The various spokesmen in the House have agreed that we will complete Committee Stage no later than 10 p.m. tonight and complete Report and Remaining Stages at 10.30 p.m.
Bord Glas Bill, 1989: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment No.4.
In page 5, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following paragraph:
"(i) promote the formation and effective functioning of horticultural co-operatives or associations in the areas of production, processing and marketing.".
—(Deputy Sherlock.)
Are the arrangements for dealing with No. 8 agreed? Agreed. I understand that it has been agreed that amendments Nos. 4, 7 and 8 will be taken together.
I had said all I wanted to say on this section and I do not think the Minister would want me to repeat it. The comments he made earlier are sufficient.
I would appeal to Deputy Sherlock and Deputy Stagg to withdraw those amendments in view of the fact that only recently we launched a further producer group grant scheme for the potato sector. That will operate in conjunction with the producer group grant scheme which is in force for the vegetable and fruit growers. If I might be permitted to circulate the information brochures we have on the two producer group schemes, it will go a long way to satisfy Deputies Sherlock and Stagg in regard to their misgivings on the marketing arrangements which are in place at present for the whole horticultural sector.
I would like to make a very brief contribution on this section regarding other functions of the board. Would the Minister give consideration to the fact that the whole horticultural area is one which needs to be developed not just in the rural areas but also in city areas? There is potential for development, for instance, within Dublin city boundaries. It goes hand in glove with environmental protection and development, for instance, within Dublin city boundaries. It goes hand in glove with environmental protection and development. It might be considered a worthy function of the board to develop an interest in the whole horticultural area at school level among students and teachers. There was a time in the not too distant past when many people cultivated plots in various parts of my constituency, for instance, in places like Crumlin. Children are very eager to learn and this is a golden opportunity to instil in them the importance of horticulture. Perhaps the Minister would consider on Report Stage that one of the functions of the board might be to educate school children on the worthiness and importance of horticulture and how it can be used as an environmentally good thing. They could promote the development of horticulture, albeit at a small level, among students in schools. I hope the Minister might consider that question and perhaps address it on Report Stage.
I agree with many of the sentiments expressed by Deputy Mitchell in relation to the development of this area. This is by no means an exclusively rural industry. One of the very significant growth areas has been that of garden centres in urban areas and this is a reflection of the demand for the produce that the garden centres have on sale. In turn it reflects the growing interest which urban dwellers have in developing their own environment. This will be considered under the umbrella of the amenity horticultural sector. The Deputy can take it that An Bord Glas will see themselves as having a primary, up-front role in the promotion and development aspect of the urban environment.
The amendments from The Workers' Party seem to be similar to the ones I have tabled. What we sought to do, as I have said earlier, was to try to strengthen the Minister's hand. I accept from what he has said that he is satisfied that, in regard to the areas on which I put forward amendments, his hand is strengthened sufficiently by the measures in the Bill and in view of that I will not be pressing my amendments.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply although I do not question his sincerity in promoting what will be the objective of An Bord Glas when set up. In the past we have had a lot of experience of failures, one of the biggest of our time being the failure to provide a proper marketing system for the products of Erin Foods but I will not refer to that again. What I am proposing in the amendment is a system to promote the formation and effective functioning of horticultural co-operatives or associations in the areas of production, processing and marketing and to provide financial assistance in the form of loans and grant subsidies towards these objectives, again to be made available only in the context of an agreed development plan. Unless some such powers are given in the Bill, it will not have the significant impact on horticulture that we had expected and we will be back here again going over the same ground.
I know that a brochure has been issued in regard to potato producers. Groups can be formed and so on but that is only one aspect of the whole horticultural scene. A broader view must be taken of the matter. As I have said, I am disappointed at the Minister's refusal to accept the amendment.
All the provisions in section 5 are very worthy but section 5 (f) provides that the board shall publish and distribute magazines, journals, reports and similar documents for the purpose of encouraging the production of horticultural produce. The Minister cannot deny that every other day we receive documents in the post on the food industry. I often wonder what impact they really have. I am surprised that we could not take on board a proposal which would have the effect of promoting the processing and marketing of horticultural produce. I am disappointed at this but I will not be pressing my amendment.
I want to specifically address the point which Deputy Sherlock made about grants and loans. A number of grant schemes are in operation at present, for example, the aid available under the farm improvement programme and the new greenhouse grant scheme which was introduced last year. The Department of Agriculture and Food will have responsibility for the administration of that scheme. With regard to loans, the ACC, the banks and the ICC are involved in the business of providing loan finance to people so that they can develop their enterprises.
The leaflets I circulated on producer groups for fruit and vegetables and potatoes are not the only activity undertaken in regard to market co-ordination and development and developments in horticulture generally. I want to give a very good example of one of the other activities. A few weeks ago we had the opportunity to open the first mushroom village developed in this country. This is a joint venture between north Connacht farmers and Carbury Mushrooms in Kildare. It is reasonable to assume from that example that the co-operatives in existence at present are very interested in opportunities for the development of the horticulture industry. Deputy Sherlock in particular can rest assured that any encouragement or assistance which An Bord Glas can give to these co-operatives in their efforts to initiate developments will be readily forthcoming.
