Amendments Nos. 32 to 34, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 32:
In page 8, subsection (3), lines 32 and 33, to delete "be appointed by the Minister, one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister." and substitute the following:
"comprise
(a) three persons appointed by the Minister, one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister,
(b) three persons who shall represent the producers of live-stock who shall be appointed by the Board with the consent of the Minister on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of such producers,
(c) two persons who shall represent the export trade who shall be appointed by the Board with the consent of the Minister on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of such export trade, and
(d) one person who shall represent meat traders who sell meat by wholesale or retail for consumption in the State who shall be appointed by the Board with the consent of the Minister on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of such traders.".
This is probably the most important section in the Bill. It deals with the membership of the board. There will be nine or 11 members, depending on the Minister's whim. These will be political appointees. There is no indication in the Bill that any of them will come from particular sectoral interests or that there is any obligation on the Minister to ensure a fair representation of producers, processors and different interest groups in the food industry. I do not find this acceptable. The Minister should ensure the integrity of this board by not starting it on the basis of the old pals act, with members being cumann card carriers before they qualify to serve on the board. The Minister will say that this will not be the case. The Minister for Agriculture will be appointing the board, not the Minister of State. The Minister has taken onto himself the appointment of every member. In the case of another board which we discussed last week, the Minister proposed that he should appoint only ten of the 14 positions. He looked after himself well but did not propose to appoint all the members. I am sure that if every appointment is political, the integrity of the board will be destroyed before it gets off the ground. Even if it did the best job possible for the food and livestock industry, it would be accused of political favouritism and insider dealing with its political pals. It will therefore start with a major handicap.
I ask the Minister to accept my amendment or a similar one. I am trying to achieve a balance between political appointments and nominations from different parts of the industry. I have suggested that three persons be appointed by the Minister, one to be an officer of the Minister. The amendment proposes that three members, who shall represent the producers of livestock, shall be appointed by the board with the consent of the Minister on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of producers. I am not saying that they should all be from the IFA and the ICMSA. More bodies are involved in livestock than these organisations, even though they are the most important ones, given the number of people in farming production they represent, and they must be represented. With the dissolution of CBF, it is not sufficient to have such organisations represented on the meat and livestock subsidiary committee. They need representation on the main board for the reason given by the Minister in response to my previous amendment, which is that a subsidiary committee cannot have unilateral independence of the main board. Subsidiary committees must always defer to the main board to sanction their decisions. It is reasonable to accept that producers and processors — as the third part of my amendment suggests - be represented on the main board.
I am asking the Minister for three producers, four processors, two persons to represent the meat export trade and one butcher representative. The formula has been lifted from the type of representative spread which was in CBF, although not in similar numbers. I have toned down the numbers because if there is only a maximum of 11 one sector cannot take every place on the board. I fully support the case made by Deputies Molloy and McManus in relation to a representation of consumer interests. I assume that the Minister would look after that in one of his appointments. However, it is even better to specifically require it as part of the composition of the board.
If the Minister does not get the selection procedure right he will have destroyed the board before it even gets off the ground. It must be nearly a record for any State body to have 100 per cent political appointees. There are one or two others but I suggest to the Minister that the generous way - in terms of doing what is right by the food industry — would be to accept the nominations of producers and processing groups and ensure that the drinks industry and consumers generally are all represented on the board also.
It is a fair amendment although a slightly different balance might be more acceptable to the Minister. However, the point which I am making is that there should be three or four nominees from the Minister and the rest should be from industry with a formula to ensure fair representation of the different strands of the food industry.
It is outrageous that the Minister should seek to appoint all of the nine members and the chairperson of An Bord Bia. I support the general thrust of what Deputy Doyle said and of Deputy McManus' amendment. I am totally opposed to what the Minister is doing here and I am amazed that he should attempt it.
I ask the Minister to have a complete rethink on this section and to agree to introduce an amendment which will provide for a certain number of nominees of the Minister, say three, but that the balance would be representative of various interests in the food industry and consumer interests. If the Minister is not prepared to agree to such a change in the Bill, I will vote against every section of the Bill.
This is an outrageous attempt by the Government to perpetuate political patronage. The Minister may make fine statements about the excellent people whom he will be appointing but we know what the criteria are when a Minister has a free hand of this kind to appoint people to a State board. The public will not have any confidence in it. This major industry should be adequately, fairly and properly represented. The principle which has been applied in a great deal of legislation setting up State boards in recent years giving representation to interest groups and the right to nominate should have been contained in this Bill in regard to the main board.
I do not need to say a great deal more. We went through this with this Minister on a previous Bill and we did not have a great deal of success. Other Ministers in the Government have made changes. Deputy Hyland took a very enlightened and progressive view when he agreed to alter the animal remedies Bill. Subsequent to that, we had a bad experience with this Minister. I am amazed to see another attempt now to establish a political quango, which is all that it will be. It will not have the respect of the general community unless it is transparently seen to represent genuine interests within the food industry.
It is interesting to compare what the expert group recommended with what the Minister is proposing. The expert group recommended that the board of the company would be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in such a way as to ensure appropriate representation for all sectors. That speaks for itself. We are talking about the various sectors proposing their representatives to be on this board.
