Vol. 1 No. 3
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, subsection (1), between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following definition:
"superannuation benefits' means pensions, gratuities and other allowances payable on resignation, retirement or death.".
This amendment seeks to add the words 'superannuation benefits' for clarity.
Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 form a composite proposal and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 8, subsection (2)(a), line 29, before "enactment" to insert "subsequent".
These amendments are of a drafting nature and are being made for the purpose of legal clarity. Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert the word "subsequent" before "enactment" on page 8; amendment No. 3 - subsection (2)(b) - seeks to delete "enactment" and substitute "provision"; and amendment No. 4 - subsection (2)(c) - seeks to insert "subsequent" before "enactment".
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 8, subsection (2)(b), line 33, to delete "enactment" and substitute "provision".
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, subsection (2)(c), line 36, before "enactment" to insert "subsequent".
Amendment No. 119 is consequential on amendment No. 5 and may be taken together by agreement. Agreed.
On a point of order, is the list of grouped amendments available?
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 9, subsection (1), lines 42 and 43, to delete "as the Food Safety Authority of Ireland, or in the Irish language as Údarás Sábháilteachta Bia na hÉireann" and substitute as an tÚdarás Sábháilteachta Bia na hÉireann, or in the English language, the Food Safety Authority of Ireland".
The amendment is self-explanatory. I thought it more appropriate that the Irish version be inserted first as Irish is our first language.
The reason the English language title appears first is that the authority will have an international aspect to its work. For example, section 18(1) provides for the authority to collaborate in research projects with parties outside the State. The title "Food Safety Authority of Ireland" has already gained some currency as the interim body and has been established for some time, initially on a non-statutory basis and since January under a statutory instrument.
In relation to the wording suggested by Deputy Shortall, the title ás Gaeilge used in the text was suggested by the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands and approved by the Oireachtas translation section. I understand that "Údarás" rather than "tÚdarás" is the appropriate usage if the title contains the suffix "na hÉireann". On that basis, we cannot accept the amendment.
I accept that. Given that Irish is the first official language I would have thought it more appropriate that the title should appear in Irish first.
I do not see this as a problem. The two titles are acknowledged in the Bill. A question arises as to whether the Irish language holds its constitutional position. People in England, America or anywhere else are not being asked to get their tongue around "Údarás Sábháilteachta Bia na hÉireann". We are acknowledging that this is our priority and I hope Fianna Fáil would agree - one of our aspirations is to promote the Irish language.
Tá sé mar príomh aidhm an phairtí athbheochan na Gaeilge ach níl mé i bhfabhar tokenism.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
No.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 10, subsection (1), line 22, to delete "sale to" and substitute "use by".
This amendment seeks to permit the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to promote food safety and hygiene education at all stages of the food chain, including the home.
Why is it necessary to omit "sale to"? There is a question mark over the sale of produce as well as the use of produce. Our markets depend on credibility in the area of sales.
Sale of produce is the final link in the chain. We want to extend this to use of produce by going beyond the retail market and into the home. The amendment incorporates "sale" and extends the level of inquiry right into the home.
I agree with that. Dr. Patrick Wall believes that there should be responsibility at several points in the sale - at the production, processing, distribution, retail ends and in the home. The amendment should mean that any inquiry into any problem relating to food should be allowed to look at every link in the food chain.
Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 12 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 10, subsection (3), line 39, to delete "all reasonable steps" and substitute "such minimum standards as shall be prescribed by the Authority".
I ask that this amendment be considered on the basis of the importance of giving reassurance to the public that "all reasonable steps" would be clearly defined as "such minimum standards as shall be prescribed by the Authority". It is vitally important to copperfasten the exact function of the Bill. While "all reasonable steps" may be acceptable in less critical standards, in standards of food we should ask for total accountability and explicit definition of what these reasonable steps are.
While the authority has a role in the policing and enforcement of food legislation its ultimate success will be measured by its ability to foster a food safety culture among producers and consumers. The promotion role envisaged in section 12 is, therefore, a key one. We must make it clear that the primary responsibility for food safety, therefore, lies with the various sectors within the food industry. Within the home it lies with the consumer. The amendment proposed by the Deputy emphasises that the actions of producers must be to meet minimum standards. This sends the wrong message. First, it implies that producers need not seek improvements beyond the minimum standards laid down and, second, where standards have not been set, the producer may disregard any safety or hygiene considerations.
As "particular" and "detailed" are the standards already included in the food legislation listed in the First Schedule, as this legislation is constantly being updated and in view of the intended purpose of section 12, I invite the Deputy to withdraw his amendment. Section 13 follows up on this theme and is about establishing partnerships with producers and others in establishing this culture. Such schemes should not be prescribed as they should be appropriate to the sector involved. Guidelines would seem the appropriate response given the voluntary nature of the schemes.
Amendment No. 8 specifies that other measures to be undertaken be added with the words "in order to establish minimum standards, which shall take account of relevant EU Directives in the area of food safety and public health, and which shall be published by the Authority". This amendment is related to amendment No. 7 in that it tries to nail down actual standards. It does not seek to allow for loopholes whereby people would not try to achieve higher standards, but that the authority should hold others accountable for the standards they follow. Words such as "all reasonable steps promoting higher standards" may sound good on brochures but they have very little meaning and in legal terms they are nothing more than an aspiration.
I have tabled an amendment to section 13. It seeks to ensure that consultation - which many of us have been calling for -between the various representatives of farming organisations, consumers, community, environmental organisations and others takes place. At present it states "the Authority may, by itself or with representatives, establish schemes". I am not sure that requires consultation to take place. My amendments do not seek to divert the Bill from its intention but try to make it more clearcut and well defined.
This section relates to promoting standards and partnerships and setting up a culture where people co-operate and live up to what is expected of them. Other legislation in the food safety area requires that standards be maintained. We do not have to incorporate them all here. That is not the purpose of this section. That remains a requirement in other legislation. We are trying to promote a food safety culture. Other legislation deals with the control, monitoring and enforcement functions that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland will have. It is not aspirational that we do this because the issue being highlighted by the Deputy is already catered for in other legislation. It does not exclude consideration of the Deputy's point in other sections and legislation which these people are already subjected to.
We cannot accept the Deputy's amendment to this section because we do not feel it sends the right message to talk of fostering food safety culture and in the same section tell people how to do it. That is appropriate in some sectors and not in others. For example, if a minimum requirement is not set down by the Food Safety Authority then they would not be required to live up to any standard in terms of fostering of food safety culture. We are not saying the Deputy's point in relation to enforcement is not included in the Bill by not accepting this amendment.
I would like to know where these points are covered?
The Deputy will see all the legislation pertaining to this Bill listed in the First Schedule.
It is the legal requirement to comply with those sections that is important.
The legal requirement is contained in the Bill. We do not need to incorporate it in section 12, it is already a statutory requirement in other relevant legislation.
I am a little concerned about section 12. The definition and promotion of standards is great but I would like the Minister to give us his view on nutrition. Food safety, in my view, includes nutrition. People being poisoned by bad food is one thing but bad food practice can also kill. There are many examples of cardiovascular disease. Bad nutritional diets resulting in ill-health could be avoided and prevented. I think the promotion of better nutrition should be an appropriate part of the brief of this authority. This section relates to the high standards of food hygiene and food safety but not food nutrition. If another body was dealing solely with nutrition I would be happy but as far as I am aware there is no body of such standing and stature and with a statutory base that would have the authority and expertise to deal with this area. I am sure the Minister is well aware that proper nutrition is part of ill-health prevention. The Minister has referred to public health; that is not what I am referring to. I wonder if the Bill could include the authority's responsibilities in relation to nutrition. What are the Minister's views on this? Is it part of the brief of the authority to deal with nutrition?
Section 15 states:
The Authority shall at the request of the Minister or another Minister of the Government, provide to the Minister or that other Minister of the Government advice on issues relating to all or any of the matters listed in this section or may, on its own initiative, provide such advice——
One of the areas in that list is nutritional aspects of food. The authority will have an advisory capacity either on its own initiative or upon request from any Minister.
In relation to nutrition, we cannot legislate for what people eat. That is a promotional issue. It is a serious part of the work of the health promotion unit of my Department to promote good food practice. We have also set up regional departments of public health who are doing excellent work. We also have health promotion personnel at health board level who do excellent work with local communities and organisations in terms of heightening awareness in this area. That has been greatly improved in terms of practical impact. The health promotion unit of the Department has been decentralised. In addition we have a health promotion office in our Department in Hawkins Street. This is an important area and is a key determinant of health - one's health status is what one eats, it is a key determinant as to where one works and in what conditions one works. I agree there are many practical outcomes and consequences of good promotional work in the area of nutrition and we have put structures in place to do this. I refer the Deputy to section 15(b).
I am aware of that section. The fact that that section is so limited is what concerns me. I accept the idea of local promotion agencies. It is a very good way to spread information. I am also aware that information is not necessarily always accurate or based on the latest scientific fact. One needs to have an authority with the type of expertise and knowledge and scientific backing as the Food Safety Authority to be 100 per cent sure that the message being spread at local level is the correct one. I am very conscious - perhaps as a result of my being married to a doctor - that the message keeps changing in many areas to do with health. Scientific discovery continues to expose all sorts of aspects of good health practice which perhaps 20 or 30 years ago were unknown or contradicted by what was considered to be the best information at the time. To have an authority that is given not just the role if the Minister chooses but to engage in the whole area of nutrition because of its expertise generally in the area of food, would seem to be a natural part of the brief to give the authority. This should be the case regardless of which Minister is in place. There could be a Minister with no interest in nutrition or a Minister who is very interested in nutrition. Surely it would be of interest to the Food Safety Authority to have nutrition as part of its brief. This would be an extension of its work on how to make food safe, its effects, benefits and drawbacks. If it is not included this will be a missed opportunity.
I do not see this as a missed opportunity when section 15 covers this point. The authority can become involved in these aspects on its own initiative. This does not require the intervention of a Minister. The scientific committee of the authority will also play a very important role in relation to safety issues, nutrition aspects and labelling. Section 15 covers every area of competence available given the personnel involved in the authority.
There is an amendment to that section.
I do not accept the point made by the Deputy that the authority's function is limited and excludes nutritional aspects of food. This is not the case. The authority can determine its role and decide on its list of priorities.
There is an amendment tabled to this section by Deputy Sargent.
I am not happy about this and would like to put down an amendment on Report Stage.
Is Deputy Sargent withdrawing his amendment?
Yes, but I will resubmit it on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 118 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 11, subsection (1), line 2, after "or" to insert "having consulted".
The issues I am addressing in both amendments frequently come up as criticisms of one or other Department or, indeed, of organisations dealing with food in an official capacity. To save time, disagreement, misunderstanding and in order to make for a more effective end result, other interest groups ought to be recognised as worthy of consultation. First, this should be done by formally saying groups are to be consulted rather than just making decisions alongside the authority. Second, they should be referred to through categories such as farming, consumer, community, environmental or other interests. It would not hurt to include this amendment so that it would be seen by people reading the Bill that it is more than simply "food business groups or organisations as it considers appropriate". This gives the impression that it will be large food business groups who, one must admit, have responsibility to make a profit. The Food Safety Authority should have a broader remit by having wider reference points as referred to in my amendment.
All the interest groups mentioned will be members of the consultative council for the purpose of liaising and consulting with the authority on a range of important issues at any given time. This structure is in place in the Bill. Section 13 seeks to encourage producer groups and producers of food to get involved in food safety assurance schemes. To incorporate a structured element into this would not give the flexibility needed to encourage producers to get into these schemes. The fact that there is no specific consultation role provided for covering all the areas mentioned by the Deputy may not, in fact, induce the producer to get involved in a voluntary safety assurance scheme, it will deal with the Authority. If the Authority has a consultative council role it will deal with it on a range of issues.
The Food Safety Authority is trying to change the culture and get people into voluntary food safety assurance schemes. If before doing this you must consult on each individual food safety assurance scheme you are trying to set up you will get nowhere. In not accepting this amendment I am not saying that I do not believe in consultation. There will be consultation at council level on broad policy issues and specific issues at any given time. This is the purpose of the consultative council. This section is a producer-focused. We are simply saying "the Authority may, by itself or with such representatives of particular food business groups. . . . . . . ", in other words, if people are selling brussels sprouts, one must sit down with them and try to set up a quality assurance scheme, likewise with other groups involved in other products. I do not agree with putting structures in place which would result in all this consultation before doing business.