I welcome the circulation of the brochures on the producer group schemes. My former colleague and the Minister's predecessor, Mr. Paddy Hegarty, started the wheels in motion for this scheme. Many people in the industry said we had a long road to go before we could get the producers to co-ordinate their efforts and bring their products to one centre where they could be packaged and presented properly. I believe we all accept that if we want progress in this industry today's housewife must get the quality produce she requires. It would be remiss of me not to compliment Mr. Paddy Hegarty and the Minister for the initiatives taken in trying to get these producer groups off the ground. I still believe it is easy to set up a group in areas where perhaps five producers can get together to form a group but there is a number of growers who should act as the pivot for developing this type of producer group and ensuring that it works. I and my colleagues on this side of the House will be glad to give any help they can in ensuring that such groups are set up.
I wish to refer to the point made by the Minister concerning the mushroom growers group set up by the north Connacht farmers and Carbury Mushrooms in Kildare. I have a special interest in both these groups because one is in my constituency and I am from Claremorris. I am very concerned that the Minister would regard this type of group as anything near the ideal. The agricultural minimum wages rate adopted and enforced by the joint labour committee for agricultural workers does not hold in such circumstances because the workers are treated as contract workers. In Claremorris the picking rate per pound has gone down to something like 60 per cent of the rate when the unit opened, which was very recently. It is a matter of serious concern to me and I am sure to the Minister also that workers can be abused or exploited in this way. It is important that the people working in the industry are protected and we should not be giving grant aid to anybody who is not prepared to pay decent wages. I am sure the Minister would agree with me that this should be a condition of any grants which are being made available.
I want to acknowledge the offer made by Deputy Farrelly to give any help or assistance in setting up these groups. I assume the Deputy has his constituency of Meath in mind.
Leinster.
It is an offer I am very glad to get and any help or assistance he or his colleagues can give us will be very much appreciated. I agree with his sentiments in relation to my predecessor, the former Minister of State, Mr. Paddy Hegarty, who did tremendous work during his period in office for the horticulture industry.
I want to refer to Deputy Stagg's point on the rates of pay. While the Bill does not address this issue at this point we have to remember that the casual and part-time nature of the employment in the mushroom sector is geared to the requirements of those who are working in it. I would be sorry to hear of potential difficulties at the development in Claremorris. It is a very worthy and worthwhile development and I believe it will provide a very useful economic dynamic for the town of Claremorris which badly needs such a development.
The point I made is relevant to the Bill. In cases where the Minister would be grant-aiding such projects, is there any possibility that he, under the powers which this Bill will give him, can insist that anybody who receives grant aid should be tied to paying proper rates of wages?
Acting Chairman
Perhaps we can complete amendment No. 4 when the Minister has replied. We seem to be getting away from the relevant area.
I think it is reasonable to assume that if those who are employed on a casual basis in these production units are dissatisfied with their rates of pay they will move on in a short time. This will create difficulties for those who are running the business and I believe the provisions of the Bill will get the equilibrium right in such arrangements.
Is it not true to say that the export price of their produce is down because of the fluctuation of the punt and sterling? This is creating a problem for those in the industry.
We are straying a bit from the provisions of the Bill but in response to Deputy Farrelly from time to time we will have problems with the exchange rate. About 75 to 80 per cent of our mushrooms are exported to Britain and the exchange rate is vitally important in those circumstances.
It is causing problems.
Acting Chairman
Can I take it that Deputy Sherlock is not pressing his amendment?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 5 to 8, inclusive, not moved.
Section 5 agreed to.
Sections 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 9.
Amendment No. 9 is in the name of Deputy Stagg and if he agrees to withdraw it I will move my amendment, No. 8a.
My amendment No. 9 states:
In page 6, between lines 36 and 37, to insert the following:
"and
(c) the establishment and enforcement of standards for quality and grading of produce and food,".
The interim report of the board has made the improvement of quality a major objective in their strategy. There is a growing consumer awareness of both the quality and safety of food. My amendment is designed to facilitate the board in making recommendations to the Minister regarding all aspects of food and quality, including safety. Given that the board will be involved in improving food quality they will be in a strong position to make expert recommendations as to the safety and quality of food. At present the Ministers for Health and Agriculture and Food have power to set in motion standards for all classes of food under the Food Standards Act, 1974. This would give the board an input into that process and on that basis I hope the Minister will accept my amendment.
I accept the general point the Deputy is making and if he agrees to withdraw his amendment I will be pleased to move my amendment No. 8a which is substantially the same. It has been drawn up in consultation with the parliamentary draftsman. I am sure the Deputy will find that my amendment is substantially in agreement with his intentions. The alternative wording, "horticulture produce", has been chosen because that term is fully defined in the Bill and also because the term, "produce and food", is too vague and too wide for inclusion in the Act on horticulture.
I accept the alternative wording and I agree to withdraw my amendment.
Acting Chairman
Amendment No. 8a is in the name of the Minister and amendment No. 9a, also in his name, is consequential. Amendment No. 9 is an alternative and I am suggesting that the House take amendments Nos. 8a, 9 and 9a together.
As Deputy Stagg has agreed to withdraw amendment No. 9 I move amendment No. 8a:
8a. In page 6, between lines 33 and 34, to insert the following:
"(a) the establishment and enforcement of grading and quality standards for horticultural produce,".