We have a long history of packing State boards with party hacks. Anybody who ignores that would be reneging on their duty to raise this matter in a very serious way with the Minister. I share the concerns of other Opposition Deputies. This is totally unacceptable to the public and, I have no doubt, within the industry.
The Minister has an obligation to face facts and not to carry on as if these do not matter. They matter in a fundamental way to whatever possibility this board has of success. If it is either perceived or is simply yet another State board to which one can be appointed if one votes the right way and joins the right cumann or branch and has some kind of vague connection with agriculture or the food business, then there is no point in setting it up.
I was quite gobsmacked when I saw this section because in relation to the Minister of State, Deputy Hyland's, Bill a different approach emerged quite quickly which I understood was the way the Department was now thinking on setting up boards. This is back to the bad old days, we are back to square one. It is shabby practice and is shown up as particularly ludicrous when one looks at the formation of the subsidiary board where all sorts of people are recommended and proposed to represent the various sectors and players in the business. Yet, in regard to the main board there is nothing except that the Minister will look into his heart and determine who will best represent the industry.
People are not fools. What I find extraordinary about this proposal is that the Minister thinks he can do this and still retain credibility and, more important that the board will have credibility and the confidence of the industry and of those people who will have to provide the levies and, hopefully, benefit from its success. I ask the Minister to take a hard, clear, honest look at this and, perhaps, come back to us on it. The provision is not acceptable.
I am shocked. I believed that the Minister was genuinely listening to what we were saying on Second Stage and that he would at least introduce some token amendments. It is unbelievable to find that no amendments have been introduced. As my colleague, Deputy Doyle, said we have returned to the bad old days of political appointees to a board which we had all hoped when it was first announced would be agreed by the industry.
The board's responsibility has not been widened very much other than to do away with the Irish livestock and meat board. Having spent seven years there I have some knowledge of how that system worked - it worked extremely well. The few political appointees did not work that well. However, the majority of those appointed to that board were representative and worked very well together in the best interests of the industry. The Minister of State and the Minister, Deputy Walsh, spoke of how well CBF worked in the past. If they admit the board worked well, it is impossible to understand why the structure that was in place is being ignored.
If one is to have a workable board of ten or 12 people, one cannot obviously include all the sectors that could be suggested, Deputy Doyle named some of them. I would have no problem agreeing with the issues mentioned by Deputies Doyle and McManus. We will have to get a commitment that this structure will be taken seriously. Those who contribute the majority of the funds in the past should have some say in the expenditure of that money. Decisions on the future of this country's largest industry should not depend on political hacks, the matter is too serious.
I am extremely disappointed that having listened to Second Stage contributions, the Minister refused to even consider introducing the slightest amendment. I ask him to accept the amendments, or elements of them, to make this board work for the good of the industry, farmers and the nation. We all want to ensure that the nation gets as many jobs as possible, income and so on from its single biggest industry.
I must ask the Members to refrain from naming, in a derisory manner, people who are not here to defend themselves. It is unparliamentary and is not the convention. The use of the term "political hack" is not in keeping with the standards of the House and we should refrain from using it to describe people who are not here to defend themselves, many of whom give a valuable service to the country. There was a global implication that anybody who was appointed was a political hack.
If I could think of a better term, I would use it.
I must ask the Deputy to refrain from doing so because it is most unfair.
It is not unfair. We should not pretend that it does not exist.
Standing Orders provide for the making of political charges in the course of debate in Oireachtas Éireann.
They can be referred to as political appointees which would be quite an acceptable term. It would be better than using the term "political hack".
The Chair should not seek to sanitise the debate. We are participating within the rules of parliamentary debate. Any of the charges I heard were very mild.
By and large the debate is balanced but I believe that the description of people as political hacks is unfair to those who cannot defend themselves.
We do not know who they are.
Do they not exist?
It applies globally.
You are being a little over sensitive.
I am not. It is my duty to remind you of what you may say. I am not being over sensitive. I have no cause to be sensitive as——
You are defending the Minister's honour valiantly.
——I never had an opportunity to appoint anybody to anything.
The Chairman has no cause to defend the indefensible either.
Deputy, I should not abuse my position as Chairman. I could respond to that in a caustic manner but I will refrain from doing so.
I looked at Standing Orders when I came into this House to ascertain what I could and could not say. There are many things which I cannot say which I would never have dreamt of saying. However, I think that what I have said so far is within the boundaries and acceptable.
There is quite a list there if my memory serves me right. I also went through them and I have been here a little longer. The term used was not acceptable in parliamentary terms. I suggest that the Deputy goes through the list. I may be wrong and am open to correction but we should both go back and look at it.
Could we refer the matter to the Ceann Comhairle for a ruling?
I do not think a ruling is necessary. I was just sounding a note of caution and was asking people to be reasonable in their comments.
We might be too reasonable.
"Political patsy": would that be better?
The Minister is clearly anxious that An Bord Bia will be successful. It is currently his baby and his reputation will, to an extent, stand or fall on the success of his creation. If he makes appointments below standard or which do not, under subsection (5), comprise people who have knowledge or experience of the food industry, he will wreck his own creation. A Minister would not like to go down that road when making appointments.