That is not what the amendment seeks to do.
The Deputy's amendment states "the Authority may, by itself having consulted with such representatives of particular food business groups or organisations as it considers appropriate,". The Bill states "the Authority may, by itself or with such representative groups. . . . .". The substantive point is not a major one.
This is the point.
Precisely. I do not see how this can improve matters.
Let us be frank. There are two issues involved. First, the Food Safety Authority can think for itself as to what is and is not appropriate. No one is prescribing the Food Safety Authority to have an unnecessary procedure. It is the responsibility of the Food Safety Authority to foster confidence among the public in its work, something which is critical. The amendment acknowledges the existence and bona fides of different groups which should have a place in the mindset of the authority in relation to food safety assurance schemes and other issues. The proviso "as it considers appropriate" simply allows the Food Safety Authority to exercise discretion while, at the same time, letting people know that different groups are recognised as partners in the role of the authority.
The practicality is that in promoting food safety assurance schemes the authority will consult with different groups and get them on side on the basis of what is in line with best food safety practice. We have been chatting for ten minutes about whether the term "having consulted" should be included. The amendment is unnecessary because, substantively, it does not change the existing position. This is the outcome of the discussion from our perspective.
I want the issue judged favourably. I withdraw the amendment and will resubmit it at Report Stage.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Amendment No. 11 has been ruled out of order.
Amendments Nos. 13, 20, 26, 40 and 45 are cognate and amendment No. 29 is related. These amendments may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
It is easy to agree, but it is not easy to measure all that is contained in them.
Many of them refer to the words "may" and "shall".
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 11, subsection (8), line 25, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
Various Ministers accept "shall" for "may" as circumstances dictate. I am attempting to have "may" changed to "shall" in a number of areas. Section 13 (8) states "The Authority may publish report in relation to food safety assurance schemes." In the light of concern over food safety in the past, I wonder why "may" cannot be changed to "shall". I am sure a number of the groups I referred to earlier would be very interested in the food safety assurance schemes. As it stands the Bill allows the authority not to publish the reports. Is this conducive to the common good and the credibility of the Food Safety Authority?
The principle behind amendments Nos. 20 and 26 is similar. We are trying to ensure full consumer confidence in food by virtue of the work of the Food Safety Authority. We are also trying to create an awareness of the importance of good standards and proper procedures for the handling of food, etc. In the interest of these aims it is important the reports which the council and authority receive be published. For this reason there should be an obligation to publish.
Amendment No. 29 relates to making the maximum amount of information available. It is important that the work done and clarification obtained by the Food Safety Authority are disseminated as broadly as possible and that we should use every possible means to do so, including an Internet website as referred to in my amendment. Admittedly, not every householder or person has access to the Internet, but in the years ahead it will become a common means of communication and we should be looking to the future. A website could disseminate information gathered by the authority.
The issue is the independence of the authority as opposed to being prescriptive about its work. The authority has obligations to publish annual reports and, in the interests transparency the service contracts which will be the basis upon which its work will be carried out by Departments. Section 13 relates to food assurance schemes. I am adopting a flexible approach and have total confidence in Mr. Wall's commitment and that of the authority to doing whatever is appropriate and making appropriate responses. The authority will be involved in unnecessary work if it is mandated to publish reports which may not be of any relevance to the common good in the context of food assurance schemes. It is up to the authority to determine priority and importance and we either have confidence in the personnel of the authority to do so or not. We are not telling the authority it need not bother publishing reports. Rather we are leaving independence and autonomy with the authority. There may or may not be a reason to publish a particular report in relation to food safety assurance schemes. It is not a huge area. The food safety assurance schemes will be available if they are agreed and if we can develop this culture. Those who are growing and producing food in conformity with food safety assurance schemes will obviously highlight this as it will be of benefit in the context of marketing.
We should not say that every action of the authority must be reported upon and published. What is important are the matters relating to accountability, namely, the annual report and service contracts, an innovation in terms of implementation. Rather than change the current provision to "shall" and provide that the authority report we should have confidence in Mr. Wall. It was clear on Second Stage that everybody is impressed by his commitment to these issues. He sees the role of public watchdog as very important and his candid and forthright comments have been welcomed in terms of people understanding the risk assessments in a particular area.
Rather than being prescriptive in the context of every report, we should have confidence in the ability of the authority to publish what it wishes. For example, the interim body published some advisory reports on various issues which have arisen while it has not published reports on other issues it is investigating with groups as it was not thought necessary to do so. I am in favour of flexibility rather than insisting upon the authority publishing everything it considers as different responses are required in different circumstances. The authority may feel it to be in the common good to publish something and will do so. This will be part of the authority's work and the scientific committee will do this.
The authority shall publish reports concerning its accountability to the House. Apart from this we should leave it to the authority to decide what to publish and let it get on with its work. For these reasons I will not be accepting these amendments.
It is wrong and inappropriate for the Minister to refer to Dr. Wall. None of us doubts his ability in this area. These amendments have nothing to do with Dr. Wall and we are lucky there is a good person in that position but in three years there may be somebody else there. This is about checks and balances and ensuring the information the authority is privy to is available to the public. That should happen for two reasons -first, accountability and, second, to create an awareness among the public about issues affecting food. This is a safety proposal in relation to the work of the authority and has nothing to do with the personnel involved. The Minister has not put forward an argument why we should not oblige the authority to publish.
I concur with Deputy Shortall. We are speaking at a time when there is much goodwill towards the Food Safety Authority of which we all have high expectations. As with all agencies, there may be difficulties down the line. Once an authority is up and running for a number of years a certain conservatism and defensiveness sets in. In 1995-6, at the height of the various food crises, those charged with certain responsibilities became defensive and did not exactly rush to provide information.
There is a possibility that, after a number of years and if there are food crises, there may be a tendency for agencies once again to be as minimalist as possible with the dissemination of information. That is the reason it would appropriate to write into the legislation as clearly as possible the public's right to the maximum amount of information. These amendments should be accepted in good faith. They will be beneficial to the authority in the long run because they will mark clearly in the sand the public's right to information.
The amendments deal with separate issues and I am disappointed the Minister decided to take them together and consider them as an attempt to have every bitty report published. The ideas behind the amendments are different. I agree we should not personalise this issue because the authority is there to perform a function over time. Will there be a problem in the future if the word "may" dominates the legislation and if discretion is given as to whether to publish? If resources are in short supply in the future, as they generally are when it comes to funding authorities, would the word "may" mean that such information would not be published because of insufficient resources? The use of the word "may" allows discretion and, therefore, these provisions are not a priority. If the word "shall" was used, at least the authority could say it has obligations under the legislation to publish and that it needs the resources to do so.
As it stands, the Minister could say the authority does not have to publish because the legislation only states "may". Lack of resources could be a reason not to publish. I worry the credibility of the authority among the public will suffer and, as Deputy Bradford said, that information was not published in the past. This will have catastrophic effects down the road and it is difficult to restore credibility which is easily lost. The public's confidence is often lost because of the lack of information. The amendments should be dealt with individually and considered before Report Stage and not as a malicious intent by the Opposition, which is not the case.
I did not suggest that.
The amendments were responded to collectively and they should be dealt with individually because they were submitted in that way.
I accept there is a practical aspect to this matter and that there is a danger of carrying accountability too far to the point where it become inefficient and much time is spent producing material which nobody will read. I accept the idea of the board having a certain independence. A case is being made to which we need to listen that information should be accessible.
Is it possible for the Minister to come back on Report Stage with a mechanism whereby the information included in these amendments may be made accessible to the public in some fashion? Such information does not necessarily need to published in a glossy report and sent to 166 TDs who will throw it in the bin. Perhaps it could be made accessible in a way other than through the Freedom of Information Act so that people may draw on the information with ease and feel they have the access to which they are entitled. The Minister referred to the chief executive and I support Deputy Shortall on the point that he is irrelevant to the Bill. Does the Minister intend to maintain the current membership of the board when the Bill is passed?
To be honest, I have not made a decision and have not even considered it; consideration has been given to the composition of the board. Obviously, we will listen to advice from, dare I say it, the chief executive of the Food Safety Authority on those matters. I do not regard mentioning individuals as inappropriate in the context of legislation.
It is not terribly helpful.
I take the point made that we should look at the substance of the issues regardless of the individual in place who certainly will not be there for all time. Let us look at the amendments individually. Section 13 is about putting in place a voluntary code and it would be inconsistent to introduce a mandatory requirement to a voluntary code. Deputy Shortall spoke about the lack of checks and balances but section 13(3), states the authority shall prepare guidelines to be observed by it in relation to the establishment of food safety, so there is a requirements. Section 13(7) states the authority shall monitor and report to the board. There is balance between the authority and the board on the performance and implementation of food safety assurance schemes. If a matter of public interest emanated from the authority reporting to the board, it is the duty of board members to deal with it based on their appointment by the Minister. There are checks and balances within the section.
Section 13 (8) states the authority may publish reports. It is the view of Opposition Deputies that it shall report in all circumstances, whatever the issue. That it not necessary in the context of that section and given its focus. There are requirements on the authority in relation to the food safety assurance schemes in the section. As I said in my initial response, I have sufficient confidence in the independence of the authority to publish if required and if it is of relevance considering that what is under discussion in that section is simply the food safety assurance schemes.
One of the amendments to section 15 relates to the advisory role of the authority and deals with matters taken on its own initiative or at the request of any Minister in relation to matters listed in section 15(a) to (i) and it may publish such advice. Obviously, it will publish advice if it is prudent and right to do so. On the basis that it is acting in an advisory capacity, I do not believe I should say that in all circumstances every consideration it gives to those matters listed shall be published. I have sufficient confidence in the independence and science based nature of the authority to think it will publish where appropriate.
Section 25 relates to reports and information to the Minister and imposes strong obligations and checks and balances on the authority. It states that:
(1) As soon as may be after the end of the financial year of the Authority in which the establishment day falls and of each subsequent financial year of the Authority, but not later than 6 months thereafter, the Authority shall make a report to the Minister of its activities during that year and the Minister shall cause copies of the report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
(2) Each report under subsection (1) shall include information in such form and regarding such matters as the Minister may direct.
If a Minister or the Oireachtas were dissatisfied with particular issues in regard to which there was a discretionary rather than mandatory requirement to report, the Minister could, under the existing provisions of the Act, direct specific reference to be made to those issues in the annual reports. Section 25 (2) states that each report shall include - not exclude - such information in such form and regarding such matters as the Minister may direct. Appropriate flexibility is provided for within the section. Section 25 (3) states that:
The Authority shall, whenever so requested by the Minister, furnish to the Minister information in relation to such matters as he or she may specify concerning or relating to the scope of its activities generally, or in respect of any account prepared by the Authority or any report specified in subsection (1) or the policy or activities, other than day to day activities, of the Authority.
The Act provides that publication could be required if that were deemed necessary. I am prepared to defer to the authority in the context of a food safety assurance scheme and any other advice or reports, other than the annual one, it may wish to give to the Minister but not in respect of its primary requirement to publish on issues of importance or accountability. Such flexibility will ensure we set out on a good footing.
Section 30 provides that the authority may seek reports in relation to food supply and hygiene. It states that:
(1) The Authority may seek reports on any matter which in its opinion concerns the safety or hygiene of food from the appropriate Minister of the Government or body established under statute that has overall responsibility for the area to which the matter pertains.
(2) The Authority may make a report given to it under this section available to the Minister.
The insertion of the word "may" does not signal a lax, complacent or deferential approach by the Department towards the authority which might allow it to neglect its responsibilities. It is simply intended to provide the type of flexibility which would allow the authority to work well. Mandatory requirements are made and checks and balances are also provided for in the relationship between the chief executive and the board which, of themselves, would place obligations on board members to fulfil their duties. For example, board members could urge the publication of certain information if they felt that was necessary. The amendment proposes that publication occur in all circumstances and I consider that to be too heavy handed.
How stands the amendment?
I will withdraw the amendment. Is the Minister opposed to accepting any amendments in regard to the Bill?
I understand he is very amenable to the amendments.
In regard to the issue of reports and their publication, will such information be subject to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act?
The Bill's Schedule would have to be amended to allow for that as this body is not yet in existence. The Freedom of Information Act relates only to bodies listed in the Schedule.
Will that be done?
I will contact the Department of Finance in regard to the matter as it is not within my power.
