: This section contains a reference to two Acts, the Act of 1930 which is the Agriculture (Fresh Meat) Act and the Act of 1935 which is the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935. I wonder why, when the Minister was going to the bother of introducing this miscellaneous provisions Bill he did not avail of the opportunity to have a more comprehensive updating of those Acts. I have referred in Parliamentary Questions to certain deficiencies in the Acts in regard to the phraseology in one section which does not take account of air transport, which is one of the important means of conveying meat, and the fines have not been revised since 1930. There are additional powers that I think the Minister should take in relation to the quality of meat and the export of meat and the contents of it, the existence of different antibiotics and so on in the meat which were not heard of and could not have been a problem when the legislation was introduced in 1930 or 1935. I wonder why the Minister did not deal with these matters also when introducing this Bill. We know there is a great deal of trouble involved in bringing in a Bill of this sort.
Agricultural Produce (Meat) (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1978: Committee Stage .
: That is really a matter for the Second Stage.
: There were a number of Acts from 1930 to 1934 and it would be an enormous task to try to bring the whole lot up to date and I would not consider it necessary at this stage. We are introducing this Bill to have regard to changing circumstances in the meat business. It is not changing fundamental principles of the basic legislation.
: I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, line 44, after "£100" to add "in the case of a first offence and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £300".
This is a relatively minor amendment concerning the penalties which may be imposed under the Bill on somebody who fails or neglects to comply with the requirements of regulations under this section. The section as it stands says that a person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. The offences concerned would be offences against the new scheme of classification of meat which is to be introduced by regulation under the section. Obviously, if somebody is involved in circumventing this classification scheme by some fraudulent act he is not just affecting himself but affecting the reputation of Irish meat abroad and affecting credibility in the classification scheme which is being used in respect of that meat. I can well understand that this might be done by no more than neglect on one occasion and people might not realise that they were engaging in an illegal practice, but if people repeat that offence there is a strong case for substantially increasing the penalty. It would undermine the whole purpose of the classification scheme if individual factories or others were engaged in this practice. The Bill as it stands simply provides that if a person is guilty of an offence he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100. There is no provision for an additional fine in the event of a person repeating the offence.
It will obviously be difficult to detect some of these offences. My amendment is very modest and one would argue that it should go further. One should be liable in the case of a first offence to a maximum fine of £100 and in the case of a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £300. This means that if a person offends a second time, having been caught once before, an increased penalty will be imposed. Under this provision the maximum fine is £100 and there is no provision for increasing the fine for the second or subsequent offence. One hundred pounds is not a lot of money these days and a great deal of money is involved in the meat business. For a person engaged in this sort of activity a fine of £100, if he is caught offending, is not a sufficient deterrent.
I know that the Minister will say that in relation to a meat factory it is possible to withdraw their licence and prevent them from operating, but it might not be a meat factory that is involved in the breach of the classification scheme. The withdrawal of a licence from a meat plant is a very serious penalty which will affect the innocent and the guilty alike. Executives of a firm might be involved in breaking the regulations on a systematic basis and if the fine can be increased for repeated offences that would more or less get at the people responsible but if the licence was withdrawn that would put innocent people out of work. To say that if the fine is not enough we can use the threat of withdrawing the licence is not adequate because of the fact that the consequences, in terms of employment, of withdrawing the licence is so great that no Government will impose it for a breach of the classification scheme, no matter how systematic. We are left with a penalty of £100 for every repeated detected offence and that is not satisfactory. I would urge the Minister to accept my amendment which is very modest as it only increases the fine for a second or subsequent offence to a fine not exceeding £300. If there is any criticism to be made of my amendment it is that it does not go far enough but if the Minister is prepared to go that far then he will be making some progress.
: I support the amendment in relation to a fine not exceeding £300. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Bruton that it might not be enough. If there are some extenuating circumstances the upper limit of the fine is not binding but in the general sense a fine of £100 is too low. As has been said it would not be practical to withdraw the licence which is the only other alternative if the regulations are being continually broken. The amendment has merit and I would ask the Minister to accept it.
: There is some merit in what both Deputy Bruton and Deputy Bermingham have said. I have no great objection to raising the penalty but a fine of £100 for such an offence will be a sufficient deterrent to any offender. I do not know if it is really necessary to raise the figure to £300.
: It is only for a second offence and it is at the discretion of the court. They do not have to impose it.
: I have no objection provided it is all right with the draftsman. I will concede that amendment.
: I thank the Minister for his attitude to the last amendment. It improves the whole approach to the Bill.
I move amendment No. 2:
2.—In page 2, after line 44, to add the following subsections:
"(4) The supplier of the animal or animals shall have the right to be present while the carcases of his animals are being classified. This provision shall not apply to the classification of individual cuts of meat but only to the classification of whole carcases.
(5) In drafting regulations under subsection (1) of this section the Minister shall consult with all relevant interests in the agricultural and meat processing industries.
(6) Where regulations are proposed to be made under subsection (1) of this section a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
(7) When draft regulations are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section they shall be accompanied by a statement from the Minister setting out
(a) the differences between the prescribed standard systems of description to be used under the regulations and the prescribed standard systems of description in use in systems of classification of the equivalent fresh meat products in each of the Member States of the European Economic Community.
(b) the arrangements being made for the training and supervision of the work of the officers to be responsible for classifying meat or applying prescribed marks to meat under the draft.".
This amendment is rather complicated. I would have preferred if each of the subsections was taken separately, but they are lumped together. Each of them raises a separate issue. The Minister might accept one of the suggestions I am making and not others but as it stands the Minister must either accept or reject the entire amendment. If the Minister indicates in the course of his reply that he is prepared to accept part of the amendment, we can draft a suitable amendment on Report Stage.
