We now turn to amendment No. 11. Amendments Nos. 12 to 19, inclusive, are cognate and amendment No. 25 is related. Therefore, amendment Nos. 11 to 19, inclusive, and 25 will be discussed together.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, paragraph (a), line 23, after "food" to insert "and livestock".
The section we have just discussed deals with the functions of the board in relation to the marketing of Irish food and livestock. Section 8 deals with particular functions of the board, none of which mentions livestock. One may say that this is nit-picking and I may be approaching this from a vested interest point of view. The board deals with either food and livestock or food only. Livestock must be included in the functions of the board. The purpose of these amendments is to insert "livestock" after "food" where this has been omitted.
The inclusion of "livestock" as an adjunct to "food" in the various subsections of section 8 is superfluous. Section 7 states that "the functions of the Board shall be to promote, assist and develop in any manner which the Board considers necessary or desirable the marketing of Irish food and livestock". Section 8 states that the functions of the board outlined in that section shall be "without prejudice to the generality of section 7". The Deputy's concern is covered by this.
The generality of section 7 states that the board's functions shall be to "promote, assist and develop in any manner..." I do not see how particular functions rule out any function to do with livestock whereas the general functions deal with food and livestock. If the word "livestock" is superfluous in this section, it also superfluous in section 7. Is the Minister saying that particular functions have nothing to do with promotion, assistance and development of the marketing of livestock?
I am saying that section 7, which is the general functions section, includes livestock marketing as one of the functions of the board. It is not necessary nor does it diminish livestock in any way to not repeat it as an adjunct to food in each of the subsections of section 8.
We are dissolving CBF, which is the meat and livestock marketing board, and all of its functions and remit are being taken on board, as I understand it, by An Bord Bia. If so, food and livestock become part of the functions of the board rather than just food. For example, section 8 (a) states that the functions of the board shall be to "survey, investigate and develop markets and potential markets for food". Is the Minister telling me that the particular functions of the board will not be to survey, investigate and develop markets and potential markets for livestock? I suggest that food and livestock need to be included quite clearly.
Deputy Doyle's point is very logical, bearing in mind that in the definition section an explanation is given of what we mean by food and by livestock and they are two separate things. If the amendment was accepted, what would be its effect?
The amendment would have no effect, in my view, except to add more verbiage to the legislation. I restate that it is adequately covered under the general functions and section 8 cannot in any way erode or lessen that function in regard to livestock.
Why have the words "and livestock" been omitted?
The functions of CBF in relation to livestock are minimal. CBF is not the agency which would promote the major part of the live trade. The overall concept of the Bill deals with food. We provided in section 7 for livestock to be understood in that section and adding "and livestock" to each subsection would not improve the section.
I ask the Minister to accept my amendments. Perhaps, he feels that it is not necessary to add "and livestock" on every occasion which I have suggested. However, I could not accept the particular functions of the board which are dealt with under section 8 without those functions being extended to livestock. I suggest that the Minister's reluctance to add "and livestock", particularly to section 8 (a), might have something to do with his senior Minister's obsession with live exports at the moment.
This Bill setting up An Bord Bia either gives the functions to the board to deal with the marketing of food and livestock or it does not. This section deals with the particular functions of the board, as distinct from the general functions of section 7, and I cannot understand why livestock is not mentioned once in any of the particular functions of the board. Although food may be the major part of the remit of the board, livestock and animal production is an extremely important part. We argued about this earlier — food is trade, animal production is agriculture. The Minister has gone the other way on this and has left out livestock completely and only included food.
If the Minister wanted to be in any way generous to the Opposition he could take these amendments without affecting the Bill in any way or distorting any intention which he had. However, he has obviously set his mind against accepting any Opposition amendments. I ask him to consider them.
It is not true to say that I have set my mind against any Opposition amendments. If the arguments advanced convince me that they improve the legislation I will accept them. I do not have a difficulty with that. I do not see how the addition of "and livestock" to each of these subsections improves the legislation.
The Deputy has indicated that some of the subsections might benefit more than others from the addition of "and livestock". I undertake to examine it again. I would be more inclined to consider it appropriate to add "and livestock" to amendment No. 25 which is being discussed with this group. I undertake to look at all the amendments between now and Report Stage.
I thank the Minister.
Is Deputy Doyle pressing the amendment?
I ask leave to withdraw the amendments and re-enter them for Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Amendments Nos. 12 to 19, inclusive, not moved.
Amendment No. 20 has been ruled out of order as it involves a potential charge on the Revenue.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 8 stand part of the Bill".
The quality assurance schemes in subsection (g) are vitally important if this board is to have any integrity and respect in the eyes of the industry and our markets abroad. Perhaps one of the most important functions this board could be given is to put in place quality assurance schemes — schemes which will stand up to scrutiny by our customers at home and abroad — and that there will be more than just voluntary adherence to such schemes, as I understand is the present position.