Amendment Nos. 14 and 15 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 11, subsection (2), line 37, after "representative" to insert "and shall in particular include at least 8 persons representative of consumers".
When this Bill was first introduced the Minister made great play of the fact that the consumer is king and the purpose of the Bill is to look after consumers' interests. I agree that should be the case but no statutory provision is made for consumer representation on the consultative council. I would query the wisdom of the Minister nominating six people and the authority nominating the rest. If we are to ensure consumer interests are properly catered for and represented, it is essential statutory provision is made for that. My amendment proposes that eight of the 24 places on the consultative council would be specifically reserved for consumer representatives.
I concur with Deputy Shortall's comments. On Second Stage we all referred to the fact that the consumer is king and it is, therefore, important we provide for a minimum acceptable level of consumer representation on the consultative council. I would not care what the particular number of representatives would be but I would like the clear message to go out that consumer representation on the council was strong.
My amendment seeks that representatives also be drawn from small and medium sized food enterprises. Larger producers and processors are always in a position to have their say but over the past number of years, small producers - particularly those involved in the production of organic foodstuffs - have felt excluded and have felt that undue pressure was being exerted on them. I am aware of a number of small enterprises where two or three people are gainfully employed producing a product for which there is a great demand - such as cheese - but where the regulations imposed seem quite harsh in comparison to those imposed on larger production units. Smaller producers must be represented on the consultative council.
I support these amendments. If the consultative council is to function effectively, the right people must be represented on it. Many boards do not have the appropriate people on them and all Governments have been at fault. There is a tendency to put people on such boards whose political outlook is a dominant feature in their nominations. It is important we move away from that and that the consultative council draws from various strands in this area. It should not just be consumers; it obviously must include producers and others. The nominees of consumers need to be truly representative. Consumers are not organised in a manner similar to producers or trade unions, but to nominate people for other reasons and call them representative of consumers is not good enough. It is important to ensure as far as is practicable they genuinely represent consumer interests and have expertise and experience in that area. It is a developing area and one in which people are more conscious about all aspects of health and food and see their role as consumers in a very different way to our parents. I am sure the Minister will accept the amendment in some form because he is honour bound to do so but I hope he ensures the people nominated are representative and can contribute to the work of the authority which is vital for food safety.
Section 14(2) refers to the 24 members of the consultative council being broadly based and representative, with which everybody agrees. There is a question about the pressure which will brought to bear on the Food Safety Authority in years to come. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government made a relevant decision last night because large food producers, who are becoming more dominant in the food industry overall, are in a position to influence their markets and the people who assess their activities. The Bill refers to resources and there is a section relating to gifts. It is important that we nail that down regardless of attempts by large multinational retailers and food producers to control the food industry - categorical provision should be made for people who are in a position to challenge this huge power base.
I support some form of the amendments proposed by Deputies Shortall and Bradford. We must look to the future and measure the trends and how they will bring pressure, even though they may not be apparent today.
The amendments allow us to get the committee's views on how we try to ensure the objectives of the council are effective, to make sure it is representative and that the consumer interest is recognised. In reply to Deputy Sargent's point, regardless of what pressure big interest groups and the council might put on the board, it does not have to accept what the council says. The independence and science based nature of the authority is protected in all circumstances. If the pressure is wrong or sectional, it will not work. The authority will consult the council in order to get the views of the interests on the council but the integrity of the authority is not compromised. It is simply a consultative process and I do not wish to change that. At the same time, we feel it is an important part of the Bill because we need to broaden the participation level of people in food safety areas. The council is a good mechanisms to allow that to happen.
Deputy Shortall's amendment is very specific where it provides for at least eight persons. Whether all interests can be accommodated with eight consumers is an open question and I am not convinced that is the right balance. However, consumer interests should be seen to be there. Deputy Bradford's amendment works better. Having listened to the views expressed I will come back on Report Stage with an amendment to try to incorporate something that would be acceptable. If the amendments are withdrawn, I will try to circulate an amendment that might meet the requirements of Deputies. Deputies said many groups must be catered for on the consultative council. I agree and it is my intention that it will be broadly based and representative.
Deputy McManus said consumer interests are not organised, although the Consumers Association of Ireland has excellent people and an individual from that association will be a nominee, but there are other consumers who would bring their own insight. The CAI must be represented on it. I will not accept the amendments but I will try to come up with a solution before Report Stage that will meet with the approval of the committee.
Amendment No. 16 is out of order.
From where did the Chairman get that advice? This amendment involves a potential charge on the Revenue. Obviously, setting up the authority will involve a substantial charge on the Revenue and the same applies to the consultative council. The intention of the amendment is to ensure we are not just paying lip service to consulting different interests and that there is a requirement on the council to meet a minimum number of times per year.
My advice is that the amendment seeks to oblige the consultative council established by the Food Safety Authority to hold a minimum of six meetings per year. Under section 14(5) members of the council shall be paid expenses and these payments will be made by the authority which, in turn, will be funded from the Exchequer pursuant to section 24. Since the Bill as currently drafted does not prescribe any minimum number of meetings this amendment could have the effect of increasing the charge on the Revenue. Amendment No. 16 must, therefore, be adjudged out of order in accordance with Standing Order 142(3).
Will the Minister take on board the principle behind the amendment? There should be a prescribed minimum number of meetings.
I will have that investigated.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are related to amendment No. 17. Amendments Nos. 17, 18 and 19 may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 11, subsection (4), line 41, to delete "6" and substitute "12".
It is not the norm for the Opposition to propose to strengthen the Minister's hand but I am uncomfortable that the authority can appoint a huge majority of members to the consultative council. Section 14(4) states that the "Minister may appoint not more than 6 members to the Council". This means the Food Safety Authority will appoint 18 of the 24 members. While the consultative council is not a watchdog for the authority, it should be independent of the consultative council. The majority of members of that council should not be appointed by the authority. I suggest the Minister should appoint 12 members rather than six.
Section 14(4) also states two members shall be nominated to the council by the Minister for Agriculture and Food and one by the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources. Amendment No. 19 seeks to include the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The Department of the Environment and Local Government should have nominating powers to the council because it has a significant role to play in food safety legislation. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment also has a role to play from a consumer and retail point of view.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify why the Bill gives the Minister for Agriculture and Food power to nominate two members to the council and the Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources power to nominate one member. Amendment No. 18 seeks to broaden the range of interests. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government should be able to nominate a member because environmental quality is a key component of our food industry. The Department of Health and Children does not have the power to nominate a member. That should be included because of the important role it plays in nutrition. The ability of the consultative council to be broadly based and representative should be reflected in the Departments represented on it. I tabled my amendment to try to broaden that representation.
I thank the Deputies for their contributions. There are different views on what is the best thing to do. When we were drafting this Bill I was anxious to emphasise the independence of the authority and to ensure that no one could misrepresent its position or compromise or dilute its independence.
As Deputy Bradford said, it is unusual for the incumbent Minister to be criticised for not having a greater role in the appointment of these boards. He suggested the Minister should appoint 12 nominees. Deputy Bradford asked if it was in the public interest that the authority should have the power to appoint 18 nominees, while the Minister may appoint not more than six, of whom three would be nominated by different Departments. I did not prescribe one for my Department because I do not want the authority to feel I am sending someone in to keep an eye on it. I usually make mistakes when I try to be clinically correct. I thank the Opposition for believing I am such a magnanimous person I would look after everyone if I got 12 nominees.
I will consider the matter again before Report Stage because there is substance in what the Deputies said. The authority would be responsible for and good at identifying people who would help it in its consultative process.
I agree with the Minister. I have not seen him in his politically correct mode so I am looking forward to that.
I hope the Deputy does not regard that as an advantage.
The Minister should try it sometime; it has certain advantages.
It is important that the authority has centrality. The Minister made this point about the power to report or not to report. The Department of the Environment and Local Government should be involved. There is a danger that consultations will be carried out and decisions made by the authority but the Departments, which must be on board, will be out of the loop so there will be no connection between them and the process occurring under the authority. Although such independent authorities do wonderful work, there is a danger that the Departments will not move with them or will not feed in the important information it has because of its resources, size and scale. I accept the Minister's caution but it is important to have one representative from each Department. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture and Food should not nominate two members to the council.
I can give the Minister one example of what happened to me during my time in office. The Department of Agriculture and Food did not give basic information to me in response to a question about salmonella in pig meat. At the same time the Minister was making the point that there was a bare minimum of salmonella in pig meat, the authority was recorded as stating that there was a high prevalence of salmonella in pig meat. That is an extraordinary contradiction.
It is important to tie in the Departments. I know there will be in-service agreements but they also have limitations. This process is a two way street. The Departments need to be represented, to have an input and to be held to account on a consultative committee as to their track record. A council could have important strengths. I ask the Minister to consider that.
I have different views on this issue. Policy direction on the economic aspects of our food policy is the primary function of the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The veterinary aspects must also be taken into account. For those reasons, the Department of Agriculture and Food should have two nominees to the council. The Minister for the Marine and Natural Resources has policy responsibility for the fishing industry so he should be able to nominate someone to the council. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government and the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment have wider areas of responsibility. While I hear Deputies saying that it might be an advantage to have them represented, there is also talk of the Department of Health and Children being represented on it. If that is the case, it will be hard for me to live with six appointments if I must look after every other Minister.
And the consumers.
The Deputy is right. Perhaps the authority will appoint ten consumers but we might be doing them a disfavour. The officials and I will sit down, think this one out and come back with an amendment. At least these amendments have facilitated this discussion. That is one of the benefits of Committee Stage, not that having to accept amendments all the time is necessarily the answer.
It would be nice.
I may surprise the Deputy.
Would it be possible to specify the type of membership which the authority should appoint? We need not provide the full detail but the authority could be prescribed to appoint so many consumer representatives from various groups, etc. We could put the onus on the authority as to the type of membership it would select.
The Minister mentioned the Department of Agriculture and Food and the veterinary officers. At present, county veterinary officers are employed by the Department of the Environment and Local Government. That is one of the reasons I want to see that Department represented among the nominating bodies.
The other point to make is that when we are setting up this authority the service contracts provide for almost an employer-employee relationship. Therefore, having people from those Departments on the board may not be the answer either. I do not know. I want to think it out. I undertake to have discussions with the Food Safety Authority about how it sees the scene evolving. We will try to identify the options and take into account the need for consumer interests, departmental membership and the possibility that I may have to increase my number of nominations to accommodate that.
I stress that it will be extremely important that the Department of the Environment and Local Government is represented on this board. Many of the food producers are visited by the large retailers. Local government and the Department of the Environment and Local Government impact on both farmer operations and the environment in which they operate. They will be looking for reference points with the Department of the Environment and Local Government. I hope that can be dealt with on Report Stage. I withdraw my amendment in anticipation of Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 12, subsection (8), line 10, after "as" to insert "is".
This is a drafting amendment. The insertion of "is" after "as" is for clarity and consistency of text.
In subsection (8), which relates to ministerial appointments, etc., there is a commitment to an equitable gender balance. We cannot object to that. Could the Minister try to ensure, in so far as practicable, some type of regional balance? He should keep in mind regional balance because in an area as broad as food safety, with all the various types of food production with which we must be concerned, it is important that we try to be as regional as possible in our thinking.
I agree to some extent. When people are appointed to a national council I expect them to think of more than east Cork.
I hope there will be an east Cork representative.
There are big food producers in the Deputy's county. I have no one to appoint.
Amendment No. 22 is in the name of Deputy Sargent. Amendments Nos. 74, 75 and 93 are cognate. Therefore, amendments Nos. 22, 74, 75 and 93 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 22:
In page 12, paragraph (b), line 18, after "food" to insert "and food ingredients".
I ask the Minister to consider these amendments. Amendment No. 22 seeks that nutritional aspects of food, which are being dealt with on the advice of the authority and hopefully others, will take into account food ingredients, and that that be stated explicitly. That will become more relevant in the future as it, together with issues such as food irradiation and genetic engineering, play a larger part in the food industry generally. I would ask the Minister to bear that in mind and state it so that there is not continuing public disquiet that ingredients are not taken into account when dealing with food. This has been the case with labelling to date. Genetically modified organisms still do not require labelling. This ought to start to address that serious oversight. It is a requirement in the public mind as well as in the industry.
This is an important amendment and it should be supported. Considering that the section lists specific areas of responsibilities, food ingredients should be added to make it absolutely clear that it is an area of responsibility.
