Amendment No. 1 was tabled by Deputy Garland, but he is not present in the House.
Destructive Insects and Pests (Amendment) Bill, 1990: Committee and Final Stages.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
May I move the amendment on his behalf?
Acting Chairman
I am advised that the Deputy can do so but only if he has been authorised to do so by Deputy Garland.
Deputy Garland was on the telephone to me some time ago seeking my support for his amendment.
Acting Chairman
Deputy Kavanagh was not authorised to move it.
I think, Sir, we have all been taken on the hop because during the Order of Business this morning, this Bill was ordered for after Private Members' Time. Deputy Garland was on the telephone to me a few minutes ago seeking support for it and I know he certainly intended to move his amendment. I assume that would give me the right to move the amendment and at least hear the Minister's reply to it. I think that would be fair to the Deputy, if his amendment was not being accepted.
I think Deputy Garland is outside with his wooden sombrero and he is probably looking for support for it.
Surely if the Deputy seeks your support for his amendment, he intends to be here.
Acting Chairman
Was the Deputy authorised to move the amendment?
Surely if somebody asks you for your support he intends to be here. The Deputy is not here. Perhaps he will come in, I do not know. I cannot speak for the Green Party on this issue as I was not authorised to do so.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
Acting Chairman
Is section 3 agreed to?
There is great enthusiasm over there. We will be out of here too early and this will surprise everyone. On Committee Stage I would hope that the Minister would give us the benefit of his understanding of the various sections before we agree them. I do not think we are in any great rush.
Certainly we can deal with each section as we go along but I would have thought that if Members had felt strongly on a section to which they had tabled an amendment, that amendment would have been brought forward. This section recasts part of section 8 of the Principal Act by extending the area of offence to include contravening or failing to comply with the spraying notice in addition, as in the Prinicpal Act, to the offences of obstructing or impeding the Minister or authorised person in relation to such notices.
This is probably the substance of the Bill. I would like to have the Minister clarify for us who in his Department or in the Department of Health decides what sprays, pesticides or poisons can be used safely on vegetation and plants in this country? How sure are they that no injuries can occur to people who have contact with such foliage or plants which have been sprayed?
I am advised that the pesticides which can be used must be approved by the pesticide unit in the Department. A pesticide unit exists there and naturally it is their responsibility to monitor the general usage of pesticides. Their views and their recommendations will be the guiding principles in relation to the matter.
How will people be aware of the notice referred to in this section? Will it be, as it used to be in the old days, a grubby notice in the corner of a Garda barracks, many of which are closed nowadays, or some sub-post offices which are also disappearing? How will the farming community and people in agriculture become aware that they are breaking the law? Will they be advised through newspaper articles, or the farming press, or something like that? Everybody should be clearly aware of when he may contravene the Bill rather than pleading ignorance under the law, which is not a defence at all, we are told. I am sure the Minister will tell us about the method of informing the general public about offensive sprays and their use, and where they can find the information on these sprays as a result of the passage of this Bill.
Information for the public will be displayed in the normal locations where such information is displayed, Garda barracks, post offices, etc.
That is what worries me.
Only recently I had the opportunity to visit the local Garda barracks in my nearest town in the constituency and there were a number of notices relating to this general area there which are quite obvious to anybody who wishes to see them.
I do not want to pursue this, but not everybody goes to the Garda barracks unless he has to. As I have said — and I think it is a reasonable point — should the proposal to close up to 554 sub-post offices be implemented, the ability of people to come across this information will be greatly reduced. When one goes into a post office or a Garda barracks one sees lots of notices from the one telling people to get on with paying their television licences to the one about ragwort. Some of them have been there for years. We should now use the other media to get messages like this across in a modern way. We have teletext on television and information like that could easily be got across in a more effective way than by the old practices of the past, where one generally did not know about such notices until one was told by word of mouth. I am sure the Minister agrees with that argument.
Deputy Kavanagh's advice on the matter is obviously worth considering and we will consider his advice on the matter to ensure that the process of information dissemination, irrespective of the area of interest, is improved all the time. I am sure the efforts to improve methods of information dissemination should be and are being made at all times. The suggestions the Deputy has made in relation to how information or advice to the public be got across will be borne in mind.