I expect that the Minister is mindful of the general industry and its leaders in different sectors who might contribute to the development of the food industry. He would be very foolish to ignore such people when making appointments. It has been suggested by previous speakers that appointments would only be made on the basis that the appointees happen to be strong followers of a particular political party.
If the Minister were to adopt a different approach and take nominations from different organisations, people with strong political affiliations might come through anyway. That can happen. Are those people also to be condemned because they happen——
No.
That is the point the Deputy is making, that if individuals appointed to this board can be clearly identified with a political party, they should not be appointed.
That is not what we are saying.
My interpretation of the contributions is that Deputies would be critical of such an appointment regardless of how it is made. She is simply saying that the Minister should not make an appointment because is he does the appointee will undoubtedly be of his own political persuasion. I do not accept that charge.
History indicates the contrary.
Perhaps the Deputy's party has experience of that; I have not been around long enough.
We have bitter experience of it.
I do not know how the Deputy's party acted on these matters when it was in Government. All I am saying is if the Minister makes appointments that are not——
The Deputy does not know how many Fine Gael programme managers were appointed.
If the Minister appoints people who do not have a strong interest in this industry, he weakens the board completely. It would reflect on him and his Department and I doubt he would do it. The important point about the appointments, regardless of how the Minister decides to make them, is that they should have a genuine interest in the industry with practical "hands on" experience and capable of making a significant contribution to the development of this board in the long term as well as in the short term. If the Minister meets those criteria when making the appointments I will be satisfied.
The views propounded by Deputy Doyle are not necessarily generally held in her party and were not those put forward by a member of her party on Second Stage. I was impressed by the clear views Deputy Deasy expressed based on his experience as Minister for Agriculture.
Deputy Flood made the relevant point that if one takes nominations from various interest groups, one is at the behest of that group which may not necessarily nominate the type of person required on a board such as this.
The board is composed of a chairperson and a minimum of nine or a maximum of 10 ordinary members. One of the ordinary members will be the nominee of the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, one will be nominated by the Minister for Tourism and Trade and one will be the nominee of the Minister for Enterprise and Employment. The board is responsible for market development so its members will be people who know how to sell, who understand the food industry and who understand the markets in which we will operate.
It is ludicrous to suggest that a plethora of people who do not have the abilities required will be nominated to the board because of their political affiliations. That would be self-defeating. Our food industry is at a critical phase in its development. It is a phase in which we are changing from marketing a commodity to marketing a value added product. We need the best possible people on the board to achieve that objective and I am firmly committed to achieving it.
I am not convinced that including the nominees of interest groups will give us the best possible board. The board must be the best we can appoint so that it can act aggressively in international markets in the interests of the largest sector of our economy, the agri-food sector. I reject the taunts and rather negative contributions on this matter. The Minister of the day must be free to appoint the board that will do the best job. The model in the legislation is the best model.
The board should not be made up entirely of nominations from different interest groups. Balance is necessary. Hence my generosity in permitting three appointments to the Minister. In fact, I would not oppose the Minister having the power to make four appointments. Ministerial appointments are necessary to ensure proper representation of different sectors on a board. However, the Minister must trust those nominated by interest groups, having invited such nominations and having given specific criteria regarding the experience required of the nominated person.
The Minister will destroy the integrity of the board if all nominations are political. This Minister of State will not nominate the board. He might have a say — I do not know how this is arranged between the Minister of State and the Minister — but, under the definition, the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, will make the nominations. History has taught us that boards which are selected for political considerations do not enjoy the respect of the public or the consumer.
The Minister should bring balance to the composition of the board by including representation from the industry as nominated by the industry and appointing one third on his own behalf. I am not so politically naive as to believe that the Minister should have no say in the composition of the board. He must have a say in the appointment of the chairman and three or four nominees. I am the spokesperson on agriculture for my party and it is not right that all appointments to a board should be political appointments. The Minister will do no credit to a board which he hopes will set a headline in terms of market development for the food industry, an industry we expect so much of.
The Minister should consider these generously worded amendments. We have not named any organisation or tied the Minister's hands in relation to numbers from the main sector of producers. However, we seek a balance between political nominations and sectoral interest nominations for the sake of the success of this board. Without balance, the Minister will make nonsense of what he set out to establish and of the recommendation of the expert food group. In view of the other difficulties and deficiencies outlined by members of all Opposition parties, the Minister will compound the damage if he does not accept balance in the selection of the board.
The nomination process does not always work well. In my quite brief experience the best people did not always come through such a process. Other issues affect the selection of nominees through the nominating process. I have often considered a person suitable for selection on a board but, for a variety of reasons, the person did not come through the nomination system and in many cases the wrong person won the nomination. I do not agree that such a system for selection always works.
Deputy Doyle mentioned the public respect and support commanded by the board. Respect and integrity will be earned by the success of the board. That will depend on the people appointed to the board. The board will be accepted or rejected on its success or failure. The Minister should appoint the best people available to serve on the board and he should be judged on the success or failure of his appointments. That system is as good as the nominating system. The nominating system can sometimes be flawed and unfortunately when a mistake is made or the wrong person is appointed it is difficult to change the appointment. Let the board stand or fall on the success or failure of the Minister's appointments. I hope the Minister will select the best possible people available to deal with the tough world of marketing and the development of markets.
