Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 8, line 9, to delete "2001" and substitute "2003".

This is a technical amendment. The year 2001 concludes the collective citation and this should be updated to 2003.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This worthwhile amendment to the collective citation of the Companies Acts is, in principle, acceptable following the enactment of the Companies (Auditing and Accounting) Bill 2003. I propose to make this amendment, along with a number of others, on Committee Stage in the Dáil. I give an undertaking that I accept the amendment and will make it on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The Bill will go to the Dáil and will be returned to the Seanad. I will make the amendment in the Dáil for technical reasons.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister accepted the amendment and then he did not accept it. I raise this from the point of view of the Seanad itself. I always get a little upset when a Minister says he accepts an amendment but will make it in the Dáil. The reason we have Second Stage, Committee Stage and Report State is to do exactly that. I am expressing disappointment on behalf of my colleagues who detected this flaw and drew it to the Minister's attention. He graciously accepted the amendment but said he would make it in the Dáil instead. I am disappointed this has not been done in the Seanad.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with Senator Quinn. There is a good reason for the format used to process legislation in the House. It is salient to raise the issue in terms of the purpose of Committee Stage. However, I accept the Minister's comments and, on the basis that he is committed to making the amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil, I will withdraw it.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 4 is related to amendment No. 2 and both may be taken together by agreement.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 9, paragraph (a), line 3, to delete "2" and substitute "one".

I tabled this amendment because I am concerned that horticulturalists may not be represented on the board. For example, somebody with experience of the food industry or a giant in the food industry could represent them on the board. If amendment No. 2 is accepted, section (14)(a) will state not less than one of the persons appointed to be an ordinary member shall be a person who is a practising horticulturalist.

It is essential this happens because we have seen the difficulties that have arisen with Teagasc. The unwritten policy within Europe seems to be to do away with all the smaller producers, if possible, because it is easier to handle the major producers. It is vital that a person who is a practising horticulturist is appointed to the board.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not sure that I understand Senator Coonan's point. I understood that he wanted to increase the number of board members who are practising horticulturists.

My point is that there is a grammatical error in the new paragraph 3A. I think I am correct in saying that the word "less" refers to bulk and the word "fewer" should refer to numbers. Therefore, it is grammatically incorrect to say "not less than 2 of the persons". It should say "not fewer than 2 of the persons".

I do not understand the gist of Senator Coonan's point. I am happy that not fewer than two of the persons appointed to be ordinary members of the board shall be persons who have knowledge or experience of horticulture, rather than one. I accept that this amendment will not be accepted until Report Stage, but I suggest that the term should be "fewer" rather than "less".

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I apologise for the fact that I could not contribute on Second Stage. I had serious concerns that horticulture might not be adequately represented and I was disappointed at the loss of An Bord Glas to Bord Bia. However, I can understand why it should happen.

Amendment No. 4 appears to contradict amendment No. 2. If adopted, the section would have to state that the provision is subject to 3A. In other words, one of the two board members would have to be a practising horticulturist. I believe that section 18(a), which speaks of people having a knowledge or experience of horticulture, covers Senator Coonan's point. It does not matter whether a person is a practitioner within the industry, although that would be desirable, or an academic from one of the universities, provided the sector is adequately represented.

Horticulture is an important sector. I note from the report on the amenity profile which was prepared by An Bord Glas that the farm gate value of the food and amenity sectors is €406 million. The amenity sector is very important in my county and that was the origin of my reservation regarding the absorption of An Bord Glas into Bord Bia. Since it is not dealing with food, it is a slightly different area, albeit within horticulture. However, the provisions of the Bill meet my reservations about the absorption of An Bord Glas and I do not see the need for the amendment, given that the Bill specifies that two board members must have knowledge or experience of horticulture. In any event, section 19 makes provision for a subsidiary board which will deal with horticulture. People will be adequately represented on that board.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Bill states that the member shall have knowledge or experience of the food industry or horticulture. If that provision was put into practice, it would mean that the member might merely be in the food industry. It is possible, under the terms of the Bill, that no one from the horticulture sector would be on the board. I am seeking to ensure that a person from the horticulture sector will be a member of the board and that the sector's voice will be heard. It is vitally important for the industry. This is a niche industry involved in a very specific area of production. It is vital that the Bill provides for representation from that group.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It does.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am insisting that the sector is adequately represented. Under the terms of the Bill it is possible that it will not be adequately represented. A member from the food industry could be someone from a major processing plant which has nothing to do with horticulture.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is my understanding of section 18 that it provides precisely what Senator Coonan is seeking. I understand the general point he is making, but not in the context of this section. The subsection to be inserted will read:

(3A) Not less than 2 of the persons appointed to be ordinary members shall be persons having knowledge or experience of horticulture.

Senator Coonan's proposal in amendment No. 4 is enshrined in the Bill, as it stands.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I say this in order to be constructive.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The difference between the amendment and what is contained in the section relates to the word "practising". Senator Coonan's amendment refers to a "practising horticulturist", whereas the section refers to "persons having knowledge or experience of horticulture". I am quite happy with the Bill as it stands and I do not believe there is a need for the amendment. I understand the Senator wishing to insert the term "practising" but I would be satisfied with the use of the term "persons having knowledge or experience of horticulture". However, I still believe that the term "fewer" is more apt than that of "less".

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is considered that the use of the "not less than 2" formula is reasonable, proportionate and gives a good weighting to horticulture. On foot of this formula, it will be open to the Minister of the day to appoint three or four people with knowledge or experience of horticulture to the main board. However, there will be not less than two with such knowledge or experience.

It would be extremely restrictive to use the word "practising" because we are discussing a promotion and marketing board. There could be someone with a good deal of experience of marketing and promoting the national and international profile of the industry who would be suitable to serve on the board. The position is similar to that which exists in respect of the establishment of panels of persons for election to the Seanad. In that context, knowledge or experience in a particular area plays a major part. Knowledge and experience widens the scope of different disciplines within a particular industry. In this instance, knowledge and experience are what we are seeking. We want to ensure the remit covers people with wide experience and not just those who are practitioners. However, the latter will also be included. For example, there is an amenity horticulturist in Kildare who is already a member of An Bord Glas. Practitioners make a tremendous contribution to the board. We are serious about the industry, food, horticulture and the capabilities of the people who will be appointed. I, therefore, cannot accept the amendment as proposed.

Senator Quinn raised an interesting issue about the use of the term "not less". If the term was input into a computer, a red line would probably appear underneath it because that is what happens when there is a misspelling or when a word is used incorrectly. Language has moved on and I am sometimes surprised by the language we hear on national radio and television. This language is sometimes referred to as being "mid-Atlantic" in nature. I was not taught that kind of English when I attended primary school in west Cork. In any event, the point about the term "not less" is moot. We brought this matter to the attention of the Parliamentary Counsel who insisted that the term is legally sound. However, I will consider the matter further before Report Stage and, by the time I return, I may have a more elaborate clarification for Senator Quinn.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am an expert on this matter because my company used to have signs on its many dozens of express checkouts which said "Not less than ten items". I received many letters from experts in grammar about these signs and, as a result, I went to considerable pains and cost to change them and substitute the word "fewer". I understand that the term "less" refers to bulk, while that of "fewer" refers to numbers. Having gone to all that trouble, I just want to ensure that everyone else does so also. I had a similar experience in respect of changing wordings at Heathrow Airport. I cost the authorities there many hundreds of thousands of pounds to change the spelling of the word "trolleys" on its signs. The company had put up signs about trolleys not being left unattended with the word spelled as "trollies". I did something similar at Dublin Airport when the first sign was put up. The Bill should be correct not only from a legal point of view but also from a grammatical point of view.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No wonder the new book on grammar is a bestseller.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a grammatical point, I am not sure that the phrase "not fewer" is correct. Perhaps it should be "no fewer". That point could be considered as well.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 5 and 9 are related to amendment No. 3. Is it agreed that amendments Nos. 3, 5 and 9 be discussed together? Agreed.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 9, paragraph (a), line 4, to delete "or" and substitute "and".