I propose that the supplier of the animal or animals whose meat will be classified shall have the right to be present while the carcases of these animals are being classified and that this provision shall not apply to the classification of individual cuts of meat but only to the classification of whole carcases. There is a lot of merit in this proposal because naturally farmers will feel that they are not involved in the classification of their carcases. They will know that a classification will have a major bearing on the price. I know there is no guarantee that a certain price will be paid for a certain classification of beef as to either fat content or the shape of the animal, but the reality is that the factory will, through time, begin to base the payments they are making to the farmers on the classification. I suggest that the farmer should have a right to be present while his cattle are being classified by the inspector of the Department in the factory. It might be suggested that this will create difficulties in the factory but my information is that in practice there would be only one or two farmers there at a time because only a certain number of cattle would be classified at any one time.
In the case of the classification of lamb for the French market, this has been a very controversial issue because there is a huge difference in price when the animals qualify for the French market. In one of the lamb factories in the west that I visited the farmers were present when their animals were classified and they could ask questions if certain animals were not accepted for the French market. It would be beneficial for farmers if they could be present in the factory when their animals were being classified because they would see why some were not acceptable. This amendment merely gives them the right to be present. It does not give them the right to any kind of appeal mechanism that could delay the proceedings. The amendment merely states that they have the right to be present while the animals are being classified and, presumably, to ask questions in an informal way.
The second sentence states that the provision will not apply to the classification of individual cuts of meat but only to the classification of whole carcases. Although the immediate scheme applies only to carcases, we may reach a stage where the powers of the section will be used to classify individual cuts by certain characteristics. The Minister admitted during the debate on Second Stage that this was possible. As it would not be possible to identify the cut from a farmer's animal by the time the animal was cut, it would not be practical to give the farmer that right other than in the case of whole carcases. The Minister should favourably consider the amendment and agree to it.
Subsection (5) relates to the consultations in which the Minister must engage in the drafting of the regulations. It states that the Minister shall consult with all relevant interests in the agricultural and meat processing industries. That is a reasonably broad and flexible provision. Probably the Minister will consult with the relevant people, but in a matter as complicated as this and where there are so many implications for many people it is appropriate that there should be a provision requiring him to carry out consultations. Such a provision was incorporated in other Bills with which I was connected—for example, the Consumer Information Bill. I inserted a provision there that consultations should take place and I hope the Minister will accept that principle here.
Subsection (6) states:
Where regulations are proposed to be made under subsection (1) of this section a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
This comes back to a point I made during the debate on Second Stage that we were being asked to approve of theses enabling regulations for a classification scheme for beef carcases which the Minister probably has drawn up but yet he is asking us to give our approval to his making those regulations without laying them before us. In a matter as important as this the regulations should be laid before the House and they should not take effect until we have an opportunity of discussing them. I am sure the Minister will agree that a debate of this kind is of value and that constructive suggestions may be made by the Opposition. The basic purpose of the classification scheme is educational and the more publicity that is given to it by means of a Dáil debate the better. Therefore, the Minister should agree to this proposal for that reason, in addition to any question of parliamentary control over ministerial action which is an important principle in itself. The House should not write a blank cheque for any Minister to enable him to make regulations as he wishes without referring them to the House.
Subsection (7) states:
When draft regulations are laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas in accordance with the provisions of subsection (6) of this section they shall be accompanied by a statement from the Minister setting out
(a) the differences between the prescribed standard systems of description to be used under the regulations and the prescribed standard systems of description in use in systems of classification of the equivalent fresh meat products in each of the Member States of the European Economic Community.
During my contribution on Second Stage I pointed out that we are proposing to introduce a classification scheme for our beef carcases that is radically different from that operating on the continent. So far as confirmation of the beast is concerned, we will have seven classes corresponding to the letters of the word "Ireland", whereas in France and in Europe generally there will be only six classes of confirmation in their schemes, namely, to correspond with the words "France" and "Europa", depending on whether it is the French or the European scheme. In addition, our classification scheme does not approximate to their schemes. I understand that the first three letters of the Irish classification scheme—the best confirmation from a continental point of view—correspond with the first letter only of the European scheme. Our remaining four classes correspond with the remaining five classes of the continental scheme. That is roughly the situation and perhaps the Minister will contradict me if I am wrong. Our scheme has a different number of classes and it is different with regard to the distribution of classes between different types of beast.
What is the purpose of the scheme? It is to assist exports to these countries but we are instituting a classification scheme that is radically different from theirs. That does not make sense to me. I should have thought that if we wanted to sell cattle to continental countries we would have as nearly as possible the same kind of scheme which could be readily understood by our customers on the continent who are using another classification scheme and I, therefore, do not understand why this provision is being adopted. The purpose of my amendment is to require the Minister to spell out, if such differences exist between the classification he is proposing and the one prevalent in the member states of the European Economic Community, those differences so that the differences can be clearly identified and the House can see clearly why there is a difference and what the difference is.
Presumably, in the course of the debate, the Minister will be required to justify the difference between our scheme and their scheme. The principle the amendment seeks to achieve, namely, the nearest possible equivalent between our scheme and the continental scheme, is a good one from the long-term point of view. I know the short-term argument adduced against our scheme—a six letter scheme nearly the same, or the same, as the continental scheme as to the distribution of different classes and different types of animal—is that, if we were to adopt the continental scheme, very few Irish cattle would get into the "E" or, perhaps, the "U" classes which are the "best" scheme, the best types of animal on the continent. This will show us in a bad light and therefore, we have a scheme not so easily understood by people on the continent so that we will not be shown in a bad light.
This is a contradiction of what we are trying to achieve, namely, the greatest possible understanding between the producer here and the consumer on the continent as to what the latter wants. If you bamboozle the consumer on the continent by having a scheme very different from theirs, not knowing exactly what the top grade Irish animal, namely, the one in the "I" class, corresponds to in their scheme you are not serving the purpose of the classification scheme at all. You are postponing the evil day if you do not succeed in fooling them— not fooling them exactly, but not letting them know exactly what you are talking about—and they will come to have less regard for your products because they will see that if they want an "E" category animal, they had better get it from the "E" category in the European classification scheme rather than from the Irish scheme where they might get "I" or "R" and, where "I" is such a broad category, they simply would not know whether the animal coresponds to "E" or "U" or "R" in the European scheme. If you do not succeed in codding them, it will have an adverse effect on the credibility of our scheme. If you succeed in selling your animal on the basis that "I" is equivalent to "E" in the European scheme you will not have the effect of communicating the needs of the French or the European market back to the Irish farmer. That is a real objection.
