Amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 23, therefore, amendments Nos. 1 and 23 will be discussed together.
An Bord Bia (Amendment) Bill 2003 [Seanad]: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, line 11, before "AND" to insert "AND TO PROVIDE FOR INFORMATIVE LABELLING OF MEAT PRODUCTS".
This is an enormous issue for producers and consumers. It must be dealt with in the Bill because consumers and producers deserve and need it to be dealt with. In recent years, a big effort has been made by producers because of the foot and mouth and BSE diseases. People have been concerned to get our business in order. Too many products are being imported for which there is no means of identifying the country of origin. Given the crisis agriculture is going through at the moment, a huge effort must be put into identification and traceability. While I recognise that officials of the Department have gone to great lengths, it is unfair that meat and meat products from other countries can be imported and sold as Irish products. Traceability and accountability is important, therefore, I urge the Minister to include the measure in the legislation for the sake of consumers and producers.
I support the amendment. The issue of traceability and the origin of all foods presented for sale and consumed here is of fundamental importance, not just to consumers but to the food industry. There have been a number of encouraging actions in regard to labelling, identification and traceability. However, there is a long way to go before we have an assurance in regard to the origin of products, particularly meat, which is offered for sale.
A number of questions were raised recently on the importation of meat products from non-EU countries in particular and how they came to be presented to the Irish marketplace as though they were Irish. There also has been sleight of hand labelling whereby products processed here can be effectively labelled Irish even though their origins were in another country. Consumers are entitled to know exactly what they are buying. There are issues surrounding the amount of information anyone can put on a pack of meat or a pack of any other food or food product. However, the country of origin issue has raised concerns, for example, in regard to the recent Avian flu among poultry. Clearly the country of origin and traceability of the product is very important.
Amendment No. 25 seeks to spell out clearly the origin of the animal from which the meat is derived, including where it was born, matured, slaughtered and packed. The tone of the amendment is to take any ambiguity out of the labelling process and to have an absolute guarantee and assurance that we know from what country the meat derived in the first instance.
I support the amendment, which is timely. I am sure the Minister appreciates that the Opposition facilitated the potato growers' amendment on Committee Stage. Having listened to the Second Stage debate, this is the issue we consistently heard about. Producers and consumers are in favour of food labelling. If I purchase a product which I will eat, I should know where it came from. If I buy a car or a jumper, I will know where it came from. Similarly, I should be able to know where the product I will consume comes from.
In fairness to the Minister's former junior Minister, Deputy O'Keeffe, when he picked up the rashers from Denny or wherever, he made a point about the labelling. It is appropriate that Members should have an opportunity to support this amendment. I came across a case where a lady in Kilkenny purchased a product from a well known company in Ireland — according to the newspapers, it is among the top three companies, accounting for 55% of consumer consumption — which she believed to be a beef lasagne. When she got home she discovered it was a pork product which had been manufactured in Belgium. The amendment provides an ideal opportunity to address this issue. Some parts of the industry are ahead of the legislation because many local butchers display a picture of the animal, including information on where it was reared, produced, slaughtered and so on. This is not too much to ask for.
The Minister has received a report from the labelling committee and he has implemented many of the measures. I would like to hear his views on this issue and hope he will accept the amendment.
What I am doing in regard to amendments Nos. 1 and 23 is amending the Registration of Potato Growers and Potato Packers Act 1984, which makes compulsory a declaration of the grower number on the potato pack. This must be done under primary legislation. Meat and food labelling is dealt with by way of secondary legislation, therefore, it is not appropriate to include it in this primary legislation. I appreciate the support and co-operation of the spokespersons when the amendment was going through Committee Stage. I appreciate the concerns expressed in regard to labelling and the general confusion and sometimes misinformation on labelling. This is the case in particular where food products are imported into an EU country, trans-shipped to Ireland, having been reworked in some way or put through a packing plant and, with minimal change, end up with an Irish-type logo. This type of confusion must be ended.