This is a similar argument. I am seeking to delete the word "or" and substitute "and". I have spoken to people involved in the horticulture industry and there is concern that they will be ignored in the composition of this new board, particularly the producers who are doing an excellent job. I am concerned that this Bill is not catering for them. There is a danger that the appointee could be just somebody from the food industry. We anticipate that there will be a representative of the food industry on the board but we need a cast iron assurance from the Minister that there will also be somebody from the horticulture producing sector. Inserting the word "and" instead of "or" is the only way to ensure that.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This amendment is similar to the previous one. I am strongly of the view that "knowledge or experience" is better terminology. The criteria for appointment of five ordinary members to the board is based on "knowledge or experience" and the other five ordinary members will be appointed following consultation with the industry. The existing board of An Bord Glas is broadly representative of the horticulture industry, edible and amenity, and I hope to see that continuing on the sub-board, with two members on the main board with knowledge or experience of horticulture. The amendment is unacceptable.

Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The voting interval during which Members may cast their vote will be one minute. The time remaining will be shown on the display board. I ask Members to remain in their seats until the result has been announced.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 4:

In page 9, paragraph (a), line 5, to delete "horticulture.'," and substitute the following:

"horticulture.

(3B) Not less than one of the persons appointed to be an ordinary member shall be a person who is a practising horticulturalist.',".

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 9, paragraph (d), line 14, to delete "or" and substitute "and".

Question, "That the words proposed to be deleted stand", put and declared carried.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments No. 6, 7 and 10 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, paragraph (d), line 16, to delete "the food industry or".

The argument here is that while the food industry is provided for in Bord Bia, which we welcome, the concern is that the horticulture industry is not adequately provided for in the Bill. The reason for tabling the amendment is to ensure that at least two members are specifically from the horticultural sector. From speaking to members of the horticulture industry, I have serious concerns. They are concerned they will not be adequately represented on the new board. It is a niche industry providing a particular type of production in horticulture which has made enormous strides in recent years and is worth considerable money to the economy. We must ensure the industry is adequately protected. I am concerned that this is not happening. We have to be serious about what is happening. Following various items of legislation enacted in the farming area, thousands of farmers are being driven off the land. I have no doubt that unless a particular effort is made to protect the horticultural sector, the same will happen and it will be expedited under this Bill.

The unwritten policy in Europe is to get rid of as many producers as possible, particularly the smaller variety, and to concentrate them into larger producers who will be easier to look after. It is of the utmost importance that we have a voice that will speak out strongly and clearly for the horticultural sector on the new board proposed by the Minister. I am concerned that this is not adequately provided for under the Bill.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot understand the reason for this amendment. Under the terms of section 18 (a)(3A), provision has been made for two persons. I note that the original amendment sought to reduce the number from two to one. I cannot understand that; one could not exclude the food industry. The horticulture industry is safeguarded under the terms of the Bill. The food industry is synonymous with horticulture and agriculture. They are the type of people we need. If one looks at the composition of the board of Bord Bia, some of the best people involved in the food industry are on the board and make a huge contribution. If we are serious about exporting our food, they are the type of people we need to have on the board.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to reinforce what Senator Dardis said. We are talking about the principal Act, which is the An Bord Bia Act 1994. To seek to delete the food industry, which is the core of Bord Bia, is totally absurd. I take the point that the interests of horticulture are adequately protected in this legislation.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the principal Act, knowledge and experience of the food industry is a criterion. Section 14(5) states:

The chairman and the persons appointed to be ordinary members shall be persons having knowledge or experience of the food industry and of consumer requirements.

