Skip to main content
Normal View

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy debate -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994

SECTION 12.

Question proposed: "That section 12 stand part of the Bill".

Section 12 deals with charges for services and is subject to section 12 (2) which states: "The determination of the amounts of charges referred to in subsection (1) shall be subject to the approval of the Minister". Will the Minister confirm that those sections of the food industry, especially the producers, which are now paying levies of one kind or another, will not be asked to pay another layer of charges for functions and services from the board?

Certain sectors will pay levies to the board in return for whatever services will be provided and other sectors will not be levied. I accept that charges can be made to those services not levied, but the sectors levied at present should not have two levels of payments to make for the services of An Bord Bia. Perhaps the Minister will clarify this situation?

This situation should be viewed in the context of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill which states:

Section 12 empowers An Bord Bia with the consent of the Minister to charge fees for its services. It is intended that this section will be used to provide funding for the Board's activities from sectors which do not contribute by way of levy.

The matter is, therefore, dealt with in this way.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 13.

I move amendment No. 28:

In page 8, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) The Board shall by order made with the consent of the Minister establish a subsidiary board to be known as The Veterinary Advisory Committee and shall authorise it to exercise any functions on behalf of the Board, relating to quality assurance of meat products and livestock, including animal health and welfare, production systems and distribution and dairy hygiene regulations.".

I alluded to my concerns in this area when the committee considered an earlier section regarding quality assurance. This amendment expands my view on this issue.

The future of An Bord Bia will be intrinsically linked with whatever quality assurance or quality control schemes are put in place. The integrity of the board and its standing among producers, processors and customers generally, at home and abroad, will depend on an accountable quality assurance and quality control system which has the complete confidence of the consumer. Without this, the board is superfluous.

Regarding meat and livestock products, a veterinary input is required. The proposed veterinary advisory committee should be representative of Department vets, local authority vets, the private veterinary sector and, perhaps, others. This would ensure that, generally, the committee would be comprised of veterinary expertise in animal production and processing.

The vets have an important role to play at meat factories in grading and inspecting meat, ensuring that growth promoters are not used and that the withdrawal period is observed for animal medicines and so on before slaughter for consumption. In view of this it is most important, especially for the meat industry, that a system is in place regarding quality assurance that is beyond reproach, transparent, independent and gives complete consumer confidence.

This will be more important in future with the increasing demand by consumers for green products. Indeed, consumer demand can be over and above what is necessary from a health viewpoint, but the consumer's wish must be met.

Following the GATT agreement, with the entry of beef and livestock products from the USA and the different set of rules which apply, we must be able to distinguish premium quality production and stand over our quality assurance system in a way which reassures the customer and gives confidence in the systems operated here.

The proposed veterinary advisory committee will be important in maintaining and ensuring the future of our animal health status. The committee could liaise with the standing veterinary committee located in Brussels regarding the observance of the application of the animal and plant health regulations, and how the animal health regulations impact on food production in this country.

I have serious concerns regarding the importation of exotic diseases since the free movement of animals has been allowed following the Single Market. The importation and certification of animals poses serious questions at present, threatens the health status of our herds and flocks and any quality image which the Minister and An Bord Bia may develop in respect of our food products.

The system is intrinsically linked, as there is a food chain from the producer and the farm gate through to the plate, going through the marts, meat processors, transport and distribution, animal welfare, milk, hygiene regulations, the processing sector and, ultimately, quality guarantees. Given the importance of being able to stand over any quality assurance which the board may decide, and any quality market the board may produce in the future, the board itself must be beyond reproach. In view of this a veterinary advisory committee of the board, acting perhaps as a sub committee is required.

I share the concerns of Deputy Doyle on the issue of quality assurance, which is at the heart of the thrust of the board. However, I am not convinced that the marketing and promotion board should undertake regulatory functions.

There is a difficulty at present in terms of consumer confidence. For example, the quality assurance scheme of CBF has consumer confidence without the need for any specific advisory committee. The scheme operated by CBF has provisions regarding residues, and tough legislation was enacted in that regard last year.

