Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We concluded on the last occasion having reached amendment No. 7, in the name of Deputy McNamara. Amendments Nos. 7, 10 and 12 are related and are to be taken together. I ask Deputy McNamara to move amendment No. 7 and address the cluster.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is amendment No. 8 part of the cluster?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 7:

In page 9, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1)and (2), the Minister may make regulation requiring that the regulator shall, in consultation with Teagasc - the Agriculture and Food Development Authority - collect such information as is required to ascertain the cost of production in the State of such agricultural or food products as the Minister deems necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the food and agricultural food supply chain in the State.”.

This amendment is similar to the amendments with which it is grouped. It will enable this new regulator, which, unfortunately, I believe will be a regulator in name only, although I hope I am proven wrong, to collect such information as is required in consultation with Teagasc, which already does quite a lot of work in this regard, to ascertain the cost of production in the State of such agricultural or food products as the Minister deems necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the food and agricultural food supply chain in the State. Merely ascertaining what the cost of production is by somebody who is in a regulatory position would be a very important step forward. We have various estimates of the cost of production but there is certainly no agreement about it.

I will give a very recent example of this. Last week, Lidl announced that it was cutting the cost of milk. The CEO of Lidl Ireland and Northern Ireland said:

Our team have been consistently looking for ways to increase efficiencies and reduce costs in our own operations to help absorb these additional costs as best as possible. That being said, there has recently been some reduction in the cost of milk production, and we’re pleased to be in a position to be the first retailer in Ireland to reflect this reduction in our milk prices in store.

This was followed by some sales gibberish. I use that disparaging term because I have spoken to a number of dairy farmers and there is simply no reduction in the cost of production in Ireland. To be clear, the dairy sector has been buoyant for the past number of years and these have been good times for dairy. I am not suggesting otherwise. What I am saying is that it is disingenuous to say that there has been a reduction in the cost of production in recent times because I am not aware of it. The cost of foodstuffs has continued to rise and the labour shortages dairy farmers encounter persist. These alone, with the cost of fuel, continue to drive up the cost of production in the dairy sector. Here we have a retailer saying that there has been a drop in the cost of production, farming bodies are saying, "No, there has not", and there is nobody to be an independent arbiter and say, "No, the cost of production has not fallen", or "Actually, the cost of production has fallen".

Perhaps the Minister would like to pronounce on whether the cost of production has fallen. If he would like to make that pronouncement, I would like to know what data he is basing it on and who is advising him. I would like him and future Ministers to have somebody reliable and a reliable office to point to with regard to the cost of production. Therefore, I hope he will either accept this amendment or that future amendments he may bring forward in the Seanad will reflect it.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will be speaking to my amendment, amendment No. 12, which is grouped with amendment No. 7. This discussion of the Bill is incredibly timely, with soaring food costs for ordinary households while, at the same time, many primary producers and smaller retailers are scrambling to get by. Amendment No. 12 is about ensuring that the new office is empowered to examine issues and publish information around the cost of production. The current wording in the Bill is too ambiguous and does not explicitly require full and transparent analysis of the true cost of producing food that we all consume and that is exported.

With this amendment, I am seeking to ensure the Bill goes as far as it can for farmers, fishers and primary producers. Their work is essential but too often they operate at a loss or barely get by while, at the same time, food processors, major retailers and wholesalers make massive profits. The Government has ruled out legislative measures to intervene in the market to prohibit below-cost procurement where producers get less than it cost them to produce the products. I recognise that this is a very complex area and there needs to be some degree of flexibility to enable negotiations and everyday commerce. However, it is disappointing that the Government is not willing to take the steps available to protect primary producers and consumers.

I am proposing an approach that provides greater regulation in this sector and a more robust focus on unfair trading practices than the Bill currently allows for. It is essential that this law goes as far as possible in permitting the new regulatory office to investigate all aspects of the supply chain.

It is simply wrong not to mention that it is unsustainable that farmers, fishers and small-scale producers end up receiving less than the cost of their produce from retailers and food processors. Meanwhile the supermarkets are milking it. At Leaders' Questions, I raised the fact that in 2020, Aldi made 71% more profit in Ireland than it did in the UK. We would not even be privy to that information if Brexit had not forced Aldi to separate its Irish and UK accounts. We have no idea what the other retailers are doing in terms of profiteering.

My amendment helps to address this malpractice by requiring the new office to publish annual reports on costs associated with the production of different foodstuffs to determine the cost of production. This would be significant in providing transparency and holding big players to account. This type of analysis would help join up all aspects of the food chain. Producers, consumers and policymakers could all see how much it costs for an inshore fisher to catch mackerel, how much fishers get for that fish and how much it is sold for in the shop. The same level of detail could be provided for sheep, cattle and tillage farmers. This sort of information could be transformative in helping the general public and Government to understand the real cost of food as well as the pressure producers are under.

During pre-legislative scrutiny, farming and sectoral groups repeatedly called for more effective measures to address below-cost procurement and greater transparency on our food supply chain. This amendment is a direct response to those concerns and I hope the Government will accept it. The Minister said previously that he did not want the Bill to provide a level of detail as it would be too prescriptive. This is exactly the level of direction that is required. This is what primary producers are seeking. This Bill is supposed to protect them from unfair trading practices so we should listen to them.

There is a larger point that has not yet been discussed properly in these debates. Our agrifood sector is supported by €1 billion of public money annually, including up to €500 million for the Common Agricultural Policy, CAP, over €218 million for agri-environment schemes and more than €100 million for the beef and sheep sectors. A substantial portion of this investment is designed to support food production directly. For this reason alone, there should be considerably more transparency. Where is the value for money? Does this investment actually help primary producers and consumers because under the current system, it looks like the State is subsidising the larger players - basically subsidising the supermarkets when it is at that level. It reduces the cost for the farmer to produce so the supermarket can buy the produce cheaper and then has no input into, control over or say about the costs faced by consumers at the checkout in the supermarket. Public money is given to farmers, fishers and primary producers, many of whom are just getting by. At the same time, this is not making produce any cheaper for families.

It is essential that the regulator has the capacity to examine this whole process. We need to understand how much it costs to produce a kilogram of meat, fish or vegetables, how much of that is public money, how much are producers getting, how much are consumers paying and, crucially, what the environmental cost is. All of this information is essential to support primary producers, help families get better value for money and provide accountability for how public money is spent.

My amendment is simply about guaranteeing that the new office provides us with information on the true cost of producing food. That is all. Surely this is a basic requirement of a body designed to oversee our food chain. It is clear that the Bill needs this improvement. There are several amendments grouped together that are aimed at achieving a similar goal. I implore the Minister to engage with us. He cannot claim the Bill will achieve this in its current form. The level of detail and capacity needs to be supported by legislation. This Bill needs to have a strong and unambiguous message.

Last week, when I highlighted the flaws in this Bill with the Tánaiste, he incorrectly said I did not have amendments. I clearly have but more significant is the implication that his Government would be willing to engage with amendments. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I also want to raise the importance of including in the legislation the cost of production to the primary producer. I know the Minister took issue with the term "foodstuffs" when my colleague, Deputy Carthy discussed this with him on Committee Stage. He will see from our amendment on Report Stage that we have changed that to "agricultural and food products" to try to make it more specific and base it on the definitions that are set out in the Bill. It is very much about transparency and fairness. I see no reason the Minister would not include that the regulator would look at the cost of production if we are to ensure farmers get a fair price for their produce, we have to know first what it is costing them. That is transparent and clear. This is also an amendment that was sought. It is in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. Farm organisations and farmers themselves individually have sought its inclusion. As has been said, it is really important that when we do this, we do it right. That means looking from start to finish at cost. The cost to the primary producer is really important. If farmers are to get a fair price, we need to know what the cost is. This is a reasonable amendment which I hope the Minister will consider.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy Kerrane’s final point has been considered in great detail right throughout the process. We started with the consultation, then pre-legislative scrutiny and Committee Stage, which many Deputies participated in. I met with key stakeholders who made a submission to me which was fully considered. It made 20 recommendations, 18 of which were either wholly or substantially accepted and were incorporated by myself into the Bill. This has been very significantly considered. The Bill will be historic because it will be the first time in the history of the State that there will be a legal, statutory, independent food regulator to bring transparency to the food supply chain. That is the objective behind the Bill. The powers behind the Bill are very strong in the capacity to gather information and for the capacity of the Minister to instruct the regulator to gather any information he or she requires as the office evolves or for the regulator to decide to do that. What I do not want to happen is that we would set up something that has massive resources and that ends up doing things that do not necessarily impact or directly benefit farmers or that does not put those resources where they will ensure to the greatest extent that farmers get fair play or that does not attack the issues that are most pertinent when it comes to making sure farmers get a fair income for the work they are doing.