That point it covered in the definition section. Otherwise every time we mention food we would be mentioning food ingredients also. It is in the definition section that we deal with all of that.
I draw the Deputy's attention to section 2(1) and, in particular, to the definition of "food" on page six of the Bill. Section 2(1)(b) provides for "any substance which enters into or is used in the production . . . of these substances". This definition adequately provides for food ingredients. The advice is we are covered in the definition section. I invite the Deputy to withdraw the amendment.
How stands the amendment, Deputy Sargent?
It stands, like many of others, awaiting Report Stage. It also stands in the public mind where this is brought out as nutritional aspects of food. We are here to hear the Minister direct us to the definitions but people reading the Bill must take it at face value. The amendment does a greater service to the Food Safety Authority by being more explicit. I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that the Minister will have a chance to reflect on it before Report Stage. I may table an amendment then too.
Not to labour the point, but in the normal course the definition section deals with all these issues. If the definitions are adequate, then we need not refer to different areas of food in each section. Otherwise, the Bill would be three times as long. This is a normal procedure.
I accept the Minister's view.
I move amendment No. 23:
In page 12, paragraph (c), line 19, to delete "and hygiene" and substitute ", hygiene and packaging".
This amendment seeks to add packaging to the hygiene clause. It is similar to the previous amendment which sought to add food ingredients to the food clause. Can the Minister state whether the hygiene definition will deal with packaging, in which case I will take the same argument on board? Is he going to accept the amendment?
This amendment is unnecessary as the labelling and packing of food are covered in paragraph (d). This provides more scope for the authority as it is not confined to statutory developments and could include advice on such matters as involuntary codes.
I accept the Minister's explanation.
I move amendment No. 24:
In page 12, paragraph (f), lines 25 and 26, after "vegetables," to insert "the harvest of uncultivated foods, e.g. mushrooms,".
This amendment is a horse of different colour. It is clear that food production and cultivation is outlined in paragraph (f). However, the collection of food should also be taken into account. This comes back to the reference to the Department of the Environment and Local Government being represented on the consultative council. This should be taken into account, otherwise it does not seem to be covered. Other countries have strong, long-standing traditions on the collection of uncultivated food. This is partly a social issue, but also a nutritional one. The same applies to the collection of blackberries, mushrooms etc. When dealing with issues such as the spraying of farms, it should be taken into account as part of the remit.
I accept the amendment. The advice from the authority in this area might be valuable.
I thank the Minister and withdraw my previous comment that he was of a mind not to accept amendments.
I move amendment No. 25:
In page 12, paragraph (f), line 27, before "animals" to insert "of".
Amendment Nos. 27 are 77 are related and may be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 27:
In page 12, subsection (1), line 37, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
We would expect that the work of the authority would include the collection of the details outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b). We should state that the authority "shall" do so rather than "may" do so. I accept the Minister's point about not being too prescriptive, but there is a minimal level of expectation which we must try to meet. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would come within that minimum level and we should be quite prescriptive.
There is no point making it mandatory to publish for the sake of publishing. A huge range of areas are involved. All the food legislation and statutory instruments are published. This section allows the authority to consolidate all of that and come forward with its proposals as to how it would be simplified and so on. Rather than regarding the section as an opportunity for the authority to pull all that together, which is a pro forma approach, the idea is to collect data, examine the situation and come forward with helpful proposals as to how we might make it more decipherable. The Deputy should look at the section from that perspective. I do not see why we or the authority should do that. It can do what it wants. It is the “may” or “shall” argument. Sometimes people think that if one uses “may” it is because one is not prepared to impose sufficient influence on the operations of the authority. My attitude is that, as an independent authority, it may or may not. It is a question of whether it regards it as appropriate or whether it would be beneficial to do so, rather than our deciding on that now. If one pulls it all together and publishes it, how much more is one telling people above what they already know? If they wish to consolidate and put forward proposals as to how existing legislation might be better presented, I would be delighted to hear from them.
How effective will the authority be in ensuring public awareness of what is available? I know we are covering old ground as we have already dealt with the gathering, publishing and making available of such information. Is the Minister happy that people with specific queries or those seeking information will have easy access to the type of information collected under section 16(1)(a) and (b)?
When the legislation is enacted, all food legislation and statutory instruments will be listed in the First Schedule which will allow people to see the statutory basis for any requirements, protocols or statutory impositions. They are all in public form.
I also asked about ease of access to information. People who would be aware of the legislation would know where to look for it. However, would it be easy for the person who would not be aware of food legislation which has been enacted to contact the authority in the early stages of a food scare when it may not be page one news, and gain immediate access to whatever information is collated at that stage?
It will be better under the new regime because there will be an identifiable authority whereas, at the moment, people must contact three or four Departments. The public perception, regardless of whether it is justified, is that there is a conflict of interest between the Departments. The Food Safety Authority will communicate with the public in an understandable way. On examining the legislation, it is obvious that only those technically involved would be able to make sense of secondary legislation which incorporates European Union directives into statute law.
Matters will be improved in future because, apart from the role outlined, the authority has a promotional role in getting people to think about the issue. It is an independent, scientific body which will be able to communicate with the public in the initial stages of a food scare as well as carrying out an independent risk assessment and making that public. That will be seen as coming from a source regarded as independent by virtue of the fact that it is the Food Safety Authority of Ireland rather than the Department of Agriculture and Food or the Department of Health and Children, or some obscure interdepartmental committee which only meets whenever trouble arises. The chances of it starting off on the right footing are better and it would be better able to assess the nature of a problem, its risk and the reasonable, prudent steps to take by using the mechanism we are about to enact than is the case now where responsibility is scattered.
I appreciate the Minister's view and I am sure, when the authority has something significant to say, it will be made widely available. However, will a person with a query for the authority be able to ring the authority to get a response? I trust such a facility would be available.
The ability to issue information to people with immediate queries is seen as part of its remit and is one if its critical roles. It will ensure an issue does not escalate because people with expertise are not available before the media get hold of the story and blow it out of proportion. The public will be able to go to the authority and make queries and there will be competent people with expertise who will do nothing else other than answer queries. Experts in Departments are often not to be found because they must deal with ten different matters at the same time.
Is there any indication of the staffing levels necessary to provide such a service?
The initial provision is for 50 staff. There will be subsequent negotiations with staff interests which will dictate how it will grow organically.
I thank the Minister.
Amendment No. 77 has been tabled with the same yearning that the public would be made as comfortable as possible with the authority and that as much of the important information as they require to confirm their confidence and faith in the authority would be made available. My amendment requires that included with the first annual report would be a schedule of all legislation passed before or after the establishment of the authority and "any function in relation to the enforcement of which shall be deemed to be a function of the authority". Such a move may already be envisaged, but I tabled the amendment to raise the issue and to tease out in debate the extent to which the authority will publish all references to legislation which it must take into account.
The legislation provides that it may do that. It is not normal in an annual report to include a list of all legislation, such as that contained in the First Schedule. The authority might reprint the Schedule or the entire Bill in its annual report but it must be asked to what extent that would improve people's knowledge. We sometimes assume that everyone will read it if it is published, whereas they often just read the issues raised. A person reading an annual report will look at the balance sheet and read about the main focus of activity and the views expressed.
I believe the public wants general assurances and that people do not want to be experts on food legislation. The public wants to know someone is looking after its interests. People's concentration spans are not that long anyway. The establishment of the authority will mean people will change their approach. They will think that a competent body has been established to look after their interests. They will not think there are conflicts of interest between Government Departments, such as those in the past between consumer and producer interests, which was the reason for continuing public concern about scares. People did not believe an independent assessment had taken place on the issues and that someone was looking after their interests.
Such publication as the Deputy requires may be included, but I do not expect it to be. I do not believe it necessary to publish all legislation in the first annual report. It is not good legislative practice to state that something must be done in the first annual report and not in the next one. Legislation should set out the broad rules. Discretion is available to the authority and it might reprint the First Schedule of this legislation so that people would know its general area of interest.
I accept the Minister's position regarding the role of the authority, but the importance of the principle we highlight should not be underestimated. It is important that somebody guard the guardians and ensure the system is transparent. It is not simply a question of transferring unlimited competence to the Food Safety Authority. People are now more educated and communities have an enormous amount of expertise, as is evident from controversial planning issues, and want access to information. Along with the role of protecting the public interest with regard to food safety, the authority must provide information and expertise in a way that is accessible to the public. I am not necessarily saying that this is the way to do it, but I do not agree with the Minister's definition of the full role of the authority. It is part of the role of the authority, but providing access to information is also important.
I agree.
The Minister spoke about the amendment but he did not say whether he would accept it. Am I being optimistic in asking if he will accept it?
He inferred that he would not accept it.
Can I take it that the board can, at its discretion, implement the spirit of the amendment?
Correct.
I move amendment No. 28:
In page 12, subsection (1)(b), line 42, to delete "any other".
This amendment is proposed because of the addition of a new subsection (6) which is proposed in amendment No. 32. The latter will allow the authority to request scientific data from private organisations, particularly private laboratories.
In cases of food borne infection private laboratories might have data relevant to the functions of the authority. This issue was referred to on Second Stage by a number of Members. All data is not necessarily available in the public sector and clearly the authority needs to have the power to get data from all reputable sources, public or private.
Amendment No. 32 provides that the authority: "may in order to carry out is functions under this section request such person who it believes holds information which is relevant for those purposes to supply the information to the Authority". What happens if a person does not comply with the request?
There is no legal sanction if a person does not comply with such a request. There might be data protection issues involved.
What if the person is simply contrary? It is important that legislation is not brought into disrepute. This power is being given to the authority but it cannot be enforced. If the authority gets into a tussle about information, it has no means of enforcing that power.
No legal sanction is contemplated at present but I will clarify the issue later in this debate or on Report Stage.
I would be grateful for that.
I move amendment No. 29:
In page 12, subsection (1), after line 44, to insert the following:
"(c) arrange to insure that all such information collected in paragraphs (a) and (b) is made readily available to all members of the public by all possible means, including the use of an Internet Website.".
This amendment seeks to provide that every possible means is used to communicate authority decisions, business and so forth to the public. Will the Minister indicate that there will be the greatest possible flow of information from the authority? It is important that what is known and available to the authority should be easily and readily accessible to the public. The Internet is just one of the means that can be used.
A website has been established, and that and many other facilities will be used. However, it is not necessary to provide for it in legislation.
I move amendment No. 30:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 6, after "as" to insert "it sees fit or".
I move amendment No. 31:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 6, to delete "minister or any other minister" and substitute "Minister or any other Minister".
This is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 13, between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following subsection:
"(6) The Authority may in order to carry out its functions under this section request such person who it believes holds information which is relevant for those purposes to supply the information to the Authority".
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 13, line 19, after "report" to insert "at least annually".
This amendment requires the authority to report on food inspections annually to the Minister. It is a reasonable requirement.
The amendment seeks to include the words "at least annually" after the word "report". However, section 48(8) provides for a report on the operation of service contracts by an official agency at least annually and more frequently if needs be. Furthermore, section 25 requires the authority to furnish an annual report to the Minister which will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Subsection (3) of this section provides for the submission of more frequent or additional reports as needs be. Given these additional provisions, the amendment is not necessary.
This amendment relates specifically to food inspections. In view of the fact that there are 2,000 people working in that area and that there are likely to be difficulties during the initial period while the work is carried out under contract, it is reasonable to expect annual reports on that aspect of the authority's work.
I do not have a problem with that. I am happy to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 34 is out of order.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 13, subsection (2), line 31, after "State" to insert "or in the European Union".
When one considers food safety in broad terms one must take into account advances in food safety which occur in the European Union. We must be cognisant of the fact that throughout the world, and particularly in the European Union, there are ongoing advances. We should oblige the authority to liaise with our European partners. It would be appropriate to include the European Union under this subsection.
The purpose of Section 18 is to allow research on food safety within the State to be harmonised. The authority could not be expected to be aware of all projects being conducted outside the State. It will of course be mindful of international trends but this amendment would place on it a statutory requirement to know of every project throughout Europe. This would not be practical. The purpose of the section is to harmonise what is happening here. It refers to the fact that the authority should be knowledgable about what is going on elsewhere. Obviously it is. People working for the authority would be aware of the international situation and would, in effect, be aware of international research. A specific requirement in the Bill would place a statutory obligation on the authority to know what is happening in the other member states.