I agreed with the terms of Deputy Stagg's amendment and I am in agreement with the Minister's amendment. I should like to make a point in connection with quality and standards. I do not believe there is any point in having quality and standards if we do not have sufficient staff to ensure that they are adhered to. We are all aware of the problems that have been caused due to a lack of staff. It is the person who is found with the product who is prosecuted for any offence. I accept that the Minister has made a major step forward by insisting on licence numbers, names of producers and so on being put on bags of potatoes but we will never upgrade the standard if we do not have sufficient staff to carry out inspections. It is important that we pursue producers who are not complying with the standards. Producers should be prosecuted and not retailers. We are all aware that when inferior products are sold on the market the retailer must cut the price and that is not fair to other retailers.
The Minister should ensure that there are sufficient staff available to carry out spot checks on the farms before the products are sold to retailers. The Minister will be aware that if an inspector discovers that the name of the producer is not on a bag of potatoes it is the retailer in whose premises the bag is found who is prosecuted. It is not right that he should take the stick for that offence. It is important that inspections take place to ensure that quality products are offered to houewives.
Quality control and the enforcement of regulations will have to be given more attention. I should like to tell the Deputy that at present we have 12 officials enforcing grading standards at retail and wholesale level. The potato inspectors may enforce the standards at farm level.
Is the Minister happy that 12 officials will be sufficient to do this work? I am not aware of the number of producers we have but I do not think 12 officials would be sufficient to cover them all. We are only playing around with this if we take a random sample of the products sold by producers. I accept that it will be easy to enforce grading standards if we succeed in encouraging all potato producers to join the producer groups. That is the ideal solution to the problem but I do not think it will happen in the immediate future. The Minister should consider appointing more inspectors.
I am disappointed that Deputy Stagg is withdrawing his amendment because I consider it an important one. There is widespread concern in medical circles about the extensive use of enzymes which it is felt may cause allergies. In many cases of this nature conclusive proof is not possible but I submit that we must err on the side of safety. The health of the consumer must be paramount. I am also disappointed that very little has been said in the debate about the need to stress the importance of organic vegetables. There is a tremendous future here for the production of organic vegetables. They are much healthier for the consumer and they would provide a premium price for producers. I should like the Minister to comment on that statement.
I should like to tell Deputy Garland that it is not simply a question of withdrawing my amendment but of accepting the Minister's stronger and more perfect parliamentary wording of the proposal contained in my amendment. It is important that the House should understand that. The Minister has put forward better wording and that is not surprising given that he has experts to draft his amendment. I acknowledge their superior knowledge in such matters.
I am concerned, as I am sure the Minister is, about the difficulty of setting and enforcing standards. In this regard I am particularly concerned about the organic food industry, a growing sector, particularly in the horticulture area. It is because there is a premium available from the public for such produce that there is a high risk of cowboy operators moving in and mislabelling goods that are not organically produced. The toughest standards should be applied to safeguard our chunk of the market, which possibly may grow in the future. I seek clarification from the Opposition benches rather than from the Minister, if this is allowable. What Deputy Farrelly has been saying would seem to conflict very directly with what he had to say on the principle of the Bill. He is now complaining that there are insufficient staff in a particular area whereas previously he argued that the Bill would establish another layer of useless bureaucracy. More staff leads to more bureaucracy so I am not sure what point the Deputy is trying to make.
I welcome this amendment. As I said previously, we cannot expect consumers either at home or abroad to do us any favours. If progress is to be made very specific measures will have to be taken in an effort to improve the quality of our fruit and vegetables. There is nothing patriotic about buying Irish if what is on offer is shoddy and second rate. We are all used to buying bruised fruit and bags of potatoes which contain half rotten potatoes and lumps of clay.
I welcome this amendment.
My officials assure me that the inspectors are very active and that there has been quite a number of prosecutions, but this is not to say that we are completely satisfied. Obviously this is a matter which has to be kept under constant review. I can assure the House that, if we find it is necessary to effect changes, I am sure An Bord Glas will make the necessary recommendations.
Deputy Garland referred to organic production. It is a fact of life that there is a growing demand for organically grown produce. The economics of it of course are dictated and very much determined by the premium obtainable for this produce which a growing number of people is demanding. The interim board have established a special subcommittee to examine this subject and I am sure they will bring forward any recommendations they deem necessary.
The Minister has indicated that there may be insufficient staff. In relation to Deputy Stagg's remarks on my comments on this Bill and my suggestion that there is no need for another layer of bureaucracy, there is no need to get staff to do work which is already being done by such bodies as CTT and others. The Deputy should recall what I did say when I spoke about the duplication of work. People working in this area should not duplicate work being done in another area. What they will be doing is preventing producers from abusing the market to the detriment of producers of top class products. There is an enormous difference between what I said on Second Stage and the point he is trying to make. I am trying to ensure that producers present the product in a proper way and that those who do not, are caught and prosecuted.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 9a:
In page 6, line 38, after "the said" to insert "standards,".
This amendment is consequential on amendment No. 8a.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 9, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Acting Chairman
I understand that amendment No. 10 has been ruled out of order.
It is regrettable that it has been ruled out of order. Since I cannot move this amendment, perhaps the Minister would look at it to see if it would be possible for him to bring in an amendment along similar lines on Report Stage. Perhaps he could tell us then or now what his intentions are.
Amendment No. 10 not moved.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 8, after "activities." to insert "Such charges shall be payable only by individuals, groups or organisations seeking to avail of services provided by the Board.".