The legislation has undergone a comprehensive assessment and I am absolutely confident that it will ensure the office can carry out that function and that the capacity is there for the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to ensure that, in cases where it needs to be adjusted, he has the power to be able to do that.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I regret that it is a fallacy to say the regulator has strong powers to obtain information. There is a Sinn Féin amendment which I assume the Minister will accept that provides that the regulator may seek various pieces of information from businesses in the food chain.

All the regulator can do is seek it. It is not an offence to not provide the information. It is not an offence whatsoever not to give the information. While the regulator will have the power to enter premises to inspect documents, this can be done in only two specific circumstances, namely, with the permission of the owner of the premises or with a warrant from the District Court, where they suspect an offence has taken place. However, it is not an offence not to provide the information that has been requested. The Minister is therefore setting up a regulator to fail. He is setting up all the trappings of an office that will be able to provide and obtain transparency without any powers to do so. It is historic the Minister is setting up the office, but it is a historic disappointment that he is doing so without giving the regulator the legal powers that will be required to succeed.

I would ask that the Minister continues to consider these amendments and examine the matter further. I believe he wants to do the right thing, but I am less certain about some areas of his Department, given the track record of senior civil servants from that Department who have gone on to work for processors and in the food sector generally. It seems to me to be evidence of how skewed the Department is in its approach in favour of processors and large conglomerates, rather than in favour of primary producers. That is very evidently the focus of the Department. Unfortunately, this Bill does not bring transparency to bear in the food chain.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the Deputy's final comment, we have a great responsibility in this Chamber to be fair to everyone.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

However, the Deputy's comments are very unfair in relation to the bona fides of everyone who is working in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, from here in Kildare Street right throughout the country. Their job day in, day out is to work on behalf of the agriculture sector and farmers in particular. We have one of the best records in this country of serving farmers, of delivering payments and of working to make sure that service is the best in Europe. That is what our Department does. That is what our officials do. The team that has been involved in this has put in massive hours and work to bring forward this legislation. Out of the approximately 3,000 employees in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, I would imagine a minuscule number, maybe one or two, may go and work somewhere else. That is anyone's right. It is Deputy McNamara's right as a Deputy and he may have an alternative career whenever he might leave here, as may any of us. It is unfair to use that as what I regard as a slur on all those who are working at the moment with the objective of serving farmers. I do not think that was particularly fair.

I do not agree that this is a historic disappointment. It is certainly not. Deputy McNamara can say that. We can say whatever we want in this Chamber, but saying it does not make it so, Deputy. We have put massive work into this right throughout the process. Many other Deputies have been involved from the very outset from pre-legislative scrutiny, across this Bill and to where we have it here today. It is easy at the end to come up with amendments for the first time at the very end and to say that the Bill does not do something, to call it toothless, etc. However, that is not the case. This is very effective legislation. Not only that, the legislation gives the capacity to the Minister, through regulation, to ensure that any additional regulation, requirement or instruction that will be required will be possible through the legislation. My objective from the outset, from back when I was in the Opposition benches, where Deputy McNamara now sits, was to bring in a regulator that would actually-----

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----bring transparency to the food supply chain. I do not believe this amendment is necessary at all. I believe the legislation is exceptionally strong.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people who work in the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, who do their jobs fairly right across the country. I am talking about the propensity for people at the very top of the Department to find their way into top jobs with the processors and dairy co-ops in the sector they had previously regulated. I believe that is a problem. I do not believe it applies to all members of the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine.

The Minister said that saying it does not make it so, but the Minister says this will bring transparency to the food sector. Saying it does not make so. Show me any place in this Bill that requires the regulator to provide information. Yes, if the Sinn Féin amendment that the Minister has proposed to amend is accepted, the regulator may seek the information. Will the Minister show me the place in the Bill that requires the regulator to provide that information if and when it is sought? Please do so.

The Minister constantly speaks about Members coming in at the end of the Bill, but that is what Report Stage is for. That is why we have a legislative process. That is why we do not just have a general chat at the very beginning and say, "Sure it is all grand now and we can all go home". The Minister spoke about having engaged with the farm bodies. It is implicit from what the Minister says that they are all happy with this Bill. However, I have spoken with many of them. I have spoken to the Independent Farmers' Association, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association, ISCA, the Irish Farmers' Association, IFA, and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association, ICMSA, this week, and none of them is satisfied that the Bill has sufficient powers to bring about the transparency the Minister says he wants for his regulator to succeed. I believe there is somebody who is already lined up. I wish that person the best of luck, as I am sure the Minister does, too. If he wants the regularor to succeed, however, he should give that person the powers to succeed and do not put him or her on a pedestal to fail without the powers necessary to require retailers and processors to outline the prices they are being paid. Only then will we know who is making the money. A lot of money is being made, but we do not know who is making it.

There is this retail forum. I will make a prediction that we will see a reduction in what farmers will get, but there will be no reduction in what international corporations will get for their food products. Once again, farmers will take a hammering for a general problem in the retail sector, namely, that we have no idea who is making the money.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have a comment specifically on the initial point I made, which was discussed on Committee Stage. The Minister's issue was that the term "food stuffs" was too broad and that it would not be possible to look at the costs of all produce. We accept that. Hence, we have changed it to "agriculture and food products", which are defined in the Bill as a specific and precise list. This limits that term and deals with the issue the Minister raised on Committee Stage. I want to ask the Minister to respond specifically on that issue having regard to the fact that we have changed that when it comes to the cost of production which we believe is really important that it is transparent and clear. Can the Minister come back on that point, please?

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. As the Minister will know, we have engaged extensively with him on these matters since probably before the last General Election when we debated the need to protect, in the first instance, primary producers, as well as consumers, from what is an ongoing difficulty with our food supply chain. That difficulty arises from that fact that when we are talking about Irish food, there is lots of money to be made, particularly in the beef sector. The difficulty traditionally has been that the people who have been making that money are not the primary producers. They are largely the processors and the retailers. The difficulty has been - this is acknowledged across the House - that there is a big lack of transparency. We clearly know how much farmers get for their product because what farmers receive either at the mart or the factory is published on a weekly basis. We know how much consumers pay for their product, and we know how much more consumers have been paying for their product over the past number of months in particular. There is a problem and we need to figure out the best mechanisms by which to be able to address that. Between the farmer who is selling the product and the consumer purchasing the product, there is absolute darkness in terms of transparency, to such an extent that processors have claimed before an Oireachtas committee that they do not make any money. One would think they are almost doing it as a charitable enterprise. Retailers argue the same.

We know there is a problem from looking at the fact that the major meat producers in this country operate as unlimited companies. Establishing a company with an unlimited structure is very risky, particularly if there is any risk to one's profits. This means that the owners become directly liable for any losses that might be incurred. Therefore, for anybody to establish a company under those circumstances he or she must first be strongly confident about making a profit into the future.

The real reason, however, that any company would establish itself on an unlimited basis relates precisely to the fact it would not have to produce profit reports annually. That is why our meat industry operates as unlimited companies and it is also why it operates in this convoluted corporate structure that, in some cases, takes in four different states to hide beneficial ownership and so on.

