I will stop the Acting Chairperson's gallop there. He is going on like they did at the old cattle marts at Maynooth, Athy and all over the country. By golly, if the Acting Chairperson is ever looking for a job-----
Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Bill 2022: Committee and Remaining Stages
Sections 1 to 13, inclusive agreed to.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
Sections 14 to 34, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 35
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
I missed out.
-----I am sure Carndonagh mart is looking for a fella like him.
If he was on commission, he would be worth a fortune.
If only I was.
He might complete his business too quickly.
Senator Boyhan has given me a chance to catch my breath now. He should be careful what he wishes for.
I will give the Acting Chairperson plenty of chances to catch his breath now. Section 35 relates to attendance at the Committee of Public Accounts. It is important that we acknowledge this section, which I welcome and am glad to see in the Bill. It provides that the Committee of Public Accounts can request the regulator to come and give some account of that body's operations. That is to be welcomed.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 36
Question proposed: "That section 35 stand part of the Bill."
Section 36 relates to attendance at the relevant sectoral Oireachtas committees.
Again, that is important. We have seen how effective the Oireachtas committees are with regard to RTÉ and other matters. We see it in all the sectoral committees. They have a strong, good function in respect of scrutiny, accountability and transparency. Much more is happening at these committees than in either the Dáil or Seanad. I welcome that inclusion in the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 37 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 30, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“Minister’s Report
45. (1) The Minister working in conjunction with the Regulator shall produce a report within two years of the passing of this Act.
(2) The report shall detail the success of the implementation of this Act and outline how further provisions can be made to stop below costing selling of agricultural products, the use of fake farms and creameries if necessary.
(3) The report shall also state if further cooperation is required with other departments in order to stop misleading advertising and other unfair trading practices.”.
I am conscious that the Minister wishes to progress this legislation and complete it this evening. I also know this Bill has completed all Stages in the Dáil. To carry that a bit further, if an amendment were to be passed by this House with which the Minister was or was not in agreement – the likelihood of any of this is hypothetical, in a way – that would require the amendment to go back to the Dáil for Committee, Report and Final Stages. There are three sub-elements to that process. I am conscious of time, the issue of summer recess and that the Minister is anxious to get this done. The big stakeholders - the farmers and retailers – want this legislation and a lot hinges on it.
However, I am also conscious that there is much provision in this Bill for the staff of this new body and the staff have not been appointed. There will be a long lead-in. I know much of that could do with secondment and bringing in the people. On the one hand, I am caught between the idea this is urgent, quick and needs to go to the President to be signed but, at the same time, I am conscious that there will be a long lead-in time. I am weighing to the positive. There is much logic to getting this legislation done tonight and I am operating on that basis – to support the Minister to get this legislation through the House.
Rather than taking the Minister through this amendment, perhaps he would outline his response.
I thank the Senator for his amendments. I have considered them all carefully and looked at them in detail with regard to their content and merit, and I see where he is coming from in a number of them. There has been a good process in respect of the legislation coming through the Dáil and in the Seanad as well. If necessary, I would not have any problem going back to the Dáil regarding any amendments that I felt would absolutely have to be accommodated. However, there are ways of accommodating the Senator’s amendments in relation to how regulations would happen and how we would work with the regulator going forward as well. Amendments to the legislation are not necessarily required.
As the Senator knows, no more than himself and Senators Lombard and Daly, Senator Boylan has also been interested in this though not a member of the committee. The Senators have been very much part of the pre-legislative scrutiny report with regard to the initial work done by the committee. My mistake, Senator Boylan is a member of the committee. I refer to 18 of the 20 recommendations that all four of the Senators would have contributed to. The work the Oireachtas committee did has to be commended. It was in great depth and the committee engaged strongly with stakeholders and gathered worthwhile recommendations as to how the Bill could be improved. With the team here, I work to ensure that we can incorporate those. The Bill has gone through a comprehensive process and it is robust now.
In respect of the particular proposal the Senator is putting forward here, which is that a report would be produced by the Minister on implementation of the Act, I am satisfied that the Bill includes the requirements to achieve the programme for Government commitment to ensure equity, fairness and transparency in the food supply chain as it is and to ensure the implementation and enforcement of the unfair trading practices directive. The Bill provides for the designation of specific functions to An Rialálaí Agraibhia, including its board, which would be established on an independent statutory basis. The functions of An Rialálaí Agraibhia are clearly defined in the Bill, which also provides for a number of mechanisms for reporting by the regulator to the Minister and the Oireachtas as well on its performance and progress.
