I welcome the Minister to the Select Committee. Amendment No. 2 is related to amendment No. 1; amendment No. 23 is consequential on amendment No. 2 and amendment No. 35 is related and they may be taken together by agreement.
National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill, 1999 [Seanad]: Committee Stage.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 5, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following subsections:
"(2) The Diseases of Animals Acts, 1966 to 1996, and section 35 may be cited together as the Diseases of Animal Acts, 1966 to 2000, and shall be construed together as one.
(3) The Slaughter of Animals Acts, 1935 and 1988, and section 37 may be cited together as the Slaughter of Animals Acts, 1935 to 2000, and shall be construed together as one.”.
The acceptance of the amendment proposed by the Labour Party to section 36 requires that I move a small consequential amendment to the preceding paragraph of section 36. I move: "That the final comma and the word 'and' be deleted and replaced by a full stop." This is very much a textual amendment.
The acceptance of the Labour Party amendments also involve a consequential amendment to the Second Schedule where the new collective citation for the Livestock Marts Act needs to be entered. This is provided for by amendmentNo. 35.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 24 are related to amendment No. 3 and they may be taken together by agreement.
Amendment No. 3 not moved.
Amendment No. 5 is related to amendment No. 4 and they can be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 26 to 28 and substitute the following:
" 'farmer' means a keeper, other than a dealer, who is the owner or person in charge of a herd or to whom a herd number is for the time being allocated by an officer of the Minister;".
The Government has tabled a number of amendments to section 2(1), which list the interpretation of various words in the Bill. For example, the definition of "farmer" is being amended in order to more clearly differentiate between farmers and dealers for the purposes of the Bill. Following from this amendment, the term "herd identifier" is no longer necessary and is being deleted.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 6, subsection (1), to delete lines 41 to 43.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 10, to delete "Article" and substitute "Regulation".
This is a textual amendment in relation to the definition of a mart. It replaces the incorrect reference to "Article" in the citing of the Livestock Marts Regulations, 1968, with the word "Regulation". It is purely a technical amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related to amendment No. 8 and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 8, line 37, to delete ", other than section 6(1)(d), shall not” and substitute “shall”.
I apologise for being late. I thought the committee was due to met at 2.30 p.m.
We tried to contact the Deputy.
Does this amendment deal with meat importers?
This is extending the provisions of the Bill to supermarkets, butchers' shops and so forth. At present, that is being done by the health boards. The amendments propose that the national beef assurance scheme should be extended to them.
I have no trouble with that. The first substantial amendment I have before me is the one regarding the provisions not applying to the food industry.
Is it amendment No. 12?
It was in section 3 which deals with the national beef assurance scheme.
That section has been agreed.
We are on section 4.
I might be out of order but the amendment I put down on section 3 is a substantial amendment.
The Deputy's first amendment is amendment No. 8 to section 4. Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 are related so we are discussing amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 10 together.
I am sorry for the confusion. This is an important amendment. I received many representations, as I am sure the Department did, from the interest groups involved. The section provides that it should be unlawful for a participant to produce, trade or otherwise handle animals' carcasses or meat for human consumption or to manufacture or trade in feeding stuffs unless the participant is the holder of a certificate of approval. That is the bottom line. We know what the primary producer is responsible for.
It is also unlawful for a participant, whom I will call a farmer, to sell or supply animals, carcasses or meat for human consumption or to sell or supply feeding stuffs to a participant who does not hold a certificate of approval. It also applies to a participant who buys or receives animals, carcasses or meat for human consumption or who buys or receives feeding stuffs from any other participant who does not hold a certificate. It is also unlawful for a person who owns or operates a food business to buy or receive or to be in possession of animals, carcasses or meat for human consumption from a participant who does not hold a certificate of approval.
That is the chain of command, as it were, but it is difficult to understand how the Minister can break that chain of command. What if a product is delivered to a retail outlet, for example, and something goes wrong with the refrigeration? What if something goes wrong in the store and the meat is handled badly or cross-contaminated? Is it not possible that the primary producer, for whom this scheme has been organised, will have to carry the can anyway? I heard Dr. Patrick Wall of the Food Safety Authority say on more than one occasion that the vast majority of food poisoning outbreaks are due to food not being handled or refrigerated properly.
In this Bill the main responsibility is being placed on the primary producers for something they will have no control over once it reaches a certain point. I have no problem with what is being asked of the primary producers but I cannot understand why they will have to carry the can at every stage. Take for example an animal that is taken off grass in County Meath - let us say it is one of Deputy Johnny Brady's - and is brought to a supermarket shelf to be displayed as perfect meat. However, something may go wrong in the shop with the handling or the refrigeration of the meat and this is brought to the notice of the health inspector. This legislation puts a greater degree of responsibility on the primary producer than on anybody else.
The Minister will say there are laws to protect them at that stage. However, that law is not nearly as strong as the legal requirements on the primary producer. There is nothing in this Bill which shows a division of responsibility between the farmer in County Meath who produces the animal and what happens to it in the retail outlet. Many people are worried about that.
I have another major problem with the legislation with regard to the importation of animal feedstuffs. This product is not covered by the legislation. If it is manufactured in Ireland, the new regime will apply but in the case of imported feedstuffs, we must depend on the legislation that applies in the country of origin. We have to import protein foods, such as fishmeal and soya bean meal, to include in an animal's rations. We have no way of knowing how tight is the regime on quality control in the countries of origin and our farmers might have to carry the can for something that is wrong with the imported products.
Although I agree with the principle of the Bill, it contains some heavy-handed elements. There may not be many people taking note of it at this stage, while it is going through the House, but after it has been in force for about a year they will wonder why we allowed such heavy-handed legislation to become law.
The Bill could also contains an anti-competitive element. Take, for example, meat products that come to this country from New Zealand. How is anybody to know when they are side by side with Irish produce on the shop shelves in Dublin how much attention has been paid to the details of the production process in New Zealand compared with that in this country? I do not know what legislation New Zealand might have on meat production but if it is any stricter than ours, it would be extremely strict.
This amendment is one of three or four vital amendments I have put down to deal with provisions in the Bill which concern me greatly.
The purpose of the Bill is to counteract the difficulties which became apparent in the marketplace and with consumers following the BSE controversy in 1996 and 1997. Confidence has been badly shaken as a result of BSE. One of the first responses in Ireland was to establish the Food Safety Authority with Dr. Patrick Wall as chief executive. It has worked well and allayed the concerns of consumers. The level of consumption of red meat in Ireland has been maintained. This is better than in most other countries. In addition, we have retained our position in the marketplace throughout Europe and the rest of the world to a great extent after the extreme difficulties caused by BSE.
The Bill is one of the confidence restoration measures that have been introduced in Ireland. The Food Safety Authority of Ireland, under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children, is the primary body involved in ensuring food safety. Ultimately, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is responsible for food safety matters. The Bill must be considered in conjunction with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland measures and legislation on food that already covers food businesses, which the Deputy mentioned.