I welcome the fact we are debating Report Stage of the Bill and I welcome the Minister's adopting of many of the proposals that have been put forward during this process, not least at the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, given it was widely accepted at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine that the heads of the Bill were nowhere near what was necessary. Likewise, I welcome the fact that on Committee Stage, too, the Minister accepted a number of the amendments put forward by me and other Opposition Deputies. Even so, the truth is the Bill still does not have the type of teeth the regulator will be required to have if it is to mark the sea change we believe, and the Minister has said, is required to ensure there will be open transparency and full sight of the profits being made and secured by some elements of the chain, as distinct from those who produce, primarily, and those who purchase in supermarkets.

It is crucial, therefore, that the Minister revisit some of the amendments. Some of the most important amendments that were put forward were ruled out of order because the Opposition cannot table those sorts of amendments, but the Minister can and there will be an opportunity to do so in the Seanad. Sinn Féin is of the view that while the Bill is progress in the right direction, there will be a need, if the Minister does not take up the mantle now, for a future Government to provide the regulator with the type of teeth that will allow it to regulate and be a strong voice and champion for our primary producers and consumers.

I thank the departmental officials and the Minister for his engagement on this legislation, but I urge them to go forward. As he may know, I have lost my job and am no longer my party's spokesperson on agriculture and rural development. It is never a nice feeling to be replaced by someone who is better than you but I have been, and I am sure the Minister will learn what that feels like after the next election because he, too, might be replaced by the same individual. I will leave it at that for now.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is hard to follow that.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 9, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following: “(3) (a) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1)and (2), proscription of sale or resale of certain agricultural or food products below their cost of production in the State may be prohibited by regulation.

(b) A party to a contract or commercial relationship for the supply of agricultural products and food products, or such agricultural products and food products as the Minister deems necessary to ensure fairness and transparency in the food and agricultural food supply chain in the State, shall not require or induce or attempt to require or induce any party to the said commercial relationship or contract (whether directly or indirectly, by agreement, threat, promise or any other means) to offer for sale or resell or offer for resale in the State the said products at a price less than the cost of production of the said product in the State, as determined by the regulator in consultation with Teagasc - the Agriculture and Food Development Authority.”.

Once the regulator has determined the minimum cost of production, the question then becomes what should be done with it. The amendment seeks to facilitate the Minister to make regulations proscribing the sale or resale of certain agricultural or food items at below the cost of production in the State. That is paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) would enable the Minister to simply ban the below-cost selling of all products and food products below the cost of production in the State.

I will give an important example of how a situation can arise whereby a party to a contract can be required to sell at below cost. This has arisen in the dairy sector. I have acknowledged that this sector has generally done quite well in recent years. A cohort of farmers, many of whom were young and all of them, exclusively, were new entrants to dairying who entered into contracts with some of the dairies to produce milk for a certain price. Of course, because of the years of deflation in the food supply chain, prices were not increasing at all, so it seemed like a good deal. They were signing contracts and they were being offered a certain price. On the basis of those contracts, they were able to go to commercial lenders and borrow money to invest, perhaps to buy more land or invest in the types of milking parlour that cost hundreds of thousands of euro and that are now commonplace in the dairy sector. As the costs of production started to rise, however, the costs that farmers in the dairy sector generally were being paid for their products rose with it. This cohort, however, were on fixed contracts. The amendment means that such contracts would be null and void.

When I raised this issue during Questions on Promised Legislation, I appreciated the response of the Minister's party leader and Tánaiste, Deputy Micheál Martin, who had a concern about a radical departure. I do not want to mischaracterise what he said, but what a departure it would be to ban below-cost selling. It has been done and it has been done recently. It was done in Spain in a December 2021 law. That law seeks, ironically or happily - depending on one's position on the matter - to implement exactly the same EU directive this Bill proposes to implement, namely, Directive (EU) 2019/633 on unfair trading practices and business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain. This was done to protect food producers in Spain. If it is good enough for food producers in Spain, and if it is possible, then why not here? I am not aware of any infringement proceedings being taken by the Commission. I am aware that various commentators raised their eyebrows at it across the European Union, but I am not aware of any infringement proceedings. Perhaps the Minister will correct me in that regard. If Spain can protect its food producers, then Ireland can protect its food producers.

Below-cost selling is damaging because it drives producers out of business. We can sell carrots, lettuce, milk, butter or beef, take your pick, as cheaply as we wish in Ireland, but it does drive producers out. Consider the horticulture sector in County Clare. When I was a child, which was 30 years ago, there were horticulture producers in Ogonnelloe, which Deputy Kelly will know well, who were producing for the Limerick market. There were horticulture producers up around Galway Bay producing for Galway. There were also lots of horticulture producers around County Dublin who have long since gone out of business. They were driven out of business. This is not good for consumers because they get a different quality of product. Invariably, one cannot have the same quality product if it is produced in Ireland and is in the shops the next day compared with if it is brought in from another part of the world. This also has an impact on our carbon footprint. If we are serious about the environment then we need to stop importing perishable goods by aeroplane. It also means that such a long supply chain stretching to another part of the world can be interrupted very easily and very quickly, and then we do not have domestic producers to fill the gap. We saw that this spring to a limited extent here but to a much greater extent in Britain, where authorities were left to rue the impact of below-cost selling on their horticulture producers in particular.

On the issue of below-cost selling, I will make a prediction as a result of the discussions involving the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, and the retail forum. We will see that a lot of the big retail multiples will do loss-leader promotions in respect of beef during the summer. This will not be for the consumers' benefit. They will cut the price of beef to get consumers in, but then just charge them more for the booze they will drink with the beef or for the coleslaw, the burger buns or whatever. The retailers will make the same profit, consumers will spend the same amount of money, and the loss will be passed on to farmers who are already in a precarious position. That would be the only impact. We will not see Kellogs' products, or Marmite, or avocados or any imported food items reduced in price, but fresh produce from Ireland will be hammered again and again. This is because the regulator has no power to do anything because the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine chose not to give it the power to act. His Spanish colleague, with whom he had ample opportunity to engage on this matter since a Spanish Bill was introduced in 2021, did do something about it for the benefit of his country's producers. If the Minister does not want to accept this amendment now here today, I urge him to think about what can be done in the Seanad in his name, not in my own name, so our producers are protected from the damaging effects of below-cost selling, not just for producers but for consumers too.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support Deputy McNamara's amendment because it is of crucial importance. We have seen legislation implemented in this regard in Spain in recent years. We have seen the same with the capping of the fuel, with fuel prices, and with many other issues where other countries have done something and we are running amok. I do not know how the famous meeting went today with the Minister of State, Deputy Richmond, and all the big retail chains. I hope it went well.

Considering what is going on and what has gone on, a change has been undertaken in rural Ireland since the time I was a buachaill óg, which is not 100 years ago but it might be 50 years ago. We grew 40 acres of potatoes at home. We grew carrots, turnips, parsnips and everything else. We brought them to the marketplace and they were sold. Even today, there are wonderful farmers' markets in Cahir and Clonmel and other places of a Saturday morning. One will see the housewife or the house-husband or whoever, looking for the clay on the parsnips because these are healthy, wholesome and fresh.

To demonstrate below-cost selling, Deputy Michael Healy-Rae and I, along with representatives from the Irish Farmers Association, IFA, went down trasna an gheata, trasna an bhóthair agus trasna na sráide to a big supermarket off Grafton Street and we got three trolleys. We filled them to the water level with the finest of vegetables. There was no clay on those vegetables obviously. The cost of what was in each trolley was only €18, if I remember correctly.

We came out on the street to give them away. That was the impact it was having at the time on God knows how many people. North County Dublin includes a rich area that is good for horticulture, including potato growing and so on. I cannot remember the name of it now, but it is a wonderful area for early spuds and, indeed, all the vegetables. Ring and Dungarvan in County Waterford always got the first of the early potatoes but we will not have them. Producers are under enormous pressure.