We are not just establishing this structure for the current Minister, Deputy Walsh. Some people will agree with Deputy Flood that the onus will be on this Minister to appoint the best possible people so that the board will make a good start. This board will operate for some time and a future Minister from any political party will be responsible for making appointments to it. It is not simply a matter of ensuring that this Minister will appoint the best people to the board. We must consider the long term future of the board and how a future Minister would make appointments.
We can argue that there are flaws and that groups do not put forward the best individual for appointment. We can all point to such instances. There should be a proper balance. As my colleague Deputy Doyle has said, the Minister would have a reasonable amount of control. However, he has no faith in the organisations which are expected to have faith in him. Both the Minister of State and the Minister have said that CBF worked well in the past. I cannot understand why the Minister insists that at least part of that structure cannot be utilised. He is prepared to use the levies' structure and the contributions from the industry, but he is not prepared to take this part of the structure from the old board.
There has been much talk today of the need for this new board to ensure that the industry diversifies. It must diversify in the same way it did many years ago and before there was political involvement in industry. I recall when some co-operatives involved in the meat industry processed meat, including corned meat in cans, from companies such as IMP, Clover Meats, and Shannon Meats. However, there is little of that activity available 20 years later, even with the progress we have made. We should not forget that there were people in the industry who did a good job, before they were pushed out of it. We must ensure that there is no such political involvement again.
Deputy Flood appears to live in a different world from mine and that of the people I represent. I have nothing against the present Minister but the idea of entrusting to one Minister responsibility for determining what is best for the industry and who should be on this board is not in keeping with modern thinking. Leaving aside political considerations, it is disturbing to think we would establish a board which would not include the voice of the consumer — this is the famous bottom up approach we keep hearing about from the EU — in a way which would enable people to have a say in who should be part of this board and how they will be represented in a way that is compatible with the expert group's proposal that there be appropriate representation for all sectors. The Minister has disregarded this view in his approach. The approach he is adopting is old fashioned. It is not the appropriate way to deal with the subject, especially in the context of getting the best out of an industry and the people working in it. It is against all modern management thinking, yet we are supposed to accept it in the same joyful way Deputy Flood has. I refuse to do that for a number of reasons, not all of which are related to political patronage. I consider the Minister's approach to be incorrect. In matters such as these we must have regard to such factors as how to run a business, how to get the best from people and ensure the maximum potential in whatever aspect of management one is dealing with. The Minister has disregarded his own advisers in the expert group. The basic requirement of any State board should be that it is and should be seen to be independent of political patronage. That is the critical point.
We may have a very good Minister but he will not be in office forever. There could be another Minister in three months time making these decisions and that could determine the makeup of the board. The Minister's proposals would have the effect of denying opportunities that are waiting to be exploited. It was suggested that other people might not select the right person. Can we be sure that the Minister will not make a mistake, even if he does not use political consideration? What has the Minister got which seems to make him infallible? This is the wrong approach. We must ensure balance and that is why I outlined my proposal in relation to the makeup of this board. It allows for co-ordination and a relationship with Forbairt, with consumers, manufacturers and producers. The board must have such representation. It is not good enough for the Minister to make these decisions. That is not the way management or businesses work anymore. It is time for the State to learn these lessons in order to get the best results from people.
I support the points made by Deputy McManus. It needs to be underlined in terms of the Minister's response and the support Deputy Flood had for the Minister's argument that nominating bodies can make mistakes and that there can be weak or indifferent people on boards. They will be no worse, and in my experience have been better in many cases than have political appointees to boards over the years. The chances that the political appointees will be right, if the Minister makes all the appointments, are slim. If the Minister wants to do this on a risk basis, which is not the way he should do it, he should spread the risk of having less than able people on the board by keeping approximately one third of the members as political appointments and giving the rest to different nominating sectors of the industry.
For the sake of the board and as Deputy McManus rightly said, to ensure that the board is seen to be independent of political patronage as much as being independent, the Minister must invite outside independent appointments to the board. If there are seen to be nine or 10 political appointments on a board, their independence is immediately compromised. One has only to look at how the Taoiseach's appointees work in the Seanad or any body, where one political party or a Government group of parties have the say. These people's independence is immediately compromised and they will vote with the establishment because they are beholden to it for being where they are in the first place. No matter how good they are, they will not be seen from the beginning to be independent. The board is also compromised and is damaged in the eyes of the consumers.
There are some major high flyers in the food industry who are known to be important contributors to Fianna Fáil. If it was suggested that any of those would be appointed, the Minister would be laughed out of court. The Minister is probably damaging his prospects of getting the right people by insisting on appointing them all. They are more likely to be accepted through the nomination of different interest groups and to do an excellent job as independents on the board than if they were appointed through the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry.
Let us recall the allegations made at the Beef Tribunal. Some of the people involved were high flyers in the food industry. They may well be entitled to places on this board, but should the Minister attempt to appoint any of them to the board people would be questioning the bank account of Fianna Fáil to see what these individuals had contributed. The Minister would be leaving himself open to such innuendo. He must not do anything to jeopardise the board even before it gets off the ground. He must make a number of political appointments, but he must balance it with nominations from representative groups in the food industry.