Now, by virtue of our having a very wide "I" category—although we have seven classes our "I" category is very wide by comparison with the rather narrow "E" category in the European scheme—farmers will expect that, if the animal gets into the "I" category, they must automatically get the full continental price. It may be that some animal classified "I" in the Irish scheme will correspond to "E" in the continental scheme and therefore the factory will be able to pay a price equivalent to the "E" price on the continent. But there will be others who will get into the "I" category and will only correspond to "U" or the top half of "R" in the continental scheme and the factories will not be as keen to pay the price they would pay for the really good animal in the "E" category as they would be prepared to pay for the "U" or "R"; but, as far as the Irish farmer is concerned, the animals are all in the "I" category. He cannot see any difference and he believes he should get the top price. That will create difficulties because of the wide variety of animals within the "I" category. If I am wrong in that I shall be happy to be corrected by the Minister.
Finally, when preparing the draft regulations for the training of people engaged in the classification of animals, the Minister should indicate to the House, in conjunction with the regulations, the arrangements being made for the training and supervision of the work of the officers to be responsible for classifying meat or applying prescribed marks to meat under the draft. That is a sensible proposition. The Minister recognises, as we all do, that this will be a very complicated job with a substantial amount of money involved. Reliance will be placed on the accuracy of a visual assessment. Officers in different factories may be operating 100 miles apart and it is essential they should come to the same conclusion as far as confirmation is concerned. They will have to be intensively trained and they will have to talk the same language in order to ensure uniformity of judgment. Secondly, their work will have to be very closely supervised and I propose the draft recommendation should contain an outline of the training and supervision arrangements.
I hope the Minister will accept some part of this amendment. He may cavil at some parts and, if he does, I would like him to indicate what they are so that we can put down amendments on Report Stage to incorporate those aspects he is prepared to accept.
: I am afraid I cannot agree to this amendment. I do not propose to require factories to allow members of the public to enter their premises. This will be strictlY a matter between the farmer and the factory. In any event, I have grave doubts as to whether I would be entitled to make a provision requiring a factory to admit any individual other than the authorised officer of the Minister. I would, of course, see no objection where a factory and a farmer agree that the farmer should be present while classification was taking place, but I cannot make this mandatory. We must realise factories are not public places, and surely the owner should have a voice in the running of his own business. It must be remembered that the factory management or staff do not perform the classification and, therefore, it is not necessary that the seller should be there to watch the buyer.
As regards subsection (5), I do not consider this amendment necessary because, as I already indicated on Second Stage, it is intended to have consultations with all interested organisations before the regulations are drafted and the scheme introduced. It is quite obvious that consultations will have to be held beforehand in order to ensure that the scheme will be a success. In the circumstances, I consider the amendment is not really required.
As regards subsection (6) I have considered this amendment and I am afraid I cannot agree to it. The time of the House should not be taken up debating what will be very detailed and technical regulations. The purpose of section 2, as it stands, is to provide for policy matters relating to beef carcase classification and the regulations will give effect to classification as approved by the House.
As regards subsection (7) I do not propose to agree to this amendment. It is not really necessary. Indeed, it is a new concept of Deputy Bruton's that the Minister should be compelled by law to give the Oireachtas information on what is being done by Governments abroad or in agreement between producers and meat factories abroad. I will always give whatever information I can, and gladly do so, but it would be wrong for me to accept an amendment compelling the Minister to do so at all times in the future.
The classification scheme here will cater for the range and type of animals we produce, or are likely to produce, while the classification schemes in other countries are designed to cater for their type of animals. I should say that a number of countries have voluntary classification schemes, such as the United Kingdom, and accordingly have not got regulations covering their schemes. Of course we have studied the classification schemes in other countries and there is agreement in principle between our scheme and those of other member states. Incidentally, some member states have not got beef classification.
In regard to training and supervision, I have already indicated that the officers will receive adequate training in the theory and practicalities of classification. There will be adequate supervision to ensure that standards are uniform. I do not propose to agree to an amendment of this nature. As Deputies are aware, considerable numbers and different grades of staff are trained and supervised in various Departments without a statement being furnished to the Oireachtas by the Minister.
: The Minister has not replied to the points I made about the classification scheme. I pointed out that our scheme diverges very significantly from the continental schemes. The Minister should tell the House exactly what is the correspondence between our schemes and their schemes. For the Minister to say our scheme reflects the type of animal already being produced here is an illogical basis upon which to draw up a classification scheme. The Minister's whole point in drawing up this scheme is to provide a language whereby the needs of export markets, namely markets for the consumption of beef products outside this country, can be reflected back to the Irish producer so that he can modify the the type of animal he is producing and produce, for example, more Charolais animals which will tend to get into the "E" or "I" classification as the case may be, depending on which classification we are using.
To use the argument that our classification scheme should reflect merely what we have already—an unmodified and I think all will agree a herd which is much in need of genetic improvement from the point of view of the markets we are seeking to serve now in continental Europe—is to deny, if you like, the role the scheme should have in improving our herd and bringing it more in line with demands for meat on the continent. I do not understand why the scheme is based as it is.
I am at a grave disadvantage because we have not been furnished with a copy of the proposed scheme. My original criticism on Second Stage is reinforced on this Stage. The Minister has not supplied the House with a copy of the scheme he proposes to introduce under these regulations. Is he prepared to give the House a copy between now and Report Stage? Is he prepared to give me the information I am looking for as to how our scheme compares with schemes on the continent between now and Report Stage? He should make that information available to the House. It is available to everybody else in the trade but the people who are ultimately responsible, the Members of this House, have not got a copy of it. Perhaps if we had asked the Department we would have got it.
The Department are very helpful in giving information to any member of the public and particularly Members of this House who want it. From my own experience I know that to be the case. The Minister should indicate formally in this House that he is prepared to make it available so that we can see exactly what we are talking about.