Is the Minister satisfied that the operators of these dangerous chemical sprayers are themselves being adequately protected and, if it is a family farm, their families? Often on farms there are lots of young children. Are they being adequately educated as to the dangers and the poisonous nature of many of the materials both from physical contact and inhalation. Is there protection in this Bill to cover people in the agricultural sector?
The Deputy's concern in this regard naturally has to be borne in mind. The protection of the interest of persons and operatives needs to be considered. I think it is fair to say that operatives generally appreciate the necessity to wear protective garb to ensure that they are adequately protected when using sprays.
The Minister will recall the occasion in the Coolock area about 12 months ago when somebody maliciously sprayed a poisonous chemical on blackberry bushes in a lane. What penalty would result if that individual had been apprehended under this Act? What sort of penalties are built into the Bill to deal adequately with that type of offence?
I would have to plead that we are straying considerably from the whole thrust of the Bill. The point the Deputy is making would be considered under alternative legislation and not under the legislation we are discussing here today.
Could the Minister of State outline to the House what sprays and what weeds or plants the notice in section 3 refers to?
This would relate to an outbreak of, say, Colorado beetle, which would require urgent attention. An outbreak of Colorado beetle is a very good example of the type of problem we would need to confront under the provisions.
The Minister is saying that this section refers to something very specific and is not a generalisation. I would like to know why there was a necessity for introducing this amended Bill. Was there a loophole in the law?
The advice of the Attorney General is that it was necessary to bring forward this section to update it and to rectify an omission in the Principal Act. It is primarily on his advice that this section was brought forward.
Was there a specific case where there had been an omission in the original Bill and, through that omission, serious damage could have been caused to somebody's health or to some section of the agricultural industry? Is it rectifying an omission or loophole in a previous Bill?
Not particularly. It is not a question of a kneejerk reaction to a particular instance. It is a matter of taking the good advice of the Attorney General in the matter and making the necessary change and provisions, which we have here.
A Cheann Comhairle, first, apologies to the House for my failure to be here to move my amendment. Since the monitors in No. 16 Molesworth Street are out of order, I was not aware that the Bill was in progress. I can move that amendment at Report Stage. I take it we are discussing section 3.
Acting Chairman
You are correct Deputy.
I am concerned about section 3 which deals with organic farmers. There are draconian regulations here regarding compulsory spraying; many of these sprays are against the principles of organic farming. We would be very concerned that the inconvenience to organic farmers might be so great — they get a premium price for their product — that where there is a compulsory spraying order, financial compensation should be given to them for the period for which they will lose their organic status. I would like to hear the Minister's comments on that.
I am not sure what the Deputy has in mind or what sort of practical suggestion he wants to make that we could bring forward to meet the point he has made. As I am sure he is aware, the Government are very committed to the whole concept of organic farming and have been making very significant financial provisions to encourage that sector. The demand for organic produce is growing and we are endeavouring to encourage it as best we can. The necessary research and development work and the co-ordination of the different interests in the sector is under way. We have a new organic unit in the Department of Agriculture and Food. At the same time, when it comes to the control of diseases which could have serious implications for the production base, whether in the area of organic production or in conventional production, it will be necessary to have the means and the wherewithal to deal with it. That is basically what we are talking about in the legislation.
I would appreciate if the Minister would elaborate on the information the farmer would be obliged to give when it comes to the spraying notice. Can the Minister explain whether the penalties cover the misuse and misapplication of these dangerous and often toxic spray chemicals? Is the Minister aware that if the food chain is endangered by misuse or misapplication of these sprays, the wildlife and bird life which eat these infected or oversprayed crops are threatened? What are the penalties to compel the farmer or the agricultural contractor to comply with the safe application of sprays in their proper mixes or proper densities? Are penalties built into this Bill to penalise people who misuse and misapply, to a dangerous degree, these potentially dangerous and toxic chemicals.