I would like us to reach the position where the individuals or groups who ask An Bord Glas to carry out a report or study or to undertake some work would actually pay the cost of this service. I ask that this amendment be included in the Bill. If the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment I wonder what reasons he will give. Can he tell us if a charge is imposed on potato or mushroom growers on the completion of a report, will it be similar to the charge imposed by Teagasc, and if an individual does not pay this charge will he not receive his grants until he pays? I ask the Minister to outline the position in this regard and to tell us for which services there will be a charge, what kind of rates we are talking about and who will pay.
I am strongly opposed to the amendment being proposed by the Fine Gael Party. All producers will benefit if the proper conditions outlined in the board's interim report are achieved. Therefore, all producers should pay the levy, not just a selected group. Imposing the levy only on those taking up the service would mean that producers who want to expand or modernise would necessarily be forced to pay more than their fair share while lazy or indifferent producers would reap the benefits without paying the cost. Horticulture needs the highest maximisation of investment and financial assistance it can get. This means that the State, the taxpayers and producers would all pay, but only to charge those who could be identified as benefiting would not be acceptable. The programme of the board is much broader and all producers should be asked to pay.
I assure Deputies that charges can be applied only to individuals or groups who ask the board to provide a specific service. The cost of the service will be known to those who are asking for it at the time they ask. I will illustrate this by giving examples of what An Bord Glas might provide by way of service. For a seminar to discuss a particular problem or problems affecting the industry there will be a per head charge for attendance, known beforehand. Individuals or organisations asking to be put on the circulation list for the market intelligence bulletin may be asked to pay a yearly charge. A group asking for the promotion of a particular product to be arranged may have to agree beforehand to pay part or all of the cost to An Bord Glas.
There are many other examples of ways and means in which An Bord Glas may provide a service. For instance, I could see the board taking on the job at the request of a particular group of producers of helping them to set up a producer group. An important point to note is that under subsection (3) any debt arising may be recovered by the board as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction. There cannot be a contract unless both sides. i.e. An Bord Glas and the people asking for the service, agree before hand to the cost. As will be seen from section 11 (2) the amounts of the charges will be subject to the approval of the Minister and the Minister for Finance.
There can be no question of a charge being imposed on people who have not asked for a service and agreed to the cost thereof. Any charge of a general nature imposed without the consent of the persons paying the charge can only come about as a result of the operation of the levy arrangements provided for in section 12 of the Bill.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of the charge as it was not outlined in the Bill. I have no objection to a charge for services. A charge agreed beforehand is the right way to go about it. People will know where they stand before they start.
I am not surprised that Deputy Stagg was totally against the proposal. The Deputy wants everybody charged, except people in his own constituency. We know that from the way the Deputy has carried on on different issues. The Deputy seemingly wants the farmers to pay more whether or not they are getting the service but he does not want other people who are receiving services to pay. However that is another day's work.
People will be under no illusion. If they want a job done, they will pay for it and the cost will be decided before it starts. That is a positive businesslike way to proceed. On the basis of what the Minister has said, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 7, subsection (1), line 17, after "Finance" to insert "and after full consultation and with the agreement of all sectors of the industry and producers of horticultural products as defined in section 1 (1)".
Amendment No. 12a is an alternative amendment so amendments Nos. 12 and 12a can be discussed together.
We recently circulated amendment No. 12a which I will read to the House:
"(5) The Minister shall not perform a function under subsection (1) or (4) without prior consultation by him with such persons as he considers appropriate who are engaged in, or are representative of those engaged in, horticulture, the promotion or development of the horticultural industry or the sale of horticultural produce.”.
One of my main objections to the Bill was that the Minister of the day had been given power to introduce levies on products produced here. I would like the Minister to answer a number of questions to clear the air. Will the Minister say on whom it is envisaged levies will be imposed and who will collect them? Will the levies be compulsory on all sections of the industry? Is the Minister satisfied that this and other sections of the Bill are in accordance with the Treaty of Rome? Will there be similar levies on imported products and will there be levies on goods going for export? We have spoken in the House on a number of occasions about our excellent export market for fresh mushrooms for instance. Will levies be imposed on them? Will it lead to a lack of competitiveness in the foreign market? What is the position there?
I have difficulty with Deputy Farrelly's amendment in so far as it seems to propose the impossible. The Deputy is proposing that all sections will be consulted before the Minister makes a decision. We know that 20 per cent of all producers are organised into producer groups which possibly would be readily available for consultation and general groups might also be available, but how does the Deputy envisage all groups being consulted? The Deputy's proposal would mean that probably every person who has sold a bag of spuds during the year would have to be consulted. It would simply be a blocking mechanism that would make the operation impossible. Is this being proposed simply because Fine Gael are opposed to the whole Bill and are trying to block it in this way or is it that the spokesman did not realise what he was saying? I am not sure how the Deputy proposes to operate the selective levies he is talking about.
The Deputy certainly took my words on the last amendment out of context and distorted them. I was talking about people who benefit from the services provided by the board. If the board's proposals are implemented all producers not just present producers, but a considerable number of new producers also will be affected. All these people should pay their fair share towards the cost of improving the industry and they are prepared to do so. That is not at all at variance with my political positions on other issues. There seems to be a selectivity about the proposal from the Fine Gael benches. If the Deputy's amendment is accepted it would pose a problem for the Minister if all producers benefit, and they should if the proposals in the Bill are implemented.