The labelling of beef is regulated at EU level. The beef labelling regulations I introduced in 2000 require that all beef and veal sold here, whether packaged at point of sale or pre-packed for retail sale, must be labelled to ensure full traceability. The country of origin can be ascribed to the product where all the processes take place in the same country. The beef labelling regulations do precisely what this amendment proposes. I have also introduced national secondary legislation under the European Communities Act 1972 to require that the country of origin be declared on fresh poultry meat imported from third countries. This is already a requirement for imported pre-packed poultry meat.
The labelling of meat within the catering sector is a weakness in the system. There is good labelling at retail level but in restaurants people do not know the origin of their food unless the establishment is participating in the Féile Bia scheme, a voluntary scheme which does not have the weight of statute.
I have taken this matter up with Commissioner Fischler and asked him to consider extending the regulations that already apply at the retail counter to the catering sector. The Commissioner has told me he will report on this either at the April or May meeting of the Council of Ministers, thus enabling the extension of full labelling to the catering sector. Consumers are entitled to clear and accurate information and I am considering all options to ensure this is achieved. This legislation, however, is not a vehicle for that and the amendment is not appropriate to it.
Will the Minister clarify that point?
Beef labelling is a matter for Commissioner Fischler. Under secondary legislation we can introduce regulations to ensure labelling in the catering sector is done on a statutory basis. At the moment Féile Bia, under Bord Bia, is voluntary but we want to strengthen that and place it on a statutory footing. I am waiting for Commissioner Fischler's report to enable me to extend the beef labelling and traceability already available in supermarkets to catering establishments under EU regulations.
I have forwarded the report of the liaison committee on food labelling which I established to the Commissioner to be incorporated as part of his review of the beef labelling regulations because labelling, especially within the catering sector, has been the subject of much comment recently. Beef labelling regulations that only apply to the retail sale of beef are currently being reviewed by the European Commission and I want Commissioner Fischler specifically to consider extending the regulations that apply to the retailing sector to the general food service sector and I expect to be able to do that by May of this year. I appreciate the Deputy's concerns on this matter.
I accept the Minister's argument about the beef sector but what about the chicken and pork sectors? They are the reason for the amendment because the real problems exist there. Progress has been made in beef labelling but the real concern is pork and chicken labelling. The consumer has been ignored in the debate and the Minister should recognise that we need traceability in these areas as well. Recent events such as the avian flu caused concern and consumers are asking for this to be extended. Is there a legal difficulty with accepting the amendment or is there another reason the Minister will not accept it?
There is a difficulty because EU regulations, not primary legislation, are the appropriate vehicle for extending the labelling regulations to the catering sector. The amendment on potatoes that I introduced, and which the Deputy supported, was technical in nature and ensured the owner's number, as well as the grower's number, is on the pack of the potatoes. The industry asked me to do this in light of the ring rot scare, where people wanted to know the origin of their potatoes.
We have introduced regulations on poultry and pork meat which have tightened up the situation. A delegation from the poultry industry pointed out to me last week how complex the matter is because there are birds, birds that are cut up and slices of poultry meat. They asked me to look into a further tightening up of the matter because poultry meat comes into Ireland in large quantities.
Avian influenza highlighted the fact that people want to know exactly from where meat comes. When I established the food labelling group, it was of the opinion that we should not come out specifically on country of origin because we export 90% of what we produce and the industry felt we were doing well in the export market. If all of our beef and pork was labelled as Irish, it might constrain our exporters. We have now, however, come around to the view that we need full traceability and identification of the country of origin because that is what the consumer wants in both the home and export markets.
The country of origin should be clearly marked for the consumer. I appreciate the trade's concerns but there is also a positive tradition where some of our branded products have been remarkably successful outside Ireland. Kerrygold, for instance, has done remarkably well and there are opportunities to develop such labelling and branding so quality Irish products can continue to have a positive impact.