We must have a carrot and stick approach here. We should reward producers of premium products but we should also have severe penalties for those who abuse the good name of Irish food and our quality brand image in this area, for example, those who misuse animal medicines, growth promoters and so on.
We must seriously consider how we can develop the role of An Bord Bia in quality assurance and quality control. We need a veterinary advisory committee on animal production and the equivalent on plant production and tillage. In order to have quality assurance we need to have experts at every level — animal welfare, production, processing, animal medicines, hygiene regulations, distribution, transport and so on.
The quality product must reach the consumer who must be able to consume that product in the absolute knowledge that our quality assurance schemes give them a guarantee that everything in the food chain is as it should be from a country such as Ireland which prides itself on its green image in terms of food products. We will row about what marketing means, but if this board is to have integrity and be accepted as such by consumers — who are the most important people if we are to sell our produce and be successful in creating value added jobs in this area — the quality assurance schemes must be right. I urge the Minister to bone up on the remit of the board in relation to the operation of quality assurance schemes.
I am essentially in total agreement with quality assurance schemes. However, there is one difficulty which I ask the Deputy to take in the spirit in which it is given. It is probably inappropriate for the market development — or developing markets, so we will not fall out on definitions — to also have the regulatory role. We must apply ourselves to the area of consumer confidence. The quality assurance schemes in CBF promotion have been very effective. That concept will be developed across a range of products in the new board.
We intend appointing people of real ability to the board who will do the required job. They will have to produce annual reports. They will be appointed to the board for their expertise and part of their remit will be to come back with a strategic plan for developing the industry. I concur with all the Deputy has said about the importance of these schemes.
I agree with the points made by Deputy Doyle. I am concerned that there is no mention of research or development in the functions of the board. I thought the board would have a role in co-ordinating and developing research.
The expert group report discusses at length the shortcomings of current situation. It points to the lack of liaison between institutions, the age structure of the research staff and the need for external assessment of the appropriateness of the research programmes. I thought An Bord Bia would have had a function here. It is supporting market development, of which research and development is a very important aspect. The expert group indicated that £15 million per annum should be included in the Community Support Framework. I know that the Minister announced the allocation of a sizeable amount of money for research and development some time ago. What is the situation in light of the changes at European level? Why did the Minister not believe that the board should have a specific function to assess what is happening in Ireland in the area of research and development in terms of better co-ordination? How can this be more closely linked to the responsibilities of An Bord Bia for market development?
I agree with the Deputy that research and development of product is the engine room in terms of the way forward in the food industry and the development of the value added agenda. There are two provisions in the sub-operational programme for the food industry which relate to research and development. There is provision made for private companies and commissioned or in-house research and development. There is another provision for research for the public good. I have appointed an expert committee to deal with the disbursement of the funds available for the public good.
In the past we may have tended to adopt an academic approach in the area of research and development. On this occasion the committee distributing the funds is industry dominated. This is part of the expert group's plan. This should develop differently from the research and development side although co-ordination across the board is very important.
A company developing a product would obviously want to keep that very quiet. The benefits of public good research and development will be available across industry. There are also elements of technology transfer where some of our major Irish companies have bought companies overseas with a high technological expertise and a wide range of food.
There are a number of ways in which we can increase our research and development community. In the first instance this would be done at industry level where private firms would develop their own products. Projects could be submitted by research institutions or universities to an industry dominated committee. The best ones would be selected and put in train.
My personal view is that we must achieve critical mass. Rather than having many small projects, we need one large project or a number of large projects. This could encompass some contracting out from the research units to universities and on to regional colleges. Deputy McManus referred to the age structure of our research and development community. In the context of the food industry it is extremely important that our students are exposed to the best and most modern approaches, techniques and technologies.
I do not believe that this role is appropriate for An Bord Bia but I assure the Deputy that provision is made for this as part of the operational sub-programme for the food industry.
The Minister mentioned co-ordination. Where is that co-ordination in the Bill? He is promising co-ordination between An Bord Bia and research and development elements in the food industry but I do not see provision for it in the Bill. I am concerned that we will end up with various bodies working to their own priorities which may be at variance with each other.
As the Minister said, in the past there has been an emphasis on academic research. There is no reason to believe that was the most effective input into the food industry but that is what happened. Everybody has their own agenda. Where in the Bill is the co-ordination to which the Minister referred?
Co-ordination does not rest with the Bill; it rests with my office. The various elements of the programme are the responsibility of my office and the market will dictate a significant amount. We have to react to the market or we will not sell our products. My office will ensure there is co-ordination. That is not to say there will be undue interference with boards or committees. That is not the intention. In the overall policy direction, I will ensure there is co-ordination.
One cannot legislate for co-operation or co-ordination. It is best achieved in the manner in which we are approaching it. The expert group report has been adopted by the Government. We submitted our sub-programme to Brussels and in the not too distant future that will be in place. It needs to be driven from the office of the Minister for food. The factors obtaining in the marketplace will cause this co-operation to happen. The Government generally is committed achieving these levels of co-ordination. In the context of the food industry, the development agency will be reporting directly to my office. The whole area of human resources development will to a large extent rest with FÁS, Teagasc, the universities and so on. The office of the Minister for Food will co-ordinate those elements.