Businesses including retail butchers, supermarkets, grocery stores and other food outlets are already strictly regulated under the European Union Hygiene of Foodstuffs Regulations, 1998 - S.I. 86 of 1998. These regulations set out detailed standards for premises and procedures in respect of food businesses covering the entire scope of their operations, including cold storage and all that area of activity.
The regulations are enforced by the health boards which, like the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, are agents for the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. We enter into a contract with the authority, but it is the authority, under the aegis of the Department of Health and Children, which ultimately has responsibility for ensuring food safety for consumers. The health boards operate a system of regular controls, inspections, sampling and analysis, the criteria for which are laid down in the European Communities Official Control of Foodstuffs Regulations, 1998, which is S.I. 85 of 1998. These regulations provide powers to the health boards of seizure and detention of product, product withdrawal, suspension of operations or closure of businesses. There is also power to prosecute such businesses in the courts.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland is responsible for supermarkets, butchers and retail outlets while the national beef assurance regulations will deal with the primary producer and the processing part of the business. Against this background, it would constitute a duplication and a waste of valuable resources to include the businesses in the registration, inspection and approval process under the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill. They already come under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland regulations. In addition, the introduction of a two tier inspection and approval system for these businesses would be contrary to the Government's regulatory reform initiative which seeks to simplify regulations and procedures for businesses.
However, by regulating primary production and processing, the National Beef Assurance Scheme Bill will regulate the sources of supply for such businesses. Under the scheme this sector will be obliged to ensure that when buying or receiving Irish beef, they deal only with participants who are approved. This provision is contained in section 6(1)(d). Non-compliance will constitute an offence for which rigorous penalties are provided in section 25. In addition, provision has been made in section 29 for the appointment of authorised officers to check whether this provision is being met. The combination of the legislation operated by the health boards under the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the regulations under this Bill will ensure that consumer protection across the entire food chain is encompassed in relation to the production, processing and sale of Irish beef.
I am not convinced. Regarding the importation of feedstuffs, such as fishmeal or other protein foods which must be imported to balance meal feeding for animals, what type of guarantee can the Minister give that the standards required in Ireland will be met at the source of importation? If a farmer in County Kildare produces a tonne of barley it must be of a certain standard. How can we be sure that the same standard applies to the production of a tonne of fishmeal? Who will ensure that it meets the same standard?
In relation to imports of beef, the purpose of the national beef assurance scheme is to provide additional assurances about Irish beef and production to promote confidence in the Irish product and improve its marketability. It would be contrary to the purpose of the scheme to include imported beef. However, animals imported into the State would have to be covered since they could subsequently be traded, slaughtered or processed in the same way as domestic production. The inclusion of imported beef could also constitute a barrier to trade in contravention of EU and international legislation.
The proposal to include imported meat under the scope of the Bill arises from the concern that meat imported into the EU from third countries does not have to comply with the same strict requirements as the meat produced in the EU and that the consumer would be at risk from such product. However, that is not the case. Meat imported from outside the EU is also subject to strict regulation. Meat may only be imported from approved premises in third countries and from establishments in those countries which have been specifically approved by EU veterinary officials. In addition, the meat may only be imported through approved import points and it must be accompanied by animal and public health certification conforming with EU requirements. The list of countries and establishments exporting to the EU is subject to continuous monitoring and review.
This is an important matter. The Minister mentioned existing standards around the world, but he knows better than most because he has been through it many times that the standards necessary in an abattoir in Argentina would be entirely different from the standards necessary in Ireland. There is nothing to stop Argentinean beef getting into Ireland. It would cost much less from the point of view of the various strictures that are applied. This also applies in the case of New Zealand and many other countries. This gives them a competitive edge on the primary producer in Ireland.
The Minister and his predecessors have grappled with the shipment of live cattle by boat. Almost every country has a different standard but our standard for sailing on the high seas is so high that none of them could come near us. I accept the Minister's points but is it the case that a particular standard will be inflicted on our primary producers but a lower standard will apply to all imported goods and foods? This would be anti-competitive. I understand from where the primary producers are coming.
Regarding the crossover between the health boards and inspections and the Food Safety Authority, I am most impressed with the authority. As all members have noted on various occasions, the authority was much needed. It ensures that somebody can speak with authority when there is an outbreak of poultry disease or BSE. It is either bad for public health or it is not bad and if it is not bad, we want consumers to trust and believe the person who says so. In fairness to Dr. Patrick Wall and the authority, it is going in the right direction. I compliment him on that and I hope he will always say what he believes, although that might not always suit particular industries. So far, he has been very independent minded and, above all, he has taken a common sense approach. However, that does not deal with this problem, which I think is anti-competitive.
When a cut of meat is inspected by another authority, where does the primary producer stand? What responsibility do I have if part of the carcass of one my animals in a supermarket is found not be up to standard, given that the Food Safety Authority has nothing to with my farm or my animals but is concerned with the product of those animals? Where does the primary producer stand in that regard?
In regard to the importation of beef into the EU, a relatively small amount of beef is imported into Ireland. A far greater amount of other meats, such as poultry meat and pigmeat, are imported here. Reference was made to Argentina and other third countries. Any premises where beef is produced for importation into the EU must be approved by EU inspectors, and the same applies when we export to countries outside the EU. For example, in the past two years Russian veterinary inspectors were sent to Ireland to inspect and approve plants. They go to the registration centre in Bandon to examine our traceability and they must be satisfied. Similarly, inspectors under the aegis of the EU veterinary and scientific committee go to different countries. They have a list of the approved plants from which beef can be imported into any EU member state. There is very strict control on importation.
In this Bill we are underpinning the quality of Irish beef and giving assurances to consumers at home and worldwide. Any beef imported into Ireland is subject to the strict regulations of the European Union.
The Minister gave the example of Russia and it is true that the Russians have been coming here for many years to check our abattoirs. However, countries such as Russia and Egypt have much lower standards than ours. We would have huge problems if we were importing beef from those countries. Not enough thought has been given to the cross-over between the imported and native product. I am not satisfied with the Minister's response.
We export large amounts of Irish beef to EU countries, including the UK, France, Italy, the Netherlands and a number of Scandinavian countries. Their inspectors come to Ireland. Before the BSE crisis, 60% of our exports were to the EU and 40% were to third countries. Following the BSE crisis, those figures reversed, with 40% going to the EU and 60% to third countries. We have clawed our way back with regard to the EU and our exports are now divided about 50:50, with the amount going to the EU increasing, which is very important. Countries such as France, Italy and the Netherlands have exceptionally high standards, and rightly so because food safety requirements cannot be fulfilled without absolute attention to detail.
We will be one of the first EU countries - if not the first - to give statutory effect to the underpinning of our beef assurance standards. The voluntary schemes are very valuable. However, we have a commercial reason, apart from food safety considerations, to do that because we export 90% of our production. It is incumbent on us to have the most stringent food safety regulations.