Essentially the legislation is providing for cases of non-compliance which the notices and conditions lay down. The Deputy may be endeavouring to broaden the area of discussion under the Bill. I must emphasise that the legislation caters for non-compliance in the areas which the Deputy is talking about. I hope the provisions of the Bill will deal with any misgivings he may have in that regard.
It would be useful to remind the House — as Deputy Kavanagh did on Second Stage — that the Principal Act was passed in 1958. The world we lived in then was very simple; sprays and chemicals of all kinds were seen as being a great improvement in agriculture. Now, many of us see these sprays in a different light. It must be said that in some cases the cure may be worse than the disease. When there is a problem of potato blight, or some other disease, I wonder whether we should not use a spray which is particularly dangerous, but let nature take its course. This legislation is now 32 years old and I suggest that this whole area needs to be reconsidered.
I take the point the Deputy is making. In consideration of a greater awareness of the importance of and the protection of the environment, various legislation which will touch on this area will, over a period, have to be reviewed to ensure that it is in conformity with what is best for the environment. This is something we could discuss on another occasion.
It goes without saying that the appreciation of the Members of the House and the public generally of the changed approach and the changed attitude to the protection of the environment is such that legislation which may seem out of date will, over a period, have to be considered in the different areas which it directly affects.
Unfortunately, I suffer from the difficulty that I was not Spokesperson on Agriculture when the Second Stage was discussed last November. Some of the Deputies here have a similar problem. It appears that this section deals almost specifically with insecticides which might be used in the control of pests which affect the potato crop.
That is a good example.
What has happened since 1958 when the original Act was passed that has necessitated this amendment? The traditional way of spraying potatoes was by using a substance called bluestone or crystalline copper sulphate dissolved in water and sprayed on — Deputy Foxe would be the expert in that area. Recently the process has been considerably changed and there are now a number of sprays which are considered to be more effective than bluestone, the most common being dithane.
Deputy Garland asked the extremely important question as to whether we are sure that these sprays are harmless. Despite the fact that I was Minister for Agriculture for over four years, I am not altogether familiar with the pesticide section of the Department of Agriculture and Food. I believe all Members would like to be assured that that section in the Department are totally competent in deciding what types of spray are safe. If they are not totally satisfied as to what sprays are safe to whom do they refer them? Are there laboratories, testing facilities or experimental facilities in this country to which they can send the sprays so that they can be satisfied that they cannot be harmful in any manner? It is well known that some common sprays, for example, DDT, which were used many years ago are not used now. These sprays which were regarded as completely safe in years gone by have been found in recent years not to be safe. What depth of research has been undertaken in regard to these sprays? To what bodies do the Department send sprays to find out whether they are harmless?
I want to refer to the original point made by Deputy Deasy. I do not know if he has available to him a copy of my Second Stage speech.
I have.
With the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle I should like to quote a few paragraphs from my speech in order to bring the issue we are debating here into focus. I stated:
There is a specific provision in the Act of 1958 in regard to the spraying of potatoes. This deals with the situation where a destructive pest, Colorado beetle, for example, is found in a potato crop. There is provision to make sure the crop...is sprayed in order to get rid of...the pest.
There is also provision for the payment of compensation in the case of crops which have been destroyed, I continued:
These controls have served us well. This country is fortunate in having a very good standard of plant health. Thankfully we have remained free from a number of destructive insects and pests which are to be found on mainland Europe and elsewhere abroad. This fortunate position is attributable primarily to our island situation which forms a barrier against the natural migratory movements of destructive insects and pests.
Later on I said:
I would like at this point to explain to the House that since our entry into the European Community in 1973 there has been a change in the legislative provision under which we operate as regards importation of plant material from members states of the Community. The Community system no longer allowed us to insist on licensing control on imports from other member states. However, under the EC system we continue to insist on health certificates issued by the authorites of the exporting member state. We also have the right to check a proportion of imports at the time of import. In addition, there are a number of Community provisions which safeguard individual member states from particular destructive insects and pests of which they are free.
This is a very important point. I continued:
At the present time the Community is considering the plant health controls which will operate in the Internal Market after 1992. A good deal of negotiations has yet to be gone through before the post-1992 control system will take final shape. Our objective in these negotiations is, of course, that while having full regard to the implications of 1992 and afterwards we will be striving to ensure that any changes in procedures will not leave us open to unacceptable risks.