On below-cost selling, as Deputy McNamara said, the situation with milk and butter in recent times is nothing short of a disgrace. Ministers in this Government and preceding Governments, including the Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Coveney, when he was Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine, advised young people to increase the number of cows they own. Teagasc, which farmers depend on for the gospel according to it, advised them to expand into milk. Deputy McNamara mentioned that milk production in Paris costs hundreds of thousands of euro. I will declare that I was involved in doing some excavation work, including underpasses and everything else, but young farmers spent €1 million-----

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is the richest part of the country.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Maybe. I accept that. It is the Golden Vale, but young farmers spent €1 million plus on milking parlours, and on proper buildings and roadways, so they could nurture and care for their animals carefully. Many of them were offered these special contract prices with Glanbia and other co-ops. They bought into it and it stood them well, in fairness, for a number of years. Now, however, it is not standing them well and they are suffering. Blackguarding is going on in respect of butter. It is not in the interest of families that milk and butter are being sold cheap. It is in the interests of naked greed and loss leaders or whatever it might be called. It is just a price war and a race to the bottom. The problem is those young family farmers who pay the bills. They pay the contractors and the milk machine men. They pay for concrete and everything that is against the roadways, and for insulation of fittings and everything else.

I will mention a young man - fuair sé bás cúpla mí ó shin - Mr. Colm Ryan. The farmers loved him. He helped out Mr. Tony Condon in his lab with putting in those milking parlours. He was a tremendous worker from Ballymacarbry. It is a very sad situation. Many people did the work and got paid. In turn, they paid the hardware shops and the money went around in a circle. I have to admit that I was and am concerned about some of the numbers people expanded by. Be that as it is, these people were encouraged and advised to expand. What do they get now every hour of every waking day, and when they should be asleep, but to be demonised, undermined and called laggards and blackguards? We saw this week, in some of the papers over the past couple of days, who the real people breaking pollution laws are. We also saw the impact the wetting of the bogs will have on the farmland of people who are up to date with that.

We see a lack of respect for healthy farming practices, and a lack of support, from the Department and Government, which will not bring in any regulations to help farmers. How many times have farmers come to Leinster House cheap? I remember the late Joe Rea, and the other president of the IFA from County Limerick, who released sheep into the foyer of the Department. The sheep sector has been on the floor all year - the pig industry also went through it - mainly because of the price at the other end. That is not the price the farmer gets. The profits are there. When we previously spoke on this, I mentioned that the farmer gets nothing from the fifth quarter of the animal. He does not get aon phingin amháin; he gets nothing out of it. Some of the beef farmers, moguls, factory farmers and those running feedlots are, unfortunately, former leaders of farming organisations who have turned turkey and gone the other way due to greed. Greed is an awful thing. It is a case of to hell with the small, young farmers. If we did not have those young farmers, we would have food shortages, there would be no families in rural Ireland, we would have no schools or GAA matches, and none of the big furore we had about last Sunday's hiding behind the wall. The only walls our lads are behind are silage pit walls and milking parlour walls. It is hard and noble work to provide food for our people to eat but farmers need support. They need to not be kicked around like a football or be played like a hurley.

Now Teagasc is off doing reports it should not be doing at all. There are Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, reports that call farmers laggards and everything else, which is totally untrue. The EPA should look after the 800 plants the Minister admitted this morning that it has in the country, without any treatment plants in towns and villages, and should not demonise farmers.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I support this amendment. The Minister will be aware that below-cost selling or a ban on the sale or purchase, depending on what angle you are coming from, of goods below the cost of production has been one of the biggest sources of debate throughout the discussion. The most important amendment in respect of the regulator and the easiest one for the Minister to accept is amendment No. 10 which provides that the regulator would be empowered to determine what the cost of production is. We discussed this when I tabled a similar amendment on Committee Stage. I used the phrase "The regulator shall collate the costs associated with the production of different foodstuffs". The Minister's principal argument against it was the term "foodstuffs". He contended that it was not legally defined. The phrase in Deputy Kerrane's amendment is "agricultural and food products", which is clearly defined. It would be a welcome, progressive step if the Minister were to accept amendment No. 10 and simply provide the regulator with the authority to determine the cost of production and to publish that cost on an annual basis so the public would at least have the information. If the Minister will not accept it now, Deputy McNamara's proposal and other proposals in respect of below-cost selling could become the subject of real political argument.

It is important to say that although some say that the idea of banning below-cost selling would be radical or revolutionary, they do not recognise that such a ban was in place not so long ago. It has not been so long since a Fianna Fáil Minister lifted what was known as the "groceries order". I have attended many meetings with farming organisations and farmers. I recall that during my first series of meetings with farmers, when I was first elected to the European Parliament, I was struck by the number of times farmers said to me that the single thing that could make a difference to their lives and livelihoods would be the reintroduction of the groceries order. How did they know that? It is because they know the impact it had when it was lifted. It had an impact.

Other Deputies have spoken about the price wars that were waged around fruit and vegetables. We have paid a heavy price for that. The evidence is seen in every supermarket as it is harder to find a piece of Irish fruit or an Irish vegetable in most supermarkets than it should be for a start and in some cases it is virtually impossible. I contend that because there is no labelling directive for fruit and vegetables, people are not purchasing Irish products when they buy from the vast majority of restaurants, takeaways and everywhere else we see fruit or vegetables. That is disappointing in many respects as it means an entire sector has virtually been wiped out. We are almost a bit player in potato production which is ironic and disappointing on so many levels. However, it has wider implications.

Generally those involved in these debates are people who have a keen interest in our agricultural community and want to defend our family farmers. That is across the board. We have spent the past few years listening to the vilification and demonisation of certain cohorts of farmers. The media portrayal of that debate has not recognised that many of the dairy farmers, for example, moved away from tillage and fruit and into dairy for the precise reason that there was no money in their previous livelihoods and there was money in dairy production. It was not that they wanted to make that move but that in many respects, they were forced to make it. Now the finger of blame is being pointed at them as though they were the villains of our environmental and climate action ambitions, when the truth is that the villains are those who implemented policies such as the lifting of the groceries order and forced them into that position. If we want - as I am sure we all do - to reduce the carbon emissions coming from agriculture, a big part of that will have to be to restore and develop our tillage and fruit sectors. That is impossible to do and will not be done unless we can provide assurance to farmers who might be contemplating making that move that there will be a livelihood in the sector in the future. The only way an assurance can be provided to farmers about their livelihood is if they can be told they will receive more for their products than it cost to produce them in the first place. Without that assurance, no one will make a move in that direction. The only move they will make is away from beef or dairy and out of farming altogether, which has wider social and economic implications, especially for our rural communities and economies.

I urge the Minister to support amendment No. 8. There are valid reasons to do so. If he decides not to, will he outline clearly what he has against amendment No. 10 with respect to instructing the regulator to collate and outline the cost of production? I see that Deputy Cairns has made a similar proposal in amendment No. 12. I contend that there is no reason amendment No. 10 would not be passed other than to provide cover to those who are manipulating the market, fleecing our family farmers and, in turn, fleecing consumers every time they enter a supermarket because they are unable to purchase an Irish piece of fruit or an Irish vegetable due to the price wars that were facilitated by the decisions of the Minister's predecessor.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin with Deputy Carthy's point as it speaks to an issue I did not address when we discussed amendment No. 10 and Deputy McNamara's point on mandating the regulator to gather information about the cost of production and so on. The Bill provides for that.

The Bill has been thought about for a long time and given lots of consideration. Section 80(2)(g), for example, provides the capacity to the Minister to make regulations under that section to instruct the regulator to carry out "the collection of price and market information to address issues of lack of transparency and information asymmetry in the food supply chain". Those powers are already in the Bill.