The debate on this issue has gone on for some time. Whenever the establishment of a new State board is considered, the merits or otherwise of those likely to be appointed to the board is always discussed. Given our democratic system and its strengths and weaknesses, there is no perfect system for the appointment of personnel to any board. I have little experience in this area, but I am against giving a self appointed group in a particular sector the right to nominate a person to a board, without considering his or her ability to contribute in a meaningful and worthwhile way to its operation. The philosophy of Ministers I have known was to appoint to boards people who had something worthwhile to contribute.
Loose allegations have been made that somebody might be appointed to the board because he was a financial contributor to Fianna Fáil, Labour, Fine Gael, etc. Are we saying that someone who holds a particular political view should not be appointed to a State board? Is that the essence of the last speaker's contribution? We are living in cloud-cuckoo-land if we go down that road. This is a political country where people hold different political views, which they are entitled to hold.
I have faith in the Minister and the Minister of State in that they will appoint people who have something worthwhile to contribute to the workings of the board. The idea of handing the right of nomination to some organisation and that the selection of that nominee would invariably be the subject of internal politics in that organisation does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that one would get the right type of nominee. In some cases people have been appointed or nominated to State boards where the right of nomination was accepted, yet they were unsuited to the appointed position. However, because they were the chairperson or secretary of a commodity committee or otherwise, they automatically assumed a divine right of appointment. That system is fundamentally flawed.
There is no perfect system for the appointment of people to State boards or boards generally. At the end of the day, the attitude of mind, the quality of character and the outlook of the individual or individuals appointed to the board make the difference. If we are to look for people with the capacity and ability for appointment, we must look at their track record in the private sector or in the area of activity in which they operate. People should not be appointed because they hold a certain position in a particular organisation. People should not be appointed to State boards for that reason.
While there may be imperfections in the system of giving the Minister or the Minister of State the right to appoint members to the board, it is in their interest and that of the industry to pick the right people for the job. At the end of the day, the industry will have the confidence in them to do that.
Deputy McManus tried to decry my contribution by saying it was made in a joyful way. As far as I am concerned, I made the best contribution I could. I may not be as articulate as Deputy McManus, but I gave the best I could with the talents I have and that was the basis of my contribution to this important debate, which I enjoyed listening to and participating in. Deputy McManus also charged me with not living in the real world. I live in Tallaght, which may be unreal from Deputy McManus' point of view, but it is a real world for me and those who live there and whom I represent.
As far as I am concerned, the notions being thrown around about political contributions, etc., are old hat in today's world. That may have been the case in Deputy Molloy's time, but he has been around for a long time. I hope that attitude is disappearing from the political landscape. If it is not, it reflects badly on a Minister who makes appointments along the lines which have been suggested recently with regard to political patronage, etc. If a Minister appoints people who have no decent contribution to make to the board to which they are appointed, then the Minister is not worth his or her salt. A Minister, who is not capable of choosing people, particularly to this board, who will do a good job for the industry and report progress at the end of their term of office, should not hold a portfolio. If Members believe that individuals appointed by the Minister are unlikely to buck the system or to speak out on issues, they come from a jaundiced world.
I have seen appointments where people have made courageous stands and have spoken out on issues which they saw as important and relative to the appointment and the board to which they were appointed. I have no doubt but that those selected will do that and will deliver to the industry the type of progress we seek.
Deputy Kirk said there is no perfect system for appointing people to State boards. Nobody suggested they were proposing a perfect system, but there is a fair and an unfair system, a just and an unjust system. What is being proposed in the Bill is not a fair or just system. I am not surprised that two Deputies from the largest party have defended the system. One might say they would, would they not?
Members may recall that when the Progressive Democrats left office in the autumn of 1992 in the interregnum between then and when the Labour-Fianna Fáil Coalition came into office, all the vacancies on State boards were filled before the Minister's party got into Government. The Minister of State may be sure his partner filled those vacancies from his own ranks. We are trying to build a fair society; we are trying to have transparency in public dealings and in public bodies so that they are fairly constituted and representative of the community at large and the industries involved.
There are many cases where those appointed in this fashion have not been suitably qualified. It is pathetic to hear the argument that people who were nominated by nominating bodies were not always up to the mark in relation to their ability to do the job. Even if they were not up to the job, at least they were appointed under an open system having been nominated by an organisation and it was open to the bodies who qualified under the Act to consider who they should select from their membership.
This principle was first introduced by the Leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Spring, when, as Minister for the Environment, he scrapped An Bord Pleanála whose members had been appointed by a Fianna Fáil Government. As a member of a Coalition Government with Fine Gael, he proposed that the members of An Bord Pleanála should be nominees from various representative bodies in the planning sphere. That system obtains to this day and I have never heard of any serious charge, which was sustained, as regards political interference in the operation of An Bord Pleanála since that decision was made.
I remember that debate because I was spokesperson for the main Opposition party and I opposed the proposal. However, I am the first to publicly admit that the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Spring, was right. Subsequently, as a Minister, when such opportunities presented themselves, I adopted the same principle and enshrined it in Bills which set up State boards, the most recent was the Radiological Protection Institute — perhaps it was the only one.