I am sure Deputy Deasy and other Members of the House will appreciate that in the context of the completion of the Internal Market the protection of our health status is very much under consideration. The arrangements which will be put in place post-1992 will depend very much on the outcome of the negotiations which take place during the intervening time. As the Deputy pointed out, the control of pesticides will depend very much on what happens subsequent those negotiations.
I asked the Minister what has happened since 1958 which necessitates the Bill being updated.
As I said in reply to an earlier question, we brought forward this section on the advice of the Attorney General. It is a matter of updating this section as we find it to cater for any circumstances that may arise. There will be freer movement of plants Communitywide post-1992 and the necessity to have legislation which will cater for this is of paramount importance. This is what we are endeavouring to do here.
Can I advise the House that the Chair has the duty, albeit unpopular at times, to advise the House of what is the norm on Committee Stage? We are discussing Committee Stage and section 3, as I would see it, refers to a person or persons who contravene what is in the Act. Ordinarily we would be obliged to stay with what is in the section. In so far as a certain latitude has obtained to date, I do not want to curtail it too much now, but I would ask the co-operation of the House that we would confine ourselves, as we must on Committee Stage, to what is in the section.
That is what we are trying to find out.
I was referring to contravention of a spraying notice under section 3. I want to refer to a statement made by Deputy Garland about organic farming. Is spraying in contravention of organic farming? Will spraying with bluestone or dithane be likely to prohibit potatoes being marketed as organic vegetables? Can the Minister give me an answer to that question? Is the alternative of not spraying and letting the potatoes become blighted more desirable to spraying?
As the Deputy will know, the certification of organic produce is catered for by the Irish Organic Farmers and Growers Association who have a symbol arrangement. The question of the certification of produce which is truly organic is very much under consideration at Community level at present. While it is reasonable to anticipate that proposals will be brought forward during 1991, we are not in a position at this point to give definitive answers to some of the queries raised by the Deputy.
As the Deputy will appreciate, the issue of certifying what is or is not organic has been under debate for some time and will probably continue to be the subject of debate for some time to come. Hopefully we will have a much clearer picture on this issue before the end of the year. This subject has been debated at great length at Community level and naturally as a good member of the Community we will have regard to the Commission's thinking on this issue. I sincerely hope that we will have clearer answers to the questions posed by the Deputy before the end of the year.
Having managed to find a copy of the 1958 Act I am a little clearer about what section 3 proposes to amend. To add to the last point made, this is certainly a most important section given that it has been reputed by an environment protection agency in America that there are sprays used in this country to control potato blight which are clearly carcinogenic. I mention specifically the three related compounds, meneb, mancozeb and zineb. Having thrown away my urban working class hat and put on my soft cap, with my pipe in my mouth, and speaking on behalf of the agricultural sector, it is important that these sprays that are in use——
A fellow could get choked on those big words, never mind getting polluted by the spray.
Many people could die from eating wrongly-treated potatoes, particularly if the potatoes are used for animal feed. One would be worried about passing down the food chain infected foodstuffs. I would ask the Minister — I am sure there is no-one better than the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to tell me if I am not in order — to give a little background on what constitutes spraying notice.
I think the Deputies are straying into the next field, or even the one beyond that. What is envisaged here is quite specific. I would be willing to come back into the Chamber next week or the week after to tease out the exact problems outlined by Deputy Byrne. Bearing in mind that we are on Committee Stage, the legislation is quite specific.
The House will have learned from the Chair that the straying to which you refer has occurred. An tAire Stáit, out of kindness or interest, has accompanied one or two Deputies into the said field.
There are noxious weeds in that field; that is the one next to the potatoes.
As far as potato blight is concerned, the alternative to spraying is quite simple; there would be no crop at all, as million of Irish people discovered in the 1840s because without spraying to prevent blight, the crop would be diseased and could not be eaten. However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel because I understand our plant breeders have come up with a new variety of potato which will be resistant to blight.