As I said to the Deputy and as I repeatedly say, this Bill has received lots of consideration and the commitment here is to make sure we are introducing legislation that is fit for purpose and can respond and evolve to make sure farmers and primary food producers get the office they need to ensure there is transparency in the food supply chain. That is already provided for. Deputy McNamara asked me to show him where that is in the Bill, and is in the Bill. That answers the Deputy's question on amendment No. 10 as well.

The Deputies discussing this are all smart people and there is an onus on all of them to be honest about what is possible and what is not possible. They are talking about doing something very significant and not one of them has given an example of how it would work.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did; I mentioned Spain.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. Not one of the Deputies has given an example of how it would work in Ireland. They are saying we should introduce a set price for set products.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The groceries order was in place.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not one of the Deputies has given an example of how it would work. Deputy McNamara's amendment suggests that a certain product like Irish beef could only be sold in Irish supermarkets at a price set by the regulator in consultation with Teagasc. That is what the Deputy is asking to happen.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not only that; it would not be sold below a certain price.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Let us say that in a supermarket in Ireland Irish meat could not be sold below a certain price. If I read it right, the Deputy's amendment is also saying that it cannot be bought below a certain price to be sold in Ireland. I think that is what the Deputy is saying although it is not quite clear. It also seems to be saying that a supermarket in Ireland or anybody in the contract chain in a factory could not buy it off a farmer below that price. That is what the Deputy is saying. However, only about 10% of the meat we produce in Ireland gets eaten here. Therefore, the Deputy is saying that meat can only be sold in Ireland at a certain price and that it can only be bought in Ireland at a certain price. However, somebody can come in from outside Ireland and buy it off a farmer or processor at a different price. Therefore, the rest, 90% of beef, can be bought at a different price. It would only be the Irish customers paying the higher prices, yet 90% of the meat could be bought from outside the country at a much lower price.

What happens along the Border? Deputy Carthy comes in here at different times talking to me about challenges around the Border. In Donegal or Monaghan it is bought at a certain price but Northern Ireland has different laws so it is bought at whatever the going rate might be, which would be more reflective of world market rates than what is being set in this instance. What will happen in the supermarkets of Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan or Louth? Where will they go to buy their meat then? The consumers will be paying a lot more money but farmers will only get that higher price for 10% of the meat they produce. That is the reality of what the Deputies are proposing.

The Deputies should be honest. They should not come in here and, without giving any examples, say that with the stroke of a pen, we can put in place legislation that will magically give farmers a set price and everybody will be happy ever after. That is selling a fallacy. Deputy McNamara says it happens in Spain but that is an entirely different scenario. For most of their products and for those where this would apply, they would not be self-sufficient. Rather, they would be producing for their domestic markets. Switzerland is an example of this. It has tight borders with high tariffs for foods coming in and it operates lots of similar rules to Europe but it has a separate market. Food prices are very high in Switzerland and the prices farmers get in Switzerland are very high but they are producing for a domestic market only and they have their borders closed. They can control that and it works there. Consumers pay high prices and farmers get high prices and nothing can get in without paying a big tariff. That is what works in Switzerland.

How many times have people said Ireland is a small country but we produce enough food for 40 million people around the world? Some 90% of what we produce gets exported. The Deputies are selling a myth and trying to make it sound as if, at the stroke of a pen, they can introduce a measure on Report Stage of a Bill, rather than delving into this for a long time on Committee Stage and during pre-legislative scrutiny, as many other Members have. They are saying that because this would be in legislation, that would make it a reality and, hey presto, we are doing something for farmers and we will solve all their problems with this legislation. That simply does not stack up. That is the reality and the challenge.

Given that the vast majority of our milk and beef is sold abroad, the price at which the market operates is determined by the prices we are getting in different parts of the world, whether it is Japan, the United States, other parts of Europe or Britain. Prices are determined by what we get there. We want to ensure we are putting in place an office that has as many tools and levers as possible to bring transparency to the supply chain so that we can see what is going on with the price we are getting abroad. The ultimate objective is not to create a situation where consumers end up paying way more than what anybody else does across the world but the farmers do not get to see the benefit of it because in beef, no matter what the price is set at here and no matter what our consumers are required to pay for it, that would only affect 10% of the product. The other 90% would be going to other parts of the world at the world price and farmers would not benefit but everybody would have a more expensive product in the process.

We should tease this matter out but I ask the Deputies not to sell a myth. The office I am seeking to put in place is historic in that we are placing on a statutory footing a legally independent office to try to make sure farmers get a fair deal and to do the maximum possible given that we are an exporting country.

Matt Carthy (Cavan-Monaghan, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As I mentioned, I was in the European Parliament when the originating law, the unfair trading practices directive, went through. I followed it at every stage during that process and I was proud at one stage because I got the European Parliament to adopt a position of supporting a ban on below-cost selling across the EU. That is the pivotal measure required and it would answer the Minister's first point. Does he want to know who opposed that measure? Ireland's Commissioner Phil Hogan fought it tooth and nail, as did the Council, at which the Irish Government is represented. Does the Minister know what their argument was? It was that measures like that should be made at member state level. I voted against the unfair trading practices directive on the basis that it did not bring in measures that were needed EU-wide because some member states would be minimalist in their outworking of it.

Amendment No. 10 is not catered for in the Bill as it stands because this is placing an obligation on the regulator to determine the cost of production and publish it on an annual basis. That mandate is not in the Bill and we are asking the Minister to accept the amendment. He has said he will not accept it, which is incredibly disappointing.

There is a problem with the scenario the Minister has described in which farmers only receive a basic price for 10% of their product and do not get that price for the other 90% of their product. That suggests that farmers would not receive the cost of production because that is all I have heard about minimum levels. There are different ways of doing this and we have tried to engage on the different possibilities but I have mentioned the groceries order to the Minister. That was implemented at a retail level and it made a difference to farmers. They have told us that and they also told us that its removal made a difference to their livelihoods.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I wish to respond to the Minister's comments. What I am proposing to do in this amendment is give future Ministers the power to introduce such an order. Why does the Minister not want the power to introduce such an order? The amendments I have proposed do not require the Minister to do anything by regulation but they facilitate him in bringing in specific regulations to do certain things. I would have thought that the power to introduce a regulation might be useful to the Minister and future Ministers and might lead to less abuse in this area.

The Minister said that Spain imports lots of food and is not self-sufficient, unlike Ireland.

I do not see the supermarkets in Spain full of Irish olive oil; in fact, I see Irish supermarkets selling olive oil. Yet that is included very clearly in the ban that was introduced in Spain in 2021. I am not sure about wine. I simply do not know whether it is included. The Minister comes in here and trashes this suggestion. I am not saying that it would be easy to implement or that it would be a panacea. I am not making any of those promises. The Minister is the one constantly saying, "Whoop-de-do, we have a regulator." We have not given him or her any powers. I specifically asked the Minister to show me in the legislation where it is stated that it is an offence not to provide the information requested, and he did not do so. He pointed to the regulator's ability to ask for information. I know he or she can ask, but a professor of economics in UCD or Trinity College down the road from here can ask - anybody can. Even I can ask them, but they do not have to answer. They do not have to answer the Minister either, and he does not want to force them to answer because he does not want the power to do diddly-squat to help anybody. He does, however, want to give away what somebody would give future Ministers who are less limp-wristed than he is in trying to help Irish food producers.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are over time.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He wants to stop them having the power to help anybody, and that is a historical failure.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, we are way over time. You will get a chance to come in again, if you want, as the proposer.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I see that the Deputy is watering down what he was suggesting before and what everybody else was taking up as his meaning of this, that, hey presto, we were going to put minimum prices into the Bill. That is how everybody took him up.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister can read English.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Deputy, please.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I did not see the Deputy correct anybody else. That was what he was trying to sell, that that was what he was proposing. Even Deputy Carthy, who participated in the pre-legislative scrutiny of this whole process, did not propose that. Deputy Carthy now says he will support Deputy McNamara's amendment, but Deputy Carthy did not propose, through the pre-legislative scrutiny, that such a provision should be in the legislation. I am just explaining this as it is. If Deputy McNamara is saying that olive oil cannot be sold below a certain price in Spain but that that applies only to Spain, that could be like our beef. Maybe we are getting olive oil at a much cheaper price than the Spanish are. I just explained how this would not work in respect of our beef because of the fact that it would not deliver. I said the Minister had the potential subsequently to introduce regulations requiring the regulator to assess the cost of production or to gather certain information. Deputy McNamara asked me to show me where that is and I have shown him where it is. It is in the Bill. It has been in the Bill from the very start.