I concur with the Deputy's views on the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, which has been excellent at getting to the nub of the problem quickly. Given the number of people who eat out nowadays and the difficulties with e-coli, listeria and food poisoning, any lapse in standards must be nipped in the bud. We have been, by and large, quite successful in that regard. However, one needs to be totally vigilant, which the main reason for this legislation. However, this Bill must be read in conjunction with the Food Safety Authority's regulations and legislation.
Where does the farmer stand when his product passes into the retail outlet? What is the position of the primary producer if something goes wrong at that stage? Can he be linked in? This is a very important issue.
The National Beef Assurance Bill covers a gap in the food chain, whereby retail outlets, butchers and others dealing directly with the consumer were covered by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and EU regulations on food safety, but there was nothing to give further assurance at farmer and factory level. This Bill is specifically geared towards the producer and the factory. The Food Safety Authority's regulations take it on from there. Any extension of the legislation to retail outlets would duplicate what we are doing already.
The Food Safety Authority of Ireland did not set up a quango but entered into contracts with the health boards and the Department's inspectorate. It employed staff from those bodies on a contract basis to do the inspection, analysis and so on.
The position in respect of product liability is that Council Directive 85/374/EEC lays down the laws, regulations and administrative procedures concerning liability for defective products. Therefore, a farmer with a defective product comes under this directive. Directive 199/34/EEC extends the scope of this legislation to primary agricultural products with effect from 4 December 2000. Under Directive 85/374/EEC the burden of proof rests with the injured party. It also sets out the circumstances under which the producer is not liable. There is nothing in the National Beef Assurance Bill which impinges on this legislation. We have legislation covering primary production and processing and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland regulations apply to everything else. Therefore, the entire food chain is covered by this Bill and the FSAI regulations.
I would be very concerned if there were not seen to be a seamless operation between the primary production and the ultimate point of consumption. I say that from the perspective of food safety.
I take on board what the Minister has said about the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and I acknowledge that it is doing an excellent job. It has been proactive in protecting the consumer. However, from the point of view of the entire chain, the EU Commissioner, Mr. Byrne, for example, would be adamant that we have a seamless operation. By this is meant that we can see it operate from primary production to the point of consumption and that the same authority and regulations would refer all the way through the system.
In practice that will be the case because the Schedules to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland Act provide that if and when this Bill becomes law - I hope that will happen within a number of weeks - the Food Safety Authority of Ireland will be able to draw down regulations as provided for by the legislation covering it to ensure that there will be a seamless regulatory situation covering primary production through to the consumer. This Bill and the legislation covering the authority will give total security to consumers because this legislation will deal with matters as far as the retail outlets while the authority will deal with it through to the consumer.
From the point of view of the consumer, there is a perception that it is not seen to be under the aegis of the same authority all the way through. In terms of consumer safety and food safety that perception is extremely important. There has been huge destruction of consumer confidence in the food chain and especially in the meat industry over the last couple of years. For that reason alone it is very important that the process is seen to be seamless.
I take the Deputy's point and I acknowledge her expertise in this area. The ultimate authority and responsibility for food safety rests with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and Dr. Wall and his team. They take on inspectors from various authorities by way of contract. When the Government introduced the Food Safety Authority of Ireland legislation it deliberately gave responsibility for implementing it to the Department of Health and Children because of the difficulty in reassuring people following the enormous dent in confidence arising from BSE and other food scares. People are now more comfortable with the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and are further assured by it.
The health boards and my Department act as agents of the Food Safety Authority of Ireland with regard to the delivery of food safety for the benefit of the consumer and will enter into contracts with it. We will not have the ultimate say; that rests with Dr. Wall and his people. They are very proactive. We can allay the fears, difficulties and misunderstandings that consumers might have by reassuring them that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland is the responsible authority for food safety and this Bill, the regulations provided under it and the personnel implementing its provisions, will operate under the aegis of the authority.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 6; Níl, 8.
Tá
- Boylan, Andrew.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Finucane, Michael.
- Ring, Michael.
- Sheehan, P. J.
- Upton, Mary.
Níl
- Blaney, Harry.
- Brady, John.
- Browne, John (Wexford).
- Collins, Michael.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kitt, Michael.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Walsh, Joe.
SECTION 10.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 10, subsection (2), line 26, after "Minister" to insert "Any such inspection or checking in respect of farms shall be carried out at the same time as the annual TB and Brucellosis tests and at no extra cost to the herdowner.".
There will be a huge number of farm inspections to ensure compliance, but I am sure the Minister would also want there to be as little extra cost to farmers as possible. I propose that the farm inspections shall be carried out by the veterinarian when he or she carries out the annual test, which, as the Minister will be aware, must be taken by all farms.
There are a number of reasons for this approach. It will avoid unnecessary duplication, both in activity on the farm and in costs. For the information of people who might not understand what happens on a farm, there is no shortage of inspections. There are 50,000 farmers taking part in the REP scheme, whose farms are inspected regularly by the agricultural officers of the Department and then under a 5% random check by more senior people in the Department. There are compliance checks for the special beef, headage and ewe premiums and there are compliance checks on farms for the area aid scheme. In addition, there are several veterinary inspections of farms on the occasion of an outbreak of TB and brucellosis. In other words, not a day goes by but the agricultural officers are inspecting farms. We would prefer if not as many of them were needed, but that is the way it is.
The Bill provides that to get a certificate of approval under the Bill there must be a farm visit. I do not want to add to the bureaucracy. One must take account of the influence of the veterinarian and the relationship which he or she has with the farmer. The veterinarian is present on the occasion of a difficult calving and he or she literally touches every animal. Needless to say, he or she does not do so for nothing. It is costly.
The sale of veterinary products used to be confined to chemist shops but now most veterinarians sell them. Therefore, veterinarians are aware not only of the health status of the animals but the drugs which are being administered. They are not only supplying and getting paid for the drugs, but they must now stamp the back of the herd book and supply information regarding medicines, etc., that have been given to animals. With that level of involvement in the process, any vet should be able to provide certification and stand over it. It is important that the certification stands up to scrutiny. The Bill or the regulations should stipulate that, when a vet calls to a farm on the day on which TB and brucellosis tests are being carried out, he or she should be in a position to carry out the inspection and provide certification or whatever at that stage.
There are major problems in this area for members of the farming community and many representations have been made to the Minister by the farming organisations. I had thought that REPS planners and others would have a much greater input into this matter. If I pay £400 or £500 to a REPS planner he should be in a position to know that I use environmentally friendly farming methods, that I run a tidy farm and that I look after my animals' welfare. It is that with which the Bill is concerned. However, as stated on Second Stage, this means that people require a permit to farm. The Minister does not use that terminology but for the first time ever we are asking farmers to obtain a permit to farm. If farmers are not entitled to a certificate of approval, their herd number will be removed.
Given the over-arching nature of this provision and the huge costs involved, does the Minister not believe that my amendment is reasonable and sensible? I accept that there might be occasions on which a farmer would not possess animals - he or she might be a cereal grower - but, on the other hand, this is a beef assurance scheme so it only applies to animal husbandry. I imagine there is no need for vets to increase their charges in order for them to provide certification. They are already been paid to test animals, to provide the medicines and drugs required by animals and to make on-farm calls. I do not believe there should be any unnecessary expenditure on this scheme.
