.
(2) A person shall not sell potatoes in a package unless—
(a) such potatoes have been grown by a registered grower and packed by a registered packer, and
(b) the package bears the registration number of—
(i) the registered grower, and
(ii) the registered packer.
(3) A person who fails to comply with subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall be guilty of an offence.'.".
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 3, line 9, after "BIA," to insert "TO AMEND THE REGISTRATION OF POTATO GROWERS AND POTATO PACKERS ACT 1984,".