My objective - I have been plugging at this for years and am now delivering in government - is to deliver an office and a regulator which will do as much as possibly can be done to make sure farmers get fair play. The Deputy is backtracking now and saying all this does is provide the opportunity for it to be done.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is clearly what the amendment says.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have explained the position to Deputy McNamara, and Deputy Carthy said Ireland objected to below-cost selling at EU level. We had below-cost selling here in Ireland before. Below-cost selling is different from below-cost buying. The fact that somebody sells something below a certain cost does not mean he or she will give a fair price to the person from whom he or she has bought it. It is therefore really below-cost buying which is the challenge from the farmer's point of view. The farmer is not overly worried what price the product is sold at as long as he gets a good profit on what he is selling it for when it is bought off him. Below-cost selling does not affect that.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The amendment clearly states that sale or resale "may be prohibited by regulation". I have not changed it in the past ten minutes, hour, day or week. That is what it states; that is what I proposed. The Minister possibly did not read it, but that is his business.

The Minister seems happy with a scenario whereby Irish beef producers should produce below the cost of production and a Minister will have no power to do anything about it. I do not have all the answers. I am not saying or pretending I do, but I am saying that this legislation the Minister has produced is not the answer without additional powers. The Minister blames Deputy Carthy and me for not having all the answers. The Minister is entrusted with a seal of office. He is the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine of this State and goes to European Council meetings. He has that privilege, and it is an enormous privilege in this Republic. People fought in order that there would be an Irish Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine as opposed to just one in London. The Minister could ask his Spanish counterpart, "By the way, how is that legislation you introduced working out?" Maybe it is not working out. I do not know. I am just a single backbencher. The Minister has a whole Department full of civil servants. He has access to the Attorney General's office. He has colleagues across the European Union. He has it all, and the best he can come up with is that there is nothing he can do to stop beef producers in Ireland having to produce below the cost of production year in, year out. Moreover, he does not want any power to do anything about it. I am not falling back on anything. This is just one idea. That is all I have, but the Minister has no ideas as to what he is going to do about this. If he had, they would be contained in legislation.

I want this regulator to work. I believe that somebody has been selected. Whoever it is, I wish them the best of luck, but I do not want them to have no powers of enforcement. I asked the Minister where processors are required to provide the information requested and he still has not told me where they are required to provide that information. I ask him not to be disingenuous and to provide that information to us.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That concludes the debate on this amendment.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister digressed; so did I.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 10, line 9, to delete “regulator” and substitute “rialálaí”.

This amendment was discussed on Committee Stage and I am bringing it forward again. It addresses a concern that has been raised by the Joint Committee on the Irish Language, Gaeltacht and the Irish-speaking Community about the need to put into practice the promotion of the use of the Irish language in names that are given to official bodies. This amendment is to delete "regulator" and substitute "rialálaí" throughout this legislation to encourage the use of the Irish language. That is important and we should be seeking to do it at every available opportunity.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment has been clearly outlined. I hope the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will allow me to speak on a tangent to the amendment.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Deputy should speak to the amendment.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will speak to it. This is an interesting amendment and I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say. What I would really like to say, and I need to disclose that I am-----

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I ask the Deputy to speak to the amendment.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I absolutely will. It is always important to embody the Irish language as much as we can. I am an organic farmer and want to disclose that on the record. It is important that there is a market for finished organic beef because at the moment, a large amount of people are entering the organic scheme and there is no finishing market for them. They are going to conventional sales. The Sixmilebridge mart ran its first organic sale in recent times on 1 April. That is a good market into which people can sell. However, that will happen infrequently because the markets are weighted towards the conventional animal. That is inevitable because of the market share those farmers have in respect of livestock. However, there has been an enormous uptake of the organic livestock scheme. I became an entrant on 1 January and there are hundreds more in County Clare and thousands more nationwide. The uptake of the scheme has been enormous. Those farmers need to know there will be some market for their finished animals and they will not end up on conventional sale.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have given the Deputy great latitude. I wonder where his contribution applies to the amendment.

Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is important where at all possible to use Irish names for State or semi-State bodies.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I call Deputy Ó Snodaigh and ask him to speak to the amendment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Níl mé chun caint faoi mhairteoil nó aon rud dá shórt; ní feirmeoir mé. Tá ceist shimplí agam atá dírithe ar teideal an eagrais nó siúd atá ag déanamh rudaí difriúla. Anuraidh, rith muid reachtaíocht nua i dTithe an Oireachtais; Acht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla (Leasú), 2021 agus leagann cuid de sin síos gur chóir don Stát, i ngach uile áit, an leagan Gaeilge a úsáid. Bhí díospóireacht agam inné leis an Aire Breisoideachais agus Ardoideachais, Taighde, Nuálaíochta agus Eolaíochta, an Teachta Harris, mar gheall ar na heagrais nua atá á tógáil isteach maidir leis An nGarda Síochána. D'aithin sé ón gceist a d'ardaigh mé, mar go raibh sé tar éis glacadh leis nuair a bhí sé ag déileáil leis an Údarás um Ard-Oideachas. Sa chás seo táimid ag rá arís gur gá don rannóg seo an leagan Gaeilge den teideal oifigiúil a úsáid as seo amach, mar atá leagtha síos sa dlí.

It has been a requirement in law since the enactment of the Official Languages Act that any new State institution or body that is established will be known, in the first instance, in the Irish language. That is not to apply in the second or third instance but in the first. The reason for it to be laid out in that way is to ensure that the title is used properly. For many years, people did not have a problem, and still do not have a problem, with using the Irish title for An Garda Síochána. People did not have a problem using Córas Iompair Éireann, CIÉ. There is logic to this and more, it is now the law. That is why we have submitted this amendment. The legislation as set down is intending to break the law as it has been set down by this House.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

For general information, we are dealing with amendment No. 9, which proposes to delete "regulator" and substitute "rialálaí".

Carol Nolan (Laois-Offaly, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tugaim tacaíocht don leasú atá os ár gcomhair maidir leis an rialálaí. Tá sé fíorthábhachtach go bhfuil an Ghaeilge in úsáid, chomh fada is féidir, i ngach Bille nuair a thagann sé os ár gcomhair. Nuair atá deis ann leagan Gaeilge a úsáid ba chóir dúinn an deis sin a thapú. Tugaim mo thacaíocht iomlán d'úsáid leagan Gaelach don rialálaí sa Bhille seo. Tá súil agam go mbeidh níos mó deiseanna againn chun níos mó Gaeilge a chur isteach i mBillí eile chomh maith.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I lend my support to this amendment that proposes to delete "regulator" and "rialálaí" a chur isteach. Is feirmeoir an-bheag mé ar na Sléibhte Chnoc Mhaoldomhnaigh i gCaisleán Nua i dTiobraid Árainn.I am a sheep farmer. It is important that we use the Irish language as often as we can and this is a simple amendment. It is not a lengthy translation. It is only one word. I think the Irish language has been diminished and caillte. Pádraig Pearse said that tír gan teanga was not a nation at all.

Mention was made by Deputy Ó Snodaigh of An Garda Síochána. The Leas-Cheann Comhairle might allow me nóimeád amháin. The new 999 or 112 emergency service is now called the police service.

