Amendment Nos. 38 and 40 form a composite proposal and amendment No. 39 is related. Therefore, amendments Nos. 38 to 40, inclusive, may be discussed together.
SECTION 15.
I move amendment No. 38:
In page 9, subsection (3) (a), line 17, to delete "five" and substitute "four".
This amendment seeks to apply the same principle to the sub-boards as the one we have argued should be applied to the main board.
The purpose of my amendment No. 39 is to ensure that three of the five members of the subsidiary board shall represent the main producers of livestock. Under the language of the section, we could end up in theory with five people representing exotic production of one kind or another. Conversely, they could all be beef producers. I want to ensure that the main enterprises are represented. At least two positions could then be given to the poultry sector, to exotic ends of production or to any other type of production the Minister considers needs representation. I want to be sure that the Minister will invite from the different nominating groups nominations to the subsidiary board, three of whom shall represent cattle, pig and sheep producers and two of whom shall represent other areas of production, such as white meats and exotic production, which need to be encouraged and nurtured.
We may be at cross purposes here. We are taking about the meat livestock subsidiary board, which will be on the CBF model. The Deputy's concerns have been met within this model heretofore. The points she made are well taken and will be borne in mind at the appropriate time. The spread of representation about which she spoke has been achieved until now. Is there any reason to believe that this will not continue?
CBF was charged solely with responsibility in the cattle, sheep and pig areas. Is the Minister saying that the livestock subsidiary board will be restricted to these?
No, it will not.
This is the point I am trying to make by way of this amendment. I want to ensure that the cattle, sheep and pig sectors are well represented because they are our main enterprises in this area but other livestock enterprises should be represented on the subsidiary body in addition to the ones represented on CBF.
There is provision for five members of the subsidiary body. The Deputy's amendment seeks to confine three of these to producers of cattle, sheep and pigs and it is in everybody's interest to get the right balance.
According to the Bill "livestock" means "bovine animals, sheep, pigs, deer, poultry, rabbits and goats and such other species of animals as may be specified from time to time by the Minister by regulations". I would like to be sure that the bulk of the representation on the subsidiary board goes to producers of cattle, sheep and pigs and that at least one place is reserved for areas of production which are more exotic or in their infancy. I want to be sure there is a balance between our main enterprises and our exotic and newer livestock production enterprises.
I assure the Deputy that it is our intention to achieve such a balance. We hope that some of the exotic sectors about which she speaks will expand and prosper. The bottom line at all times will be to achieve balance. At some stage in the future an exotic area may become a major one. I have no conflict with the spirit of what she is proposing.
It is interesting that at this stage of the debate the Minister is prepared to accept the right and the need for members to be nominated by the various organisations. It is strange that he is prepared to allow them in but not to have any say over the funds. It is interesting that he is prepared to accept the logic that such organisations should have some say at this level.
The Minister has not responded to my amendment No. 40, which proposes the appointment to the board of a person who shall represent consumers. He has not indicated whether he is accepting it. This amendment would require a consequential amendment No. 39 to make room for a consumer representative by reducing the five persons mentioned in section 15 (3) (a) to four.
Amendment No. 38 would reduce the places on the board for producers of livestock. I am not sure if this would meet with full approval here. What we are doing here is effectively retaining the CBF model, which has worked well. This model, to respond to Deputy Crawford, is a sectoral one. In relation to amendment No. 40, which seeks to appoint a consumer representative to the board, all members of the board will be consumers. I am prepared to look at the definition of the type of person which can be appointed and to make some provision in relation to a knowledge of consumer needs, which such persons should have. This does not mean that anybody is sure of representation on the board. The CBF model worked well in the interests of our beef and livestock sector and its quality assurance schemes are well accepted by consumers. I would be loath to disrupt that in any way.
My amendment proposes that a representative of consumers be appointed to the subsidiary board. As an Opposition Deputy, I cannot propose that the membership of the board be increased from 11 ordinary members to 12 ordinary members because that would be a charge on the Exchequer. Therefore, in tabling an amendment to have consumer representation I am required to make provision within the existing proposals. At random, I chose that the five persons to represent the producers of livestock should be reduced to four persons in order to make room for one to represent the consumer.
However, if the Minister accepts the principle contained in the amendment, he has the power to add an extra seat to the subsidiary board to accommodate the consumer interest. In that way, he would not be disturbing the existing balance of the CBF model. I suggest to the Minister that he accept the principle of consumer representation and on Report Stage he could bring forward an amendment to increase the membership by one to provide for that. I did not have the choice which the Minister has in regard to where this consumer representative would fit in. I had to attempt to reduce one category and obviously chose the one with the highest number. The Minister is in a position to add an extra member.