Perhaps my amendment was not very well drafted. It simply requests that the authority would have regard to research being carried on at a European level. I take the Minister's point about statutory obligations.
We will look at the wording and perhaps include a phrase such as "having due regard to".
I trust the Minister will report at a later stage with some slight improvement. Therefore, I will withdraw the amendment.
In relation to research projects carried out by the authority, does the Minister expect the authority to be proactive in this regard? Certain research would be inevitable, for example, in the promotion of standards, but it is important that the authority is seen to be proactive and to the forefront in accessing and updating information.
I agree with Deputy Bradford. The authority sees its role in that light. One of its primary responsibilities is to promote and harmonise new research.
How will the authority be funded to ensure such necessary research can be carried out?
The Food Safety Advisory Board, which this Authority replaces, was engaged in research and the money allocated to the FSAB has been transferred to the authority.
Does the Minister expect this money will be increased?
When the authority is up and running, I am sure it will make a case for more funding, as all such bodies do.
Does the Minister expect to have a supplementary budget?
No. When the authority develops its role in the future it will, of course, request more funding. Up to now research into food safety was conducted by the Food Safety Advisory Board. This will now be done by the authority.
Is it the Minister's wish that the level of research should be increased. If so, extra funding will be required.
That will be a matter for the authority. There is a research allocation component in the authority's overall budget and every year such agencies make submissions to line Departments for increases in funding.
Is the Minister happy with the level of research carried out to date?
I admit that I speak from a position of ignorance. I do not know how good it was. The staff of the authority will do that job very well.
Does the Minister expect other Departments to contribute to the authority or will it be funded solely by the Department of Health and Children?
It will be funded totally from the Department of Health and Children.
Other Departments, in particular the Department of Agriculture and Food, would have an interest in the work of the authority.
The authority is being established on the service contract principle. Work currently being done in the Department of Agriculture and Food will transfer to the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. The relationship between those who do such work in the Department of Agriculture and Food and the authority will be on an employer-employee basis. In that respect, the arrangement is self-financing.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 13, subsection (1), line 35, before "certification" to insert "a system of".
This amendment is necessary because it would not be appropriate for the authority to provide the certification of food simply on request because such certification might not be justified in all cases. The provision of a system of certification will allow for the necessary safeguards to be designed before certification is granted. This was one of the areas brought to our attention by the authority and we are acceding to their request.
Amendment No. 37 is in the name of Deputy Sargent. Amendment No. 38 is consequential and amendment No. 29 is related. They may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 33, before "effective" to insert "operational independence,".
Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 deal with section 22 which is entitled Gifts. I mentioned earlier that the trend in the food industry is for increased centralisation and greater control by larger companies. This section allows the board to accept gifts on behalf of the authority of money, land or other property. The section stipulates that "the Board shall not accept a gift if the trust, terms or conditions attached to it would be inconsistent with or would prejudice the effective performance of the functions of the Authority." We must be more explicit in protecting the objectivity and the independence of the authority. For that reason I seek to make a number of amendments. Amendment No. 39 would oblige the board to publish details of gifts accepted on behalf of the authority. The public expects such a measure and it would protect the authority from speculation, whether mischievous or otherwise, which might occur if large companies became beneficiaries of it as provided for in section 22. I ask the Minister to reconsider the section for Report Stage with a view to pre-empting speculation because of insufficient protection in the section.
Having been a teacher, I am aware that food companies, under the guise of education, provide large amounts of promotional material which can be tempting to schools in the absence of resources. The nutritional content of the products promoted is often low but the promotion makes them attractive to young minds. Large budgets are used to promote the sectoral interests of the food industry. The board could find itself compromised with such large promotional influences.
I understand the Deputy's points. I can accept amendments Nos. 37 and 38, but I cannot accept amendment No. 39 which requires the publication of gifts. Subsection (1) provides that the board may accept gifts on behalf of the authority or money, land or other property on such trusts, terms or conditions, if any, as may be specified by the donor. If the donor wishes that the gift should not be made public the Deputy's concern is about the effect on the operational independence or performance of the authority's functions. However, if we were to add the Deputy's proposed subsection in amendment No. 39, a valid gift might be offered to the authority which does not affect its operational independence or its performance but is offered on the strict terms that it remain private, and such a gift could not be accepted because the Deputy's amendment would require publication. In other words, the conditions under which someone could make a bona fide gift would be restricted.
The provision in the section as it stands is usual for the circumstances and has been used in a number of cases. I am prepared to meet the Deputy's concerns on the issue of making the concept of operational independence explicit. However, it would be foolish to restrict the terms and conditions under which a gift could be given with a requirement to publish. One of the grounds on which a gift might be given is that it would not be made public. Donors of small gifts to support welfare causes may not wish the donations made public in an annual report. If the Deputy's concern is for operational independence the point is covered in the other amendments.
I thank the Minister for indicating his willingness to accept amendments Nos. 37 and 38. Perhaps the subsection I propose in amendment No. 39 should be written off in the hope that anonymous donors will come forward.
As the amendment stands it has the consequence that I have outlined. We will consider an alternative wording which will not exclude those bona fide donors who do not wish to have their donations published. Let us get all the gifts we can.
I appreciate the Minister's approach. The Food Safety Authority should also have an independent fund to allow it to do its work. It may be de facto compromised if it depends on gifts to make up a shortfall.
That is not the intention.
It could be read as such.
The intention of the section is to give people the opportunity to donate land or property. There may not be many people who wish to do so but it would be foolish not to provide for the possibility. I take the Deputy's point about ensuring the operational independence of the board is not compromised so that misrepresentations cannot be made about the nature of a gift. I agree with that. The terms and conditions on which they wish to make gifts available are at the behest of the donors and it is up to the board to decide whether it wishes to accept a gift. If it does not affect its operational independence or the performance of its functions I do not see why it would not accept such a gift.
We should not delimit the acceptance of gifts to those which will be published in the annual report if for whatever bona fide reasons the donor does not wish to be made public. Let us not exclude that circumstance.
That is perfectly reasonable. What is the Department's experience? Is it the practice that people give gifts to such boards?
It is unusual.
We should reflect on the matter before Report Stage.
We will defer our disagreement.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 14, subsection (2), line 33, to delete "of" where it firstly occurs and substitute "or".
On section 27, where is the headquarters of the authority likely to be situated? It is likely to be a Dublin-based head office?
Yes.
From the food safety aspect, I would have thought any location outside of Dublin would be more appropriate.
Dublin North produces a lot of food.
The authority has taken a lease on a premises in the Irish Life Centre, Abbey Street, Dublin. This will provide accommodation for approximately 40 staff together with an information centre which is already open to the public. This is a standard section which will allow the authority to make arrangements to acquire suitable premises. Technically this could be anywhere in the country, but for practical purposes it is likely to be in Dublin.
Amendments Nos. 41, 49, 50 and 54 to 61, inclusive, are cognate and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 16, subsection (2)(a), line 33, to delete "chairman of" and substitute "the person appointed to chair".
This seems to me to be a technical point. Nevertheless, it is important that the current wording "the chairman of the Board", being one of the people to authenticate the seal of the authority, may not always be practical if someone is chairing the meeting in the absence of the chairman. I would prefer the wording "chairperson". It should not be a problem to allow for this in the Bill.
I accept that. There are a number of amendments tabled regarding the wording "chairman" and "chairperson". The wording "chairman" is commonly used in legislation. However, I must defer to the parliamentary draftsman on this matter.
With all due respect, I do not believe the Minister must go along with the parliamentary draftsman on this matter. There is a very strong argument for moving away from this notion of things being determined and defined in male and female terms. It is time to move on. This is a new authority which has got a great reputation even before it is statutorily based. The Minister is in a position to use correct wording. This is incorrect wording in today's world. I ask the Minister to think about it and explain the facts of modern life to the parliamentary draftsman.
I will consider the matter.
My amendments refer to gender neutral drafting. I understood it was the policy of this Government, as it was of the previous Government, to use gender neutral terminology.
Not under Bills.
How about becoming a trail-blazer in this area?
I usually leave that to the more radical parties but I will see what I can do.
The Minister may take this lightly but the female members take exception to terminology which is exclusive to males. The Minister should concede on this and ensure these positions are open to both genders. Terms which exclude people and cause offence should not be used. The term "chairman" causes offence to many women.
Yes, I will consider this on Report Stage. It is a technical matter from the point of view of the parliamentary draftsman.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 17, line 2, after "Board," to insert "and following a public tendering procedure,".
This amendment requires the authority to follow a public tendering procedure which is in line with good practice.
Given the complexity of its environment and the highly specialised nature of certain aspects of food safety, the authority may from time to time find itself in a position where particular advice may be available from a single source. In such circumstances it would not be feasible to engage in a public tendering procedure. Indeed, in such cases, it would represent a waste of public funds. In any event, the authority will, in line with other non-commercial State bodies, be required to observe the prescribed public sector procurement procedures. The books of the authority are also subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General as provided for in section 26.
Amendments Nos. 43, 44 and 46 are related and will be taken together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 7, to delete "may" and substitute "shall".
On amendment 46, it should be enshrined in the legislation that the report be made available to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
The authority has to be allowed to maintain flexibility. It is inappropriate to substitute "shall" for "may" in subsection (1) as proposed by Deputy Bradford. It would also be inappropriate to impose, as proposed in Deputy Shortall's amendment, an obligation on the Minister to comply with any request from the authority as such compliance may be precluded by other statutes. In any event, subsection (2) allows the authority to report on the matter, including non-compliance, to the Minister for Health and Children and any matter of a serious nature can be incorporated in the annual report which will be laid before the Oireachtas.
On a point of clarification, why is the Minister not in favour of making the report available to the Houses of the Oireachtas? The report must be of some significance if it is to be made available to the Minister, therefore, it would be appropriate if it were made available to the Houses of the Oireachtas.
It could be on any subject. It might be of importance to the Oireachtas. Those which should be properly brought to the Oireachtas will be brought to the Oireachtas. That is the thinking behind it. I will see if I can make the terminology more clear.
I do not wish to be seen as paranoid but in any of our debates on amendments in which "may" versus "shall" we appear to be leaving the entire discretion with the authority. I fully concur that the authority should be as independent as possible. We have to have some bottom line as to what we expect of the authority. There should be a minimal level of demand and expectation of the type of work such as reports and research it carries out.
I will come back to the Deputy on it. The main thing is to maintain flexibility, if anyone is non-compliant they would report to me as Minister. As regards the point on making available reports, I will come back to that on Report Stage.
I appreciate the need for flexibility but the working of the authority may in some sense be made easier. We should define a little more clearly and specifically what exactly is demanded and expected of it. It should not be a case of it may do this or that.
The authority is obliged to do certain things. We set up the authority and it must report back in the annual report and bring matters to my attention in certain circumstances. Because it is a science based operation I leave the publication of documents, thesis or research work to the authority. It will publish them or circulate them to interested parties. It is a technical area in many instances. I will come back to the Deputy on this matter.
I move amendment No. 44:
In page 17, subsection (1), line 11, after "pertains" to insert "and such Minister or body shall furnish a report so sought".
On many of the comments the Minister is making in relation to his declared confidence in the new authority, the likelihood is that the Minister of the day probably said the same about the BTSB. The Minister is concentrating too much on the existing personnel of the authority. We have to bear in mind that things can go wrong and corruption can take place. For that reason it is fair to expect that there are safeguards in place. In relation to the independence of the authority, section 30 allows the authority to seek reports on food safety. My amendment seeks to oblige the Minister or the body to give that report. The reply the Minister made in answer to Deputy Bradford's amendment did not satisfy my concerns. He said the report may be made to him, but what if the problem is the Minister of the day?
I made the point that in accepting the amendment there could be circumstances where a Minister is obliged to comply with a request from the authority which could be precluded by other statutes. We worded the section in the form that the authority may seek the reports from any Minister, Government or body established under statute, which has overall responsibility for the area to which the matter pertains. It may or may not seek reports.
There is no obligation on the body to furnish the report.
The authority may report to the Minister under the section. The purpose is to get the Minister to seek reports on food supply and hygiene. I am not trying to vest over confidence in the authority but to recognise its independence, expertise and commitment to the job it has been given. Having the Minister involved does not necessarily improve the operation of a body.
What happens if the Minister of the day chooses to ignore requests for such reports from the authority? How can that come to light?
The authority will make it clear that it is not getting compliance from a Department.
How would it make it clear in practice?
The way all these things are made clear, by contacting a journalist.