It is the responsibility of An Rialálaí Agraibhia to ensure the provisions of the Bill are fully implemented. However, notwithstanding the operational autonomy and independence of An Rialálaí Agraibhia, I am satisfied there are sufficient ways in the Bill to ensure that the Act will be fully implemented. I see where the Senator is coming from but I believe the Bill accommodates it as it stands.
I note the Minister's response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 45 to 60, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 61
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 42, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following:
“(7) The Agri-Food Unfair Trading Regulation may specify that a particular agricultural or food product may not be sold by a retailer for less than the cost of production. The cost of production is to be determined by Teagasc or suitably qualified expert appointed by the Regulator.
(8) The Agri-Food Unfair Trading Regulations may specify that a particular agricultural or food product may not be procured by a retailer for less than the cost of producing the item. The cost of production is to be determined by Teagasc or a suitably qualified expert appointed by the Regulator.
(9) In the case of market failure or potential market failure, the Agri-food Unfair Trading Regulation may specify that a retailer must pay a specified margin, over the cost of production, for a specified agricultural or food product. The cost of production is to be determined by Teagasc or suitably qualified expert appointed by the Regulator.”.
The Minister will be somewhat familiar with the wording of these amendments drawn up by the Irish Farmers Association, IFA. They are not exactly the same amendments that were in the Dáil but essentially some of the stuff was around that. I saw the Minister’s responses and I note that he talked about the issue of not being too granular in detail. Deputy Carthy was one of the people who tabled one of the amendments. The Minister rejected a number of those amendments on the basis that the organisation needs to get up and running and do its job, which is a valid point.
I will take the Minister through this. I am conscious that the IFA is more than likely tuned in. I gave a commitment at the joint Oireachtas committee to take on board these amendments. It is important that they are aired. We have an excellent joint Oireachtas committee and all four of us Senators are on it. We engaged with the IFA. However, there is a criticism by the farm representative bodies that there is much talk in the committee rooms, many commitments and sideshows around agricultural politics, and somehow they do not permeate and come through in the legislation. Therefore, I committed to bringing these forward. I do not know what engagement other people had with IFA. I cannot speak for them but I can speak from my engagement with it.
Amendment No. 3 proposes:
In page 42, between lines 21 and 22, insert the following:
(7) The Agri-Food Unfair Trading Regulation may specify that a particular agricultural or food product may not be sold by a retailer for less than the cost of production. The cost of production is to be determined by Teagasc or suitably qualified expert appointed by the Regulator.
(8) The Agri-Food Unfair Trading [Requirements] may specify that a particular agricultural or food product may not be procured by a retailer for less than the cost of producing the item. The cost of production is to be determined by Teagasc or a suitably qualified expert appointed by the Regulator.
(9) In the case of market failure or potential market failure, the Agri-food Unfair Trading Regulation may specify that a retailer must pay a specified margin, over the cost of production, for a [specific] agricultural or food product. The cost of production is to be determined by Teagasc or suitably qualified expert[s] appointed by the Regulator.
The rationale of this amendment, because it is effectively one amendment, is to seek to prohibit certain agricultural food products from being sold by retailers for less than the cost of production or the cost of producing the item. The price would be set by Teagasc or a suitably qualified body.
The Minister is familiar with the gist of these three requests and this amendment. He might just give us his take, having considered it, as he told us he has and explain how they can be accommodated. Remember, we are speaking to the IFA in terms of the proposition of the amendments and the rationale.
I know this is something Senators Boyhan, Lombard, Boylan and Daly would have looked at in detail with other joint committee members as part of the pre-legislative scrutiny process.
The pre-legislative scrutiny report recommended that the new body be obliged to examine with a view to proposing mechanisms by which the purchase of foodstuffs below the cost of production could be introduced. As a result, the Bill provides mechanisms for the regulator to examine and make recommendations on any aspect of the agrifood supply chain.
