Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht

Mr. Molloy

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 7, subsection (1), line 17, to delete "export".

The effect of this amendment will be to put all the promotional activities of An Bord Glas within the sphere of An Bord Bia. Under the terms of this Bill, An Bord Bia will be responsible for promoting food consumption in general, and meat in particular, on the home market. However, it will not be empowered to promote the sale of edible horticultural produce on the home market. The Minister's amendment to the definition section states that edible horticultural produce means fruit and vegetables, whether fresh or processed, including potatoes, herbs, edible fungi and nuts, and also includes honey. I do not see the logic behind establishing An Bord Bia, while at the same time not giving it the power to promote edible horticultural produce on the home market and confining them to the export market. If we proceed with the Bill, as proposed, An Bord Bia will be able to promote bacon, but not cabbage, on the home market.

Mrs. Doyle

I support the case made by Deputy Molloy because it shows common sense.

Mr. O'Shea

The remit of An Bord Glas is stated in section 4 (1) of An Bord Glas Act, 1990, which states: "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the general functions of the Board shall be to develop, promote, facilitate, encourage, co-ordinate and assist the production, marketing and consumption of horticultural produce.". The remit of An Bord Glas, as regards the home market, involves more than a marketing function; it also relates to production. An Bord Glas is part of my functional area. Deputy Crawford mentioned the mushroom industry, which has been a tremendous success. The function of An Bord Glas would be to raise standards in this area and such an approach is important.

The expert group did not recommend that An Bord Bia should take over the home market functions of An Bord Glas. At present, An Bord Glas does not have major export functions, therefore there is room for more. However, it is a matter of what An Bord Glas does on the home market. If we took away the marketing function from Bord Glas it would undermine the unity of what they do and would render the board less effective on the home market.

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister is more polite than I am, but he is trying to say that if he took any more away from An Bord Glas, he would not be able to justify its continued existence. He has left us a eunuch of a board. To say that the export of carrots will be a matter for An Bord Bia, but the marketing of carrots on the home market will be a matter for An Bord Glas is laughable. The Minister should be honest instead of treating us like idiots. If there is no justification for An Bord Glas after stealing this function from them, the Minister should say that. Perhaps he should have left this function with them. If there is any sense left in the system, the Minister should not divide the home and export marketing of edible horticultural products.

Mr. Molloy

I am disappointed with the Minister's response. There is no logic in his argument. He is not seeking to implement a rational policy by retaining a marketing function for An Bord Glas while promoting the establishment of An Bord Bia as a marketing body for food. It makes no sense to retain one of these marketing functions for the home market, while granting the marketing functions on the export market to another board. The Minister should see sense and not ask us to accept this argument. It makes a farce of what he is trying to do. It is bad enough to exclude the functions of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, although there is a hint that they might be included at a later date. We are dealing with an illogical situation.

Mr. O'Shea

Between irrationality and eunuchs, I am not sure how to reply. Our national horticultural industry requires structures, volume, producer groups and quality. My Department has a function in this area. A resounding success for An Bord Glas was the development of the mushroom industry. I appointed a new board of An Bord Glas earlier this year and I am awaiting its strategic plan, which I expect to receive in the near future. I am looking for something which is comparable with the mushroom industry, which created so many jobs in that sector. We succeeded in the mushroom industry because we had the right technology. Our technology was superior to that of our competitors, therefore we took the markets and there is more scope there.

The horticultural industry does not only relate to food, but also to nursery plants and nursery stock. There is a separate integrated role for An Bord Glas, which involves the development of technology, production, raising standards and the development of markets. The focus of An Bord Bia is that of an export board because the vast majority of our food is exported and sold on markets overseas. For example, we inherited a home market function with CBF, which was done effectively and well. The decision was made to continue that function. The focus of this board is on export markets, which we must succeed in.

I accept the arguments advanced by Deputy Molloy and Deputy Doyle, but I am unable to accept this amendment because I do not believe it is in the interests of the horticultural industry.