Is the Minister asking me to take his word for it?
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 7, before section 9, to insert the following new section:
"9.The Government may transfer any or all functions of other training or educational activities of agencies over which it has control to come under the ambit of An Bord Bia.".
The difficulty is that everything will have to be channelled through the Minister. This body cannot be effective if it must operate in that manner. This amendment proposes that An Bord Bia be permitted occasionally to take responsibility for areas of training and education.
At present there is not enough co-ordination and focus on the needs of the food industry in the training of marketing personnel. The Minister is accepting the narrow definition of promoting, assisting and developing marketing. That cannot be done without people and we do not have enough trained people in this country. We have thousands of business graduates but we do not sufficient numbers who are trained specifically for marketing the food industry.
The role of An Bord Bia, within its narrow brief, surely must include looking at how such people are trained, the standards of training, whether the focus is correct, whether it should be carried out in universities or by Teagasc and whether the industry's needs are being met. The exclusion of An Bord Bia from that role limits its capacity to promote, develop and assist the marketing of Irish food and livestock. The acceptance of this amendment should be implicit in the Minister's general functions. Highly developed skills are required in marketing and people should be trained correctly, particularly in view of the sophistication of the market and the impact of environmental standards and controls at European level.
Could the Minister refer to the role he envisages for the research section of Teagasc in relation to An Bord Bia or will the Government continue to decimate the research and development section in Teagasc?
The Deputy's statement is very strong and I disagree with it.
Taking over educational functions which are the responsibility of other bodies would be inappropriate to An Bord Bia. I have been involved in the promotion of Irish food. One would be proud of how effective and efficient young Irish people are in foreign markets. The qualifications available through our universities and regional colleges equip people well to work for the food industry. We had an example of that this week when a graduate of a regional college reached an excellent level in a particular enterprise.
Heretofore we have been promoters of commodities. The demand for marketing people has not been as high as it will be. Marketing personnel are currently being trained in marketing and a European language. Proficiency in a language is necessary to deal in international markets. There are trained people available for recruitment by the industry. I have seen these people in action and I was proud of what I saw. They are respected in the markets. European languages should be introduced far earlier into our education system. I have long held the view that European language should be introduced to children in primary school when they are 10 years of age.
Training would not be an appropriate function for An Bord Bia. Courses are available and people are graduating with the necessary skills to work in the food industry. Our difficulty is the range of product. Research and development is the engine of progress. We must have products to sell. People recruited by Irish companies in the food sector and the graduates of our universities and regional colleges have been most impressive.
I cannot accept the amendment because it is not appropriate to the functions of An Bord Bia. As Minister for food I can take a "hands on" interest in that issue. I have already done so. When I was appointed to office I noticed that young people were not focusing sufficiently in second level education on the food industry as a career option. This year, with sponsorship from a private company, I have made a bursary worth £20,000 available for a leaving certificate student who wins an essay competition and who has taken one of a number of courses we have specified in the food area. If we are to achieve success in the food industry we must attract the brightest and best students. I will take Deputy McManus's intentions on board in my capacity as Minister. I have already discussed some other recommendations relating to the food industry with my colleague, the Minister for Education.
The national food centre, Moorepark and other facilities in Teagasc will play a major role not only in research and development but also in providing facilities which can be used by industry. I appeal to industry to make greater use of these excellent facilities. If industry commissions more work from Teagasc research units and from the universities it will yield great benefit to industry, the economy and the students. Teagasc will play a major role in the research and development that will take place under the operational programme which I have already mentioned.
If everything was all right in marketing we would not have to establish An Bord Bia. This is a marketing body which we are establishing because there is a problem in that area. It is not just a problem of not having sufficient products, it is also a marketing problem.
It is extraordinary in setting up a body specifically designed to promote, assist and develop marketing that its brief does not include examination of and, if necessary, responsibility for training. The amendment says that the Government "may" transfer, if it is found to be necessary, responsibility for training and for the co-ordination of appropriate training. There are difficulties. Essay competitions are wonderful, as are the young people of Ireland. However, that does not negate the fact that we have much to learn about marketing food products and learning from other countries.
Part of An Bord Bia's role should be to assess training needs. Training in science is probably as large an element in the qualifications of marketing personnel as is proficiency in a language. However, we should also encourage companies to use more young people as marketers for their companies and, if necessary, to develop new programmes. This is a blinkered approach. The Minister is taking on too much responsibility and if he excludes the key elements of education and training for those who do the marketing, he will nobble the effectiveness of the board. He is giving the body other responsibilities, but this makes no sense. I will not pursue this point because I am knocking my head against a brick wall. It does not make sense to exclude the essential element for the success of An Bord Bia.
Amendment put and declared lost.