I support the amendment. In the interest of keeping costs low and minimising bureaucracy it would be advantageous to have one inspection which would cover TB and brucellosis testing and fulfil the requirement of the assurance scheme. There should be scope for spot checking between inspections, the Department should not depend on one visit which is linked to annual testing for TB and brucellosis. It would make a great deal of sense if these matters could be co-ordinated in the interests of keeping costs low and minimising paper trails.
I support this laudable amendment.
The Deputy should not be too hard on the Minister.
Everyone is aware that farmers are obliged to open files on every animal they own. Not alone that, they need to be very well versed in computers to keep abreast of developments.
The amendment states that "Any such inspection . . . shall be carried out at the same time as the annual TB and Brucellosis tests and at no extra cost to the herdowner". In my opinion this would not be much of an imposition on veterinary inspectors. Furthermore, it is better that farm inspections be carried out by veterinary inspectors than REPS officers because many farmers are still not members of REPS schemes. Everyone is compelled to have their herd inspected for TB and brucellosis each year by a veterinary officer and asking him or her to carry out the farm inspection at the same time represents the most effective and efficient way to proceed.
The amendments are geared towards reducing the multiplicity of inspections and minimising the cost involved. I totally agree with those sentiments. Under the partnership arrangements which have been in place for the past decade, virtually all aspects of administration are dealt with on a consensus basis. In drawing up the legislation, I and senior officials in my Department held numerous meetings with the representative farming organisations. The benefits offered by the legislation will be important to producers and to the industry. We are determined that the costs incurred on foot of its introduction will be minimal and we want to ensure that, if possible, officers on visits to farms carry out more than one inspection. We want to avoid duplication and ensure that the costs involved are minimal.
With regard to the spot checks to which Deputy Upton referred, these can form part of the inspection mechanism but I reiterate that it is not necessary to introduce legislation in that regard. I expect that the initial approval will be given on foot of detailed investigation; thereafter monitoring will be done by way of spot checks.
Section 10 outlines the conditions and procedures for the granting of a certificate of approval. The essential conditions and procedures are that the Minister may determine the format of the application for the certificate. Provision is made for inspection of the holding or premises concerned and for any other checks the Minister deems necessary to assess whether the applicant is complying with the terms of the legislation and is a fit and suitable person to hold a certificate.
Amendment No. 11 provides that the inspection of farms shall be carried out at the time of the annual disease test and that it shall be at no extra cost to the farmer. The procedure for the inspection of farms has not yet been agreed with the social partners. We are involved in detailed consultations with them and there is no argument about this matter. As Deputy Connaughton stated, we have proposed that it be carried out on the same day as the annual inspection. We have almost reached agreement with the different bodies involved. In line with general policy, the Department's proposal is that farm inspections shall be carried out as part of the annual TB test in order to minimise any additional costs and reduce the number of possible inspections for farmers.
Under section 10(c) the cost of securing a certificate of approval shall be the responsibility of the applicant. The rate of the inspection fee will be a matter between the inspector and the farmer. This aspect is being discussed by representative organisations with a view to agreeing a system which will not impose any undue burden on farmers. There is nothing in the section which will prejudice the outcome of those negotiations.
I am seeking the same outcome as that sought in the amendment. I do not believe it is necessary to make provision in the legislation because we will bring about what is required by means of reaching a consensus in our discussions with the farming and other organisations involved.
I intend to call for a voice vote on the amendment because I still harbour a number of concerns. I fully acknowledge that the Minister also wants the same outcome, but I am worried that the certificate could be costly and that is not acceptable. There is no need for it. The veterinary profession carries out its duties well and it is an important sector in the animal husbandry chain. When TB and brucellosis tests are carried out the farmer pays for them. Nobody is in a better position to know the health status of the farm than the local veterinarian. Unfortunately, he must visit farms too often and knows too much. My farm is not a ranch, yet my veterinary bills have quadrupled over the past five years. It is a huge cost for farmers.
There should be little or no cost for this certificate. I understand that negotiations are ongoing but I am afraid that, while the inspection will coincide with the TB and brucellosis tests, it will be expensive. Can the Minister make sure the cost will not be prohibitive? It should be free because it is not extra work for anybody. Can the Minister or the Department put pressure on the veterinary profession to ensure that this is carried out in the manner I outlined?
I am concerned because veterinary costs for farmers are unreal, particularly those in involved in dairy and suckler cow production. Even if the inspection takes place on the day of the TB and brucellosis testing, veterinarians will still charge. However, if they visit the farm on a separate occasion to carry out the inspection it will be much more expensive. Will the Minister seek a guarantee that if it is carried out on the same day as the brucellosis or TB testing it will be charged at a lower rate? There is not point in saying that there will not be a charge because it coincides with the other tests.
There should not be.
Nobody should think otherwise but the charge should be kept to a minimum because it will be difficult, especially for small producers. The extra few pound that they will pay for the inspection means a great deal to them. I appeal to the Minister to do anything he can to keep this charge to a minimum as it is important.
I cannot fix the cost for this. The vast majority of farmers already comply with this legislation and the cost should be minimal. However, there is no way a professional person will sign a certificate unless he receives some consideration. A commissioner for oaths would charge one a fair penny. Negotiations are ongoing between the inspectors and the farming organisations. The latter have shown that they are good negotiators. A minimal cost will be applied and a significant advantage will accrue to farmers because the beef industry will be at a significant advantage when this legislation is implemented. My proposal is that the inspection should be carried out on the same day as the annual round test at a minimal cost to be agreed between farming and veterinary representatives.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
Sections 11 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 15.
Amendment No. 13 is cognate to amendment No. 12 and both may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 12, subsection (2)(b), lines 6 and 7, to delete “to the Minister” and substitute “orally to an independent self-financing appeal board based at county level”.
This refers to the appeals system, which is a fundamental aspect of the Bill. Most Members have a huge problem with the appeals mechanisms anyway. The appeals mechanism for headage payments and penalties imposed by the European Union and the Department is the one most often mentioned and I do not wish to confuse both. The Bill encompasses legislation going back to 1965 and the number of Acts and regulations involved is frightening.
These include the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 to 1965; Protection of Animals Kept for Farming Purposes Act, 1984; brucellosis, tuberculosis and BSE legislation; Diseases of Animals (Protection of Animals During Transport) Orders, 1995 and 1997; European Communities (Importation of Bovine Animals and Products obtained from Bovine Animals from the United Kingdom) Regulations, 1996; animal by-products and feedstuffs regulations; Local Government (Water Pollution) Acts, 1977 and 1990; Waste Management Act, 1996; the Environmental Protection Agency Act, 1992. Part II refers to the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 to 1965 again while Part III deals with manufacturers or traders of feedstuffs including the Fertilisers, Feedingstuffs and Mineral Mixtures Act, 1955, and the 1957 regulations. Part IV refers to abattoirs and the Slaughter of Animals Acts, 1935 and 1988. Part V deals with assembly centres or livestock marts and legislation such as the Livestock Marts Act, 1967, the Livestock Marts (Date of Test and Name and Address of Owner) Regulations, 1997, and the Protection of Animals (Marts etc.) Order, 1994. Part VI concerns meat plants and relevant legislation such as the Protection of Animals Acts, 1911 and 1965, and the Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Acts, 1930 to 1988.