As I said on the Greyhound (Amendment) Bill, this system was introduced at the behest of the Opposition but I agree to it readily. When the Environmental Protection Agency was established the then Minister for the Environment, Deputy Harney, accepted the principle. A procedure was written into that Bill whereby various interest groups have the right to nomination and are represented on the board of the Environmental Protection Agency. We do not have a system in either of those bodies where all those appointments are made by the Minister. The legislation dealing with horseracing which the Minister, Deputy Walsh, introduced, has a different method for appointing the members of that board from what the Minister is proposing here. As we mentioned in an earlier discussion, the Minister, Deputy Hyland, changed the method of appointment on foot of a Committee Stage amendment which I proposed to the Animal Remedies Bill.
The only occasions I can recall where the Minister refused to accept this kind of amendment was in legislation dealing with the greyhound industry which the Minister himself introduced in the Dáil. This Minister is now introducing An Bord Bia Bill to the Dáil. I do not know what that tells us but it is a retrograde step. Because of the Government's majority they can listen to what we are saying and totally ignore us. If there is a division it will not even be a close call because Government Deputies are warned to turn up at these meetings. They have changed their convenor to make sure that they have their big majority here to ram these measures through.
I must interrupt you, Deputy. There is a division in the Dáil and as it takes precedence we will suspend the meeting until that division is complete. We will resume as soon as possible.
Sitting suspended at 8.35 p.m. and resumed at 8.50 p.m.
Could we have an indication at this point as to what time it is intended to finish?
It is difficult to predict as we might have a series of votes. We will hopefully go until we complete our business as that was the original idea.
Is it intended to finish Committee Stage tonight?
We are hoping to do so but it may not be possible. There may be a series of votes and in that event it may not be possible to conclude unless we are prepared to go beyond midnight. Otherwise we will resume tomorrow morning. I cannot predict at this stage.
Is there a possibility of getting some agreement on the finishing time?
I thought we had agreement that we would finish by midnight when the House is due to rise. At this stage I cannot predict what time we are likely to finish.
I was giving instances in recent years where when State boards were being established procedure was provided for in the Acts establishing such boards whereby the members of the board were appointed on the basis of nominations they received from various groups relevant to the purposes for which the board was being established. I am astonished that the Minister is seeking to revert to a situation where all ten appointments to An Bord Bia will be made by the Minister.
I am fundamentally opposed to such a method of appointment of board members and intend resisting it with every parliamentary means at my disposal. I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the views he expressed earlier and I would like the Minister to indicate to the committee that he would look at the suggestions made and bring forward an amendment on Report Stage which would remove the blatant political aspect attached to the appointments which is contained in this Bill. That would be satisfactory.
I regret the attitude being taken by the Labour Party - it is a major about turn. The Minister has done so on another occasion and again now. I have seen the Labour Party argue over the years for proposals such as are being suggested by three of the Opposition parties who have contributed on this debate. I am amazed that the Labour Party would do such an about turn. It is bad for the food industry in Ireland that the Government is proposing to make the appointments in this way. Better judgment should prevail. I urge the Minister to reconsider.
It is a matter of judgment. I have discussed this at length with the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy Walsh, and we are both committed to putting the best possible board in place. I reject the innuendo and allegations that in some way I am endeavouring to keep the nominations within the political gift of parties. That is not what is intended.
The Deputy instanced the horseracing board. It is a sectoral body, as is CBF, which deals with the meat industry and a small amount of live exports. The nomination structure worked in the context of CBF and we are retaining that within this structure by the subsidiary board. It is sectoral. The nomination procedure necessary to give a wide based representation in the food industry would not be possible.
The Deputy said that the ten nominees would be selected by the Minister. Three do not rest specifically with the Minister; one is to be an officer of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, one a nominee of the Department of Trade and Tourism and another a nominee of the Department of Enterprise and Employment. To the smaller model there would be six places left and to the larger there would be eight places left.
In appointing people to the board there are a number of criteria to be taken into account — expertise, commitment, integrity and independent mindedness are four among them. Deputy Doyle alleged that people on boards such as this, if they are appointed through the office of the Minister, will not take independent minded positions. I am not interested in appointing people who cannot be independent minded. We need such people.
I am convinced that the nomination model is not appropriate in this case. There might well be people who would belong to no organisation who would not come through in a nomination system but would be the right people for the board. We will have to exercise judgment and the market will determine the success of the board at the end of the day. As Deputy Flood pointed out, reputations rest on this.
Deputy Molloy did quite a lot of raking back in the past but I prefer to look forward. There is a job to be done; the best board to do the job has to be put in place as quickly as possible. That is my commitment. If was to change the position as laid out in the legislation I would be doing no service to the food industry.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 11; Níl, 18.
|
Tá |
|
|
Bruton, Richard. |
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
O'Malley, Desmond J. |
|
Doyle, Avril, |
Molloy, Robert. |
|
Deenihan, Jimmy. |
McManus, Liz. |
|
McGinley, Dinny. |
Sheehan, P.J. |
|
Connaughton, Paul. |
|
Níl. |
|
|
Broughan, Tommy. Burke, Raphael. Byrne, Hugh. Smith, Brendan. Doherty, Seán. Fitzgerald, Brian. Flood, Chris. Fox, Johnny. Haughey, Seán. |
Hughes, Seamus. Kemmy, Jim. Killeen, Tony. Kirk, Seamus. Lawlor, Liam. McDaid, James. O'Keeffe, Ned. O'Shea, Brian. O'Sullivan, Toddy. Ryan, Seán. |
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 33:
In page 8, between lines 35 and 36, to insert the following subsection:
"(5) One ordinary member shall be appointed to represent the views and interests of consumers.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No.34 has already been discussed with amendment No. 32.