Is the amendment being pressed?
I am asking the Minister if he would agree to create an extra position for a consumer representative.
I am not convinced by the arguments advanced by the Deputy that I should accept the amendment or make the alteration which he has proposed.
The Minister is taking the dogged attitude that he will not accept any amendment from the Opposition, which seems to have been his style. If he does not accept that consumer representation is a worthwhile proposal, I have no option but to press the amendment.
Before we proceed with that, did the Minister not say that he would have a look at it in relation to defining consumer representation and how he might approach that?
In response to Deputy Flood, I have to look into the question broadly because whereas it probably is possible to introduce something in relation to consumer requirements for the main board, it may not be as easy to do that in relation to the CBF board. My advice was that it could prove very difficult. I am not in a position to give any undertakings at this stage. I gave an undertaking to have a look at the definition in relation to the main board.
There is no obstacle to the Minister agreeing to increase the size of the subsidiary board from 11 ordinary members to 12 ordinary members, other than his own willingness to do so.
My advice is that even if I was so disposed, there would be a difficulty in incorporating a consumer representative into the model of the subsidiary board — that is the CBF model — to deal with meat and livestock.
Will the Minister elaborate on what the difficulty might be?
The advice of my officials is that it might prove difficult. It is a question which I will have to look into in some depth.
Is the Minister not able to say what the difficulty would be? I cannot see the difficulty.
I would have to look at the question in more depth before I could respond to that. I have only received that information in the context of this debate.
Amendment put.
The Select Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 18.
|
Tá |
|
|
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny). |
McCormack, Padraic. |
|
Crawford, Seymour. |
McGinley, Dinny. |
|
Deenihan, Jimmy. |
Molloy, Bobby. |
|
Doyle, Avril. |
O'Malley, Des. |
|
Dukes, Alan. |
Sheehan, P.J. |
|
Níl. |
|
|
Broughan, Tommy. |
Killeen, Tony. |
|
Burke, Raphael. |
Kirk, Seamus. |
|
Costello, Joe. |
McDaid, Jim. |
|
Fitzgerald, Brian. |
O'Shea, Brian. |
|
Fitzgerald, Liam. |
O'Sullivan, Toddy. |
|
Flood, Chris. |
Power, Seán. |
|
Haughey, Seán. |
Smith, Brendan. |
|
Hughes, Seamus. |
Ryan, Eoin. |
|
Kemmy, Jim. |
Ryan, Seán. |
Amendment declared lost.
At the start of the meeting we discussed how long we would sit. During the course of the meeting we agreed to extend the time and have already done so. We spoke about running in tandem with the Dáil which is now on the Adjournment. I propose therefore that we adjourn this meeting.
Mr. Burke
I second that.
I would like to propose an amendment to that. I urge the Government parties, to allow those of us who have been contributing about a half an hour to finish the business. Having stayed this late we could complete the remaining work rather than resume in the morning. I urge, Chairman, that we stick to the agreements you wrenched from us earlier today.
I did not wrench any agreement. It was at the request of Deputy Molloy.
I agree.
If we dealt readily with the amendments before us we could cover a significant amount of work in half an hour. That would require everybody's co-operation.
I wonder if Deputy Doyle would modify her amendment to include a fixed time and specify that we will finish the work in 15 or 20 minutes.
We should conclude by 10.30 p.m. I am speaking for my groups. I cannot speak for the Progressive Democrats.
Unless I can get a commitment from all parties——
Does the Minister accept that?
I accept that.
Unless we can get a commitment from all parties I cannot do that.
We want to finish it. There is no point in resuming for two amendments tomorrow.
We are discussing section 15 and there are 50 sections in the Bill. It is not practical to suggest that we can adjourn in 20 minutes.
We have already discussed some of the amendments, so I will put them formally. We will then adjourn until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
I move amendment No. 39:
In page 9, subsection (3)(a), line 17, after "livestock" to insert ", three of whom shall represent the producers of cattle, sheep and pigs,".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 40:
In page 9, subsection (3), between lines 37 and 38, to insert the following:
"(e) one person who shall represent consumers 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 consumers.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 41:
In page 9, subsection (5) (a), lines 42 and 43, to delete "one year" and substitute "three years".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 42:
In page 9, subsection (5)(b) , line 44, to delete "two" and substitute "four".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 43:
In page 9, subsection (5) (c), line 47, to delete "three" and substitute "five".
Amendment agreed to.
I do not propose to continue the debate on the section which may be protracted. There is no guarantee that we will finish within 15 minutes.
The Select Committee adjourned at 10 p.m. until 11.00 a.m. on Thursday, 23 June, 1994.