What we are doing here is adding horticulture to the new board so that there would be a board representative of the food industry with no fewer than two members being representatives of the horticulture industry. That is to give the full broad canvas to food and horticulture. To seek to delete the food industry is incomprehensible and I cannot understand the reason the amendment has been tabled. We want parity of esteem between members representative of the food and horticulture industries. For that reason the proposed amendment is not acceptable.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

On a point of clarification, I am not speaking about the principal Act. My amendment is specific and deals with membership of a horticulture subsidiary board and term of office of its members.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Section 14 of the principal Act.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The heading on the section of the Bill in front of me states: Membership of horticulture subsidiary board and term of office of members. That is the section we are dealing with and I want horticulture adequately represented on the subsidiary board.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The first words of section 18 state: "Section 14 of the Principal Act is amended- ".

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I call Senator White.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not want to interrupt this discussion; I will come back again.

Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Senator wish to speak on a different section?

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Allow the other Senators to conclude the matter under discussion.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 8:

In page 9, line 21, after "members" to insert ", not less than six of whom shall be women".

This amendment is about equality on the board. The section as presented is rather vague. I would prefer a more definite commitment from the Minister that there would be greater equality on the board.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support this amendment. What is being sought here is worthwhile. This issue was raised on the Order of Business this morning. It is worth remembering that comments were made by two senior parliamentarians last week about female members of the Oireachtas attending conferences abroad. To be frank, that kind of attitude by parliamentarians, of any political description and none, is unhelpful and does not do anything to advance the cause of equality, bearing in mind that equality is for men and women.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I also would be keen on the subject of equality, but this amendment goes beyond the guidelines of successive Governments which have suggested that 40% of board members be of either gender. That is a good rule that provides flexibility. Unfortunately, it has not been uniformly observed by any manner of means, but 50:50 goes beyond established policy under successive Governments. That goes too far but the Minister and his colleagues should pay attention to the 40% guideline in place for appointments to all semi-State boards. Many people of both genders are involved in the horticulture industry in particular.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I support my colleague on this matter. Senator Mansergh is correct that there has been for some time broad acceptance of the 40% principle with regard to all State agencies and boards and appointments made by Government. The difficulty is that the principle is not being observed. A range of problems has emerged regarding why we are not getting a larger number of women on the various boards which have responsibility through legislation to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

One of the dilemmas we will shortly have to address is in regard to the idea behind Senator Coonan's amendment. We will have to raise the bar higher, primarily because the level of success to date has been quite muted. The suggestion put forward by Senator Coonan is a novel one, particularly given the agricultural and horticultural nature of the proposals put forward by the Minister and the number of women within the industry who have gone totally unrecognised for a generation.

There is considerable merit in this amendment. While the Minister would be breaking the accepted guidelines of all Departments, he would be breaking new ground and many progressive forces would welcome such a move. The Minister is capable of accepting good ideas. If he was to make his mark in this area, he would be supported.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I had the honour of being appointed by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Walsh, to the board of Bord Bia. I wish to make it clear that in my position as a Senator, I will continue to raise the issue of the equality of women and the democratic deficit for women in the Oireachtas. Female representation in the Houses is at just 17% whereas women now comprise 50% of the workforce.

The Minister has been very generous on this issue. He is very supportive of women in his organisation and believes in women. I ask him to encourage his colleagues to raise the ante on the participation of women on boards. There does not seem to be any sense of how undemocratic this is, although I was honoured to be nominated to the board by the Minister and I loved the position.

Regarding the comments of other Senators, many of the key buyers in food industry multiples are women; Senator Quinn would endorse that point. It is good to have women in such positions. The food industry is concerned with issues such as product identification and knowing what the consumer wants and it is the buyers who know most on these issues. Senator Quinn knows that if one was to get well in with buyers, they could tell one what consumers want. Women are clever people. I ask the Minister to impress on his Cabinet colleagues the need for more women on boards when appointments are made.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