Much emphasis has been placed on beef as a result of BSE and foot and mouth disease. Pork, as the Minister stated, is more difficult but there are many value added products derived from it and because there are so many other additives and ingredients in items such as pork sausages, there are particular challenges. If there is a meat component, however, it is important that there is identification and traceability. With advances in DNA technology for traceability, we should be able to make progress in this area.
Having listened to the Minister, I am even more convinced that the amendment is appropriate. Obesity is a subject which has been under the surface for a couple of years. People simply do not know what they are eating. When we put oil into the engines of our cars, we always ensure we know what type it is. Do we not want to know what we are eating? We must be up front about this issue because the consumer is entitled to know what he or she is consuming. This Bill is an appropriate vehicle and this provision will send out the message that we are in favour of food labelling because people need to know where food comes from. The Minister's party colleagues as well as Opposition Deputies have called for this and on many occasions it has been used as a populist chant. Nonetheless, many producers and others in the farming community have consistently called for labelling because they are concerned that consumers are eating beef on the assumption it is produced in Ireland when it is not.
I acknowledge the Minister's concerns about the industry and that we export 90% of products. However, food quality and safety will override any other concern in people's minds. We are anxious about this and will press the amendment because we believe it is very important. If the amendment is made, not alone will we send out a strong message but we will also ground it in legislation.
I wholeheartedly support the amendment. It is incumbent on the Minister to heed the advice he is getting from the Opposition on this matter. He should also take on board what is being said by the farming organisations and consumers. This is a progressive amendment which could benefit Irish agriculture and its producers. From a safety point of view, it will give consumers an opportunity to identify the origin of the food they are eating so that they can make an informed choice as to what they put on their table.
I appreciate the points made by the Opposition spokespersons about their concerns in respect of labelling. I established a food labelling group a couple of years ago and, following its recommendations, introduced a one stop shop, the Food Safety Authority, for the enforcement of regulations. Arising from this, I set up the liaison panel which comprised consumers and others. The panel made numerous recommendations, many of which were dealt with under EU regulations. I sent that report to Commissioner Fischler a few months ago and stated that I wanted the matter dealt with as a matter of urgency. I followed that up and the Commissioner is to report to the Council of Ministers either next month or, at the latest, in May of this year.
On every opportunity I am presented with a suitable vehicle under the secondary legislation of European regulations, I push for full and comprehensive information about ingredients and agents in particular foods, such as sausages, as well as full traceability back to the producer. Farm organisations have been mentioned in the context of traceability, but it is not so easy to get full agreement from them on such traceability. Deputies will be aware of the problems we had with sheep tagging to get traceability back to individual farmers. However, I am pressing on with these issues anyway.
This Bill is introduced to amalgamate the structures of Bord Bia and Bord Glas into one unified structure. It is not a suitable vehicle for food labelling, about which the Deputies are concerned. However, in the next few months I will be in a position to ensure their concerns are addressed and that there is greater clarity and traceability in labelling. However, for the reasons outlined I am not in a position to accept the amendment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 69.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, Pat.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, John.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Connolly, Paudge.
- Costello, Joe.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Enright, Olwyn.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Hayes, Tom.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Kehoe, Paul.
- Kenny, Enda.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGinley, Dinny.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Neville, Dan.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Dowd, Fergus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Perry, John.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Ryan, Seán.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Timmins, Billy.
- Twomey, Liam.
- Upton, Mary.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Durkan and Stagg; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"4.—Within two years of the transfer day, the Minister shall lay before the Houses of the Oireachtas a report detailing the cost, benefits and effectiveness of the amalgamation effected by this Act.".