The Senator's amendment mainly deals with selling below the cost of production. As he has mentioned and as I have spoken on a number of times as this legislation has proceeded through the Oireachtas, for most of the food and drink products we produce, the price is largely decided outside of the country, as 90% of food produced here, including on family farms, is exported. The ultimate price for produce is determined by what happens on the 180 international markets to which we export. However, the regulator will be able to bring transparency to what is happening in the food supply chain. The price and market reporting and analysis function within the Bill assigns powers to the regulator to ensure increased availability of market information with a view to strengthening the position of farmers, fishers and other suppliers in the agrifood supply chain against larger buyers with greater bargaining power.
Research also shows that a lack of market transparency and inequalities in bargaining power lead to market distortions with potentially negative effects on the competitiveness of the food supply chain as a whole. Reporting on the market by the regulator for agricultural and food products can provide farmers with important information to allow them improve decision-making. The more transparency we can bring to this area, the more we can ensure primary producers and farmers get a fair deal.
In the round, and bearing in mind our previous experience until the mid-2000s, when the groceries order prevented below-cost selling, we have been there and tried that. The ultimate impact is that it leads to increased administration, red tape and more costs for the consumers but does not achieve its core objective and mission and has been seen to fail to achieve any protection for the primary producers. That is the key rationale as to why we are introducing this office. We want to tackle that. The office, as we are setting it up, will achieve that and gives powers to ensure transparency in the supply chain to benefit primary producers. As the Senator has recognised, it is something to which we have given a strong airing throughout this process. On balance, there is a strong view across the Houses that going down this route is not the way to go.
I hear what the Minister is saying. In terms of clarity, it is important the Minister has had his time to respond. I have set out the ask of the IFA and would like to push the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 61 agreed to.
Sections 62 to 67, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 68
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 45, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
“(7) Upon completion of the process, any complainant with a valid complaint shall be reimbursed for any fees incurred as a result of going through the complaints process. The complainant shall not be reimbursed for incurring any additional fees that were not set by the Minister or the Department.”.
In terms of cost, I think this is a really important amendment. The rationale arises from an issue brought up by the IFA during pre-legislative scrutiny. Incurring fees could deter those with legitimate complaints from coming forward. That is valid and they have made that point. It is important that farmers can have faith in the complaints process. The introduction of fees risks undermining public trust. Incurring the cost of going through the process as a result of having someone else do something to you or being wronged is unfair. This amendment helps to address this. This only applies to costs and rates set by the Minister and the Department. This would not cover legal fees that one may incur before or after a complaint is made. That is an important point.
I have pursued this with regard to issues around An Bord Pleanála and elected members of city and county councils. I thank the Minister's staff, with whom I engaged yesterday. They were helpful and I thank them all. Through dialogue and discussion outside of these Chambers, you can get a greater understanding of where the Minister's Department and officials are coming from in advising him. It gives a more holistic picture of the vision for this strategy. I would be happy if the Minister were to give some commitment to have full regard to that aspiration, hope and ambition in terms of fees, and that he would consider them. These would be set by regulation and statutory instrument. They will not be set, nor should they be set, nor is it traditional to set fees within the body of the primary legislation. I think this is a reasonable ask, and I want the Minister to consider the logic and merit in pursuing this issue with a view to reflecting that in the regulations. The Minister and I, every citizen and every stakeholder are effectively watchdogs. It is important we have participation and encourage, rather than disincentivise, people to participate in this process. I would be happy with some commitment to look at this in the context of regulations and statutory instruments outside of this legislation.
I am speaking in favour of the amendment. It is a very good suggestion. Access to justice is such an important issue and fees should not be a barrier to it. However, we need consistency across the board. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says about this particular amendment. We should also open the discussion up to forestry, planning and freedom of information complaints. If somebody puts in a complaint and it is upheld, they should have their fees reimbursed.