While endorsing what Senator White said, I do not follow the logic of Senator Hayes's contribution which is that because Government has so far failed to clear the bar, it is right to raise the bar higher. That does not make sense. What makes sense is that there is proper and conscientious implementation of the existing guideline. That provides for the proper degree of flexibility.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I listened carefully to Senator Brian Hayes. I thought it perfect for a debate on horticulture that he encouraged the Minister to break new ground.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is about to dig in.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Senator White referred to the experience of women in the grocery business, many of whom are buyers, including many of the senior buyers in my company. However, they are not there because they are women but because they are the best people for the job. They have earned their positions. No company I know of, including my own, has appointed women because they felt they had to but because they were the best people for the job. I am reluctant to tie a Minister's hands and to say that if suitably qualified candidates for a job were both male and female, the female must be appointed. The same applies in the other direction in that if the best person for the job was female, I would not like to find that we had restricted this area and that a female could not be appointed because somebody else was unable to get that job. The fewer restrictions in this area, the better.

I am impressed by what Senator Hayes said. However, if we are not reaching the level of40%, I do not understand how raising it to 50% would achieve anything, as Senator Mansergh pointed out. We should do our best to reach 40% before lifting the bar to another height.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to reply to the points made by Senator Mansergh. By lifting the bar to the level set out in the amendment, this issue will be put into legislation and it will be determined that a number of women be appointed to the new board. The lead must come from the legislation. The general approach has not worked to date, as the Minister knows, and we will have to look at more aggressive ways of ensuring proper representation for women on these boards. The way to do that is through legislation, not outside it.

Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The logic of that position would be to put 40% in the legislation, not 50%.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We are trying to do it in legislation.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I point out that the Minister is leading by example in that there is no male civil servant among the officials accompanying him in the House. That speaks volumes.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Hear, hear.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I urge the Minister not to dig a hole for himself on this issue.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is some great alliteration in this debate. If one was to visit my office in Agriculture House, one would find that the staff is entirely composed of women.

We are trying to have adequate, reasonable and appropriate gender balance which is what the Bill attempts. Subsection (9) states that we should have regard to the desirability of achieving appropriate gender balance. We want to appoint the best people for the job, as Senator Quinn mentioned. As Minister for Agriculture and Food, I meet regularly with representatives of the co-ops and co-op plcs. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a single woman at their top echelons, whether on committees, boards or the executive, although one of the main agri-food companies, IAWS, is an exception to that rule and has an exceptionally talented woman member of the board, with connections to this House.

The Minister of the day has a certain number of appointments to the new board. There are nominating bodies for various social partners and farming and food organisations. It is my experience that the gender balance issue is left to the Minister of the day. Not many examples can be given where nominating bodies nominate women and this applies to the trade unions also, which is to be regretted. I have always written to the nominating bodies asking them for a nominee and pointing out that I would like to have the gender balance observed and would welcome the appointment of women because, as Senator White pointed out, 51% or so of the workforce is made up of women. In many cases, they are very talented people and I would like to give expression to that on State boards. I have tried to do that as far as possible. There is a limit, however, in most of the agriculture and food boards where a substantial number of places are made up by nominating bodies. The Minister is then limited in what he or she can do.

The amendment is very discriminatory against men. I would have thought that in the interest of proper gender balance there would be at least six men included. If there are six women on the board——

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They are only another species.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

——endangerment of the species would be carried a bit far and one could neglect the men folk. For these reasons, and given that gender balance is already dealt with in subsection (9), I cannot accept the amendment.

Peter Callanan (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials for coming to the House and dealing with the Bill expeditiously and genuinely understanding the comments of members of the Opposition.

Noel Coonan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for debating the amendments with us. It is the first Bill in which I have been involved and I found the experience something to which I will look forward again. I thank Members and the Minister for their contributions. At least debate on the issue was encouraged. I take this opportunity to wish the new board every success because it is vital to the future of the country and the industry.

Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to add my words of appreciation to the Minister and his officials. The Second Stage debate was very useful because it reminded us a great deal of the issues we wish to cover. We have not been very successful as a food island despite huge opportunities. What Bord Bia has done and is continuing to do deserves a huge amount of support which the Minister and his officials are providing. The amalgamation of Bord Bia and An Bord Glas will achieve what we are setting out to do. We need huge commitment which has the Minister's support, enthusiasm and commitment. This is a good Bill on which I congratulate the Minister.