This is the largest Bill I have ever seen. Given that a farmer must have a permit to farm, any appeals mechanism must be independent, transparent and, above all, accessible where penalties are concerned. There is nothing wrong with the current system operated by the Department in that everything is above board in the sense that it does the best it can to interpret the rules. There must be a move towards an independent authority with regard to appeals, similar to that made by the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in recent years. I say that because, for the duration of Agenda 2000, the cheque in the post will comprise on average 55% of every farmer's income. Like it or not, that is how it will be. Penalties are imposed for different reasons. Sometimes there is good reason and no member would condone fraudulent claims. Sometimes innocent mistakes are made, yet hugely crippling rules and penalties are applied which bear no relation to the crime committed. I can instance up to 40 such cases where people committed minor misdemeanours and were held to ransom by having their entire payment withheld or delayed for one or two years. If that comprises 55% of the farmers' income, one can imagine how badly off they must be.
We have an opportunity to make a solid case for an independent appeals system. I do not wish to delay the committee but I will give two examples. A man in County Galway had 30 sheep and he ticked the wrong box on the application form which meant he was fined £100. It is the easiest thing in the world to do. The sheep were in the field when the inspector called but the wrong box had been ticked and the farmer was fined £100. The Minister might say £100 is not very much but, if a person only has such a small number of sheep, it is a great deal of money. Another man applied for the 22 month special beef premium. His bullock was within retention when it broke its leg and the vet said that if it was not slaughtered immediately - it was perfect for human consumption - he would have to put it down. The bullock was brought to the factory that day and slaughtered. However, the farmer did not notify the Department that day but the day after. That was no good because he had disposed of the animal without the Department's approval. That resulted in a 15% penalty on all his payments under the special beef premium.
We should not stand for this and, in fairness to the Minister, I know he would not want to stand for it either. However, it is happening. There is no point in my elaborating further because everyone present knows the scene as well as I do.
In this Bill we are agreeing to a provision where a farmer who has been found to be in breach of the law will have his herd number taken from him. If a person is bad enough to put his neighbours, food security, Irish consumers and exports at risk, that is what should be done. Nonetheless, that person should have access to an appeals system at the local district veterinary office. I do not understand why farmers must travel to Dublin from Clonakilty, Wexford or Meath for an oral appeal. If people are on social welfare the appeals officer visits them. Furthermore, farmers are not good with written statements and everyone knows that. As the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has found, they should be given a chance to present their case orally, with their wives or advisers present, to people who are independent of the Department. Department officials can be present if they wish to make their case to the independent authority. I reiterate that this should be available locally.
The Minister said a number of times in the Dáil that he wished to introduce a system of this nature. However, in the context of the legislation, I want to see it done locally and independently. These matters take up many hours of a rural Deputy's time. No matter where he or she goes, this is a burning issue. There are occasions when farmers break the rules and for that they must bear the full brunt of the law. However, I am sure we understand that the problem is the innocent mistakes which cause so much trouble and trauma to many farming families.
Does the Minister understand my argument and is it possible for him to deliver on it? This is a crucial item because there has never before been such overarching legislation. Given the importance of the cheque in the post, beef exports and the relationship we want to forge with consumers - if they do not eat the meat we will not sell it so we must be consumer-driven - it has never in the past 25 years been so necessary to have a transparent and independent appeals system. I cannot put it any stronger than that.
I thank Deputy Connaughton. He is correct to say that, in the plethora of regulations which govern farming activities, especially those associated with direct payments to farmers which make up the 55% on average of their incomes, there has been a constant criticism of the appeals system and the severity of the penalty system. It has been stated by backbenchers in the House on a regular basis that there is no sense to the level of penalties for an innocent error or mistake, such as something deleted or omitted or a wrong number of figure. The person is docked not only the amount for that animal but also the amount for the entire herd and in some cases for two years.
People saw the appeals system as unsatisfactory so I gave an undertaking to the House at Question Time before Christmas that I would establish an independent appeals system, such as that to which the Deputy referred. In the meantime, the officials in the Department are drawing up the necessary legislation with the Attorney General's office. As the Deputy knows, providing legislation to put this on a statutory basis will take, even with the best will in the world, until the end of the year. For example, this Bill is eight months going through so far. My officials are in negotiation with the Attorney General's office to establish an independent appeals mechanism on an interim basis pending a statutory basis for it.
We are also in negotiation with the European Union because the Department is the accredited paying agency for the direct payments. The EU must be satisfied that, if an appeals system overturns a decision to refuse a payment, that that appeals system is up-front, authentic and objective. We have the advantage that there is such an appeals unit in the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs which works well. If there is a downside to such units, it is that they take from the work of many Deputies and our clinic system might be endangered if there were too many of them.
Even at this stage it is a good thing.
I give an undertaking to the committee and to the House that I will seek to extend the remit of the independent appeals body which I am establishing for direct payments to include this issue. These are two different matters. My only difficulty with saying that I will go ahead and do it is the need for EU approval. However, I give as strong an undertaking as possible that I will extend the remit of the independent appeals unit. The Programme for Prosperity and Fairness includes a commitment to establish this unit.
The programme also agreed that I would go to Brussels to seek proportionality in terms of the penalties. I am obliged to do so. Pending the establishment of the appeals unit on a statutory basis, it is my intention to do so on an interim basis. I will seek to extend the unit's remit to also include this issue because I know what the Deputy is talking about. Many people, backbenchers included, grouse about this problem at agricultural meetings and clinics. It is a fair comment.
How is it that farmers can be told by the Department that they have made no application for extensification grants or beef premia when they are able to produce a certificate of postage? The Department accepts the certificate of postage. However, if the farmer mislays or loses the certificate the Department throws the matter out. The onus is on farmers to prove that an application was made. When they do so and produce copies of the application forms submitted, it is not upheld by the Department. The Department covers up its own mistake if it loses the forms but it does not accept the word of landowners or farmers. That is wrong. Can the Minister explain why the Department accepts proof of postage when produced but if the farmer loses the certificate, and I know some who have, they are deprived of their grants?
I have come across this situation and probably some clients have come to the Deputy and me about this.
I would not be surprised.
I do not know who gets the No. 1.
I know of an old farmer who would have had to cycle ten miles but could not do so last January and lost 20 ewes. The appeal was not upheld because he could not go out for three months as he was landlocked due to frost and snow.
We cannot have a debate about the Deputy's constituency. Is the amendment being pressed?
We will put it to a voice vote. I appreciate the Minister's actions and we will return to this issue on Report Stage
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 15 agreed to.
Amendment No. 13 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, are cognate on amendment No. 14 and these amendments may be taken together.