Mrs. Doyle

The Minister accepted the home market function of CBF, but he will not accept the home market function of An Bord Glas. The Minister has left its home market function with An Bord Glas. Why did he not leave the home market function with CBF, instead of abolishing it? The Minister seems to use two different arguments or he is phrasing the argument to suit himself. He talks about the new board of An Bord Glas and he mentioned that he is awaiting its strategic plan. He also indicated that the single success of An Bord Glas was the mushroom industry, which was involved in exports. The Minister has taken from An Bord Glas the area in which it is most likely to achieve, the export market area where it has a successful track record — it has been left with the home market. None of the Minister's arguments stands up to examination. With respect, the Minister argues one way to suit one case and in a different way to suit another case.

CBF has been treated differently from An Bord Glas. Either this is or is not a marketing board responsible for marketing in the home and export markets for the food and livestock industry. Surely there is a need to splinter further food marketing functions. At present fish is marketed by one board and dairy produce by another. Now home marketing of edible agricultural produce is to be left with An Bord Glas. CBF is being scrapped and its home and export marketing functions are being given to An Bord Bia. Why set up An Bord Bia? CBF was doing well and ought to have been allowed retain its export and home marketing functions in the meat and livestock industry. An Bord Glas was doing extremely well with its export marketing; we witnessed its success with the mushroom industry, for instance. If one takes the Minister's line of argument, what justification is there for setting up An Bord Bia? I suggest there is little justification for it.

Mr. O'Shea

The remit of An Bord Glas relates to more than edible produce and it also has a production development function. I suggest that even if one so wished, one could not logically leave the home marketing function of CBF dangling out there somewhere. It could not exist without CBF. There is much potential, I am pursuing a number of areas in the horticultural sector which An Bord Glas will have a pivotal role in developing. We need suppliers who are viable on the home market so that we can build to viability on export markets - it is a question of volume and producers coming together. That is the type of development role which An Bord Glas is particularly good at. When talking about An Bord Glas and CBF, we are talking about two different boards, each with different functions.

The Deputy has asked why we should establish An Bord Bia? An area which has received little comment here is the function of the ABT food unit which has been out in the marketplace and which has done effective work on behalf of various areas of the food industry. We are setting up a new agency, bringing together various elements with a view to rationalising what we are doing and getting better value, first for the taxpayer and, second, for the industry generally.

Mrs. Doyle

That remains to be seen.

Mr. Molloy

The situation is laughable. In this country we have a tendency to establish a board to solve every problem which arises. I understood the purpose of An Bord Bia was to have one board to promote all Irish food products. The Minister is arguing however, that he wants a separate board to promote bacon and yet another to promote cabbage. The whole idea is being reduced to ridiculous dimensions.

Mr. Molloy

I move amendment No. 23:

In page 7, lines 19 to 31, to delete subsection (2) and substitute the following:

"(2) On the establishment day, those functions of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara which relate to the export marketing of fish and fish products shall stand transferred to the Board.".

If the Minister had accepted the previous amendment I would have removed the word "export" from my amendment by way of adding an amendment to the amendment, but as the Minister has refused to accept the previous amendment I take it that he will adopt the same attitude to this amendment. I wish to draw attention to the lack of rationale in the Minster's approach. An Bord Bia, the new body to promote the marketing of food, is not being granted authority to market all Irish food products. These distinctions are being made all over the place. The ridiculous distinction that we have just voted on is a case in point and here again An Bord Bia will not have the authority to promote the sale of Irish fish, fresh or processed. I find that extraordinary.

I cannot for the life of me see what justification the Minister can find to make these distinctions between one kind of Irish food and another. I referred to the bacon and cabbage situation in the previous amendment. This is really a fish and chip situation where An Bord Iascaigh Mhara is responsible for promoting the marketing of fish, An Bord Glas is responsible for the promotion of potatoes on the home market and An Bord Bia will be responsible for the promotion of potatoes on the export market. I do not know why these distinctions are being made. It is not rational. I will wait to see what the Minister has to say before deciding what to do on this one.

Mr. O'Shea

The Deputy referred at the beginning to his own lack of consistency in terms of Irish vegetables. He was talking about the home market function going to An Bord Bia, but he is only looking for the export function only of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara to be transferred.

Mr. Molloy

I have already explained that. I would have amended that if the Minister had accepted the other amendment, but he did not.