The animal health status is an official regulation, and it is not a role which should be undertaken by a promotion and marketing board. However, I am mindful of the points raised by the Deputy and the high standards which are at present maintained by the Department will continue to be put in force. If, from time to time, superior systems are accepted, these will become part of this regime.

I have no problem about the thrust of the Deputy's arguments in relation to quality and quality assurance though I have a reservation in that I would prefer to keep the regulatory functions clearly divorced from the promotional side.

We really need to expand the role of this board beyond a mere marketing tool for part of the food industry, which is what it is according to the Bill. A quality assurance role does not in any sense contradict the promotion role the board will have as a sub-committee will operate it. The board should have the type of standing — and I flatter it when I suggest this — that the FDA has in the US. That is the type of body I would like to have seen introduced, where health controls were part of the overall quality assurance. In America the FDA only has to give a nod to a product or production system for the consumers to breathe a sigh of relief and proceed with consuming that product. On the other hand, the FDA only has to indicate concerns about a product and you may write it off the market. Marketing is superfluous because the FDA is held in such regard and has such integrity that it has the complete confidence of the consumer. It is the type of body that we sadly lack where consumers have nowhere to go to have matters investigated if they have real fears.

The Minister indicated that he does not have a mind to, but I ask him to ensure that there is a role for a veterinary advisory committee. The same is true of the plant side of food production. However, the veterinary advisory committee has an apparent role in my book.

When the board is in place I will see to it that that point of view is conveyed for its consideration as it develops its own strategy.

Is there anything in the Bill which precludes the board from setting up a subsidiary board known as a veterinary advisory committee?

As I understand it, the legislation provides for setting up subsidiary boards relating to various areas which, from time to time, the board might see fit to establish. It may not be precluded but I cannot give a definitive answer at this point. There is power under the legislation to set up committees as well as sub-boards of the main board. In that context the model the Deputy is promoting could be accommodated. However, at this stage the most productive thing I could do would be to refer her views to the interim board to examine as part of its discussions in developing a strategy.

I support Deputy Doyle on this issue. It is of major importance in marketing our products that such a body should be seen to be above question when overseeing the quality and safety of products. Perhaps it would be possible in section 16 to facilitate what Deputy Doyle asks for, as long as the Minister was prepared to go along with that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 29:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 12, after "Board" to insert the following:

"including the following areas:

(a) prepared consumer foods;

(b) food science, technology and marketing;

(c) dairy products;

(d) horticultural products;

(e) confectionary and brewing;

(f) such other areas as may be regarded as appropriate;".

I put forward this amendment to pinpoint my concern about this Bill and the approach the Minister adopted. I describe it as a rather lazy approach. He has had to specify the subsidiary board relating to meat and livestock because of the relationship with CBF. I suppose that is a matter of expediency as much as anything else but he has not outlined what other subsidiary boards should be established. That creates an imbalance or the wrong emphasis within the Bill. I would have thought that the Minister has a duty to do so if he has kept to himself the authority of policy development and all the other areas that he is not giving to An Bord Bia. He should give some direction on this. I am not necessarily saying that my particular proposals are 100 per cent correct but they are an outline of what I thought would have been in the Minister's mind.

For example, I am concerned about the item on prepared consumer foods. The report from the expert group pointed out that this offers the main market growth opportunities in the future. It is all about value added and areas of new product development about which the Minister says he is so concerned. However, he does not specify a subsidiary board to investigate and develop the marketing of that aspect of the food industry. That is a matter of concern. The Minister, Deputy Walsh, said he thought some concentration on prepared consumer foods would be a good idea but, while the Minister of State said it in his speech, he does not include it in the Bill, and this is a lazy approach. If the Minister is not willing to put it into the Bill he should outline what he feels should be the approach of An Bord Bia as regards subsidiary boards.