I should like him to answer the precise points made about the lack of correspondence between our scheme and the continental schemes. I want to come back on two other points. I did not propose in subsection (4) that any member of the public should be entitled to go in and watch animals being classified. I merely proposed that the owner of the animals in question—one man, not anybody walking in off the street—should be able to go into the factory and see what is being done.
The Minister made some play about the rights of factory owners in respect of their own factories. The factories will benefit from the existence of this classification scheme. It will help them to get what they want for the export markets. It is being provided by the Irish taxpayer because the Department are paying for the scheme. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to ask that factories should meet a requirement to enable the producer to see what is being done. If they do not like that requirement, they do not have to participate in the scheme. There is no constitutional problem here. If the scheme is being operated in their factory this requirement will apply, and if it is not it does not apply. They have that freedom.
The Minister referred to the time of the House being taken up in a discussion of the regulations if the approval of the House were required. I do not think that is a problem. It would be quite possible to get a debate for a limited time, say an hour or an hour and a half, on these regulations. It would not involve a huge discussion on the whole issues involved. There may be controversial matters in the regulations which will be made and there should be a provision for discussing them in the House. The Minister is wrong to refuse to accept that the regulations should be laid before the House and discussed here before they come into effect.
: Deputy Bruton has complained that he has not got a copy of the scheme. The reason is that the scheme has not been drafted yet and until such time as it is drafted we cannot make a copy of it available to the House or to anybody else. Discussions have to take place between the farming organisations, the factories, the veterinary profession and everybody else involved before we can get agreement on this.
: Was I right in my description of the scheme the Minister has in mind, that is the correspondence of our classes with the European classes?
: Broadly speaking, I would say the Deputy was right.
: I got that information beforehand, but the Department have had displays up and down the country of the scheme they have in mind.
: Yes, at the RDS Spring Show they had a display.
: If the Minister can show it to anybody who was prepared to go to the Spring Show why can he not let this House have it?
: Deputy Bruton understands as well as I do how these things work. It is not as simple as all that.
: I would be happy with the draft. I do not want the final regulations. If the Minister can put before the House or incorporate into his speech or append to his speech an indication of the latest thinking of the Department, that would be better than what has been done. Would he be prepared to make that available to us?
: I cannot make it available until it is drafted.
: What did the Department put up in the Spring Show?
: Pictures.
: Were they corresponding to the different classes?
: Yes.
: How were the pictures selected?
: It does not follow that the drafting will be the same as the Deputy saw at the Spring Show, which gave the public some idea of what they can expect when this classification scheme comes into operation. That was the idea behind the pictures which were displayed at the Spring Show.
As regards the classification scheme, Deputy Bruton has mentioned the idea of a common scheme. This would be a matter for the EEC. If there is to be some common scheme acceptable to all member states, the EEC would have to prepare such a scheme. At the moment there is not agreement between the different countries on the different schemes and there are big differences between some of the schemes. If there is to be a uniform scheme for the whole EEC, then naturally the EEC would have to prepare such a scheme.
Deputy Bruton queried on Second Stage why we should have seven classes as against six in Europe. The European scheme is matched by their type of animals, whereas our seven classes cover the broad range of Irish animals. That is all the information I can give.
: That is not a satisfactory answer.
: I would like to know the Minister's intentions generally as far as introducing classification schemes is concerned. He has indicated his intention to introduce a classification scheme for beef carcases. I would like to know if he has in mind introducing classification schemes for lamb, mutton or pigs. Has he the intention of introducing a classification scheme for individual cuts of meat as distinct from carcases? This power includes the regulation of the classification of fresh meat. I take it that that does not include a classification scheme for products containing fresh meat which are not themselves fresh meat, for instance, hamburgers or tinned meat—of course tinned meat would not be fresh meat —sausages and so on.
There is a case for classification not merely for fresh meat but also for meat products. If you are talking about processed meat products you are talking about something about which the consumer needs a great deal more information on what has gone into the product than he does in the case of a product which is fresh. The consumer can see for himself what is there by looking at the carcase or the cut, whereas for products in tins, packets or hamburger form there might be any number of things in the tin, packet or hamburger and there might be need for a classification scheme there. I would like to know the Minister's long-term intention regarding the introduction of classification schemes under this section. The power here can be used to introduce any number of different schemes for different products and different cuts.
We are discussing the section as amended and it contains my amendment which provides for a fine of £300 for subsequent offences. I ask the Minister to consider revising the fines generally under the Fresh Meat Acts because the fine of £100 contained here is very much higher than the fines which exist in other parts of the Act. There is an anomaly there which should be dealt with. I would like to know also what the section means as regards the standard according to which meat may be classified. The section says:
(a) to be classified according to prescribed standard systems of description,
Description as to what? The proposal at the moment for beef carcases relates to confirmation of the carcase, that is the shape, weight broadly speaking, and the fat content of the carcase. I take it from that that it would be possible to introduce classification schemes for matters such as the presence of antibiotics, chemicals or any other matter that could be contained in meat as a result of certain agricultural practices. Is it possible to have the classification scheme extended to other matters concerning the description of meat in addition to its shape and fat contents? If so, I see considerable value in looking at the possibility of classifying Irish meat by characteristics other than mere confirmation and fat cover.
We want to have a quality product sold abroad with maximum information being given to the foreign consumer about what sort of meat it is. One of the problems generally in relation to food products at the moment is this environmental concern about the presence in meat of matter which should not be there. This is referred to in amendment No. 4 which has been ruled out of order and so I cannot deal with it at this stage. But under this section it would be possible for meat to be classified for a number of characteristics, including those mentioned in amendment No. 4, in addition to the ones already envisaged. I should like to ask the Minister if he reads it that way also, that it is possible to classify meat according to any number of different criteria, apart from those immediately envisaged.
When does the Minister intend to introduce the first regulation under this section? Does he expect it will be this year, next year or in two years' time? This is important because the enactment of this legislation is raising an expectation on the part of a lot of people. The fact that officers are being trained is also raising an expectation that this classification scheme for beef carcase will be introduced later this year. Is that so?