Mr. O'Shea

I can only deal with the amendments the Deputy has submitted. There is a major inconsistency between them. I have no problem with the export functions of An Bord Iascaigh Mhara becoming part of An Bord Bia as has been recommended by the expert group. At present there is a major review going on in BIM. My information is that it will be at least the end of the year before that is concluded. Provision is made under the legislation for those particular functions to be incorporated into An Bord Bia with the consent of the Minister for the Marine. This will not be resolved one way or another until after the review group has reported to the Minister for the Marine. It is open to BIM to use the facilities of An Bord Bia for promotions it may undertake. At this point, and until the outcome of the review, I cannot deal with that amendment. However, I have no problem with the concept.

Mrs. Doyle

I would like to know from the Minister if it is the intention of his colleague the Minister for the Marine to transfer the functions of BIM once this review has been received. It probably has not escaped the Minister's notice that it is generally considered that this review is just a shield to avoid committing BIM at this stage to An Bord Bia. The strongly held views of most people in BIM are that they want nothing to do with An Bord Bia. What are the views of the Minister for the Marine with regard to whether fish and fish products should be part of the marketing remit of An Bord Bia?

We need to know what the intentions are so as to try to make sense of a mongrel of a board which we are producing with this Bill. If fish and fish products are not to become part of it, given that all dairy products are excluded and given that half of the edible horticultural products are also out, what are we at? I would like to know the Minister's views and those of his colleague in relation to BIM.

Mr. O'Shea

No products, such as dairy products, are excluded. An Bord Tráchtála would have had functions in that regard in the past which will pass to the new board. We should not give the impression that any range of products is excluded. I obviously cannot speak for the Minister for the Marine pending the outcome of this review.

Mrs. Doyle

What is his view?

Mr. O'Shea

The Minister for the Marine will have to speak for himself.

Mrs. Doyle

If it was good news the Minister would give it.

Mr. O'Shea

The Minister for the Marine is awaiting a review and I cannot speak for him before that is completed. The Deputy's information suggests that she knows a lot more about BIM and that it does not want to become part of An Bord Bia. That may well be, if it is the Deputy's information.

With regard to Deputy Molloy's amendment, whereas I would welcome the export functions of BIM being part of An Bord Bia, I look forward, in the short term at least, to a high level of co-operation between BIM and An Bord Bia on promotions overseas. Those who know how the promotions operate will be aware that An Bord Tráchtála food promotions and BIM promotions are often on the same stand at trade fairs overseas. I have no problem with the spirit of the amendment but I cannot accept it.

Mr. Molloy

In order to retain absolute consistency, if the Minister is of the opinion that I should, I will submit an amendment to amendment No. 23 removing the word "export".

Substitute amendment put.

The Select Committee divided: Tá, 8; Níl, 14.

Tá
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).	McManus, Liz.
Connaughton, Paul.	Molloy, Robert.
Doyle, Avril.	Noonan, Michael (Limerick East).
Dukes, Alan.	O'Malley, Des.

Níl.
Byrne, Hugh.	Killeen, Tony.
Costello, Joe.	Kirk, Seamus.
de Valera, Síle.	McDaid, Jim.
Fitzgerald, Liam.	O'Shea, Brian.
Flood, Chris.	O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Hughes, Seamus.	Ryan, Eoin.
Kemmy, Jim.	Smith, Brendan.

Substitute amendment declared lost.

Mrs. Doyle

I move amendment No. 23 (a):

In page 7, subsection (2), between lines 31 and 32, to insert the following:

"(d) Whenever the Minister proposes to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving the draft has been passed by each such House.".

Tá
Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).	Molloy, Bobby.
Crawford, Seymour.	McManus, Liz.
Deenihan, Jimmy.	O'Malley, Des.
Doyle, Avril.	Sheehan, P.J.
Dukes, Alan.

Níl
Broughan, Tommy.	Kemmy, Jim.
Burke, Raphael.	Killeen, Tony.
Costello, Joe.	Kirk, Séamus.
Coughlan, Mary.	Fitzgerald, Liam.
Doherty, Seán.	McDaid, Jim.
Fitzgerald, Brian.	O'Sullivan, Toddy.
Flood, Chris.	Ryan, Seán.
Haughey, Seán.	O'Shea, Brian.
Hughes, Séamus.

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht - Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994

SECTION 9.

Mr. Byrne

Mr. Byrne

Mr. Byrne

Mr. Byrne

Mr. Byrne

Select Committee on Enterprise and Economic Strategy díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 22 Jun 1994