I move amendment No. 14.
In page 13, subsection (1), line 19, to delete "Circuit" and substitute "District".
The last line of defence in this chain is that a farmer whose herd number has been removed has the opportunity to appeal under the system originally proposed by the Minister. Failing this, the farmer would have had to apply to the Circuit Court. I have difficulty with this provision.
Whatever misdemeanour the farmer has committed he will have been punished through the courts or through the withholding of his payments. The legislation will have taken its course. If, for example, a fraudulent application was made for sheep and the farmer did not have the required number of sheep, he would be removed from the scheme for a year or two and would have been fined in that way. The farmer's herd number would be taken from him. Following the Minister's recent announcements concerning the independent appeals system, the farmer would then have no option but to go to the Circuit Court.
I am not a legal expert so I will have to express myself in layman's language. The Circuit Court can barely handle the level of serious cases it has at present. I do not know what a Circuit Court judge would have to do with the returning of a herd number. I do not understand this aspect of the provision. I might understand it if we were talking about an independent body which knew all about herd numbers and the reasons why all of this happened. However, if senior counsels are to be involved in this process they will have to convey the details of the case to the judge. A case might last half a day or longer in court and the Circuit Court may be a long way from where people live. The same applies to the appeals mechanism to which I referred.
When I first read this Bill I could not understand why farmers would have to go to court at all. There may be a case for a judicial review but I could not understand why it was proposed to take up the court's time deciding whether a farmer should regain his herd number. It would be a different matter if we were dealing with fraud and so on, and I have no argument with people appearing before judges for such behaviour. However, the Bill proposes that, after due process, the only place a farmer can go is to the Circuit Court, accompanied by an army of barristers and solicitors.
The Minister has received advice on this matter from the Attorney General and I am not able to argue points of law. However, if a court is be involved why can it not be the local District Court? We are not talking about an actual offence as the farmer will have paid his debt to society in another court and is seeking the return of his herd number to allow him to start farming again. If I were a Circuit Court judge the first question I would ask would be whether the Department, Teagasc and the other agencies were happy that the farmer in question should be allowed to resume farming? The matter would be dealt with by barristers and senior counsels and the decision made as to whether to give back the herd number based on information available from authorities far removed from the court.
If it must be a legal matter, although I cannot see why it should be, why will the Minister not accept my amendment in regard to the District Court? That would be based locally, less costly and would not clog up the other courts. I sincerely hope that very few people will have to go to court. I think I am being very reasonable about this. When I saw a reference to the Circuit Court in this legislation, I simply could not understand what was behind it. Perhaps the Minister will give us an indication of the thinking behind it. There should be another forum or medium through which to solve these problems, but if it is necessary to resort to court, the court should be the District Court.
When this legislation was being prepared in the Department, it was our intention to have these matters referred to the District Court. However, the Office of the Attorney General insisted that these matters should be dealt with by the Circuit Court on the basis that the vast majority of farmers will not have difficulties. There will be dialogue between the Department, the inspectorate and the farmers who will receive their certificates when they fulfill the conditions laid down. If farmers fail to comply and it is necessary to refuse certificates, that would be a very serious matter. Equally, it would be very serious to have a certificate revoked. Even at that stage, there is a facility for the applicant to make representations through the normal channels to elected representatives, the Minister or the Department.
I have given an additional undertaking in regard to an independent appeals system. The Circuit Court would be a last resort. I do not envisage this situation arising frequently, if at all. The Office of the Attorney General advised that owing to the seriousness of the matter, where someone refused to comply with the terms of the legislation or was in breach of the rules to such an extent that the licence was revoked, the Circuit Court would be the more appropriate court in which to deal with it. Only when all other avenues are exhausted will a case have to go to court. I cannot ignore the Attorney General's advice on the suitability of the Circuit Court over the District Court although our original intention was to refer these matters to the District Court.
I accept the Minister's comments in regard to the legal advice and recommendations received from the Office of the Attorney General. However, recourse to the Circuit Court appears to be a very convoluted way to deal with what, in effect, would probably be technical problems in regard to food safety on the farm rather than legal issues. Bearing in mind the Minister's comments on an appeals system, I would have thought that an ombudsman approach might be more appropriate and would reach a conclusion which would be satisfactory to everyone without incurring the cost and time involved with court procedures.
It is very unlikely that any of these cases will go to court because there are other avenues which could be explored first in terms of representations and dialogue between the farmer and the Department, Teagasc and veterinary inspectors. The pursuit of natural justice means that people are entitled to have an independent appeals mechanism where problems exist. I have given an undertaking to set up such a system. If all of those avenues are exhausted and people still have problems, they will be serious problems. There is no reason why technical problems should result in recourse to the courts as that would only be necessary in regard to serious violations of the terms of the legislation. I reiterate that the Attorney General has insisted that in the event of problems necessitating recourse to the courts, the problems would be of such a serious nature that they would be more appropriately dealt with at Circuit Court level.
Deputy Upton's proposal in regard to the appointment of an ombudsman would seem to be very sensible in the circumstances. I sincerely hope it will not be necessary to bring many farmers to court but I am not satisfied that the end result will be an appeal to a court of law. It would be different if this matter related to a misdemeanour of which a farmer was found guilty or in respect of which penalties were imposed. For example, a farmer might be found guilty of the serious offence of switching ear tags and brought before the courts and fined, as a result of which his herd number would be withdrawn. That farmer might mend his ways and want to return to farming. If he were to pursue the appeals system unsuccessfully, he would have to resort to the Circuit Court. I still cannot understand what relevance this matter has in law. If the farmer were to go to court, he would either be entitled to get his herd number back or not.
An ombudsman or some other qualified person could be appointed to decide on the issue without making it a legal matter. I am not in a position to argue with the advice received from the Office of the Attorney General. When this legislation was being drafted initially, was this end-game devised before its potential consequences became clear? I do not believe that sufficient thought was given to this matter. I am almost 100% sure that if the legislation were to be rewritten at this stage, there would not be any need to go this far. There is a requirement for a review procedure in accordance with natural justice but I am not convinced that matters should end up in the Circuit Court. Many of the people who have contacted me about this issue feel the same way. If the advice of the Attorney General's office is that it would not be suitable to deal with these issues in a local court, we do have any alternative but to accept it. However, I question the rationale behind it and hope the case was explained properly to the Office of the Attorney General.
In normal circumstances, the vast majority of farmers will qualify and receive certification. Where this is not the case, farmers will be given a list and they will be asked to make provision for the following six or ten points. The vast majority of people will do whatever tidying up needs to be done. If they then do not receive a certificate, they can make representations through the normal channels. If this does not work, they can apply to the independent appeals unit which I have undertaken to set up. This will be the equivalent of the Ombudsman's office but the chairperson should have a feeling for farming and agriculture. I will be amazed if this does not bring about a resolution of the problem. As I understand it, the courts are as concerned with protecting the plaintiff as with protecting the defendant. A farmer may think he or she is not getting recompense or a fair deal from the Department, the representations or the appeals unit, and he or she might therefore insist on the right to get the certification or, in the case of revocation, getting back the certificate. This is serious legislation to do with upgrading standards. I believe the vast majority of people will comply with those standards because it will be to their benefit and to the benefit of the industry for them to do so, and the appeals mechanism will resolve the remaining cases.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, inclusive, not moved.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 15, subsection (1), line 12, after "animals." to insert "Such regulations shall include the use of improvements in technology for cattle identification, particularly in relation to ear-tags.".