I thank Senators Boyhan and Boylan for raising this important point. It is an important point and it is important that it gets an airing in terms of the legislation going through so we can be clear on the thought process and where we would like to go. It has received an airing previously. The objective is to make sure there is no impediment to people making complaints. In terms of the legislation, it provides that a fee can be attached to a complaint, and that it can be set by regulation. The idea is that in the event a fee is applicable, that it would be a proportionate and reasonable one. It should not act as a disincentive to somebody making a genuine complaint. By providing the capacity to set a fee through legislation, it also means a fee can be set to prevent frivolous activity. We have had an issue previously with the Forestry Act and the forestry appeals committee, where there was no fee. Lots of complaints came in willy-nilly at the push of a button, often direct duplicates of other complaints and sent in without much thought. It clogged the whole system and made it unworkable for many people waiting for genuine answers. We had strong co-operation across the House to amend the Forestry Act on that occasion and provide the capacity for the introduction of a small fee. That led to a more rational appeals system, by having small fees which did not act as an impediment to any genuine person but led to the prevention of mass duplication and system clogging. I do not think there will be a fee in the foreseeable future. I do not plan for there to be a fee, and I think it should be left without one. However, if abuse were to happen in the future, I would envisage a fee of between €10 and €30, or something like that, simply to stop people frivolously abusing the system.
That has given some clarity. It is the first time we have heard mention of a fee of €20 or €30. That is interesting. We have also learned that the Minister does not intend to bring in any fees at the moment. It will be kept under review. This is my understanding. I am not seeking to put words in the Minister's mouth. He can confirm or tell me if I am wrong. There will no fees and it will be under consideration. Does the Minster feel we should not proceed with this amendment?
I would never advise a Senator as to what he or she should do.
Okay, so we have it on the record of the House that there are no fees at the moment.
The Senator can be adviser to the Opposition.
Will the Minister come back to the House if he plans to introduce fees?
I will be open to consultation on it at any stage. I have outlined clearly where I am coming from on it. It is there as an enabling mechanism.
If the Minister were to introduce fees, it would be done by regulation.
Yes, it would be by regulation.
I thank the Minister for the engagement.
How does Senator Boyhan want to proceed with the amendment?
I note what the Minister has stated and I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Does the Senator want to withdraw it?
I am happy to. I can press it, but will the Minister accept it? No.
There is no need. It will be dealt with by regulation. The position-----
I take the Minister's word that it will be dealt with by regulation.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 68 agreed to.
Sections 69 to 86, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take Report Stage?
Now.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
Bill received for final consideration.
When is it proposed to take Fifth Stage?
Now.
Question proposed, "That the Bill do now pass."
Does the Minister want to say something?
Can I make some final comments?
We do not need them but if the Minister wants to make them he can. They are not required.
Senator Horkan is the most efficient Acting Chairperson I have ever come across.
With the co-operation of Members. It was a team effort. Everyone is sharing the glory.
I thank the Acting Chairperson for the efficient operation today. I thank all four Senators present for dealing efficiently with the Bill and for their contributions throughout the process, going back to the start. I thank them and others from both the Dáil and Seanad for everything done to bring this Bill to where it is today. I appreciate it. I thank Members of the Dáil who so constructively engaged with the Bill. I also thank the staff of the Seanad and the many offices of the Oireachtas, including the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, the Bills Office and the Office of the Attorney General for the massive work that went into producing this Bill. I especially thank my staff. I am joined today by Ms Angela Robinson and Mr. Ray Sheehy who have been instrumental in bringing the Bill forward. Ms Robinson has been with it from the start. At times I felt we should name the office after her, given the input she has made and how she has steered it through from the outset. She took it, put massive energy into it and was committed to it, as did Mr. Sheehy and all the team under the leadership of Ms Sinéad McPhillips, Ms Siobhán Ball and Mr. Louis Watters, Mr. John Kinsella on the legal side as well as Tony Wann who worked with Ms Ball, Mr. Sheehy, Ms Robinson and Ms McPhillips. From the outgoing unfair trading practices unit, I also recognise Mr. Noel Collins for his role in establishing it, working closely with Mr. Aiden Kelly, my previous private secretary, and Ms Becky Reynolds.
I also wish the best to Ms Niamh Lenehan, the new agrifood regulator, who is already in place. She has taken up office and has been awaiting this moment, the passing of the legislation. She is a fine person to be taking up this role as the inaugural agrifood regulator, leading the establishment of the office. I wish her well in taking this on.
I have been committed to this for many years. Senator Paul Daly and I soldiered in opposition a few years ago in identifying this as a real need. It is great to see it come to fruition today. I recognise the work of all my colleagues across the three parties in the Government for including it in the programme for Government and bringing it to enactment.