The area of prepared consumer foods is complex and not simply a matter of selling live cattle. It is an area dominated by foreign multinationals. There is an argument as to whether we should be producing basic ingredients or trying to complete the process ourselves here or abroad. It is a question of strategic alliances. There are all sorts of questions relating to developing that particular sector of the food industry. I was surprised that the Minister did not indicate his thinking in relation to subsidiary boards in the area. There are other areas like the dairy sector which is a huge industry. Why did the Minister limit his proposals to one subsidiary board, where he had to do it because of the status of CBF, and ignore the rest? That is a matter of concern because either he is not telling or he does not know. I ask him to tell us. I do not expect him to accept the amendment but I want to flush out his views on these areas. It is an omission from the Bill and he should have included it.

The Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry dealt with the prepared consumer foods area, as the Deputy outlined, in his introductory speech on Second Stage. The Minister said: "This would be among the first of the matters on which I expect An Bord Bia to take action when set up."

On this amendment we essentially get back to what the board is all about. When the board is set up on an interim basis it will comprise people who know the industry, know what is required and who will develop a strategic plan. Where they see the need for subsidiary boards they will obviously be contained there. Having appraised that plan the feeling at ministerial level could be that there is a need for some boards to be set up. However, we are appointing a board to do a job, we will put the best possible people on it and ask them to give us their blueprint for the development of food industry markets. If we look at the amendment the list is obviously not comprehensive. In some senses it could be said to tie the Minister's hands but I think it is loose enough and will not do so. We will ask the interim board to make recommendations to us on the sub-boards and committees that are necessary. We do not want a plethora of boards. This is a matter for the experts to assess and come back with a strategic plan. At this stage it would be inappropriate for an amendment such as this to be included in the Bill.

On the one hand, the Minister is saying he will not become involved in what is essentially policy development but, on the other hand, he is saying it is not the role of an Bord Bia to become involved in this. Decisions must be made regarding subsidiary boards. These are limited in number and inevitably certain sectors in the industry will be targeted. This should be considered by the Minister when setting up this body. He is giving responsibility to an Bord Bia and, in my view, is giving them more authority than that specified in the Bill, that is, responsibility for promoting and marketing products. He is saying they must focus on particular sectors by setting up subsidiary boards if they so choose. There is a problem relating to responsibility at the heart of the Bill which has not been dealt with but I will not press the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 30:

In page 8, subsection (2), line 14, to delete "levy, on behalf of the Board" and substitute "determination, collection and expenditure of levy relating to meat and livestock".

I ask the Minister to expand on section 13 (2) which states that "the Board shall ..... authorise any such subsidiary Board to exercise any function, including a function in respect of levy, on behalf of the Board". I find the use of the word "levy" in this context a little strange. It may be correct but I think it reads most peculiarly. The amendment seeks to make it clear beyond any doubt that the meat and livestock subsidiary board, which will replace CBF, will not only have a function in collecting the levy but also in spending it. CBF has this function at the moment. There are widespread concerns in the meat and livestock industry generally that, although the subsidiary board will have a function in collecting the levy, an Bord Bia will determine how it is spent and that what is collected from this sector will not be spent on marketing as is now the case with CBF. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment. If he finds a better formula of words to achieve the sentiment of my amendment, I will be happy to listen to him on it.

The words "a function in respect of levy" were suggested by the parliamentary draftsman. If we were to accept the amendment and delete the words "levy, on behalf of the Board", it would defeat the whole purpose of having an Bord Bia. It would effectively mean that the sub-boards would be independent republics. I assure the Deputy that levies collected from any sector will be used to promote that sector. If we were to delete "levy, on behalf of the Board", we would weaken the concept of the board and would be effectively saying that subsidiary boards could directly collect levies without the involvement of the board.

The sub-boards can collect a levy. The problem is whether they can spend it. The Minister is saying that the expenditure of the levy must be left to the main board.

The problem I have relates to the structure of the board. If the structure is right, I would have no anxiety about this whatsoever. However, the structure outlined in the Bill is totally alien to producers and the industry. This issue is of extreme importance. If the Minister accepts Deputy Doyle's amendment, many of our problems will be solved.

Amendment put and declared lost.

Amendment No. 31 had been ruled out of order.

Amendment No. 31 not moved.
Section 13 agreed to.
Top
Share