The mushroom industry has been mentioned a number of times today. Should some mushroom producers who do not wish to avail directly of a service from the board be exempt from the general levy the board could impose arising from their activities to improve the industry? All producers should pay their fair share, and that is simply what I propose. The type of global consultation proposed by Deputy Farrelly in his amendment is not workable and the Minister's alternative amendment is workable.
Deputy Farrelly's amendment is a bit like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. I support totally the part dealing with consultation. It is very important that all sectors in the horticultural industry be consulted about the levy, but I would not accept the agreement part. The words "and with the agreement of" imply that all sectors would have to be in total agreement. I think the correct answer is that the board should consult with all sectors of the industry and should consider the representations made by all sections but it should not go as far as "with the agreement of". I disagree with Deputy Stagg in that respect.
For some peculiar, unexplained reason during Second Stage of the Bill the levies proved to be a point of focus. That surprised me because they are by no means an innovation. The collection of levies is a mechanism that is there to garner resources for a board to operate and operate effectively. There are many examples of the operation of a levy: CBF is one that comes to mind pretty readily. Strangely enough in the horticulture sector there is a multiplicity of products involved and a multiplicity of producers. It is difficult to see how it would be practicable to collect the levy at producer level. I indicated on Second Stage that the regulations would have to be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas to be teased out and discussed.
Deputy Farrelly asked if it would be on domestic produce and imported produce and I replied on Second Stage, "Yes". That question was posed at the end of the debate and I indicated at that stage that it would be collected at the point of sale on both domestic produce and imported produce. We are envisaging no difficulty at all as far as the Treaty of Rome is concerned.
The legislation provides for exemption. If a sector within the industry is unable to pay, the provision is there to exempt them from it even indefinitely or for a defined period. I think there is adequate provision to cater for every circumstance which might arise within the industry in this area of the collection of the levies. I think the House can have every confidence in whoever is Minister for Agriculture and Food at the time these are being introduced. I said in reply on Second Stage that their introduction will come later. It is not intended to introduce them immediately. They will be introduced at some future date and we will have regard to the ability of particular sectors of the industry to pay and we are making very adequate provision in the amendment we have circulated for proper consultation with the industry before they are introduced.
How are we going to organise the street trader on the basis of levies or whatever? Are they to be paid at the point of sale? What about the importer? Where will this end up being paid? I am worried about the levies. What is going to happen if we run to a rule of thumb on the basis of the introduction of other levies across the board? The consumer will end up paying the levy at the end of the day. It will affect the price. One of two things will happen. As the Minister said, we are dealing with a very lucrative multiplicity of products and we could end up with the grower getting that little bit less because of the levy. I hope I am not 100 per cent right. If the grower still has to get his price and the levy has to go on top of it and it applies the whole way until we get to the consumer in the supermarket or whatever, will the consumer not end up paying the extra at the point of purchase in the supermarket? I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
It goes without saying. It is a question of balancing the two considerations, that is, of balancing whatever addition there might be at the end of the day to the price of the product by the introduction of the levy, on the one hand, and the overall wellbeing of the industry, on the other. Horticulture has been the subject of political comment and public controversy for many years. People were wringing their hands in anguish at the statistics for the level of imports coming in; people were lamenting the number of jobs going lost because we were not producing the product required at home to supply the home market requirement. This Bill is all about providing the wherewithal for the industry to develop. Import substitution, the development of exports and job creation are the principle thrust of the legislation we are providing in this Bill. No board can function satisfactorily without having resources, and the provision we are making in the introduction of this levy is merely for the industry itself to contribute to what the Exchequer will pay to develop the horticulture industry next year and in future years.
Here we are again at the anniversary of not exactly similar legislation two years on. I know this proposal will not meet with the same resistance as the rod licence legislation the second anniversary of which we are celebrating, but if the amendment I have here was not down the Minister would not have his amendment before us. We have come maybe not all the way but perhaps 50 per cent of the way to ensure that at least some of the organisations, or committees, or commodity committees will be contacted, that there will be some consultation and when the Minister here or whoever else may hold that office over the years comes into this House to introduce a proposal, at least it will not be met with widespread objections from the industry. Other Members of this House were not in favour and again I am not surprised because they cannot get enough. Get in there and if it is £1 get £2. However, as the Minister has said rightly, there has to be a reasonable balance to ensure that these producers or some of them are not put out of business.
Sectors of the industry that have real volume are potatoes, mushrooms and a few other outlets, and they will pay the greater part of this levy. I have no doubt that it will work. We are introducing this levy. It can have a knock-on effect which I fear may mean that the products on the shelves will be dearer. If that happens the ordinary household weekly requirement will increase inflation by .5 per cent, 1 per cent or whatever. At whatever rate those levies come in, say 1 per cent across the board, we could lose out in the long term on the basis of the consumer having to pay. We should seek funds from Europe to develop this industry.
Because the industry is so fragmented and so many different products are produced, we could possibly end up with the consumer paying a little more in the supermarket, as a result of which inflation would go up. In that case it would not pay us to go to the bother of collecting the levy because at the end of the day the consumer would be paying it, not the producer.