Why are these things being changed incrementally without any consultation? They might tell us that they had a consultation on it. We are not the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the PSNI. That was brought to my attention only last week. If you dial this number now you do not get through to An Garda Síochána, but the police service of Ireland. I do not like that. There is nothing wrong with the people working in it. When we need to dial 999 I suppose it does not matter what language it is in, as long as they come go tapaidh. There is often a wait. We are losing it. I commend the proposer of this amendment. I look forward to it being accepted by an Aire. We are not going to give up all our cultural heritage because it is important that we are ag úsáid na Gaeilge.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I allowed the Deputy that indulgence earlier on.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ceann amháin eile.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is one indulgence a day.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Daingean Uí Chúis.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ba mhaith liom mo thacaíocht a thabhairt don leasú tábhachtach seo ó na Teachtaí Kerrane agus Martin Browne.

To respond to the previous comments made, Deputy Ó Snodaigh said nobody had any problem with An Garda Síochána or Córas Iompair Éireann over the years. I presume he meant just the title.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The title, of course.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Very good.

On the matter of indulgences - I am hoping not to turn you into a medieval pope, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, given the number you are giving out tonight - I wish to respond to my constituency colleague. I also declare that I am a farmer, as I did on the previous night. I am a beef finisher. I wish the Deputy every success as an organic farmer. I envy him because I would very much like to be an organic farmer, but whatever slim chance there might be of being paid above the cost of production for producing food, there is no chance of producing organic beef in the west above the cost of production at the moment, given the pricing mechanisms and the apparent monopoly reflected in the prices that are paid for organic beef when it is finished. It is entirely dependent on subsidies to sustain it. Unless and until the increased cost of production is rewarded in the price at the factory gates, I fear for its future.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This is the briefest amendment I have ever seen but it has elicited so much comment.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

An chéad uair.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There we are.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputies for the contributions here today as well. This is something we discussed on Committee Stage and I said I would look at it further. The point was made by Deputy Kerrane on Committee Stage that what is proposed - to call it "the regulator" as opposed to "the rialálaí" - may not comply with Government policy and with section 9D of the Official Languages Act, which relates to the name and logo of newly established bodies. I have checked and it does. Having said that, to change it in the way Deputy Kerrane proposes would indicate that it would be called "the rialálaí", as opposed to "an rialálaí", which does not make a lot of sense either.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We could tweak it.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We cannot just tweak it on the floor.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Tá ruaille buaille anois.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am happy to reflect on the matter further in advance of the Bill going to the Seanad, but I do not think it makes sense to go with "the rialálaí". As I have said, it does comply with Government policy and legislation. I am happy to consider the matter further and to come back on it when the Bill is in the Seanad.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I blame Deputy Ó Snodaigh for not having our Irish in order for that amendment.

Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mea culpa.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am joking. That is fine.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Táimid go léir ag foghlaim.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 11, between lines 17 and 18, to insert the following: “(2) The regulator shall collate the costs associated with the production of different agricultural and food products in order to determine a cost-of-production, and publish reports on such on an annual basis.”.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 11:

In page 11, line 19, after “to” to insert “the full breadth of.”

This amendment was discussed on Committee Stage and the Minister said that he would reflect on it. It involves a concern that has been raised by farmers and farming organisations. The definition in the Bill is too narrow as it only relates to business-to-business relationships and does not deal with the business-to-consumer relationship. Farming organisations have been clear in expressing their disappointment about it. It is really important that the retailer-to-customer relationship is reflected in this legislation. It is key for the long-term sustainability of the food chain. If the regulator is going to deliver transparency and fairness in the agrifood supply chain, it needs to have a view of the entire chain. As it currently stands, the consumer is missing in this Bill and this should not be the case. The Minister said he would reflect on this. Will he do so with regard to the amendment?

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have reflected on it. I am not in a position to support it because I believe a risk of ambiguity could arise from it such that it could be interpreted to mean that the scope of the regulator's work covers consumers. A raft of existing legislation deals with business-to-consumer matters and that is not the particular purpose of the Bill, which is to address the relationship between businesses. The key objective of the Bill is to strengthen, in particular, the role of the primary producer and small food suppliers in their engagement with the buyers they supply and I want to avoid any legal ambiguity regarding that.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will withdraw the amendment.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 12:

In page 11, between lines 21 and 22, to insert the following: “(b) publish an annual analysis and reports on costs associated with the production of different foodstuffs in order to determine a cost-of-production, and”.

Catherine Connolly (Galway West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

How stands the amendment?

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am pressing the amendment.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While Members take their designated seats, I wish to bring their attention to the fact that the wearing of political emblems in the House is prevented and precluded under Standing Orders. It should not happen.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will move to amendment No. 14. I have been repeatedly advised that amendment No. 13 is out of order and that is why we will not be taking it. Amendment No. 14 is very much in order and I call on Deputy Kerrane to move it.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 14:

In page 11, between lines 28 and 29, to insert the following: “(d) the regulator shall be authorised to seek from businesses within the agri-food supply chain any data impacting upon price and margins considered necessary, including—

(i) prices paid and received,

(ii) margin,

(iii) financial and accounting data,

(iv) throughput of agricultural produce,

(v) data in relation to policy and procedure,

(vi) employment status, and

(vii) salary,

and

(e) data referenced under paragraph (d) may be in paper or electronic form, held by a business involved in the agri-food supply chain, or otherwise on their behalf.”.

Again, this is an amendment that has arisen from Committee Stage debate. I understand the Minister has agreed to accept this amendment. We have reworded it as per the conversation that was had on Committee Stage. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that he is willing to accept that amendment.

Charlie McConalogue (Donegal, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, I propose a couple of consequential amendments on that, but I will be following through on the commitment I gave. I said to Deputy Carthy that if the amendment were to be resubmitted, as I indicated, starting from the word "seek", I would be happy to accept it.

The word that has been used is "authorised". The amendment currently states that "the regulator shall be authorised to seek". By saying "shall be authorised", you then need to define who authorises, how one authorises etc., but by simply getting rid of "shall be authorised" and starting with the word "seek", the Bill will immediately authorise, because the legislation will provide that authorisation. Whereas if you say "shall be authorised", you will then have to put an authorisation process somewhere in the Bill and detail how you will go about doing that. I said to Deputy Carthy on Committee Stage that if he resubmitted the amendment starting with the word "seek" then I would accept it.

I will go through and explain some of the other amendments that are consequential on that. I am accepting amendment No. 14, subject to my own amendments Nos. 1to 4, inclusive, to amendment No. 14. I want to ensure that the linked amendments No. 16 and 25 are also accepted. Amendment No. 16 is new and is needed for commercial sensitivity. Amendment No. 25 is also needed to provide for regulation-making power to compel.

To give an explanation, first in regard to amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 14, as I said, I advised on Committee Stage that I would accept an amendment similar to the amendment that is now being proposed by Deputy Kerrane. She has come forward with that. However, I have outlined the changes and I will take them from the start. Amendment No. 1 to amendment No. 14 proposes to delete the words "the regulator shall be authorised to". I have explained that.

Amendments Nos. 2to 4, inclusive, to amendment No. 14 are three relatively minor technical drafting amendments that I am proposing to the amendment that has been tabled by Deputies Kerrane and Martin Browne. These are necessary for the correct reading of the Bill and are based on advice from the Bills Office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. They are linked to the need to fit in with the opening subsection (3) text. Therefore, my amendment No. 2 to amendment No. 14 substitutes the Deputy's term "agri-food" with the words "agricultural and food" so that the amendment reads as follows: "In paragraph (d), to delete “agri-food” and substitute “agricultural and food”".

My amendment No. 3 to amendment No. 14 in paragraph (d) is to remove the "and" after subsection (vii). It includes a full stop instead of a comma. The amendment therefore reads, "In paragraph (d), to delete “(vii) salary, and” and substitute “(vii) salary.” My amendment No. 4to amendment No. 14 replaces the letter "e" in amendment No. 14 and presents the text of the subparagraph (e) as a new subparagraph (4), with no change to the text. The amendment therefore reads as is laid out.