I will reflect on it for a moment. The key role the regulator will play will be to publish analysis and information about price and market data and in the process ensure there is transparency in the food supply chain. There is capacity, through the legislation and regulation, for the office to evolve and the powers necessary to enable it to carry out its work are part of the legislation. The process we have undergone from the initial pre-legislative scrutiny report, from which 18 of the 20 recommendations were substantially or fully accommodated in the Bill, to the amendments we accepted, ensured that all stakeholders worked together to ensure we have the most robust office and legislation possible. Alongside that, we now have the regulator who will lead on it and do a historic job. We can all be glad to have participated in delivering this first statutory independent office to ensure farm families get the respect they deserve in the food supply chain.
I thank the Minister. Congratulations are due to him, his Department and all the people involved. I will not try to name them all, but it was certainly a great effort.
The Minister thanked almost everyone under the sun, but I suppose modesty would not allow him to thank or compliment himself. However, before we wrap up, it is important to say that he is due strong compliments and much thanks for getting this Bill over the line. A lot of work was done in the Department and the Parliament. I know, because the Minister and I were spokespeople in the Opposition in the previous Dáil and Seanad, that this was the Minister's brainchild. He promoted it strongly. As I said, before we got to Departments or the Parliament, he succeeded in having it included in our party's manifesto for the last election and followed through in getting it included in the programme for Government. It is not often that Ministers who introduce Bills and see them enacted can turn around and say it was theirs from inception. This Bill was his. We all try to come up with Private Members' Bills we might bring from beginning to end and get over the line. What a great achievement and legacy it would be for us to cherish in years to come. The Minister achieved that today. This Bill was not introduced by someone else or pushed at the Department by someone else. It was not a compromise as part of the formation of a coalition. It was the Minister's brainchild and he deserves to take the credit this evening. I compliment him on that and wish to be included in his thanks to his officials and everyone else who played any role along the long journey. The destination and not the journey is important.
I agree with Senator Daly and also thank the Minister. I have said it time and again. The Minister is amenable to having discussions outside these Chambers to explain the rationale and thought process of his policy and direction, which is helpful. I start by thanking his officials. That is where it is at. We do not have to be at loggerheads. It is lonesome to be in the Opposition. There are so few of us. The vast majority of Senators belong to Government parties. The record of any amendments ever being passed in any legislation here is small. There is simply a mentality of "No" all the way. However, there is an old saying in golf that there is always the long game.
We are well and truly past the half-term stage of this Parliament. There will be other teams and opportunities, situations tend to reverse and the pendulum swings back the other way. In fairness, the Minister is one of the few who engages in a constructive and meaningful way. I thank him for that. I also thank Deputy Cahill, Chair of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who has done a great deal of work on this Bill. I thank the Minister's team. I thank the Bills Office, which does an amazing amount of work on all Bills. It has significant timelines and is under considerable pressure to get things right. I thank the Seanad Office, and I ask Ms Considine to convey that to the team there. I thank the Leader and the staff of her office. Ultimately, it is they who schedule business. The Minister has been lucky in that he has been given nice, tight and crisp schedules. That does not happen often. It is quite difficult to get space on the Seanad's agenda. I thank the Senators, all of whom are on the Agricultural Panel, for their meaningful engagement, which is half the battle.
I wish the Minister well, but I want to say something else. There is provision for a great deal of staff, there is a recruitment process, there is the Public Appointments Commission, etc. Today is 4 July. I hope we will not be here on 4 August or 4 September and that, by 4 October, I will be standing in the Chamber using a Commencement matter to ask the Minister to tell us that the regulator is up and running, what progress has been made and how many staff have been appointed to it. That is the challenge with which I will leave him. We want a full regulator's office, with staff recruited, up and running. I hope we will not be back here at the end of next year saying it has no staff. I acknowledge that offices like this one take a long time to bed in and crank up, but I ask that constructive pressure be applied to get it up and working as fast as possible. We will be on recess for a little under two months. In the first week of October, I will submit a Commencement matter asking for a progress report from the Minister on the establishment of the regulator’s office and the number of staff that have been appointed. I hope I will get a positive response. Let us all work to that objective.
I thank Senators. I thank the Minister. He has done well.
Question put and agreed to.
When is it proposed to sit again?
At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.
Cuireadh an Seanad ar athló ar 6:52 p.m. go dtí 10.30 a.m., Dé Céadaoin, an 5 Iúil 2023.
The Seanad adjourned at 6.52 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 5 July 2023.