I fully accept Deputy Farrelly's bona fides in this matter. I think he accepts the principle of the levies and his amendment reflects his concerns about the impact. It is understandable that he should have put down an amendment on an issue such as this and expressed the views on the industry. I would suggest that the amendment we have circulated to the House refines Deputy Farrelly's amendment even further. I would respectfully ask Deputy Farrelly to withdraw his amendment No. 12 to allow us move the other amendment.
Acting Chairman
Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
No. The consultation which has taken place has been worthwhile and has produced this latest edition of an amendment to this section. The Minister might reply to the last point I made. Can the introduction of levies at this stage, regardless of what they are, have a knock-on effect on prices in the shops, which would increase inflation? We would be losing out because the consumer would end up paying.
I am sure all these points will be borne in mind in considering proposals for the introduction of levies. The regulations will have to be brought into the House. I would hope that it would not disadvantage our producers. If a similar levy is imposed on imported produce the home producers would not be left at a disadvantage. There is provision in this section for exemption from the levy if it is feared that it would leave our producers at a competitive disadvantage. That provision covers all the eventualities.
Whom does the Minister envisage would be exempt from the levies? What type of producers is he talking about?
The process of consultation with the industry will determine that. The levy will not be introduced tomorrow. The statutory board will consider the matter and make recommendations. The process of consultation will identify the problem areas and the exemptions, if any, will be applied to accommodate sectors which might be under pressure.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 12a:
In page 7, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) The Minister shall not perform a function under subsection (1) or (4) without prior consultation by him with such persons as he considers appropriate who are engaged in, or are representative of those engaged in, horticulture, the promotion or development of the horticultural industry or the sale of horticultural produce.”.
I accept the Minister's delayed reaction to the original amendment I put down. Perhaps it is just as well we did not resume on Committee Stage last week because we would not then have been in a position to have this amendment before us. The feed back from the industry is a help in these issues. Learning from experience as Members of this House makes us all better people. Of course, we can always say that if we had been the people involved in a particular matter we might not have made the same mistakes.
This amendment is most important. The main thrust of the Bill brings the industry into line and tries to ensure that it is promoted properly with adequate funding. I have expressed my reservations already and I hope we will have the opportunity to consider the effect of the types of levies we have been discussing. I am sure the members of the board will contact excellent producers throughout the country prior to the introduction of particular levies. That would be a very important step. When I contacted a number of people involved in this sector, the meaning of the original Bill was not known to them. It is not that we want to be alarmist but we want to introduce legislation which will have a serious impact in getting proposals implemented. We need the goodwill of everybody involved in the industry to ensure that we reduce imports and that the industry develops in the right way, thereby creating a large number of jobs. The amendment does not go the full way but at least there is some movement.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 13 and 14 agreed to.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 13.:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 25, after "chief executive" to insert "following open competition in all cases including the first and subsequent chief executives".
We are seeking in this amendment to ensure that appointments will be made following open competition in all cases, including that of the first and subsequent chief executive officers. We want to ensure that open competition is the normal procedure, it being the normal procedure in corporate activities in filling posts, especially such a high ranking post as that of chief executive. Open competition would mean that the appointment would be seen to be based on merit and qualification. I believe that serious harm to the integrity of the board could arise if appointments were not seen in this light, regardless of the objective situation. The amendment also ensures that the principle of open competition is an integral part of the operation of the board.
I commend Deputy Stagg for tabling this amendment, but I suggest it is in the wrong place. Section 15 (1) merely deals with two things: there shall be a chief officer of the Board who shall be known as the chief executive. It does not deal or purport to deal with the method of his appointment. I suggest that the amendment would be better dealt with under section 15 (3) or by way of an additional subsection in the main section.
The provisions we are making in the Bill for the appointment of the chief executive are similar to the provisions that were made in the 1988 Act establishing Teagasc and the Labour Services Act, 1987. I do not think anybody could disagree with appointments made as a result of those provisions. Section 15 (5) states:
The first chief executive shall be appointed, and may be removed from office at any time, by the Minister; each subsequent chief executive shall be appointed, and may be removed from office at any time, by the Board with the consent of the Minister.
By definition, the position of chief executive is a very important position in any board and the difficulty I see is that the person or persons whom we would like to see having an interest in this position might not necessarily apply for it by way of open competition. It may well be a question of giving sufficient freedom to allow the Minister of the day to identify the person whom he deems as the most suitable to progress the work of the board and then to appoint that person to it. There are adequate provisions in section 15 (5) for any difficulties that may arise in time.
How is it proposed to fill the position? Is it to be left completely open? Is the Minister telling the House that there will, in fact, be open competition and that he may in the first instance advertise in the public press, stating the qualifications? Is that possible as the Bill stands at present? If that is so, and I believe it is, why is it not written into the Bill? I am suggesting my amendment as a safeguard so that there can be no allegation of cronyism against the Minister or against the board and that the system of appointment is seen to be objective. I doubt if anybody interested in meeting the challenge the work entails and who has the qualifications to do the job would not apply simply because he was required to apply. Even if there were to be open competition for the position of chief executive, the Minister could ask people to apply, it is quite a common practice to request people to apply. It is a matter of keeping things above board so that they are seen to be above board. However, I am not suggesting for a moment that appointments the Minister referred to in Teagasc and elsewhere were other than proper and that those appointed were not suitable or qualified for the position. However, I want it to be seen to be so and if the Minister accepts a wording similar to that in my amendment, he can do that.