I am also proposing a linked consequential amendment No. 16. This is still in section 12. It arises from amendment No. 14. My amendment No. 16 is very similar to an amendment that was tabled by Deputies Carthy and Martin Browne on Committee Stage. I mentioned on Committee Stage that I considered that it needed careful legal scrutiny and that I needed to reflect further on the proposed amendment in the context of other confidentiality provisions in the Bill. I have now examined the Bill as it stands following Committee Stage and I am proposing amendment No. 16 because I consider it necessary in order to ensure there is no legal ambiguity between the amendments proposed by section 12(3)(d) if they are accepted.

An existing section 51 of the Bill deals with the disclosure of information. I am therefore proposing the following amendment to section 12, creating a new subsection (7). That amendment states:

"In page 11, after line 33, to insert the following: "(7) Where the regulator believes that data relating to a business obtained under paragraph (d)* of subsection (3)is or is likely to be of a commercially sensitive nature and is not in the public domain, the regulator shall not publish the data without the consent of the business (notwithstanding section 51).”

Finally, I am proposing a further linked amendment No. 25 on section 82(g). Section 82(g) provides that the Minister with regulation powers for "the collection of price and market information to address issues of lack of transparency and information asymmetry in the food supply chain". The amendment reads:

"In page 53, line 21, after “chain” to insert the following: “(which may, in particular, include provision allowing the regulator to compel the provision of information referred to insection 12(3)(d)*)”."

This amendment is solely about ensuring that the regulator has the powers to access data it requires. It is a consequential amendment arising from the Opposition amendment to section 14(d) and also to section 17(4) as there was a risk of ambiguity arising from the Bill from those amendments. It was therefore necessary to clarify the powers of the Minister to make regulations on the collection of price and market information. I think this should all be in order.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Lest the Members have not been confused by all of that, the clerk advises me that I should have put all of this in context, which of course I should have done. I should have told Members that amendment No. 14 arises from Committee proceedings. Amendment Nos. 14, amendment No. 1to amendment No. 14 to amendment No. 4to amendment No. 14, inclusive, 15, 16, 19 and 25 are related. Amendment No. 15 is a logical alternative amendment No. 14. Amendments Nos. 16, 19 and 25 are consequential on amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 14, amendment No. 1to amendment No. 14 to amendment No. 4to amendment No. 14, inclusive, 15, 16, 19 and 25 will be discussed together.

Chris Andrews (Dublin Bay South, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could the Ceann Comhairle explain that?

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No. It is unintelligible, I am afraid. Anyway, I did not write it, thanks be to God.

Holly Cairns (Cork South West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Similar to my previous amendment, amendment No. 15 is about transparency in our food systems. The price the consumer pays in the shop is the result of a chain beginning with the primary producer. We need more structures to guarantee a fair and clear connection between what the consumer pays and what the producer receives. The shorter the supply chain, the easier it will be for the producer to benefit. Farmers' markets are the obvious example where the consumer directly engages with the producer. The more steps added to this process, the less clear it is who is profiting and by how much.

The type of information specified in amendment No. 15 is needed to understand how our food systems operate. I call for the new office to be able to access any data that impact on the price and margins in the supply chain such as prices paid and received throughout agricultural produce and margins. This will help show the pressures farmers, fishers and small-scale producers are under, while helping us appreciate the logistical, transport and other costs involved in bringing food to our tables. With food prices rightly in the headlines this week and being discussed numerous times in this House, the need for greater transparency is more and more relevant. Producers, family grocers and consumers are suffering under the current system.

This approach will also highlight the inequalities in our food system. If we are honest, some primary producers are doing very well and should be classified as large businesses, while small retailers are being squeezed by high operational costs. We need a regulatory system that can investigate this complex area and provide the public and the Government with the information necessary to understand the supply chain.

I cannot see an argument against ensuring the new office has access to as much information as possible. I disagree with the Government's light-touch regulation model. I have argued for this to be a proper regulator, that is, a fully independent office with capacity to develop and implement regulations without restriction, as well as commensurate powers to investigate potential violations and implement the law. The Government has chosen to go down a lesser path, so all I can ask is that the office be enabled to access as much information as possible to inform its understanding and analysis of the sector.

Amendment No. 14, tabled by Deputies Kerrane and Browne, sets out to achieve the same objectives as my amendment No. 15. In addition, the Minister, who, in fairness, has engaged with the concerns of the sector, has proposed his own amendments to amendment No. 14. For the most part, I am happy he has understood the issues raised on the earlier Stage and made those changes. Accordingly, while his amendments are not as robust and far reaching as I would like, I will not move my amendment.

Claire Kerrane (Roscommon-Galway, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The Minister did not refer to amendment No. 19, which is in this grouping, but he had indicated on Committee Stage that he would be willing to consider it if amendment No. 14 passed. It will ensure the regulator will report to the Minister within 12 months of its establishment, report on its ability to acquire data and make any appropriate recommendation to ensure the regulator will be empowered to access or seize any such data it requires to meet its obligations. Will the Minister update us on the proposal? He indicated he would consider it once amendment No. 14 had been reworded.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I commend the Minister on indicating he will accept the amendment. It is of considerable importance that the Bill, as previously drafted, has been beefed up somewhat, if he will pardon the pun. The Bill states the regulator shall "collect, analyse and regularly publish reports" and the amendment adds to section 12(3), under the line "In pursuance of its duties under this section the regulator may, in particular," the function that "the regulator shall be authorised to seek from businesses within the agri-food supply chain any data impacting upon price and margins considered necessary". The Minister has made minor amendments to those provisions, while retaining their essence, given they will still include the word "margins".

I do not know how we will verify this margin or how it will work in practice. Not to be sexist about it but these major retailers and beef processors are robust characters that will be well armed, and they readily resorted to the courts when there were pickets outside their factories a couple of years ago. They will equally resort to the courts just as readily against the regulator if it asks them for information they do not want to provide and if they think there is a way out of them having to provide it. It is quite clear they will not want to provide that information, although providing just the margins will be somewhat less unpalatable to them than would be providing the actual prices, given the word "margin" is not defined in law and I do not think the Minister proposes to bring in a definition. It is a loose term that would benefit from elaboration in the Seanad.

Likewise, what will happen if these retailers or processors say, "Thanks a million for the request but you can go whistle for it"? The Minister deals with that issue in amendment No. 25 to section 80, on enforcement and supplementary regulations. Section 80 states:

The Minister may by regulations make such provision as is necessary or expedient for the purposes of this Act.

... Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1)... the collection of price and market information to address issues of lack of transparency and information asymmetry in the food supply chain ...

To that section, amendment No. 25 will add the line “(which may, in particular, include provision allowing the regulator to compel the provision of information referred to in section 12(3)(d)”.

Section 80 goes on to refer, in subsection (5), to a "person who contravenes or fails to comply with a provision of regulations made under this section that is specified in the regulations to be a penal provision" and states that such a person "commits an offence and is liable, on summary conviction to a class A fine". Again, I suspect the Minister has not specified in the Bill whether the definition of "person" includes legal persons as well as natural persons, although I suggest he do so. The regulator is not going to be writing to any specific person but to a company, and there is the issue with criminal offences committed by companies and how to prosecute them.

Often, the penalty is relatively meaningless. In this instance, it will not be a person who will be asked for the information but the likes of Tesco, SuperValu, Lidl Ireland, ABP or Dawn Meats. If all that can be done is the issuing of a class A fine, that will be utterly irrelevant to the turnover of any of the companies I mentioned or any of the major operators in the retail chain, and that is if it can even be done. Before there is any possibility of a class A fine, however, regulations will have to be made setting out the information to be required and "margin" will have to be defined. Can that be done in regulation if it was not done in the primary legislation? Perhaps. The company will then have to refuse to comply and there will have to be specific compellability around the regulations.

Seán Ó Fearghaíl (Kildare South, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I apologise for interrupting but the time for the debate has elapsed. I ask the Deputy to adjourn his contribution.