I do not think that is the way to deal with this. It could be possible to add to Deputy Shortall's amendment unless precluded by statute.
Without prejudice to existing statute, for example. We want to avoid those circumstances, but it would almost be acting illegally in doing that. I will come back to this on Report Stage.
Is there not a presumption in law when producing a Bill like this that you cannot expect somebody to act illegally?
No. The law could be totally at variance with an existing statute and that could only come to light when you are brought before the High Court. The parliamentary draftsman is there to make sure we do not do those things.
I move amendment No. 47:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 23, after "Board" to insert "and shall inform the Houses of the Oireachtas of the criteria upon which such appointments have been based".
This section deals with membership of the board and the authority in terms of office of members. Subsection (2) states that "the Minister shall as soon as may be after the establishment day appoint persons to be members of the board". My amendment proposes that the Houses of the Oireachtas be informed of the criteria upon which such appointments have been based. Already today we have been discussing broadly based representatives and dealing with the consultative council. The same could go for the board as well. If we are not able to write in the representative nature and criteria in the legislation as previously suggested in amendments, perhaps this is a way in which people can be reassured of the representative nature of the board and the criteria on which people are appointed. I am asking that that be taken into account in this amendment. I would ask the Minister to accept it, if possible.
I cannot accept it because I have powers of responsibility for food safety and I have freedom to make appointments as I see fit without recourse. When making those appointments I have regard for the need to maintain the authority's independence and that is what I intend to do. I do not intend to undermine the credibility of the authority. I have that responsibility as Minister.
I have no reason to doubt the Minister's bona fides in making appointments, taking the independence of the board into account and ensuring it is not undermined. However, this will be judged against previous experience - it is not a stand alone decision. Technically it is, but in terms of the public consciousness - which has been rightly referred to because food safety has been undermined - this is another way to reinforce the openness, accountability and transparency in the appointment of the board. If the Minister is assured that this will not be lessened by not accepting this amendment, I will withdraw it and come back to the matter on Report Stage.
I move amendment No. 48:
In page 17, subsection (2), line 23, after "Board" to insert "and nominate one of those members to be chairman of the Board".
The Minister must think I am Santa Claus. Previously I wanted to double the number of his direct nominees to the council. I would prefer the Minister to appoint the chairman of the board rather than the ten newly appointed members haggling about it. From the point of view of the independence of the board and the chairman, I would prefer to see him or her appointed rather than selected from among his or her colleagues at the first board meeting.
I will appoint all members of the board, including the chairman. Subsection (2) is unnecessary because subsection (3) differentiates between the chairman and ordinary members. All of them will be appointed by me.
I move amendment No. 51:
In page 17, subsection (7), line 38, after "time" to insert "for stated reasons".
My amendment proposes that a member of the board may, at any time, for stated reasons resign his or her membership. This affords the most basic protection to board members in that they cannot be removed without a stated reason.
I admire the Deputy's consistency. A member of the board may at any time be removed if, in my opinion, the member has become incapable through ill health of performing his or her functions, has committed stated misbehaviour or if his or her removal appears to be necessary for the effective performance by the authority of its functions. Stated misbehaviour is already provided for. A person, in the opinion of other members of the board, may be incapable of abiding by the collective decisions of the board, may be disruptive or may not be performing his or her duties properly. I cannot sack a person because of ill health if they are not sick. Section 31(7) sets out the specifics of how I can use my powers. I do not intend to interfere with the independence of a board unless it is for those serious reasons.
The Minister is personalising this.
I am using this opportunity to state my position which I am entitled to do. A person can be dismissed only for the reasons in section 31(7), regardless of who is Minister.
If someone resigns, the reasons should be stated.
That information could be obtained by putting down a parliamentary question. A person may resign without stating a reason. It could be because of ill health and he or she might not want the family to know.
Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 18, subsection (9), line 15, after "vacancy" to insert "except in the matter of the term of appointment, with the term of the person appointed to fill the casual vacancy being fixed only until the effluxion of time shall have required the whole new Board to be appointed".
This is not a major issue and I will not dwell on it. When a casual vacancy is being filled, it should be clear that the vacancy is for the period of the existing board and that all members will stand down at that time to allow a new board to be appointed. Perhaps the Minister will reassure me as to what he had in mind.
My amendment proposes to ensure that a vacancy will not exist for an inordinate period and that it will be filled within two months of the Minister being made aware of it.
Deputy Sargent's amendment would confuse the text and add little. The option to appoint someone for the remainder of a term is open to me. However, if the remainder of a term is only six months and we want someone of quality, we should have sufficient confidence in that person to give him or her a three or five year appointment. It depends on the remainder of the tenure. It has to be that way to limit the situation. It may stop good people being appointed to the board as they might not be prepared to come on that basis and may be seen by other members as a temporary addition with no security of tenure.
It reminds me of An Bord Pleanála when Governments are about to fall and how appointments can be made for longer periods than the tenure of Government.
My uncle had a position on An Bord Pleanála and was summarily sacked by a non-Fianna Fáil Minister for no reason. It happens all the time.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 18, subsection (9), line 15, after "vacancy." to insert "The person so appointed shall be appointed within 2 months of the Minister being notified of the vacancy.".
In some circumstances such a provision would be too constraining, for example, when a board is nearing the end of its term. Ministers move quickly to fill board vacancies because there is a great deal of interest in them. However, we can accept the amendment.
I move amendment No. 62:
In page 18, subsection (3), line 42, to delete "4" and substitute "6".
I am not sure if there is a formula which applies to agencies and boards. However, given that ten members will be nominated to the board of the food safety authority, I would be happier if a quorum required five or six members, rather than four. The board will have to occasionally decide on matters of a relatively serious nature. I may be taking this to extremes, but with a quorum of four members decisions could be made by a minority of board members.
This is a standard section outlining the ground rules for board meetings. It is considered, on legal advice, that a quorum of four is appropriate for a board of this size. Given that the total board membership is ten, a meeting called at short notice, for example, might not be feasible if the quorum were raised to six. However, in the interests of compromise, we will agree to a quorum of five members. We will return to this on Report Stage.
Thank you.
I move amendment No. 63:
In page 19, subsection (4), line 28, after "Board" to insert "having regard to the need to give representation to the major relevant disciplines touching upon the issues of food safety, consumer protection and the protection of the environment".
This section relates to the establishment of a scientific committee. The amendment spells out clearly that not only should the members be appointed by the Minister following consultation with the board, but also that they would have regard to the need to give representation to the major relevant disciplines touching upon the issues of food safety, consumer protection and the protection of the environment. Public confidence in the authority should be to the forefront of our minds, which is the reason I tabled this amendment. It deals with issues of interest to the public and the media, such as food safety, consumer protection and the protection of the environment. Those issues should be the cornerstones of the scientific committee's brief. It should be laid down in the legislation as a reminder to the public, as much as anyone else, that the authority is being considered in that light.
I have a certain difficulty with this section, particularly subsection (4) which states "the Scientific Committee shall be appointed by the Minister". Having listened to the Minister make a very strong case for the independence and autonomy of the authority, I would have thought the board should determine the membership of the scientific committee, which requires expert qualifications. The Minister has power to appoint only six members of the consultative council, yet he has absolute power to appoint the entire scientific committee. I can understand him appointing the chairperson, who is a member of the board. I may have to table an amendment on the matter on Report Stage.
Given the nature of the scientific committee, its members should be appointed by the board for it to be effective. It is not a broad ranging or umbrella committee, but it will comprise people with very particular expertise. The board should have the independence and freedom of choice to ensure the best possible people are appointed to the committee.
I know the Minister will act responsibly in regard to this authority and I do not want to put any question mark over his recognition of it, but he will not live forever - he could eat a ham sandwich infected with salmonella. It would be much more sensible to streamline the committee and have it appointed by the board. I accept the Minister should appoint the chairperson, who is also a member of the board, but the board members should appoint the committee, which is there to serve the board. The Minister is letting the board appoint the consultative council and the subcommittees.
I wish to exercise my right under the Standing Orders of the Dáil to make a short intervention. I wish to move some amendments on Report Stage and I am required by Standing Orders to mention them on Committee Stage.
The first relates to the present situation in regard to genetically modified organisms in the food chain and food production. As the Minister knows, the genetic engineering of crops and animals is extremely controversial. Genetically engineered foods containing genes derived from bacteria and viruses are starting to appear in shops in some countries. Foods with insect, fish and animal genes will soon follow.
What relevance does this have to amendment No. 63?
It relates to section 34. Amendment No. 63 refers to "food safety, consumer protection and the protection of the environment". On the advice of the Dáil secretarial staff, I am required under Standing Orders to place this on the record now if I wish to move amendments on Report Stage. I will be proposing, in particular, that the board and the scientific committee should be specifically mandated in regard to this new development of genetically modified organisms in food, as it relates to food safety. I will deal with this issue at length on Report Stage.
We are delighted with that.
I deeply appreciate the Chair's guidance but he has no choice.
The existing scientific committee of the interim authority is considering these issues. However, I understand the Deputy's point and if he tables an amendment on Report Stage we can discuss it then. The food regulations cover GMOs and that is in the Schedule, so it is part of the body's remit.
Regarding who should appoint the scientific committee, section 34 provides for that, thus implementing the second part of the Government's commitment to food safety, which is that the authority would be science based. I felt that giving the board too much influence might affect the independence of the scientific committee, as that committee derives its membership at the behest of the board and the contention could be made that it is a creature of the board. Therefore, appointments made by me in consultation with the board - I will take cognisance of the type of person the board wants - will still be made at a remove from the board. I contend that my approach is not arbitrary or inconsistent but re-emphasises the independence of the scientific committee, which is appointed by me after consultation with the board. It is not there at the behest of or subject to the approval of the board. Consultation with the board will include particular reference to qualifications and experience in relation to food safety and hygiene to ensure the broadest possible expertise.
The functions of the board as outlined in this section are generally to assist and advise iton matters of a scientific nature under section 34(1) and specifically on scientific and technical questions relating to food safety and hygiene as well as on the administration and implementation of food inspection services and the nutritional value and content of food under section 34(6). The scope of the scientific committee is very broad and allows it a large degree of independence to undertake further investigation, assessment or research in areas where it considers such work warranted, and it may publish any such advice. The board may set time limits for the receipt of advice from the scientific committee in section 34(7) and (10) as it may not act upon any matter it has referred to the scientific committee until this advice has been received.
In relation to Deputy Sargent's proposed amendment to section 34(4), I consider that unnecessary because subsection (5)(c) adequately provides for the need to have regard to appropriate qualifications and experience.
Subsection (5)(c) refers to food safety and hygiene, and I want consumer protection and the protection of the environment to be seen as important and valid. These matters need to be explicitly stated. It should be recognised that the stated qualifications are too narrow to serve the broad range of challenges the scientific committee is going to face.
Food safety and hygiene are the ideas behind this, and the scientific committee is set up to have expertise in that area. Other interests with a legitimate involvement in wider food issues could be accommodated on the board or certainly on the consultative council. The idea behind setting up the Food Safety Authority is to focus on food safety issues. The scientific committee, will have regard to the range of qualifications and experience necessary, the proper and effective discharge of the functions of the committee and in particular to such qualifications and experience in relation to food safety and hygiene. It is particularly required to have expertise in this area, and clearly many scientists have wide knowledge and experience apart from their specialities. We do not want scientists from other disciplines - who may be very fine scientists in their own right - who may not focus on what we need them to advise the board on. I will think about this and return to it on Report Stage.
I will consider this further. In my experience scientists are very specialised, and unless we have someone who has studied the interconnections between food safety and the means of production we will be dealing with very focused, limited people. We must allow for that by including references to the protection of the environment relating to food. Pesticides are now seen as a problem. Standards are changing and we must take account of the requirements to meet those challenges. This involves a wider issue than that of food safety.
I move amendment No. 64:
In page 19, subsection (5)(a), line 31, to delete "members" and substitute "member's".
This amendment relates to a typographical error.
I move amendment No. 65:
In page 20, subsection (6), between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:
"(d) the effect of 'food miles', that is of distance from producer to consumer on the quality of food available, and
(e) comparative analyses, relating to the nutritional value and content of food, between mainstream production methods and those production methods being developed in the organic and biodynamic food producing sectors.".
This amendment proposes adding——
Can I have the agreement of the committee that Deputy Cooper-Flynn chair the meeting for about ten minutes? Is that agreed? Agreed.