There is sufficient flexibility in the provisions for the appointment of a chief executive to accommodate the Deputy's point of view. I appeal to the Deputy to leave that flexibility in the provisions of the section to ensure that we get the right person for the job. It worries me more than a little that the person or persons whom we would like to see applying for the job would not apply for it if it is tied down too much. There are sufficient provisions in the section to allow us to get the right man for the job. I appeal to the Deputy to withdraw the amendment on that basis.
Will the Minister indicate that he is moving a little closer to the position I am suggesting? If the Minister can say it is his intention to advertise the position of chief executive in the first instance, as the board will be doing the job subsequently — and he has that flexibility within the Bill, without changing it which is desirable — I will withdraw the amendment.
We will be considering the method of recruitment for the position but if we do not get the person we need we will effectively have to headhunt the person we need for the job.
The flexibility in the Bill would give the Minister other options.
I would like to think that the best possible person is recruited for this job on account of the enormous amount of work to be done in a start-up situation. If we apply the Civil Service Grade III pay scale we will not be at the races in recruiting the type of person we want. It is very important to get the right person because everybody else in the industry will respond to the leadership of the person at the top. I think we should headhunt for persons to apply for this position. If a person were to be appointed under the present Civil Service pay scale the salary would be in the region of £24,000 and everybody knows that we would not get the type of person we want for that type of money. There is no point in having all the pillars of the organisation right up to the chief executive and then fall down in the appointment to that position.
We have had a great deal of experience of the job not being done properly. If anything we should be wishing the Minister luck in going out to find the type of person that is required. I will not start talking about salaries, because that is not our job, but I am sure the Minister and his officials know quite well that if the person is to lift the industry and encourage the people that we want to see involved to get involved in the promotion that he announced this week, this can only be done if the person is recruited from outside the system. The Minister should be given the flexibility to ensure that the top layer is right, because if the chief executive is not right the rest of the organisation will not be right.
Section 15 (3) adequately covers the points which Deputy Farrelly has made. I want to reiterate what everybody in the House has been saying, that is, the importance of getting the right person for the job, a person who knows what needs to be done and who will provide the motivation for the organisation under his command.
Is the Deputy pressing his amendment?
In view of the Minister's reply I am not pressing the amendment.
Amendment No. 13, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 8, lines 29 to 32, to delete subsection (3) and substitute the following:
"(3) The chief executive shall hold office on a contract basis for a specified period as may be determined by the Minister. Such contract shall be renewable at the discretion of the Board.".
I believe the chief executive should be appointed on a contract basis for a specific period. It must be for a limited period because if he is appointed under the present Civil Service system, we could end up with somebody that we cannot get rid of if he is not doing his job. If he is good enough there is no problem in the board recommending him to be reappointed and renewing his contract. I would like to see that amendment accepted because I do not believe it creates any real difference, it only ensures that when one gets the best person one can hold on to him. If it so happens that he is not performing in the desired manner at the end of a specific period he will have to go. Surely we have had enough experience of cases where it has cost a leg and an arm to get rid of somebody who is failing to do the job.
The section as drafted does not preclude a contract arrangement as provided for in Deputy Farrelly's amendment. There is sufficient flexibility in the provision to consider what the best arrangement will be at the end of the day. Tying somebody into a contract arrangement does not guarantee in any way that he or she will perform the duties as adequately as the people in the industry would like. It is important that the person has a sense of job satisfaction, that he is happy in it, that he has an ability to work along with people, that he has an ability to motivate people, that he knows the objectives and that he has a personal commitment to see those objectives bearing fruit. The particular arrangement for which Deputy Farrelly is arguing is not precluded under section 15. If at the end of the day, we felt that it might be the best way, we would have no hesitation in adopting it, but having said that, if the conventional way of employing a chief executive would be found to be the best way having regard to the person, or personalities, available at the time for the job it would be desirable to leave that flexibility in the arrangements.
I am sorry I have to disagree with the Minister. He is in a position to give us the flexibility. The Minister knows well that when it comes down to the reality, if there is a problem it will be pointed out that the provision is not written into the legislation. I am asking the Minister to accept the amendment as it would not change the Bill enormously. In relation to the person to be appointed, surely we are not going to appoint somebody who will not be happy in the job or who will be leaving in three month's time. In the absence of a fixed contract one will not get the right person. A person who might take this post as a means of improving himself, as a stepping stone to something greater, would make it work so that he could go for something greater at the end of a three year period or have his contract renewed. The insertion of that amendment is the only way we can ensure we get the best person. He will have a sense of security, a two or a three year period to perform this job and turn the industry inside out. This would strengthen the Minister's hand in ensuring that the work he has been doing since coming into office has been worth while. This is something that is moving so one does not have to be looking around all the time to ensure it is being taken along. That is why I want that amendment included.