I raised this issue on Committee Stage and the Minister stated that the principal Act covered it and that a report must be laid in the Oireachtas Library on an annual basis. He also said we had an opportunity to invite subsidiary sections of Bord Bia before a committee of the House. The Minister seems to be amalgamating all the bodies involved with food promotion. I could see some merit in that, but I am sure people, such as Deputy Allen, would be reluctant to support such a proposal because Bord Iascaigh Mhara, for example, has a unique function in promoting seafood. Due to the seriousness of this amalgamation and the trend it may set, it is important that it works. While I appreciate that we can invite people before a committee of the House, it would help if a review was carried out which specifically dealt with the issue of amalgamation. That is why I tabled the amendment.
I support the amendment. We discussed this issue on Committee Stage and I made the point that it is important, particularly in the amalgamation of a smaller organisation with Bord Bia, to ascertain the consequences for Bord Glas, particularly in terms of the horticultural industry. It would be good if, within approximately two years, an overall review was done to ascertain the effectiveness of that amalgamation. I also raised my concerns about further amalgamations of other food related bodies. That issue will probably be debated further in the future and I would not rule out its significance. However, as regards the amalgamation of Bord Bia and Bord Glas, I am seriously concerned that the role of the latter will be diluted and, consequently, less effective.
The issue of obesity was raised again this morning. Bord Glas promotes fruit and vegetables. It is important that the status and importance of Bord Glas is not subsumed or diluted within the overall amalgamation. As regards the obesity debate, we should also consider nutritional information. The role of Bord Glas in providing such nutritional information is important in terms of those products which are significant from the point of view of a balanced and healthy diet. We need a major education programme.
As regards labelling, I wonder how many people understand what it means to have 40 or 400 calories in a portion of food. Are they able to interpret what that might mean? The product Bord Glas markets and produces for the consumer is significant. As regards labels which identify nutritional value, kilocalories and kilojoules are often seen on labels. That is fine if one knows what that means. However, what impact will that have on one's overall dietary intake? Do people understand that? There is an education gap in terms of the nutritional value of food and how the consumer interprets that which must be filled.
This Bill is about merging Bord Bia and Bord Glas. My motivation for that was to give both organisations a better opportunity to do a better job in promoting Irish food and Ireland the food island. That will be achieved because Bord Glas, for example, has a relatively small budget of a couple of million euros. Within the overall new body, there will be a budget of €25 million. I hope that will be increased on an annual basis. I agree that much of the information is confusing and some of it is downright dishonest. One often finds nutritional details and other appellations which are meaningless, but, unfortunately, many people are taken in by them. One wants accurate and relevant information. I agree with Deputy Upton in that regard. The difficulty is that in some cases there is too little information, which is not accurate, while in other cases there is too much information and people are bewildered by it. It is often difficult for people whose eyesight is not as good as it used to be to read the information.
As regards the amendment, I stated on Committee Stage that committees of the House have regularly invited bodies to appear before them. They do not have to wait for two years as they can do it in any year. They question bodies about how they are progressing, about their accounts and about the effectiveness or otherwise of any merger. That will be the case here as well. Section 22 of the principal Act makes it mandatory that the annual report be laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas before 30 June each year. The committee then has the power to summon the body to account for its stewardship. That is the correct and proper way to do it. For that reason, it would be excessive to accept this amendment. There is no need for it when we can deal with it statutorily. In that light, I am unable to accept the amendment.
Having listened to the Minister, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are related and may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 6, line 26, after "produce" to insert the following:
"produced according to traditional or organic methods and excluding genetically modified inputs".
There is great concern about genetically modified produce and about the Minister's recent statement that he did not object to it. The intention in Britain is to open up the markets to commercial genetically modified produce. That will be detrimental to the industry on this island in the long term and to the status Irish produce enjoys internationally from a safety and production point of view.
I question the motivation of those who promote genetically modified produce. The flawed argument is that it will help to alleviate starvation throughout the world. Plenty of food is produced in the world. Starvation does not have anything to do with the production of food but with its distribution. An abundance of food is produced for the world market but the issue relates to who controls it and how it is distributed. The argument for genetically modified produce is an argument for the control of food production by multinationals which, in developing such produce, have also developed a termination seed which will give them absolute control.