The amendments were tabled in good faith even though they were not accepted. It was agreed to take Senator McCarthy's amendment and to look grammatically at another amendment which was not accepted on that basis.

Michael McCarthy (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance and overseeing the safe passage of the Bill through the House. The first Bill on which I spoke was introduced last year by the Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, which dealt with Bord Fáilte. There was a huge issue of gender balance associated with the Bill. If memory serves me correctly, Senator Quinn was also involved with that Bill. This opens up other channels of debate and proves that we do not restrict ourselves to one item. It is good that we can broaden the horizon in terms of the debate.

The amendment this morning is the fourth one I have been successful in having accepted in approximately 18 months. There was one amendment in Stormont in the early 1970s so I have already broken that record. I thank the Minister and his officials and wish them well.

John Dardis (Progressive Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister and his officials and wish the new board and everyone associated with Bord Bia well. They have a very important task. This is a flagship for the country. The welfare of many producers depends on our success as an exporting food nation. This is a matter of crucial importance and I know that under the Bill the horticultural industry will be adequately protected. I hope the amenity part of it will also be protected.

I recommend that these bodies, including the farming organisations, which have a right to submit names to the Minister for consideration, will give due regard to gender balance.

Mary White (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to put on record that it was the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy Joe Walsh, who had the vision initially to set up Bord Bia. As a participant in the small food industry in Ireland, this cohesion and concept for a consolidated and indigenous food industry was an excellent idea. The Minister had the initiative and vision to see this was necessary. I congratulate him on rationalising the industry and amalgamating Bord Bia with An Bord Glas. It was a fractious industry in the past but the Minister had the vision to get this concept off the ground.

I do not understand why Senator Quinn was a little bit sceptical. Bord Bia has promoted Ireland as a food island in Europe. It is an indigenous and successful industry which currently employs 10% of the population. The food industry is the only successful indigenous industry.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Senators for a constructive debate. I was able to give an undertaking to Senator McCarthy and Senator Quinn on grammatical matters.

The Irish food industry is exceptionally important and has developed positively over the past decade. The image of Ireland as a serious food producer is enhanced since the original Bord Bia was established. I am pleased at the way Bord Bia has established Ireland as a food island. When I travel around Europe and mention Ireland, Ireland the food island is immediately referred to, which is very positive. We export approximately €7 billion worth of food and beverage products each year. These make up almost 25% of our foreign export earnings because of the low import content. The regional importance of the food and horticultural industry impacts on all corners of the country.

I was happy to initiate the Bill in the Seanad. The Seanad is an appropriate place to initiate Bills and I try to do this as often as I can. It allows for constructive debate, including public debate outside the House. The Bill is then in a much better position and those promoting it have a broader outlook on it when it goes to the Dáil.

Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to raise a matter with the Minister on the selling of Irish foodstuffs abroad and throughout Europe. This matter was brought to my attention last week by an Irish person living abroad and he asked me to raise it with the Minister. I did not realise I would have an opportunity to do this so soon. Unfortunately, we have a number of agents and non-food producers throughout Europe who are claiming to sell Irish products, such as butter and cheese, although they are sourced in Germany and other countries. I know the Minister spoke about this in the past. It is a real problem in that people go into supermarkets in countries such as Spain and Italy and purchase butter "Irlandais", although it is not Irish butter at all. This is not doing anything for our industry abroad.

I thank the Minister for taking the time to listen to my point and I ask him to do whatever he can to ensure that something is done about those who bought patents years ago that allow them to sell German butter or milk in other countries and claim they are sourced in Ireland. Something must be done to protect the name of Ireland as a trademark. The individual who raised this issue is furious about the way in which people throughout Europe are using our name and falsely claiming to have products from this country.

Joe Walsh (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will be glad to take that up.