I move amendment No. 34:
In page 8, lines 36 and 37, to delete subsection (5) and substitute the following:
"(5) The persons appointed to be ordinary members shall include-
(a) three persons generally representative of the production, agricultural, dairying, grain and horticultural interests,
(b) three persons generally representative of food manufacturing and processing industries,
(c) one person generally representative of consumer interests,
(d) one person nominated by Forbairt, and
(e) one person nominated by An Bord Tráchtála.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 37, inclusive, and 41 to 46, inclusive, are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 35:
In page 8, subsection (7) (a), lines 42 and 43, to delete "one year" and substitute "three years".
The effect of amendments Nos. 35 to 37, inclusive, will be that the term of office of the members of the first boards shall be increased as it was felt that one year was too short a term for any board member to make a worthwhile contribution. This follows an undertaken given by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry when he introduced the legislation on Second Stage.
The effect of amendments Nos. 41 to 43, inclusive, will be that the term of office of the first board members of the meat and livestock subsidiary board shall be increased as it was felt that one year was too short a term for any subsidiary board member to make a worthwhile contribution.
The effect of amendments 44 to 46, inclusive, will be that the term of office of the first members of any subsidiary board will be increased. Again, it was felt that one year was too short a term for any subsidiary board member to make a worthwhile contribution.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 36:
In page 8, subsection (7) (b), line 44, to delete "two" and substitute "four".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 37:
In page 9, subsection (7) (e), line 2, to delete "three" and substitute "five".
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 14, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
I once again register my disappointment that the Minister did not see fit to accept any part of the case made by Members from all the Opposition parties on the committee today regarding the membership of the board.
This section undermines the future success of the board. Nomination procedures cannot be guaranteed, and often appalling members are appointed to boards through such procedures. The same is true of political nominations. Given this, I ask the Minister to allow the board to be, and to be seen to be politically independent, and to consider the possibility of allowing some of the industry nominations to be accepted on the board, with the balance to be nominated by him.
Not too long ago I would have suggested that the Minster should have none, or perhaps one representative on the board. However, being politically realistic the Minister should be entitled to three, or even four nominations, but he should not be allowed to nominate the entire board.
In the interests of the success of the board, I urge the Minister to review the procedures laid down in section 14 of the Bill regarding membership.
It is a tragedy that the Minister is seeking to press forward with this method of appointing people to boards. Hopefully, following the discussion today, the Minister will advise the Cabinet that the Opposition parties and the country demand that the Government establishes a procedure to ensure that all State boards are appointed under a fair and just system. Political patronage should not merely be removed, it should be seen to be removed. The method of appointment should also be transparent, and it is disgraceful that the Government is seeking to continue this old method of political patronage.
The committee discussed section 14, and the proposed amendments thereto, and it was decided to hold one vote. I called the vote prematurely, therefore I wish to make it clear that I oppose the section.
There is a major flaw in the Bill. It will not earn the confidence or respect of the general public or of the industry because of the method of appointment. A stand has to be taken on principles. If one believes sincerely in something then one must do all that is possible, from whatever position, to support it. Given that the Opposition has such small numbers against the large Government majority, it is difficult to make any impression on the Government from the Opposition benches. The Government can proceed with the jackboot to push legislation of this kind through the Oireachatas, ignoring the sincerely held views of Members of the Opposition parties and of people throughout the community.
Such views were once sincerely held and vehemently expressed in Dáil Éireann by members of the Minister's party. There has been an extraordinary about turn regarding principle in the Labour Party. It is another indication of the malaise that has overtaken it. Power corrupts, and there is evidence of this, to a certain extent, in the approach taken by the Minister and his colleagues to legislation, and appointments of the kind proposed by the Bill.
No matter what justification the Minster seeks to make in support of this section, doubt will always remain, which is unfair to good people in the industry, who will be asked by the Minister to act. They will be seen as political appointees and the tag of political hack will hang over their heads, whether this is right or wrong.
At a time when there are attempts to move this country away from this kind of political gombeenism, it is strange that a Government which contains a Minister who lectured sociology students at UCG on gombeenism is now participating in the adoption of a Bill of this kind by the Cabinet, of which he is a member. It illustrates what happens when people get into office.
I am very disappointed at the developments today on this committee. I was also disappointed with the developments on the Greyhound Industry (Amendment) Bill, 1993. Lessons were not learned from these developments and there is a continuation of them on this committee today.
Members of my party have a small voice, and we may be part of a small Opposition, but we cannot be denied our voice and our vote in the parliamentary Chamber. Given this, I will adopt the most rigorous parliamentary action possible to oppose this kind of carry-on in regard to legislation. I have already indicated the steps I will take with regard to this Bill.