There has not been a debate on this issue on the island. I do not agree with the flawed argument that it could benefit agricultural producers. It will cause long-term damage to that sector. The scientific proof which has been made available to us is linked to the people who are trying to ensure such produce becomes the norm. I strongly argue against it from the point of view of health and safety and of producers and those involved in agriculture. We should push to create and promote GM free zones on the island of Ireland. If it comes into the Six Counties we will be wide open to cross contamination through pollution and so forth. I hope the amendment will be supported.
The Green Party opposes the Bill. We do not believe the proposed amalgamation is necessary. We also believe the reasons for it put forward by the Government are spurious. There is a need to maintain separate bodies, particularly Bord Glas to represent and develop sectors in the agriculture industry which have always tended to be the Cinderella sectors of that industry. The fear is that subsuming it into a wider body, particularly one that will have greater influence on how it would operate, will not be in the interests of those involved in horticulture.
We are also opposed to the Bill because the potential exists for Irish agriculture, to promote itself in terms of food quality, to produce food that is not genetically modified. The debate is still wide open on this. The United Kingdom has conducted several years of trials which are proving to be inconclusive. I suspect they are inconclusive because they are not producing the results the Government seeks. Most of these trials have shown there are high degrees of contamination when growing particular crops. The British Government is still hoping to issue licences for certain types of produce to be grown under genetic modification, making the fairly weak argument that the level of contamination is somewhat weaker. That is not the road we should take.
We have seen in the wider agricultural practice of genetic modification, in California in the United States, that the contamination was not only local but was also seen many miles away across the border in Mexico where crops were being grown in the traditional manner. There might be a naked political argument as to whether one is for or against genetically modified food but it is also an economic argument. Ireland is competing with other agricultural nations that are producing food of the same type and in the same quantities and, not being island nations, they can probably bring the food more quickly to market to be sold. The onus on Ireland, therefore, is to produce food of higher quality. I believe the consumer demand for food quality is linked to whether there is a genetically modified process involved in the production of that food.
While I oppose this Bill and the Minister's proposed amalgamation, I support these amendments. As this Dáil is one in which the Government gets what it wants and the Opposition is left all too painfully aware of its role in the House, if a Bill is to be passed, it should pass with some degree of protection in terms of the type of policies many Members on this side of the House would like to see implemented. On those grounds I support amendments Nos. 3 and 4. However, I am not optimistic, given that they were already rejected on Committee Stage, that the Minister is inclined to accept them.
Specific reference to GM crops or food is not appropriate to this legislation. The purpose of the Bill is to amalgamate the two food promotion bodies under the aegis of my Department. Given that the role of the amalgamated body will be the promotion and marketing of Irish produce, the issue does not arise in a practical sense.
With regard to GMOs, the legislation and safeguards in place at EU level are implemented by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the Environmental Protection Agency, which are under the remit of my colleagues, the Minister for Health and Children and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. They are responsible for the public health aspects of GMOs. This legislation is about the amalgamation of Bord Bia and Bord Glas. I cannot accept the amendment.
I empathise with many of the points made by Deputy Ferris and Deputy Boyle. We need to discuss the issue of GM foods. I drove through England last summer and at a few of the locations at which I stopped public meetings were being held on the issue. During the 1997 general election campaign the previous Government caused some difficulty for itself by making an all-embracing statement — I forget the exact phrasing — that it opposed genetically modified foods. If memory serves, the current Minister, Deputy Noel Dempsey, was the environment spokesman at the time.
Sometimes we are a little disingenuous about this issue. I discussed it with Deputy Hayes and we agreed that the Belclare sheep is probably genetically modified to a degree. There are probably many genetically modified products. People should not take the option of appealing to the primal consciousness of the population because there can be a tendency to play on people's fears. We saw that with the telephone masts and so forth. Notwithstanding that, however, people have concerns and we should consider them. I read many articles on GM foods and, depending on who is writing the articles, one can read about the positive aspects. There was one item, for example, about the replacement of pesticide with a GM product that is more environmentally friendly and assists in the production of grades.