: I presume the reason for the Bill is to improve our export potential in regard to meat and to ensure that we capture a bigger proportion of the market. I presume it is the intention that we should try to produce the quality of meat that is in demand in European countries. We must introduce regulations which will be easily understood by our producers and potential purchasers in Europe. We must compare our regulations with those in existence in European countries because our producers will have to compete with those countries. Before he makes regulations the Minister will have to compare them with European classifications.
: I found it difficult to follow Deputy Bruton but I shall try to set his mind at ease with regard to some of the points he raised, in particular the extension of the classification scheme to certain meats. Fresh meat is defined in the 1930 Act and classification can be extended by regulation to any of the meats mentioned as the market demands. That section states beef, veal, pork, mutton, lamb, horse flesh and goat flesh. I do not suppose we will need the latter two but they are mentioned in the Act. Pigs are graded already and lambs are graded for the French market.
: Is that statutory or voluntary?
: It is voluntary.
: Would the Minister make it statutory?
: If required it can be introduced by regulation. Tinned meats and such items cannot be classified. Carcases will be classified as to confirmation and fat content and the presence of residues and so on has nothing to do with classification because that is tested regularly at the meat control station run by the Department in Abbotstown.
: Will it be possible to have classification for other characteristics, apart from confirmation and fat content?
: I do not think that would come under this scheme.
: I know it does not come under what the Minister has in mind at the moment but is it possible under the Act?
: It is possible under the Act but it is not necessary for what we are trying to do at present.
: I appreciate that.
: Deputy Bruton asked me to state when the scheme would be introduced and I should like to point out that on Second Stage I stated that, subject to enactment of this legislation, the scheme will be brought into operation early next year.
: Would the Minister explain this section to the House?
: This section also refers to classification and provides for the amending of section 40 (1) of the Fresh Meat Act, 1930, to allow for the marking of meat so classified. Section 40 (1) relates to the marketing of fresh meat for export and this section is necessary to allow for the application of the classification marks on carcases. The other official marks on carcases include the veterinary inspection number of the plant, intervention stamps and so on.
: It will be marked on the carcase?
: Yes, it has to be marked with a rubber stamp.
: Will the requirement as to the marking be incorporated into the regulations to be introduced under section 2?
: That is correct.
: I move amendment No. 3:
In page 3, between lines 22 and 23 to insert the following subsections:—
"(4) Where regulations are proposed to be made under this section a draft of the regulations shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
(5) At least once every three years the Minister shall lay before the Dáil a report on the exercise of his powers under this section setting out inter alia in relation to the 3 year period
(a) the number of convictions for offences thereunder,
(b) the regulations in relation to non-white pigs then obtaining in the other Member States of the European Community,
(c) a summary of any representations he has had for the repeal or amendment of the section or of regulations made thereunder.".
This section proposes to allow the Minister make regulations to allow non-white pigs to be bred and fed here. In the course of his reply to the Second Stage debate the Minister indicated that he had no immediate intention of introducing such regulations, thereby implying that he was prepared to allow the present prohibition on non-white pigs to continue. That prohibition was introduced in 1956 and the main reason for it was to have uniformity in breeding here. It was felt that non-white pigs were not quite as saleable as white pigs. Since 1956 there have been a number of improvements and some of the non-white breeds have come up with very good records in terms of the production of meat from a given amount of food. They are a little like the Charolais in the beef sector in that they have a very high conversion of food into lean meat.
The breeding situation which existed in 1956 and justified excluding such pigs wholly from our pig production industry does not apply with the same force now. While I applaud the Minister for taking the power to make regulations I regret that he is not prepared to give more serious thought to using those powers to allow, subject to proper controls to ensure that there is no interference with the general quality of the breeding herd, purebred non-white pigs to be introduced at least on an experimental basis. He should be prepared to make such regulations. My amendment seeks to get the Minister at least once every three years to lay before the Dáil a report on the exercise of his powers under this section setting out inter alia in relation to the three-year period (a) the number of convictions for offences, (b) the regulations in relation to non-white pigs then obtaining in other member states and (c) a summary of any representations he has had for the repeal or amendment of the section or of regulations made. The purpose of that part of the amendment is to ensure that the powers we are now giving to the Minister to make regulations to allow non-white pigs will not remain a dead letter and that the Minister will have to continually and actively consider whether or not regulations should be made every three years to allow non-white pigs.
The principle in the amendment is a good one in that it does not require the Minister to report every three years, but it does require him to justify why he is not reporting and to state how our regulations compare with regulations in other parts of the Community and also to indicate the number of convictions for offences. I understand that no offences have ever been detected. Nobody has ever been convicted for breach of section 6 of the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1956. It would appear that either the section has been successful or that it has not been enforced.
By requiring the Minister to make a three-yearly report, we are ensuring by means of a statutory amendment that the Minister reviews the matter every three years. That is a good provision and one which I hope the Minister will adopt. It does not bind the Minister to do anything but it does require him to make a report.
If the Minister makes regulations he should have them discussed in the House and not merely have them laid before the House and effected automatically. It is a bad principle to have legislation passed through the House by means of regulation. I hope the Minister will accept those points in favour of the amendment.
: I cannot agree to this amendment. Deputies have already agreed that there is justification for allowing the Minister to have the option to lift the absolute ban. The regulations which can be made by the Minister will be simple and straightforward and I do not consider it necessary that they should be debated and approved by the House. The Minister has the power to allow the importation of certain breeds of cattle and sheep. As it stands, section 4 does not represent any departure from normal practice. The essence of the matter is that there is no demand at present for the importation of that type of animal.
I cannot agree to the other part of the amendment. As Deputies are aware, the Minister is required to publish an annual report of his activities. It is not reasonable or necessary that he should be required to furnish a report of this nature on a specific area of his activities.
: I am intrigued by the arguments the Minister is using for refusing to have the regulations discussed in this House. When he was talking about the regulations under the section relating to the classification scheme, he said the regulations would be complicated and that it would not be appropriate to have them discussed here. He says the regulations under section 4 are simple and straightforward and that it would not be appropriate to have them discussed here. The Minister seems to be using arguments at will to meet the case. Regulations should be approved by the Dáil. It is not appropriate to have law made by the back door. As some important legislation is now made by regulations, I believe the House is not functioning as it should if it is not privy to the making of legislation.