The Minister is responsible for damaging the prospects of An Bord Bia by his intransigence. This board will come into being with an in-built handicap because there will be a cloud over it. It is not as if An Bord Bia is going to be set up with all the prospects for the food industry looking good. It is being set up at a time when there are many big players with whom it will be hard to compete. It is staggering An Bord Bia should start with an in-built handicap before it even gets off the ground.
That augurs badly for the standing of the board and is adding to the cynicism among the general public about politics. That in itself is a good enough reason for the Minister to have reconsidered his position. None of us should under-estimate the deep cynicism that exists in the country. It is there for a reason; people are manufacturing stories. It is there because of political patronage which is part and parcel of our experience right across the country whether we live in Tallaght or Tinahely. The Minister has overruled the advice of his expert group and has to carry responsibility for that. The spirit of their recommendation was very clear and he had an obligation to listen to it. More importantly, however, he overruled the commitment to transparency and accountability as stated in the Joint Programme for Government. That is unforgivable.
When the Minister and the Minister of State come to select the board they should drop the criteria and select people who have a successful track record in the food industry. They should convince them to give time and commitment, which are vital ingredients, to their membership of the board. It will not be easy to find people who, to some degree, will not have a vested interest. The criteria should be to get people of integrity who can inspire confidence in the industry and, most importantly, people with a refreshing attitude to the industry who are not afraid to put forward innovative ideas for change and for a sharper marketing drive.
A wide range of expertise will be necessary and I am sure the Minister has at his disposal the CVs of many suitable people. It is not a question of appointing someone to the board merely as a spokesperson for one small aspect of what is a very important industry. Political commentators have for long lamented the fact that this country has not come to terms with the development thrust required for the food industry. The industry as a whole is now going to have a board whose brief will be to develop the industry in the years ahead. If the right people are picked you will have a reasonable chance of success.
I did not intend to speak but I cannot help but take up one comment about the Minister having criteria by which to measure these people. Will we know the criteria before he actually makes the appointments? That might erase some of our fears. My clear belief is that the Minister will use certain criteria that will not necessarily be in the interests of the industry as a whole. No one on this side of the House has suggested appointing somebody representing a minor aspect of the industry. The farm organisations and the meat sector as a whole cannot be seen as minor aspects of the food industry. Their representatives have given tremendous service to the industry through the years.
I make one last plea to the Minister and the Minister of State to reconsider the situation. They still have an opportunity to rectify this matter and make sure that this legislation will not be under the total control of the Minister, whoever that Minister might be. That would be a retrograde step. He has heard the debate here today. It is on the record. He can go through it and make proper use of it.
I think that all the points have been made unless the Minister wishes to respond.
Much has been made of transparency. There will be absolute transparency here. The people who are appointed will be announced publicly and will be made available to the press. The situation will be up-front. In my view, when people like Deputy Molloy say that those appointed to this board will be seen as political appointees, it is a dog in the manger attitude. That is prejudging people. Surely we are mature enough to apply different criteria.
Deputy McManus spoke of a cloud being over the board before it is appointed, but any such clouds have been generated from the far side of the table. Deputy Crawford asked me about the criteria for appointments. I mentioned four criteria, in general terms. They are: expertise in the area of developing food markets; commitment to that area; integirity and independent mindedness. They are the criteria that will be applied.
I am particularly disappointed that the best we can get from at least one senior politician here is a lot of old growling, mud-slinging and mud-raking going back over the past. Can we not focus on the future for a change and judge things as they happen instead of pre-judging them?
I wish to contribute in view of what Deputy Seamus Kirk and the Minister have said about strong, independent-minded people acting on the board. We have just passed an amendment which means that some of these ministerial appointees will only be in office for three years. I do not know of any member of a State board who, as a general rule, did not wish to be reappointed. Many people who have only served a three-year term on a board of this kind will want to be reappointed but in this case they cannot unless the Minister continues to think favourably of them. Their reappointment is in the gift of the Minister, so straightaway they are inhibited in the kind of contribution they are going to make at board level. They will have cast one eye over their shoulder at all times to see if they are keeping in line with what pleases the Minister. You are undermining the independence of this board by proceeding with this method of appointment.
We all live in the real world, we are not naive. I have appointed people to State boards. I am not looking back but, in drawing from my own experience as a Member of the House, I am trying to make a contribution that will benefit the legislation. I am doing so to try to close off the loopholes and faults of which I became aware in previous legislation. The Minister is obviously going to try to defend this Bill but his defence is weak.
It is extraordinary that the expert group on the food industry stated specifically that the legislation to establish An Bord Bia "should also provide that the board of the company would be appointed by the Minister for Agriculture, Food and Forestry in such a way as to ensure appropriate representation for all sectors." There is nothing in the Bill which requires the Minister to ensure appropriate representation for all sectors. He ignored the recommendation of the group which was chaired by the Secretary of the Department and the Minister should not cast a slur on our contributions. They are being made genuinely and are sincerely held. I have no personal reason for expressing them, other than to contribute to passing better legislation for the good of the country as some of us do put the country first.
Question put and declared carried.