According to section 34, the scientific committee advises the board on certain matters. Those include food safety and hygiene, administration of food inspection and nutritional content and value of food. However, this is a fast developing area, and the Minister should consider my amendment.
Subsection (d) relates to 'food miles'. This has not been considered possibly because it has implications for GATT, which sees the world as one free trade zone. With regard to food quality and economics, there are downsides to developing food which has such a long shelf life. The effect of "food miles", the distance from producer to consumer, on the quality of food available should be an issue about which the scientific committee advises the board. It could be dealt with in more detail, but it is important for quality of food, particularly in terms of indigenous food production in Ireland.
Paragraph (e) is important also as it provides that the scientific committee be allowed to advise the board on comparative analyses relating to the nutritional value and content of food between mainstream production methods and those being developed in the organic and biodynamic sectors. This is particularly important because so many claims are made regarding nutritional value and the means of production of food. I also discussed this with the Minister for Agriculture and Food. The scientific committee ought to be able to advise the board on where the truth lies on many of these claims. There are conflicts of interest when it comes to advising on the nutritional value of, for instance, organically or biodynamically produced food and more mainstream chemically produced food. Will the Minister allow its inclusion so that the remit of the scientific committee would be more comprehensive?
The Deputy's amendments are not necessary because they seek to add two paragraphs, (d) and (e), to section 34(6). The first is a technical matter already comprehended by paragraph (a) while the second is already comprehended by paragraph (c) relating to nutrition. He referred to quality issues, but we are dealing with food safety in this subsection. If certain foods have a long shelf life and are safe, they come under the remit of the food safety authority. If an individual says the food does not taste good and one can get better fresh food, that is a quality issue dealt with by the Department of Agriculture and Food. The job of the authority will be to satisfy everybody that all the food we eat is safe. Paragraphs (d) and (e) are already covered by paragraphs (a) and (c) and by not accepting them, the committee is not precluded from looking into those comparative issues on a scientific basis. If the Deputy wants to ensure the committee carries out this work, paragraphs (a) and (c) provide for that.
I acknowledge paragraphs (a) and (c) in the most general sense can be interpreted as covering those issues and, hopefully, they will, but I am not sure the scientific committee will hold a similar view to the Minister. We must hope so. I have received studies which, for instance, indicate that male farm workers who eat chemically produced food are experiencing reduced sperm counts while those working on organic farms are experiencing increased sperm counts. That is not a food safety issue, but there are qualitative issues which are increasingly important. If the remit of the scientific committee becomes more explicit, we will be able to inform it that such issues need to be examined. If the Minister says the paragraphs cover that, I must take his word for it. Essentially, I do not see how people reading paragraphs (a) and (c) will know there are other matters of concern. Will the Minister focus on these questions a little more before Report Stage? I will withdraw the amendments and we will debate them again at that stage.
This is a broad environmental and health issue and is not exclusively a food safety one. The issue to be dealt with by the authority is whether food is safe to eat. If eating the food involved has consequences mentioned by the Deputy, that is beyond the remit of the food safety authority. Those are broad environmental and consumer issues that people should know about, but that is not the focus of the authority. It is not precluded from looking at them but I do not anticipate its focus to be that wide. Paragraphs (a) and (c) allow the authority to look at this area generally, but the extent to which it looks into it must be left to the scientific committee and the board which will run it on a day to day basis.
I move amendment No. 66:
In page 20, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(14) Advice furnished by the Scientific Committee to the Board may also be furnished to the Consultative Committee and the chairperson of the Scientific Committee may from time to time meet with the Consultative Committee to discuss such advice.".
On Second Stage the Minister spoke a great deal about the interlocking nature of the relationships between the different arms of the authority. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for better communication between the scientific committee and the consultative council. It allows that the more broadly based consultative council would be kept informed of the advice of the scientific committee.
Obviously, there is an interlocking arrangement. My advice is that the establishment of these channels should be a matter for the authority and should not be prescribed in legislation. The consultative council deliberations will come to the board. The board may refer an issue to the scientific committee and that normally will go back to the consultative council in due course when it has been determined and examined. It is not advisable to prescribe what the communication channels should be in legislation. Once enacted without this amendment, there will obviously be a communication channel set up in the interest of good management between the board, the consultative council and the scientific committee as they proceed through their agenda. It is not good practice to require this in legislation.
The Minister is prescribing other relationships in this section. The potential relationship between the consultative council and the scientific committee should be covered also because there is no reference to it elsewhere. It is important that the Bill provide that direct communication can take place between the scientific committee and the council in order to make the consultative council effective.
I will examine this issue on Report Stage. The advice is that the amendment may not be the best way of doing this. The consultative council will deal with broad policy issues of consumer interest. The board will be concerned with the implementation of policy. Because it is consultative we want to maintain the independence of the board which need not take the advice of the consultative council, although it may take it into account. If that happened I do not think it would be advisable for the consultative council to meet the scientific committee on the basis that such meeting is prescribed in legislation. The scientific committee will work for the board, not the consultative council. For this reason I wanted to leave the communication relationships up to the management. We do not want to establish structures which, for totally unforeseeable reasons, could result in a confrontation in the context of the consultative council and the scientific committee because the board does not feel it should refer a particular issue to the scientific committee. We must try to delineate roles. If we make things too complicated it could become over wieldy.
The word "may" is used to provide for the relationship between both bodies.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are alternatives and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 21, subsection (2), line 20, to delete "Board. He" and substitute "Board and".
This amendment corrects a typographical error and for the correctness of expression I am advised it is necessary.
To comply with gender neutral drafting we should have "he or she" when referring to the chief executive.
This brings us back to the use of "chairperson" in the context of sorting out whether it is "he" or "she".
It does not. This leaves it open that the chief executive may be he or she. It provides that the chief executive may be "she", which is standard drafting.
That is referred to in the Interpretation Act.
Amendment No. 68 is an alternative to amendment No. 67. Is amendment No. 67 agreed?
The Minister's amendment replaces the full stop with "and".
Amendment No. 67 replaces "he" to make the wording gender neutral.
The amended wording would read "may be appointed by the Board and be removed from office".
That is correct.
Amendment No. 69 is a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 23, subsection (6), line 10, to delete "an" and substitute "the".
This amendment corrects a typographical error.
Amendment Nos. 70 and 71 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 70:
In page 24, subsection (2)(b), line 2, to delete "to the European Parliament," and substitute "as a representative in the European Parliament, or".
Amendments Nos. 70 and 71 are necessary in order to use the correct terminology in respect of the European Parliament.
I move amendment No. 71:
In page 24, subsection (2), line 12, before "Parliament," to insert "a representative in that".
I move amendment no. 72:
In page 24, subsection (1), line 32, after "such" to insert "prescribed and publicly notified".
Regarding declaration of interests under subsection (1) it is considered that the existing text provides sufficiently for appropriate accountability. This is why the amendment will not be accepted.
The amendment relates to a small matter. It concerns section 41 which deals with a declaration of interests and which states that "each member of the Scientific Committee shall make a declaration in writing of his or her interests to the Minister, in such form as the Minister, following consultation with the Minister for Finance, may specify." As in the case of Deputies, I am asking that the declaration be done in such a way as to be prescribed and publicly notified. This way people will know what is being asked of the scientific committee and the committee will have some formal structure by which its members will know what is being asked.
The advice is that the declaration of interests in subsection (1) provides sufficiently for appropriate accountability in the matter. I am not going to demand that members' interests be published. We are seeking that members make the required declarations in writing to me. I am told this is no more or less than what is considered normal practice in relation to membership of such boards.
Is the Minister saying he or his successor simply have to be satisfied that interests have been declared and that is the end of the matter?
Yes. Section 41(4)(a) states that "a statement of interests declared under subsection (1) shall be included in the next report prepared in accordance with section 25(1) following the making of the declaration". This may cover the point being made by the Deputy.
I think it does.
I move amendment No. 73:
In page 25, subsection (7), line 31, after "selling" to insert ", distributing or marketing".
This amendment is intended to widen the definition of food business. In so doing, the types of interests to be declared by the chief executive, board member, scientific committee member, employee or consultant are also widened. The possibility for conflict of interest is therefore reduced.
I move amendment No. 76:
In page 28, subsection (2), line 3, to delete "exceeding" and substitute "less than".
A summary conviction for a person contravening subsection (1) is a fine not exceeding £1,500. As I mentioned earlier, many of the interest groups and large industrial concerns dealing with food would have no difficulty paying the fine and would hardly notice it apart from the bad publicity it would generate. A fine of £1,500 is inadequate. A way to remedy that would be to substitute the words "less than" for the word "exceeding". Has the Minister taken into account those who may be convicted? I am not trying to pre-empt any wrongdoing but the situation may not be as we would like in the future.
Section 43 is a standard one to prevent the disclosure of any information obtained within, or in contact with, the authority. The £1,500 fine relates to District Court limits. The Deputy's amendment does not provide for any flexibility based on the seriousness of the offence and cannot be accepted.
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 28, paragraph (a), line 21, after "including" to insert "premises or".
This amendment extends the powers of the authority under section 46 in relation to premises.
I accept this amendment.
Amendments Nos. 79, 87 and 105 are cognate and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 28, paragraph (a), line 21, after "processing" to insert "disposal,".
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the powers of the authority in relation to disposal.
I accept this amendment.
I move amendment No. 80:
In page 29, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "inspections" and substitute "functions".
This amendment relates to the service contracts section and is a very important in that it provides the framework which allows the authority to carry out its functions using the services of existing agencies. The authority may negotiate service contracts with each of the official agencies listed in the Second Schedule. It must set out objectives and targets for food inspection and a timeframe within which these must be achieved. Service contracts will be for a minimum of three years subject to a review at any time. The authority must publish any service contract entered into within three months and must also publish any changes to a contract following a review of same.
Official agencies with whom service contracts are held must, within three months of the end of each year of the contract, provide the authority with an annual report, or more frequent reports if required by the authority. Reports received by official agencies may be published by the authority. An official agency which declines to enter into or renew a service contract with the authority must inform the Minister or other person responsible for the agency accordingly, the intention being that it is the responsibility of the relevant Minister to ensure the implementation of relevant legislation.
Subsection (11) states that official agencies must provide the necessary resources for the performance of a contract through Revenue and-or Exchequer funding. Where an agency has failed to discharge a large part or all of its obligations under a service contract, the authority must immediately put in place whatever arrangements are necessary for the performance of the subject matter of the contract. The authority may report to the Minister in cases of non-performance and the Minister must lay such a report before the Houses of the Oireachtas.
My amendment states: "In page 29, subsection (2), line 11, to delete "inspections" and substitute "functions". The use of the word "inspection" in this context has too narrow a meaning and would limit an official agency to carrying out inspections rather than wider food control functions, which is defined as including powers and duties. The use of the word "functions" is in keeping with other sections, for example, section 50.
I move amendment No. 81:
In page 29, subsection (3) (a), line 17, after "meet", to insert "including the supervision of inspections relating to certified organic and biodynamic produce,".
This amendment relates to the section under which the authority shall specify matters to an official agency with which it proposes to enter into a service contract. Subsection (3)(a) should be amended so that the objectives and targets for food inspections that it wishes the official agency to meet deals with an anomalous situation and includes the inspection of organic and biodynamic produce. In that way these types of inspections would gain some official status. Currently, inspections of these produce operate outside the normal Department of Agriculture and Food inspection system. In this country they are operated by, effectively, voluntary organisations and producers fund the bulk of the inspections for the sake of the organic sector. It is important to address this issue. The amendment provides an opportunity to highlight the anomaly and seeks to include the inspection of organic produce in case people still believe it is outside general inspections.
Unfortunately, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment. It is a matter for the authority, as an independent body, to decide what matters should be included in service contracts. If it is necessary to include it in service contract in a particular area, it will do so. It is the authority's function as an independent body and we should not prescribe for that. That is the strongly held view of those here and the authority.
I will withdraw the amendment, but will come back to this matter on Report Stage.
Amendments Nos. 82, 83, 84, 85 and 86 are related and may be taken together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The same point pertains to amendment No. 82. It is a matter for the authority, as an independent body, to decide what matters should be included in the service contracts.
I move amendment No. 82:
In page 29, subsection (5), line 28, after "years" to insert "or a shorter period as appropriate".