: I should like to know if the Minister intends making regulations under this section to allow non-white pigs. Has he had consultations with anybody on the need for such regulations?
: No.
: My information is that there is a good case for the introduction of these pigs into the Irish market. In France these pigs have been allowed and I believe that some good breeds have been developed on the continent. The Pietron breed is one that is quite successful in France. In the USA, non-white pigs, or hogs as they call them, are more common than white pigs. We shall obviously be trying to export our bacon and pork products to the continent and perhaps to America. If we are not able to use breeds which they are using to satisfy their markets we are tying our hands behind our backs.
I agree that there should be proper control on the introduction of new breeds but I would ask the Minister to initiate consultation with the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the various interests in the pig industry and with the factories to see if there is a case for making regulations at a reasonably early date under this section. I cannot prejudge the results of such consultation but if the Minister gives an assurance to undertake consultation I will be happy that the matter is being approached in the right manner.
: There is no demand at present for the importation of this breed of pig. I would have no objection to consultations with the Pigs and Bacon Commission or anybody else if they thought there was a need to import this breed for genetic or any other purposes. This is one of the reasons we are taking advantage of this legislation to remove the absolute ban on the importation of this breed of pig. The removal of this absolute ban will make it easier for the Minister, for the Pigs and Bacon Commission, or anybody else who might feel justified in importing this particular breed of pig at a later stage.
: Can the Minister give us any indication of why this change is being made? Now that factories will have to pay fees on a monthly basis rather than on a six-monthly basis as had been the case before—I know that means the Department will get money somewhat quicker but it also means there will be a lot more paper work because there will have to be a collection every month rather than every six months—the argument in favour of that is that the money will come in quicker. I wonder would it be possible to collect fees every six months but containing a partial element of collection in advance, on the basis of anticipated slaughterings or something like that, to avoid the necessity of having the major bureaucratic exercise every month of collection of these fees, an exercise that will cost the factories, and also the Department, money in terms of staff costs. I should be glad if the Minister would give us any estimate he may have of the additional staff costs involved in the new system of collection.
I am also curious about subsection (4) of this section, which is in substitution of section 28 of the 1935 Act. It says:
Every certificate of indebtedness
—that is in relation to the fees—
shall be sufficient evidence until the contrary is shown of all matters purported to be certified in the certificate and any document purporting to be a certificate of indebtedness issued under this section shall, on production of the document in any proceedings to recover the amount certified to be payable by the document, be deemed until the contrary is shown to be a certificate of indebtedness duly issued under this section and shall be admitted in evidence accordingly.
The effect of that subsection is to shift the burden of proof as to the existence of the debt to the purported creditor simply by producing a document, waving it in the court and saying: "We have got a certificate of indebtedness here. Therefore it is up to you to prove that you do not owe us the money." The House will note that the subsection is very widely drafted in that it says:
Every certificate of indebtedness ... and any document purporting to be a certificate of indebtedness issued under this section ....
Even if a Department person goes into a court with a document which is not a certificate of indebtedness but which purports to be ipso facto, the burden of proof in the court proceedings will be transferred to the creditor and he will have to prove that he does not owe the money. To my mind that is a bad sort of provision. It puts the Department, who are already able to call most of the shots anyway in these type of proceedings because of the powers they possess, in an unduly strong position in these court proceedings.
I know the answer the Minister will come up with is that this provision has existed since 1935 and presumably there has not been any problem or we would have heard about it. The provision here is a direct copy of something that was contained in the 1935 Act, but that does not make it good law. The fact that it has not been used or, if it has, has been only in a responsible fashion does not make it a good provision. On the face of it it looks to me a very bad provision, an incursion into the liberty of the individual. I should like to hear the Minister justify it, telling us why this unusual provision is really necessary. It may be that there are peculiar circumstances in the meat trade which make a provision of this sort, which would not exist in normal proceedings for the recovery of debt between one individual and another, justified in the case of the Government looking for recovery of fees from a meat factory. If I feel that Deputy Bermingham owes me money it is not enough for me to go into court with a bit of paper and say: "This is a certificate I can produce. It is now up to Deputy Bermingham to prove that he does not owe me the money." I cannot do that in a proceeding of that sort. It seems to me to be somewhat odd that the Government, who are in a stronger position in such court proceedings than I am vis-à-vis Deputy Bermingham or he is vis-à-vis me, should be able to wave this bit of paper and thereby shift the burden of proof.
: I agree with what Deputy Bruton has said. In addition I see that subsection (6) says:
Where any licensee fails or neglects to pay the amount certified by a certificate of indebtedness to be payable by him within four weeks after the service of a copy of the certificate on him, the Minister may revoke the licence in respect of which that amount is payable, ....
I feel that the heavy hand is being used to a great extent in this section. There seems to be no liability for proof on the Department or the Minister. There seems also to be a threat that the licence may be withdrawn if the licensee fails or neglects to pay the amount certified—if he misses out his licence can be withdrawn. That threat hangs over the licensee.
: Section 5, which we are discussing here, amends by substitution section 28 of the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935. The amendment permits the monthly collection of slaughter fees at bacon factories with effect from 1 July 1978 instead of collection on a half-yearly basis as was contained in section 28 of the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935. This would amend the various statute provisions relating to the collection of veterinary inspection fees at meat export plants. The collection of fees on a monthly rather than on the current half-yearly basis is acceptable to everybody. It will be easier on the Department. One of the arguments put forward by Deputy Bruton was that it would involve the hiring of additional staff and would be more expensive. It would not. It would be easier on the Department and no additional staff would be required. In this day and age it must be accepted by everybody that it is far easier to pay on a monthly basis than on a half-yearly basis as obtained heretofore.
Deputy Bermingham's assertion that we are using the heavy hand on factories is not justified at all because it is on the factories' figures those fees are levied. This was the case under the Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935, and the 1930 Meat Act and it has worked satisfactorily. I do not think there is any real problem involved.
: Is section 5 agreed?
: The Minister has not really answered the point as to why it is really necessary. He has said it has operated without any problems. That is not an answer to the question why it should be there in the first place.