The essence of what Deputy Farrelly said in his contribution on Deputy Stagg's amendment was that the remuneration would have to be sufficiently attractive for the right persons to apply for the job. I do not disagree with those sentiments. Obviously, remuneration is important but there are also such factors as job satisfaction, the individual's ability to work well with people, particularly in an organisation dealing with an industry which is relatively small in the context of the overall agricultural industry, and the ability to motivate people. Merely tying them into a contract arrangement for their employment in the particular job will not guarantee that they will perform under any of those headings. Indeed, one could have the worst of both worlds. You could have, for instance, somebody tied into a job by way of contract but who found after a period of 12 or 18 months that the job was unsatisfactory, that they had difficulty in working with people in the industry and so on. Bearing in mind the variations one can meet in the personalities of people representing various organisations, I see it as essential that the person concerned have a sense of job satisfaction, the ability to work along with people and the ability to motivate people. These are the three vitally important elements. I would be concerned that a contract arrangement would tie down the issue too much. If a person, for one reason or another, found that they wanted to opt out but had to stay simply because they were tied to a contract arrangement, the industry, effectively, would be saddled with that person for the duration of the contract and the organisation and the industry could find themselves slipping into a state of stagnation as a result.
I am pleased that the Minister is opposing this amendment. To accept it would be to set an extremely dangerous precedent. Contracts by their nature have to start somewhere and there always has to be an end to them as well. In the case of a senior employee such as, in this case, a chief executive officer, a contract as proposed would lead to a lack of security for his position and a lack of a sense of continuity for the board and for the employee. It is much better that an employee be employed under normal conditions where, if dissatisfied with his job, he would have an out clause like every other employee. Likewise, the employer, if he was dissatisfied, would have an out clause, as every employer has, in respect of an employee. I strongly support the Minister's rejection of the amendment.
I fail to see why the Minister will not accept this proposal. He is telling us here that we could have somebody who is not suitable for the job in question who might not be happy in it or whatever. For a job such as this, surely the successful applicant will know what type of responsibility they are taking on and what is expected of him in the following two or three years. I believe that that is a sense of security for a person who is being employed. He or she will also need security, it cannot be on just one side of the industry. If we headhunt the right person and pay the right salary for the job, there should be a contract for two or three years. I am sure there are many energetic young people who would be interested in getting involved in the industry and developing it in the way we would like. I do not see why my proposal is not acceptable to the Minister.
I said at the outset that the particular provision was very flexible and did not rule out what Deputy Farrelly has in mind. We will consider his amendment in the context of what is best as far as the appointment is concerned. I cannot say that we will adopt it, but we will certainly give due consideration to it. If there is merit in the Deputy's argument it will be considered.
I am very disappointed that the Minister did not accept my amendment because it is very important in so far as the industry and its further development is concerned. We should consider giving a person security of tenure as we do not want the person appointed to be looking over his shoulder worrying that his services will be dispensed with. Taking my views into consideration will have no real bearing on the appointment because, when the Bill is passed, the ball will be in the Minister's court. I would have thought that we could have come to some sort of accommodation on this amendment to ensure that the type of person we required was employed on a contract basis and given time to develop the industry. I will not withdraw my amendment on the basis of the Minister's remarks.
I ask Deputy Farrelly to withdraw his amendment in view of the fact that, as I pointed out to him at least twice already, there is great flexibility in the provisions and the arrangement to which the Deputy referred has not been ruled out. I ask him to reconsider his stance on the amendment as a result of that.
Will the Minister consider some other wording for Report Stage?
The difficulty I have with bringing in any wording is the fact that it is effectively tying down the matter too much. It should be left sufficiently flexible and open-ended to allow us to recruit the best person on the most suitable terms.
If the Minister finds there is a problem and he wants that type of commitment included in the legislation, if the flexibility does not work out, will he come back to the House with amending legislation?
The section is quite flexible in regard to the method of appointment. However, if a particular method of appointment is adopted and, for one reason or another, it does not work out, there is adequate provision in subsection (5) to deal with it. I am sure that in that context, different ways and means of making appointments could be considered, and that, if the original method of appointment was not satisfactory, an alternative way could be adopted.
Subsection (5) states that the first chief executive shall be appointed, and, may be removed from office at any time, by the Minister. The Minister said that my proposed amendment was tying him down too much but that subsection says that a person can be removed at very short notice. Of course it would be necessary to do that if the person appointed was not up to standard, but the subsection will affect the response the Minister will get from people who want the job. For instance, the board might object to the way their chief executive was working and he might no longer have their confidence. In that case his contract would be terminated, but I am trying to ensure that the person the Minister appoints will have the confidence of the board for a period of time. He should have the backing of the board to ensure that he can bring his proposals to fruition.
My amendment is to alleviate the worries which could surface as a result of subsection (5). A person appointed does not like to think that he may be removed from office at any time by the Minister. The fear will be there and the problem is that the board will end up with a middle of the road person who will be quite happy to have the job and to go along with any scheme proposed by the board. I do not want someone of that calibre appointed to this organisation; I want someone leading from the front. As I said, the person appointed should have some security and two or three years to do the job with the backing of the board and the Minister.
In debating the Bill and the appointment of a chief executive for the board we have the advantage of being able to draw on previous experience in these matters. When we reflect on various appointments of chief executives, directors, etc., of State organisations, we must acknowledge that we have been very fortunate in the calibre and the ability of people appointed by the conventional methods which proved to be quite satisfactory. What worries me more than a little is that, with a contract arrangement, we could have a chief executive tied in effectively in a straitjacket, who may end up unhappy in the job or, for one reason or another, unable to work along with the industry — as I said earlier, a very diverse one. That would be detrimental because his ability to motivate people will be basic and fundamental if he is to achieve the success needed. If he is to be tied into a contractual arrangement——
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.