I was interested in Deputy Byrne's comments. He was either before or after this time in mentioning the sprays for potatoes because he did not mention reglone, the normal spray for killing stalks. In regard to Deputy Deasy's remarks as to whether the spray would affect organic grown potatoes, the spray is only for the foliage and it is only when the blight appears that problems arise with potatoes. Therefore I do not think there would be any problem with organic grown potatoes. There should be a serious examination of the sprays. Reglone and other sprays are mild forms of gramoxane which is lethal. That is a matter that should be examined very closely.
Can we put the question on section 3?
I asked the Minister twice about the research facilities available, but I received no reply. We are talking about a very serious matter of spraying orders. Some Members, including myself, are not entirely happy because we have not attempted to go through the system by which these sprays can be deducted to be safe or harmful.
Deputy Deasy will accept that the section deals with the offence that is committed if a person does not comply with the spraying notice. I do not think we are entitled to debate on this section the merits or demerits of spraying as a horticultural process. In debating this section, what is at issue is whether a person who contravenes or fails to comply with a spraying notice is guilty of an offence, and how he shall be dealt with. We must confine ourselves to that. Later, there will be a motion before the House "that the Bill do now pass", and matters of the kind being discussed now might be in order then. The Chair is convinced that Members are not in order in respect of section 3 which we are discussing now.
It is conceivable that a person who is spraying could be guilty of an offence against all the laws of nature if we do not know what testing facilities or resources there are in the Department.
That is a matter for another forum. I think the House accepts that what is at issue here and what is in order for discussion, is what is stated in section 3.
I would like to raise one final point which I forgot to make. Many organic farmers have a moral objection to the use of chemical sprays because they feel that the disadvantages of using sprays counterbalance the advantages, but they have no option but to use these sprays. Under section 4 failure to comply with an order can result in imprisonment. This has to be seriously considered. It would be a very sad day if an organic farmer, on a matter of principle, refused to spray his crop with what he thought were very damaging chemicals and as a result received a jail sentence. We have to face this dilemma.
If a crop was attacked by the Colorado beetle, despite the fact that the farmer might have a moral objection to spraying, it would be highly irresponsible of him not to do so. If that insect spread throughout the country it would mean an end to our potato crop.
On that sound word of warning is it accepted that section 3 stand part of the Bill?
Section put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
I tried to introduce a new section at this stage but I was surprised to receive a letter from the Ceann Comhairle saying he would not accept it. The purpose of my amendment was to introduce a new section banning the use and sale of strychnine as a method of controlling the spreading of vermin or predators. This has been accepted in most countries. I had hoped the Minister would at least have given us the benefit of his wisdom why he is not allowing this amendment, because obviously it is the Minister who advises the Ceann Comhairle on such matters.
The gentle way in which the Deputy has sought to refer to his amendment which has been ruled out of order requires me to say that if we look at Second Stage of this Bill we will see that it refers to precautions that would be taken in respect of diseases and pests which affect plants and crops. It does not extend into the area mentioned by the Deputy. However desirable or however the Deputy might think there is a need for legislation there, sin ceist eile. We are confined to what is in this legislation.
I agree that may have been the idea on Second Stage, but I think you, as a long serving Member of this House, know that many Ministers use a Bill like this to introduce legislation that is urgently needed. This is the time of year when strychnine is used. The Minister will lose the opportunity to do anything about this although it is now lambing season. Last year strychnine was scattered over fields and it is a matter which has not been attended to. There is an opportunity to rectify it in the Bill and I thought the Minister would take advantage of it. Having warned the Minister in this regard, I thought that he — or another Minister — would bring in a Bill to deal with this substance in the short term. That would have satisfied me.
If an Aire Stáit is disposed to indicate that, he would not be prevented from doing so but I will repeat the position to Deputy Kavanagh. However much the Deputy might regret that the Bill does not contain what he thinks should be in it, we are confined in this debate to addressing ourselves to what is in it. Therefore, his amendment is not in order.
With your indulgence — and having due regard to the authority of the Chair — I refer the Deputy to my response to a motion in the Seanad early in February. I will quote a short passage from it:
It is time we looked critically at that special provision. I think the time has come to ban strychnine. I propose to initiate the necessary action within my Department to ban the use of strychnine in poison bait by farmers.