This Bill is not the appropriate place for inserting this provision but I empathise with the Deputies on the broader issue. The difficulty is that it straddles the health and environment areas and affects the agriculture sector more than any other. We need to examine the issue further.
This is an opportunity to highlight the significance of genetically modified foods and the lack of debate in this country, particularly in this House, on the issue. It is potentially a huge issue from both the farming and the economic perspectives in terms of the developments in biotechnology generally. I would not underestimate either the value or the potential threats from GM foods. There is another amendment dealing with genetically modified foods and it is the amendment I prefer to support.
To absolutely exclude GM food might be somewhat limiting, to say the least, and to provide specifically for the production and preparation for market of non-genetically modified food might be something we could not deliver. It would be virtually impossible. The reality is that genetically modified products which come through the food chain are available in this country. They are quite effective and useful and they are widely used. It would be too narrow and limiting to exclude them. I appreciate the potential difficulties that could evolve further down the line and I do not underestimate the significance of the multinational companies and their role. It is not to support the people who are most in need of being adequately fed, which is the line we are given with regard to developing countries. The promise of a solution to the world food problem through the production of genetically modified food is inaccurate and cannot be delivered. The more significant matter is ownership and control. That is where the debate ought to be focused in addition to the other aspects of genetically modified food.
I will speak again on amendment No. 13.
I am disappointed with the Minister's response. Amendment No. 3 seeks to define Irish produce as produce produced according to traditional and organic methods. That effectively excludes GM, which is an artificial method. I am seeking to defend traditional agricultural production on this island. We have high standing in European markets in that regard. Leaving this open, thus allowing GM produce to be inserted at any time in the future, undermines traditional produce and could undermine the international market for Irish produce in the future with devastating effect. That is why my party and I strongly favour this amendment and have done so for a considerable length of time. If it is not accepted we will be doing a disservice to Irish agricultural production, which is in a depressed enough state in many ways without compounding its problems.
The jury is also out on the health and safety implications. Anyone can commission a report from a selective group of scientists who can argue for and against a proposal. I am challenging that report. We must articulate public concerns and that is why I put down the amendment.
For the reasons I gave I am not able to accept the amendment. It is not the appropriate vehicle to deal with this issue. I have no difficulty with the concerns raised but those are matters for the Food Safety Authority and the EPA, while this Bill deals with the merger of two bodies.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 66.
Tá
- Boyle, Dan.
- Cowley, Jerry.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Ferris, Martin.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Higgins, Joe.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ahern, Noel.
- Andrews, Barry.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callely, Ivor.
- Carey, Pat.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Collins, Michael.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cregan, John.
- Curran, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Glennon, Jim.
- Grealish, Noel.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Hoctor, Máire.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Malley, Tim.
- Parlon, Tom.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Sexton, Mae.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Wilkinson, Ollie.
- Woods, Michael.
- Wright, G. V.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Boyle and Crowe; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 6, line 32, after "of" to insert "non-genetically modified".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 9, line 5, after "horticulture" to insert the following:
"and that not less than two of the persons appointed shall be persons having knowledge or experience of organic production methods".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 8 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 19 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 9, line 9, after "Employment" to insert the following:
"and that all other positions be open to public competition from those suitably qualified".
Section 18(b) provides that one ordinary member shall be appointed on the nomination of the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. I argue that such appointment should be open to public competition. Any person who is to be appointed to the board should have the necessary qualifications and the position should be open to any person who wishes to apply. The amendment seeks to restore public confidence and to give people equal access and equal rights.
The proposed amendment is not acceptable. We have a tried and effective system of appointments to boards and that should continue.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 10 to 12, inclusive, not moved.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 9, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following:
"(c) the current debate on genetically modified organisms.’.”.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 14 not moved.
Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 18 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
Debate adjourned.
Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2.30 p.m.