: The wording of subsection (6), even though it may emanate from a previous Act which has worked fairly well, is heavy-handed in that it spells out in a very clear way what the Minister may do if a licensee does not pay or neglects to pay, which could mean forgetting to pay.
: I hope the Minister will reply to the points made by Deputy Bermingham. I have another question. If a factory ceases to pay fees and as a result the examiners are withdrawn, its licence for slaughtering for the export market is removed but that does not remove the ability to sell on the domestic market. The veterinary examiners will presumably cease to go to that factory if that happens; therefore there will not be any check on the meat sold on the domestic market. That seems to be a serious situation. It behoves the Department to ensure that meat sold to the Irish consumer comes up to proper veterinary requirements. It seems we are prepared to be concerned about the veterinary standards of our meat only when it is being exported.
The argument may be made that if the meat is only for the home market the health board inspectors will look after it. The reality is that those fellows are not qualified veterinary surgeons and they are not able to do all those things that a veterinary surgeon appointed under the provisions of this Bill would be able to do. They would not be able to check the same things. It seems that there are not the same checks on meat for domestic consumption that there are on meat for foreign consumption and I wonder about the justification for that.
It would seem that arguably the veterinary inspection of meat is part of the proper responsibility of the Government for the protection of public health and that therefore it should be paid for by the Government. The argument that by the accident whereby we have been carrying out this inspection of meat products for export but not for domestic consumption we justify the fees being charged does not hold water. We should be doing this for our own consumers and doing so without any fee because it is a public health function, which in my view is appropriate to any Government in any civilised country, whether one has a conservative or a radical philosophy. I am posing two questions: first, what happens if the licence is withdrawn because of failure to pay fees and what sort of inspection is there of meat for domestic consumption; secondly, is it really appropriate to charge a fee since this is basically for the purpose of public health?
: Regarding inspection of meat for consumption on the home market, this will be done and is being done by the local authority vet. He is responsible in that area, under the control of the county medical officer. There is no question of meat for home consumption not being inspected. There is a fairly rigorous test carried out by the local authority vet who is under the control of the medical officer.
: Why have two systems, one for the export plants and one for domestic plants?
: The fact of the matter is that it is being inspected anyway. They are all responsible officers and I am sure they do a good job in ensuring that everything is kept in order. Regarding fees, there are no fees charged for the home market.
: I am not entirely happy with the Minister's answer about meat for the domestic market. Am I correct that the vets who carry out inspections in abattoirs which are used for the domestic butchering trade are only part-time vets? They are vets who have their own practices and are doing this work on the side; from time to time they drop into the factory. The examiners which we are talking about are full-time employees of the Department. It does not seem to be possible that the same degree of stringency would apply in abattoirs as applies in meat export plants if the men who are doing this job in domestic plants are only part-timers who would have more remunerative employment available to them in other aspects of veterinary medicine. If they have any freedom they might opt for work on the brucellosis scheme.
If that is the case I would be doubtful if the inspection of meat for domestic consumpion is as rigorous as it is for meat for foreign consumption. It would seem on the face of it that there should be one system of veterinary inspection of meat, whether for foreign or for home consumption. The Irish consumer of meat is just as important to the Irish industry as the foreign consumer. A large proportion of our meat is consumed at home. If safeguards are necessary for what we export, safeguards are also necessary for what we consume at home. Perhaps the Minister would consider the extension of this system to the production of meat for the domestic market. It seems quite anomalous that there should be two separate systems, one for the export market operated by the Department of Agriculture with full-time people and a completely different system operating under an entirely different Department.
: The Deputy is going outside the question before us in this Bill.
: What would be the consequence of failure to comply with the provisions of this section? The consequence would be that the licence for the export of meat would be withdrawn. If that happened there would be no control, except the local authority control. I am discussing the logical consequence of failure to comply with the provisions of this section.
: There is very little I can add to what I have already said in reply to Deputy Bruton's query. He is trying to imply that there is not as rigorous a check on meat for the home market as there is on meat for export.
: I am asking a question.
: This is not true. There is a very stringent check on abattoirs and on meat in general by the local authority vets. These people are employed full-time by most local authorities, so there is no question of part-time employees. Even if they were part-time, I am still satisfied that they would be doing a good job. Some of the vets employed by the Department are part-time and are still doing a good job.
: Are the local authority people inspecting for the same things?
: They are.
: Why not have them all under one umbrella and on the one standard?
: The system as it operates at present is doing all right.
: Could the Minister tell me the difference between the fees payable by licensees and the fees payable on export licences and exporters' permits? The difference between these three is not clear to me and I should like the Minister to explain the purpose of the three different fees, when they are paid and by whom.
: Section 6 amends by substitution section 13 of the Schedule to the Fresh Meat Act, 1930. The amendment allows the collection of slaughter fees on a monthly basis at meat export premises with effect from 1 July instead of the present half-yearly basis as contained in section 13 of the 1930 Act.
: In section 6 we are dealing with fees payable for exporters' licences.
: I wanted to know the difference between the different fees.
: There is nothing about permits in section 6.
: No, but there is in section 7.
: We have not reached section 7 yet.
: But before we deal with section 6 it is important to know what the other burdens are. I should like to know what the different fees are.
: It is the same fees that are charged.
: Yes, but what is the difference between a fee for a licence, a fee for a permit and a fee payable by the licensee?
: There is no difference; the fee is the same.
: Why are there different names for the same fee? Why are there three different sections? Is there only one fee paid by each factory or are they paying multiple fees?
: One deals with pigs and the other deals with cattle and the permit is a short-term licence.
: That is for a factory, say an abbatoir that might be exporting for a few months, gearing up to pemanency?
: Yes.
: I should be glad if the Minister would say something about this section and his intentions in relation to the appointment of detention officers.