At first glance, this amendment may appear frivolous but this is not so. This relates to ear-tags. We hope, through the computerised cattle movement monitoring system, to be in a position in the near future to know the whereabouts of every one of the 7.5 million cattle. I sincerely hope this works.
If it does not, you cannot blame the very efficient and effective officials who have worked very hard.
I must thank the officials for their help when drafting the amendments, which I greatly appreciate.
The inside track, Deputy.
On the question of ear-tags, the basis of traceability begins with that little yellow tag on the animal's ear. Everything depends on what is on the ear. If there is nothing on the ear, the animal cannot be traced. I have been in this business for a long time and I have witnessed attempts to introduce all sorts of tags, including brass tags, big tags, small tags and so on, and each has a fault. I have some of these tags on my farm and every second morning an animal gets its head stuck in a furze ditch or briars and is minus a tag. If I am very unlucky, the animal will pull the second tag off, plus half the ear, which happens occasionally. This matter is not frivolous in the sense that if the animals are in the yard or in a slatted house, one would need a wire brush to wash them to see the number on the tag. I accept that from a visual point of view the yellow plastic tag is a great advantage over what already existed. However, its size is causing havoc. Everywhere I travel throughout the country people say to me, "In this day of technology, can you not come up with something better that cannot be pulled off."
I am sure the Minister has researchers working on this matter but have we got to the stage of using a bar code, as is used for race horses or greyhounds? This would mean that wherever animals went they would come back with what was imprinted into the ear. Given computer databases, leakages and so on, are we any closer to a system which is better that the present ear-tags? I heard the Minister speak in the Dáil a few months ago about the percentage of ear-tags which animals lose. I do not agree with the figures; I believe many more tags are lost. I am not making a case about the cost of £1.39 per tag, even though many farmers see this as a problem. If I could get a tag which would remain in an animal's ear, I would not mind paying for it. I have a problem with applying for a new tag which causes a lot of problems.
I tabled the amendment to give the Department and others an opportunity to come up with a better system. Despite the CCMMS and traceability, we have not been able to come up with technology to deal with the fundamental issue of putting a tag in the animals' ears.
I cannot profess to have the same level of knowledge of tags as Deputy Connaughton.
The Deputy is lucky. She will have to buy a farm.
I agree with the Deputy about the improvement in technology. It is of interest that microchips are now available to insert into pets being imported to speed up the length of time they may have to remain in quarantine. I have no doubt the technology exists. Equally I have no doubt it would be expensive to use on every farm animal. However, the chain is as strong as the weakest link in this case and if there is a problem in relation to the tagging of animals - listening to Deputy Connaughton there is a very practical concern relating to the loss of tags - the issue should be addressed.
The biggest problem is when cattle are out grazing in summer time in different fields throughout the farm or in land which is rented. If one of the animals is ready to go to the factory and the tag is missing, one must check every beast to find out what number is missing. If a farmer has 20, 300, 400 or 500 cattle in five, six or ten different fields, they must all be brought in and checked to find out the number which is missing. At the moment it is impossible for farmers to obtain help, therefore, it is a big inconvenience for them when a tag goes missing.
In relation to tags and general contraptions on bovines' ears, it amazes me that the human species tends to have tags in their ears, eyebrows and other parts of their anatomy. Perhaps these people would help with the research into the bovine species. However, that is an aside.
The Department and I would like to find a credible system to replace tags. This has been a bone of contention for decades and there is a certain amount of cruelty involved. I always wince when I witness young calves being tagged. They must suffer a great deal. I would be more than willing to avail of improvements in technology for the purpose of animal identification. Deputy Upton mentioned the use of a bolas implant which would not alone identify the animal but would enable it to be traced at any time. Such technology is being used during the importation and exportation of pets etc. It has not been used for cattle identification to date. Specifications for ear tags are very stringently laid down in EU law. We use the type of tags used throughout Europe which are supplied by a European manufacturer.
There is room for improvement in this area. We are continually researching better ways at departmental and EU level, because of breaches of regulations, to upgrade the current system. We are also considering the practicality of using microchips and bolases. I am committed to the use of new technology and to streamlining and automating as far as possible the processes for identifying cattle. To that end I have encouraged the use of electronic herd registers. The CCMMS system, operational since 1 January, is being used in cattle marts, factories and export outlets. The paper system operates from farm to farm only and that will transfer to the electronic system as soon as possible. Many young farmers now have personal computers. There is a commitment to operation of electronic systems.
While I understand the reason the amendment was tabled, we are not in a position, either in Ireland or the EU, to operate such a system. When the time is right, I will be the first person to welcome it.
Is Teagasc examining the use of such a system? What is happening on the ground? Have microchips been inserted into the ears of certain animals? Is the system being tested?
Teagasc is not directly involved. It is working with the Department on a number of projects. We are also affiliated to organisations in the EU which are carrying out research in this area. We hope a suitable system of identification can be found. Trying to follow every move of eight million cattle in Ireland is very difficult and the situation is not helped by the fact that animals quite often lose their ear-tags.
Perhaps we could invite people involved in this area to attend the committee to discuss the progress being made.
I will do that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 19 and 20 agreed to.
SECTION 21
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 16, subsection (2), line 29, after "database." to insert "However, farmers may be allowed to use their own computerised records at farm level.".
This is a minor amendment. The Minister touched on the matter a few moments ago when he said that farmers now have access to personal computers. The Minister will be aware there was quite a rumpus last year about the non-acceptance by the Department of Agriculture and Food of computerised records at farm level. I understand such records are acceptable subject to the use of certain software packages. I have received representations from many farmers and suppliers of software material about the Department's approach to this matter. Only about five software packages are acceptable to the Department. Perhaps the Minister will let me know the current position.
There is nothing preventing farmers from keeping computerised records at farm level. I have attended several meetings on Agenda 2000 and have sought to encourage farmers to do so. Those who do not have computers may soon have one available to them for use at their local post office etc. so they can communicate with the Department about their herds. Farmers have an obligation to use computer systems which keep a record of amendments, deletions or additions made to the register when operating an electronic herd register. Simple Excel spreadsheets do not include such security and thus could leave the farmer open to question about the manipulation of the register. There are at least five software packages on the market which the Department accepts for herd register purposes. If other suitable software packages exist they can submit them for approval by the Department. The relevant section will be very happy to examine and approve such packages. Spreadsheets are not deemed acceptable because of the lack of security attached to them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 16, subsection (4)(b), line 38, after “slaughtered” to insert “or exported”.