Will the Minister say when he intends to implement the ban?
Is the Minister disposed to being pushed?
The Deputy is an experienced Member of this House and he knows it takes time to do all these things but the matter is being attended to.
I was conscious of the amendment which I thought would be taken. In the last two weeks The Irish Times carried reports about endangered species of birds. They mentioned owls although I am not sure of the kind of owls killed as a result of baited animal carcases which had been laced with strychnine. It is good news and I congratulate the Minister for banning the sale and distribution of this product.
On Second Stage the Minister promised to give the number of prosecutions over the last couple of years. He made the commitment to Deputy Farrelly.
Over the past ten years there were two prosecutions, one in 1988 and the other in 1989. Both prosecutions were of the same person for similar offences against an order made under the Act. This indicates that the low level of fine is not a deterrent and it is felt that this will be more the case post-1992 when the new EC regime will give rise to greater movement of plant material between member states.
To what did the offences refer?
Deputy Farrelly raised this matter on Second Stage. The prosecutions arose under the Fire-Blight Order, one of the orders made under the Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Act, 1958. A nursery man, on whose nursery a plant infected with fire-blight disease was found, was served with a notice not to sell plants infected with fire-blight until continued seasonal sampling showed the nursery to be free of the disease. He was found to be selling prohibited material and was prosecuted in April 1988. He was fined £5 each in respect of the two summonses. He was again found selling them and was prosecuted in May 1989 and fined £10 on each of three summonses. The case was finally resolved when his nursery was declared clear of fire-blight in 1989 and the restrictions were lifted.
How does the Minister think this section will affect an organic farmer, which was referred to by Deputy Garland? If he was a conscientious objector to the use of sprays, would he have any right in law in regard to this type of activity?
I assume the Deputy is talking about an exclusive organic producer as distinct from somebody who has organic produce and conventional produce. As I outlined, organic production techniques are subject to research and development at present and I hope the question of certification will be much clearer later this year. We will be in a much better position at that stage to give definite and definitive answers to the questions which the Deputy is posing.
Will the Minister agree that it could, conceivably, be a defence?
On his part?
Yes.
The question of whether it would stand up in court would be one on which somebody else would have to adjudicate.
The Minister said there had been two convictions. However, I am puzzled by his logic as he said that the level of penalty was not a deterrent. I would have thought there would have been many more convictions because nobody would mind paying £5 but they would certainly mind paying a fine of £1,000. I hope the Minister is not saying that breaches of the old law were not pursued because it was not worth bothering about. I hope there will be pursuance of breaches of this law because there will be a reasonable penalty involved.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 5 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendments.
Agreed to take remaining Stages now.
I am not sure of the procedure of the House. Is it possible to move an amendment on Report Stage?
Amendments on Report Stage are in order only if they arise from Committee Stage.
That is precisely the point. I tabled an amendment on Committee Stage which I should now like to——
The amendment did not arise from Committee Stage because the Deputy was not here to move it.
I have already explained to the House why I was not here but that is not your problem.
Unfortunately, there is no provision for explanations or absenteeism, which I regret.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I should like to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the House for the satisfactory processing of this Bill and to the Members who contributed to the discussion.
The Bill is an important one, amending and updating the Destructive Insects and Pests (Consolidation) Act, 1958. That Act is one of the basic means of, on the one hand, safeguarding against the introduction of destructive insects and pests and, on the other, of dealing with any outbreak of disease or pests which might arise here. The 1958 Act has worked well over the years and received a high level of support and co-operation from the trade and farming community. As I explained on Second Stage, some notable outbreaks of disease and pests have been dealt with in recent years and very few prosecutions have been necessary. The amending Bill is not intended to be more oppressive or restrictive on growers developing their farm enterprises but it is a modernising and updating of certain provisions of the Act which will help to maintain our favourable plant health status in the freer trading conditions in the EC Single Market in the coming years.
I again thank Members for their co-operation and contributions to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.20 p.m. and resumed at 7 o'clock.