Specific Details
Food Supply Chain Bill 2022 - Pre Legislative Scrutiny of the Agricultural & Food Supply Chain Bill
Intended results
IFA seeks the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to state that the focus of attention of this Office will be on the actors at the top of the Food Chain; the main retailers of food in Ireland today. These are the actors that hold the buying power and have distorted the market against the primary producer. • Make available analysis of information on price and market data in the agricultural and food supply chain in Ireland
IFA requests that the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine clearly enshrines the reporting requirements on a regular basis. IFA suggests monthly reports publicised with at least quarterly information seminars (online & in-person) to assist in dissemination the data to stakeholders down the food chain.
This analysis should also include data on percentage share of the food value chain that is returning to the primary producer. • Encourage, enforce and investigate compliance with the rules on unfair trading practices provided for by or under this Bill.
The focus should be clearly stated that the new Office will tackle the stakeholders with the greatest power i. e. the main retailers, in the supply chain, not the smaller buyers, as a priority. • Bring summary proceedings for offences under this Bill;
IFA seeks full powers of entry and investigation as outlined under this Bill to be used by all agents of the new office in bringing investigations and proceedings before the Courts. 9 The Bill gives very substantial powers to agents working for the new office. The Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine must get assurance from the Minister for Justice and the Garda Commissioner, that every support from An Garda Siochana will be given, when required to assist in investigations.
Board and Membership - The Bill outlines that the Board will consist of a Chairperson and five ordinary members, two of whom shall be primary producers. IFA seeks the expansion of this board to at least 5 primary producer members to allow greater representation. The elected President of the IFA should be allocated the first primary producers' board seat. The primary producers' members should not have conflicted interests in other sectors of the food chain such as food processing or retailing
Committees - IFA welcomes the inclusion of the provision to establish necessary committees. IFA suggest that vulnerable sectors that are in severe decline due to their reliance on the domestic retail sector, must have representative committees established as a priority. Primary producers, independent advisory experts, Teagasc, Bord Bia and IFA staff should be considered in nominating membership of such committees.
Other agri-sectors which have a larger dependency on exports market should also have committee representation. However, the priority is the fresh produce sectors that are being squeezed out of existence by big retailers.
Office Engagement of Expert Consultants and Advisors - IFA encourages the practice of seeking the most suitable qualified expertise when and where needed. When setting baseline costs of production, IFA encourages the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to recommend that the Office engage with both Teagasc and UCD School of Agriculture and Food Science. Additional recognised expertise should be engaged when and where needed
Complaints to Office - IFA is the only farmer representative body representing all agri-sectors, and the only representative body for the most vulnerable sectors which are dealing directly and the most reliant on retailers. This includes fruit and vegetable growers, liquid milk producers and pig and poultry farmers. The fear factor of making a formal complaint to the new office is a real barrier to suppliers making formal complaints Anonymity is fundamental to the success of this legislation.
IFA propose that Bill Head 38 Complaints, 3(b) is reworded to the following ‘Other organisations that have a legitimate interest in representing suppliers shall have the right to submit complaints, provided that such organisations are independent non-profit-making legal persons.
This is required to encourage those that believe they are being negatively affected by more dominant buyers in the food chain and subject to UTPs'.
(Removing “at the request of a supplier, and in the interest of that supplier”) (9) Where the Office considers that there are insufficient grounds for acting on a complaint, it shall inform the complainant in writing of the reasons within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of the complaint. (Inclusion of in writing)
Prohibition on Unfair Trading Practices – Regulation Additions to Head 39 - 39. (1) A person shall not engage in an unfair trading practice prohibited by or under this Bill. (2) Where the Minister considers it to be appropriate having regard to
IFA Additions (i) to the viability of the primary producer (m) there is a risk of the continued supply of Irish produced food The Minister may, having consulted with the Commission of the European Union, by Regulations prohibit certain trading practices in business-to-business relationships in the agricultural and food supply chain (referred to as an “unfair trading practice”) where such practice
(iv) undermines the viability of the primary producer (v) puts the supply of seasonality available Irish food at risk.
Engagement with Suppliers IFA call on the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to include in the regulations a stipulation that dominant retail buyers must engage with their suppliers when in receipt of written/email requests. Where requests to review terms of supply contacts, the supplier must be afforded the opportunity to outline supply issues to the more dominant retail buyer in the food chain.
IFA is aware of numerous incidents in 2022 where suppliers of agri-food have failed to get any engagement with their retail buyer regarding both ongoing supply contacts and contracts that were nearing renewal date. This must be clearly defined as a UTP and subject to severe repercussions when found to be used as a delaying tactic by dominant retail buyers.
Head 44 Agri-food Regulations 44. (1) The Minister may make regulations relating to, or for the purpose of— IFA additional wording (j) the collection of price at all stages in the food supply chain and market information to address issues of lack of transparency and information asymmetry in the food supply chain.
Head 52 Fines and Penalties 52. (1) A person who commits an offence under section 29(3) is liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine. (2) A person who commits an offence under sections 48(11) or 49(1) (a) is liable, on summary conviction, to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both, or (b) is liable, on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding €500,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years, or to both.
IFA propose a much higher limit of €4million or 4% of annual turnover, whichever is higher. This would coincide with similar penalty criteria as set out by the GDPR legislation. IFA consider the upper limit of €500,000 on summary conviction too low in the context of the annual turnover of the largest most, dominant stakeholders in the food chain.
Head 55 Fixed payment notice (2) An officer who receives a report under subsection (1), if he or she considers it appropriate, may serve on the person a notice in writing (“fixed payment notice”) stating that— (b) the person may during the period of 28 days beginning on the date of the notice made to the Minister, at the address specified in the notice, a payment of €250 (or such other amount, being an amount not exceeding €1,000,
as stands specified by order made, from time to time, by the Minister and different amounts may be specified in respect of different offences) accompanied by the notice. IFA consider the Fixed payment of up to €1000 as too low in the context of the offence and damage to the supply of food. For payment of a fixed charge notice, an upper limit of €100,000 and a lower amount of €2,500 should be imposed in the Bill.
Head 56 Fees 56. (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purpose of meeting expenses properly incurred by the Office in the due performance of its functions under this Bill, the Minister, with the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, may make regulations imposing fees to be paid by a person making a complaint under this Bill.
IFA considers it unnecessary and a deterrent to the success of this bill to have a legislative ability to impose fees to be paid by a person making a complaint under this Bill. This provision should be removed.
Alternative Dispute Resolution IFA seeks the office to intervene as a first step and use its powers given in this Bill to investigate and apply sanctions if deemed necessary as first practice. Alternative dispute resolution can have a useful role especially between stakeholders that are more closely aligned in terms of power in the food chain, size and non-dependency on one party or the other.