: The section empowers the Minister to appoint persons to be detention officers at meat export plants for the purposes of the Fresh Meat Act. The section provides that the Minister may determine the conditions of office and remuneration of the detention officers with the sanction of the Minister for the Public Service. It also provides that the Minister may, after consultation with the Veterinary Council of Ireland, determine the training and qualifications of detention officers and the arrangements for appointment and scope of duties. The duties of a detention officer shall be to carry out inspection as the veterinary inspector is currently empowered to do. The intention is that the detention officer would be supervised by the veterinary inspector and would detain suspect carcases for subsequent examination by the veterinary inspector. These officers would be in the agricultural officer grade and would be specially trained. There are no proposals to employ detention officers at present. Detention officers are used in other countries to assist veterinarians in meat inspection, in other EEC member states except Germany, the US, New Zealand. Their purpose is to allow a better deployment of veterinary resources and minimise the cost of the veterinary inspection service.
: I welcome the section. I realise that the Minister has committed himself in it to not doing anything before having consultations with the veterinary council. That is appropriate. I understand the Irish Veterinary Association in paragraph 3.31 of their report on meat hygiene published in 1973 included a statement on the matter which is not unfavourable to the idea. That is some time ago. Probably a few worries would be felt about the employment of lay people. One would be to ensure that they were operating properly under veterinary supervision. It was suggested that it might be appropriate that they should operate within sight and sound of a veterinary surgeon. If they had a problem they could be seen to call for assistance or advice from a vet and could get it immediately rather than operate entirely away from any veterinary advice. Obviously, they would be making decisions all the time in passing individual carcases. If they are not able to call on a vet for advice within shouting range, so to speak, the danger is that they would make decisions which would not be proper decisions. I wonder if such a requirement is envisaged.
I gather that there is need for improved laboratory facilities in some of the factories to assist veterinary surgeons and detention officers if and when these are appointed in doing some of the more sophisticated analyses necessary. Has the Minister any intention of meeting what I think is a genuine need in this area? Finally, I should like to ask the Minister if and when he intends to engage in consultation with the veterinary association with a view to introducing regulations under this section.
: If detention officers come to be used they will be trained by the veterinary profession and supervised by veterinary inspectors. I think there is nothing to worry about in that regard. As regards facilities in the plants, there is no complaint at present about these facilities and if there are any complaints they will certainly be pursued as quickly as possible.
: Does the Minister envisage detention officers working in a factory where there would not be a veterinary surgeon present at the same time? Does he envisage a situation where they would be working without a veterinary surgeon, that they would not be directly under supervision? They would be under supervision in so far as they could hold up a carcase until inspected by the veterinary surgeon but would not be working under supervision—would that be the position?
: The veterinary surgeon would always be present while killing is going on.
: Would he be in sight and sound of the killing?
: Yes.
: Amendments No. 4 and 5 have been ruled out of order.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I have been trying to understand the Schedule to the Bill and to work out what exactly the fee per month would be. I confess that I do not think I have arrived at the right conclusion. Assuming that in a premises 100 animals per month are slaughtered, how much would the fee be for that month?
: What type of animal?
(Cavan-Monaghan): Cattle.
: £100. The fee is fixed at £1 per animal.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It says here that
(a) the appropriate sum for a beef exporter's licence shall be such sum as may be prescribed;
: Those fees were approved by the House a few months ago.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Rule 3 says:
In respect of every registered slaughtering premises there shall be ascertained in the prescribed manner for every month—
(a) in relation to every person who held one and only one exporter's licence in respect of those premises during the whole or any part of that month, the number (in this Schedule referred to as the "appropriate number") of animals presented under that licence to a veterinary examiner for examination at those premises during that month,
Rule 4 says that as soon as the appropriate number, that is the number of animals slaughtered——
: That would be the fee for the ordinary licence as distinct from the slaughtering fees.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Rule 4 says:
As soon as an appropriate number is ascertained under rule 3 of this Schedule, in respect of an exporter's licence
—that would be 1,000—
the appropriate sum for the licence shall be multiplied.
As far as I can see the appropriate sum for the licence is £50. It says the appropriate sum shall be the prescribed sum and then it says the minimum sum shall be £50.
: I take it that the Deputies would like to finish this Stage of the Bill before 8.30 p.m.
: Can the Minister explain that point, if it is a multiplication that has to take place.
: The slaughtering fees were fixed by the House some months ago.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is clear that something is multiplied by 1,000. What is multiplied by 1,000?
: I am not an expert on this, but in practice the licence fee is fixed at a set figure. That is the way it operates.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I must confess that if I am interpreting this schedule correctly I would arrive at an absurdity. I hoped the Minister would be able to convince me that it is not an absurdity. It is clear that in order to find the fee for a month something is multiplied by 1,000 because the appropriate number is the number of animals presented to the veterinary inspector in the premises. If they happen to be 1,000 something will be multiplied by 1,000. If the Minister would tell me what is multiplied by 1,000 we would be able to ascertain the fee.
: The slaughter fee is multiplied by 1,000.
(Cavan-Monaghan): What is the fee payable in respect of that licence for the month for the purposes of section 13 of this Act?
: Rule 2 (a) says:
(a) the minimum fee, for each year commencing on a 1st day of July, in respect of either a beef exporter's licence or a pork exporter's licence shall be the sum of £50,
The appropriate number is the number slaughtered in a month. Section 4 says that as soon as the appropriate number is ascertained under rule 3 of this schedule, the appropriate sum for the licence, which is presumably the figure referred to at 2 (a), which is £50, shall be multiplied by the appropriate number and the appropriate number in accordance with 3 (a) is the number slaughtered. If that is the case, taking Deputy Fitzpatrick's example we would multiply the appropriate fee, namely £50 by 1,000 which is the appropriate number, which were slaughtered in that month, and that is a fee not of £100 as the Minister suggested but of £50,000. Obviously there is a good explanation for this but before we pass this Schedule we should have the explanation.
: The appropriate number here is in rule 1 and not in rule 2. This seems to become more confusing when we start toying with figures, but we have two separate items here, the licence fee and the slaughter fee. The slaughter fee for cattle is £1 per head and that was fixed by the House some months ago.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is the exporters' monthly fee that we want to find out about.
: If there is anything wrong with this section the draftsman can have another look at it.
(Cavan-Monaghan): It is not my Bill and I do not want to be obstructive——
: It can be looked at on Report Stage.
: When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
: On next Tuesday.