I will take the Minister's point into account. However, the Bill, as drafted, states that a service contract shall be enforced for a period of not less than three years. That is overly prescriptive. My amendment would allow for a shorter period to apply, as appropriate. Perhaps the Minister could explain why a period of not less that three years is stipulated in the Bill and whether that provision could be amended.
Amendment No. 83 seeks that any service contract entered into by the authority shall be published within one month rather than within three months to ensure accountability and efficiency. Section 48 (7) states that:
The Authority shall publish the changes to and the reasons for such changes to a contract arising from any review carried out in accordance with subsection (5).
I am seeking some indication that such publication could occur sooner rather than later and I suggest that a time frame of one week be stipulated. Perhaps the Minster has other views on that. I do not want the matter written in stone but the amendment would serve to tighten up the Bill's provisions and, in the case of amendment No. 82, avoid prescription.
Amendment No. 85 relates to section 48 (13) which states that:
The Authority may make a special report to the Minister in cases of full or significant non-performance of a service contract and the Minister shall cause copies of such report to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.
The amendment seeks that that would be done "within 6 sitting days or immediately after a recess period, whichever is the earlier" to avoid unnecessary delay and in order that an incentive would exist to provide the information as quickly as possible.
Amendment No. 86 relates to service contracts, which comprise the fulcrum of the Food Safety Authority's entire operations. I addressed this issue in some detail on Second Stage. The ideological difference between the Minister's proposals and those of the outgoing Government relate to who would employ the staff and the inspectorate to carry out the authority's duties and functions.
Yesterday, I read some of the proposals in An Action Programme for the Millennium in which a clear commitment was given to establish an all-powerful food safety authority which would have the necessary staff to carry out the functions and duties assigned to it. I concede it is not possible to move overnight from the current position to one where the authority would employ 2,000 people. I recently asked the Minister in the Dáil what his intentions were in regard to the employment of inspectorate staff and others by the authority. I understand it is necessary to operate through service contracts at the moment but the Minister should specify a time frame for when the authority will employ the relevant staff. In his Second Stage reply to this query, the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, refused to be drawn on the issue. Will service contracts continue to exist in six, nine or 12 years' time?
The Minister is due to negotiate with trade unions and other staff representatives on this issue. The service contract procedure is a complicated one, necessitated by the style of authority the Minister wishes to introduce. A provision should be inserted in the legislation which would oblige the Minister to specify the direction in which the Government is proceeding. If the Minister is serious about the proposals made in the programme for Government and having a properly resourced and independent authority, he should stipulate that service contracts would be reviewed after a period of three years.
As Deputy Bradford pointed out, the Government accorded very high priority to the establishment of a food safety authority. The Minister for Agriculture and Food and I were instructed to get moving on the issue very quickly. The service contract mechanism allowed us to ensure we did not have to wait until all the ducks were in line before setting up the authority; that might have taken a long time.
Serious powers will be conferred on the authority and the number of people directly employed by it will not be an indication of its potential power. There are many large and relatively powerless organisations which have not particularly been catalysts for change in the economic or social spheres. We are attempting to provide a flexible mechanism which will put the Government's objective in place at the earliest possible opportunity. Detailed staff negotiations must be undertaken following the setting up of the authority. Were we to await the resolution of all staff issues, we might never have an authority because sectional interests, shrouded as legitimate concerns, could mean we would not succeed in getting off the starting blocks.
This issue has grown out of strategic management initiatives in the Department of Agriculture and Food and changes in the Department's role. We are witnessing a devolution of functions to independent agencies to improve transparency and to achieve greater focus in our activities. However, legitimate staff interests exist and they must be accommodated. Detailed and prolonged negotiations will be required to achieve that. In the meantime, a flexible mechanism is in place and the Food Safety Authority will have the power and ability to drive its agenda. The relationship between the authority and its workers will be a proper employer-employee one which will require the imposition and enforcement of standards and the evaluation and monitoring of the work done. Direction and policy changes may occur if required. I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment although I am committed to achieving an eventual change from the current disparate position to a focused, unitary one where people will be employed on a full-time basis by the Food Safety Authority. I was not naive enough to seek staff agreement prior to the establishment of the authority, neither am I naive enough to think those issues can be quickly resolved at this stage.
The contract mechanism is the ideal way to achieve the policy objective without prejudicing the rights and interests of staff to have issues looked at. There is a myriad of staff grades depending on the Department, authority or agency involved. That will take a great deal of restructuring and detailed work. We will move along with our objective as soon as we have this set up. We will move on the basis of full consultation with staff.
Some staff are performing a number of functions because of the way we have operated in the past. They may work in their respective Departments solely in the food safety area. To remove them from their Departments would deprive the Departments of personnel who have skills in certain areas. Clearly people cannot be transplanted from a number of operations into one operation.
There are many other issues, such as industrial relations and human resource management, which must be resolved. Three years may be too ambitious but we will in time arrive at that position. Whatever decisions are made on staff in the future will take cognisance of the fact that it is ultimately the intention of Government to place all of this within the remit of the Food Safety Authority. This flexible mechanism allows us to do the job and we then have to tidy it up. That will take time as it means a great deal of demarcation and other long established issues will need much detailed negotiation. By committing ourselves to consultation we receive the full co-operation of all staff interests on this issue. Everyone recognises that this policy directive is right.
I cannot accept Deputy Sargent's amendments for the reasons I have given. The independence of the authority will decide what will be included in individual service contracts. I recognise his point about times and I will look at that part of the Bill to see if there is a logical solution before coming back on Report Stage.
I would like amendment No. 82 examined. Currently there is a three year contract or nothing.
That is aimed at winning over the confidence of staff to co-operate with us. If arrangements are to be changed, people must be offered some security. Six month contracts are not secure. There is provision in the legislation to evaluate and change within the three year time period if the authority sees fit, whatever arrangement it has with its new service providers. It is not an issue of offering a three year contract in the hope that someone will do the job. If people are not doing the job well within the three year period, the authority can intervene. That is in another section of the Bill.
I move amendment No. 86:
In page 30, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following subsection:
"(14) The Authority within 3 years from the date of establishment, shall review the operation of the Service Contracts and, after due consultation with the official agencies and other interested parties, shall develop and publish a plan for the long-term enforcement of food safety standards.".
I realise the issue of service contracts is not simple. It is at the centre of the way in which the Minister wishes the food safety authority to operate. There is no other way of operating at the moment. It will not be a more difficult issue in 12 months time than it was when the Minister outlined his policy proposals for this powerful authority which would employ a range of staff, including the inspectorate. Is the Minister committing himself to 2,000 staff moving from the various agencies to the Food Safety Authority?
That is our objective. There will be cases where the service contract arrangement will continue because service contracts have a multiplicity of functions at present and it would be difficult to address the staff issues from parent Department to authority, even in the short to medium-term. We will set up the authority and it will have powers which will not depend on the number working for it. It will derive its power from this Bill and its ability to enforce it. We will have management and expertise which will enforce it.
We are committed to negotiating with all staff interests and moving toward the food safety authority having a direct employer-employee relationship eventually, as opposed to the indirect relationship now which the practicalities of the situation demand.
The Minister hopes these people will eventually be transferred from their present employer to the Food Safety Authority?
Yes, those who are exclusively in the food safety area at present.
I am a realist and do not demand that it should happen within three years. It is not, however, an unrealistic expectation that we should be able to project where we are going regarding the final transfer of staff within three years. We need to set goals. The Minister, in setting the legislation out along these lines, is setting high fences and I wish him well, but we should be in a position in three years to see progress as the first service contracts conclude. We should be in a position then to see how much longer we would depend on such contracts. The employee negotiations are crucial but we should give the employees an indication of when we expect matters to be concluded and the transfer of the 2,000 staff to take place.
The transfer will take place when staff interests are satisfied as a result of the consultative process. Before the three years is up, I expect the Food Safety Authority to refer in its annual reports to the progress being made with the recruitment of staff. That would involve not just the recruitment of new staff but the transfer of staff from various agencies who will work for them through service contracts.
That work will begin when the authority is set up and we will take it from there. The consultative process will last as long as it takes but we do not want obstruction tactics, we want to address whatever issues are brought to our attention in relation to the transfer of staff. I expect the authority to work to advance that. The Government, the Department of Health and Children and other Departments will negotiate with staff interests to get that show on the road.
I will withdraw the amendment although I may return to the matter on Report Stage.
Section 48(12) deals with the process that will be followed if it is considered that a service contractor is not fulfilling its obligations. In his reply to the Second Stage debate, the Minister of State, Deputy Moffatt, challenged me to outline a different proposal. He indicated that there is a small number of suitable scientific experts. There is a small pool and if the Food Safety Authority determines that a contractor, such as the Southern Health Board, is not implementing its obligations properly, the authority, without delay and following consultation with the Minister, can put in place alternative arrangements. Who will implement those alternative arrangements? Will it be the agencies mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Bill or can the authority look further afield? Such circumstances may not arise but the legislation states that if the authority is unhappy with a service contractor, it can intervene and have the work done by another agency. Who will the authority approach if the pool of experts is so small?
It is a long-term provision. At present the resources are in the health boards, the Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland and the other agencies mentioned in the Second Schedule. If a board is not doing its job properly, the person designated as unsatisfactory will not be allowed to do the work for the Food Safety Authority. It will insist on the superintendent environmental health officer or another person within the public sector doing the work.
Will people from the agencies mentioned in the Second Schedule be employed?
Yes, and others. If a matter of a highly technical nature arises and somebody is considered capable of doing the work but the Food Safety Authority is unhappy with his or her inspection or report, the matter might be regarded as of such urgency that the authority will contract somebody else to do the work so it can properly advise the public. This is a theoretical situation but it might arise.
Most members are aware of the difficulties regarding the implementation ofthe Abattoirs Act. A number of local authorities——
I ask the Deputy to get back ontrack.
This is relevant to the Bill.
It is not relevant to the amendment.
Under subsection (12) the Minister and the authority may intervene if a job is not being done properly. The Abattoirs Act is not being implemented in many areas because local authorities do not have veterinary officers. Can the Minister intervene under subsection (12) and make provision in this area?
If there is a gap in the service locally, the Food Safety Authority will ask an official from the Department of Agriculture and Food or another body to do the work. I do not foresee it as a problem. If there is a localised difficulty, it will be dealt with through a national solution. The authority will draw up a contract with whoever it considers competent to do the work and have it done. It will not be the case that because the authority cannot find somebody locally, the work will not be done.
Can contracts be entered into with agencies that are not mentioned in the Second Schedule?
Yes.
I move amendment 87:
In page 31, subsection (1)(b), line 16, after "processing," to insert "disposal,".
Amendments Nos. 88, 89, 90, 92 and 94 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 88:
In page 32, subsection (6)(b), line 30, to delete "£50,000" and substitute "£100,000".
The amendment increases the penalty from £50,000 to £100,000. This reflects the gravity with which offences under the Bill will be viewed.
My amendments also seek increased fines. Some of the operators in the food industry are extremely large and there should be a facility to impose higher fines unless that is impossible for the legislative reasons the Minister mentioned earlier.
Regarding amendment No. 89, I am advised that fines for repeat offences are proportionate to the fine for the original offence and are usually set at one quarter of the fine for the original offence. In this instance the fine for the original offence is set at a maximum of £1,500. Therefore, I am prepared to accept the substitution of £500 for the current figure of £350. An amendment will be introduced on Report Stage to that effect.
I am prepared to accept amendment No. 90 that fines for repeat indictable offences should not exceed £15,000.
Regarding amendments Nos. 92 and 94, I am informed that at present the maximum fine for obstruction or interference as decreed by the Director General in the Office of the Attorney General is £1,500. Therefore, I am unable to accept the amendments.
I move amendment No. 90:
In page 32, subsection (7)(b), line 38, to delete "£5,000" and substitute "£15,000".
I move amendment No. 91:
In page 32, subsection (8), line 40, before "gives" to insert "knowingly".
The purpose of the amendment is to give protection from prosecution to a person who in good faith gives information which subsequently turns out to be untrue.
I accept the amendment in principle. However, on the basis of advice from the parliamentary draftsman, it is proposed to delete the word "is" on page 32, line 41, and replace it with "the person knows to be". The subsection will then state that a person who obstructs or interferes with an authorised officer in the exercise of his or her powers under this Act or gives an authorised officer information which the person knows to be false or misleading shall be guilty.
As it is now 5 p.m., the meeting will adjourn. Is it agreed that the session tomorrow will be from 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m.? Agreed.