This amendment provides that the scope of the regulations being made regarding the use of the computerised cattle movement monitoring systems, CCMMS, database to identify and trace animals will also apply to animals for export. The exclusion from the scope of the regulations of animals for export was an oversight which is now being corrected.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 21, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 22 to 24, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 19, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following susbsection:
"(6) No person may be tried on indictment for an offence under this Act consisting solely of a contravention of regulations made under this Act.".
The principle is that an indictable offence should be created by statute. The Bill, as currently drafted, creates indictable offences with the possibility of up to five years imprisonment by regulation. The breach of regulations should not involve more than one year's imprisonment as a maximum.
Advice from the Attorney General's office is that this amendment would exclude as indictable offences those consisting of a contravention of the regulations made under this Act. The reality is that the enabling provisions will give teeth to the legislation. To exclude them from the possibility of prosecution on indictment would reduce substantially the effect of the scheme. The regulatory powers of the Minister are described in great detail in the Act. They provide a clear and specific framework for the making of regulations and include sufficient checks and balances against unwarranted and unnecessary ministerial regulations. It would be inappropriate to include a greater level of detail and procedural descriptions in primary legislation. It is worth noting the Attorney General's office is satisfied that the current text is appropriately drafted and constitutionally correct.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 25 agreed to.
Sections 26 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 36.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 26, lines 8 to 19, to delete paragraph (e).
Deputy Upton tabled two minor textual amendments, one to section 1 and the other to section 36, and I had intended to accept those amendments. I have already signalled a consequential amendment to those moved by Deputy Upton. Perhaps it would be appropriate to accept the initial amendment also.
I am advised that this cannot be done now. As the Deputy was not here to move the amendment to section 1 she can move it on Report Stage.
We have been talking about bureaucracy.
That is what I have been advised.
I am surprised at that. Given that Deputy Upton's second amendment had not been reached, surely the earlier amendment can be moved now.
We can deal with amendment No. 23 but not the previous amendment as it was not moved. The amendment can be reintroduced on Report Stage.
In accepting the amendment I had deemed it to be moved. It is splitting hairs.
I said at the time that the amendment was not moved.
We must take note of the adviser, but it could happen that a serious matter could be overlooked.
As the Minister has accepted the amendment in principle, it can be reintroduced on Report Stage.
I accept that.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 36, as amended, agreed to.
Section 37 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Amendment No. 24 not moved.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
The First Schedule lists the classes of persons and of holdings or premises to which the Act applies. These persons, premises and holdings are referred to as participants. There have been reports in the press that all farmers engaged in the home mixing of feedstuffs for cattle must be registered under the national beef assurance scheme. These reports are factually incorrect. The requirement on the registration of persons involved in home mixing arises under the European Communities (Approval and Registration of Establishments and Intermediaries operating in the Animal Feed Sector) Regulations of 7 April 1999. These regulations are aimed mainly at establishments manufacturing feedstuffs to tighten up the controls on feedstuffs across the feed chain.
Under one of the provisions of the regulations all persons engaged in home mixing was to be registered by the Minister. The registration is achieved by the submission of a declaration in the form specified by the Minister. In addition, persons involved in the mixing of feedstuffs containing antibiotic growth promoters must apply for approval for such activity. The control of feedstuffs chain is an important element in the delivery of safe wholesome food and the need for such controls is accepted by all parties. I am unable to accept the amendment on imports proposed by Deputy Upton for the reasons I stated earlier.
I wanted to have animals, carcases and meat included which might be produced outside the country over which there appears to be no control at present in this Bill. It is important that products imported are treated in the same rigorous way as products produced within the State.
We had a long discussion earlier when I went through in great detail the reasons for my inability to accept the amendment and I do not want to go over that ground.
Question put and agreed to.
SECOND SCHEDULE
Amendment No. 25 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 26, 28 and 29 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 27, to delete lines 11 to 13 and substitute the following:
"Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1989 (S.I. No. 308 of 1989)
Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) (Amendment) Order, 1996 (S.I. No. 85 of 1996)
Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1996 (S.I. No. 103 of 1996)".
There are many textual amendments. The two sets of orders were cited incorrectly in the published Bill. These are Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Orders, 1989 and 1996, and are also part of the General Provisions Order, 1991 and 1996. Amendments Nos. 25 to 29, inclusive, have been proposed by the Government to correct the citation of the textual amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 26:
In page 27, to delete lines 16 and 17 and substitute the following:
"Brucellosis in Cattle (General Provisions) Order, 1991 (S.I. No. 114 of 1991)
Brucellosis in Cattle (General Provisions) (Amendment) Order, 1996 (S.I. No. 86 of 1996)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 27 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 30, 34, 36 and 39 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 28, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Supply of Information on the Origin, Identification, and Destination of Bovine Animals) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No. 258 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 29, to delete lines 5 to 7 and substitute the following:
"Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1989 (S.I. No. 308 of 1989)
Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) (Amendment) Order, 1996 (S.I. No. 85 of 1996)
Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State and General Provisions) Order, 1996 (S.I. No. 103 of 1996)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 29, to delete lines 10 and 11 and substitute the following:
"Brucellosis in Cattle (General Provisions) Order, 1991 (S.I. No. 114 of 1991)
Brucellosis in Cattle (General Provisions (Amendment) Order, 1996 (S.I. No. 86 of 1996)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 30, between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Supply of Information on the Origin, Identification, and Destination of Bovine Animals) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No. 258 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 31 is in the name of the Minister. Amendment No. 37 is related and they may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 30, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Trade in Bovine Animals and Swine) (Amendment) Regulations, 2000 (S.I. No. 5 of 2000)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 32, to delete lines 6 and 7 and substitute the following:
"Abattoirs Act, 1988 (Abattoirs) Regulations, 1989 to 1999 (S.I. No. 152 of 1989, No. 12 of 1998 and No. 328 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 38 is related to amendment No. 33 and they shall be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 32, to delete lines 8 and 9 and substitute the following:
"Abattoirs Act, 1988 (Veterinary Exami-nation) Regulations, 1992 to 1999 (S.I. Nos. 89 of 1992, 6 of 1998, 512 of 1998 and 327 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 32, between lines 38 and 39, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Supply of Information on the Origin, Identification, and Destination of Bovine Animals) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No. 258 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 33, line 4, to delete "Act, 1967" and substitute "Acts, 1967 and 2000".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 33, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Supply of Information on the Origin, Identification and Destination of Bovine Animals) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No 258 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 33, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Trade in Bovine Animals and Swine) Regulations, 1997 (S.I. No. 270 of 1997)
European Communities (Trade in Bovine Animals and Swine) (Amendment) Regulations, 2000 (S.I. No. 5 of 2000)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 34, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:
"Abattoirs Act, 1988 (Veterinary Exami-nation) Regulations, 1992 to 1999 (S.I. Nos. 89 of 1992, 6 of 1998, 512 of 1998 and 327 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 34, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following:
"European Communities (Supply of Information on the Origin, Identification and Destination of Bovine Animals) Regulations, 1999 (S.I. No 258 of 1999)".
Amendment agreed to.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.