Apologies have been received from Senator Lynch. Cuirim fáilte roimh na finnéithe.

Witnesses giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they give to the committee. This means that witnesses have a full defence in any defamation action for anything said at the meeting. However, witnesses are expected not to abuse this privilege and may be directed to cease giving evidence on an issue at the Chair's discretion. Witnesses should follow the direction of the Chair in this regard and are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that, as is reasonable, no adverse commentary should be made against an identifiable third person or entity. Witnesses who are giving evidence from a location outside the parliamentary precincts are asked to note that they may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness giving evidence from within the parliamentary precincts and may consider it appropriate to take legal advice on the matter. Privilege against defamation does not apply to the publication by witnesses outside of the proceedings of the meeting of any matters arising from the proceedings.

I advise members of the constitutional requirement whereby they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. A member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. I ask any member participating via MS Teams that, prior to making their contribution to the meeting, they confirm they are on the grounds of the Leinster House campus. Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against either a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that may be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person. If their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Leanfaimid ar aghaidh leis an clár oibre. The agenda for this meeting is an engagement with the Agri-Food Regulator. The committee will hear from Mr. Joe Healy, chairperson, Ms Niamh Lenehan, chief executive, Mr. Robert Levins, head of price and market data analysis, and Mr. Aiden Kelly, head of corporate services. Tá fáilte rompu.

An opening statement has been circulated. We will allow five minutes for the opening statement and then proceed to questions and answers. As we are debating one topic, we have additional time. Therefore, I propose that members have eight minutes each. Is that agreed? Agreed. There will be an opportunity to have a second round of questions, if necessary. I have already received a number of names and we will note the names.

Before we hear the opening statement I wish to say that it is a topic that really touches households and farmyards around the country. People are very keen and pressed on food prices. When we see farmers getting less than 40 cent a litre for their milk and they see the same litre selling for three and a half or four times the price in a shop down the road, that gives rise to very reasonable questions. I know the Agri-Food Regulator has a focus both on unfair trading practices and putting together data on prices where there could be what we will call anomalies or sharp practices or mark-ups with the retailers, so we are keen to get an understanding. Farmers want to make sure that they are getting the best possible price and that it reflects their work, but also consumers are keen to get food at a price they can afford and not be ripped off. We are keen to hear from the Agri-Food Regulator and I know members will have questions.

I invite Mr. Joe Healy to make his opening statement.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. I thank the Cathaoirleach, Deputies and Senators for the invitation to appear before this committee. I am the chairperson of An Rialálaí Agraibhia. I am accompanied here today by Niamh Lenehan, chief executive, Rob Levins, head of price and market data analysis, and Aiden Kelly, head of corporate services.

An Rialálaí Agraibhia was formally established on 13 December 2023 under the provisions of the Agricultural and Food Supply Chain Act 2023 following a commitment contained in the 2020 programme for Government. There was and remains widespread political support for the establishment and work of the office, including from members of this committee.

It is recognised nationally and indeed at EU level that a rebalancing of bargaining power along the agrifood supply chain is necessary. The high-level remit of the regulator is to promote fairness and transparency in the agricultural and food supply chain in the context of a supply chain consisting of businesses of very diverse size. Importantly, the office has two core and distinct functions: first, as the dedicated enforcement authority for the unfair trading regulations and, second, to publish analysis of information about price and market data along the agricultural and food supply chain and, in doing so, have particular regard to the circumstances and needs of farmers, fishers and small food businesses. Initially, the regulator achieved important tasks for any new State agency in its infancy, such as the preparation of a work programme, and putting structures in place to ensure compliance with the 2016 code of practice for the governance of State bodies, including the preparation and submission of a three-year strategy statement.

Staff capacity has been built on an incremental basis as the needs of the organisation have become apparent. The regulator recently reached the original total complement of 17 staff members, with a request for additional capacity resulting in five extra staff for next year, a number which we hope to build on further based on a workforce planning exercise carried out earlier this year.

The term "agrifood products" belies the extensive scope of products under the regulations in place. As well as food products, it can be seeds sold by grain merchants, animals sold by farmers, ciders produced by brewers or Christmas wreaths sold by florists. With this in mind, the regulator has been proactive in building an understanding of our remit. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders and representative bodies all along the agrifood supply chain to understand their trading experiences, identify the challenges and opportunities for improvement and build awareness of our role and functions. We have further increased awareness through webinars, farmers meetings, advertising campaigns as well as attending marts, trade shows and, of course, attendance at the National Ploughing Championships and the Tullamore Show.

As the enforcement authority for the unfair trading regulations, the office has extensive legislative powers available to it to allow it to ensure compliance with the 16 specific unfair trading practices, or UTPs, that provide protection to weaker suppliers of agrifood products against more powerful buyers in business-to-business relationships. The regulator has used these powers to carry out on-site compliance inspections and, in November 2024, secured its first conviction for a breach of unfair trading practice. As has been widely reported, the case concerned the non-payment for cattle delivered by a farmer to Asba Meats. The committee may be aware that the regulator recently initiated a number of further cases in Ennis District Court against the same business in relation to the non-payment of livestock delivered to the processor by a number of farmers.

To understand the trading experiences of suppliers in the agrifood supply chain, the office has commissioned surveys of primary producers and of agrifood product suppliers to the retail and wholesale sector, with the findings of the latter released at the regulator’s inaugural conference in May of this year. We have also undertaken extensive engagement to ensure that all businesses that buy agricultural and food products and have an annual turnover of more than €50 million in the previous trading year are aware of their obligation to submit an annual compliance report to the regulator. These will be used to monitor compliance and inform the conducting of risk-based inspections of agrifood buyer businesses.

As mentioned previously, the other function of the office is to increase transparency on how businesses at different stages of the supply chain interact by publishing reports on price and market information. Essentially, the focus here is on gathering publicly available information, particularly in relation to prices paid and received by businesses for agrifood products, and supplementing this where possible with appropriately aggregated private data provided to the regulator upon request.

As many of members are aware, despite extensive engagement with stakeholders in the months after establishment, when the regulator issued data requests in the egg and horticulture sectors seeking certain pieces of information which are not publicly available, not all retail businesses provided the data sought. Therefore, in September 2024, the board wrote to the Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine to request the power to compel the provision of necessary price and market information from businesses along the agrifood supply chain, as provided for in the 2023 Act. Since the request has been submitted, the office has fully engaged in the consultative process undertaken by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine. The board is obviously very disappointed at the length of time in getting a response regarding the necessary powers to deliver on the regulator’s core function of improving transparency. On behalf of the board, I wrote again to the Minister this week to reiterate that clarity on the outcome of the request for additional power is required as soon as possible. In the meantime, our work to increase transparency continues. For example, the regulator reached agreement with the four largest beef processors to allow the publishing of weekly selling prices for beef and, more recently, launched interactive dashboard reports on the dairy, egg and poultry, and horticulture sectors. We continue to engage with the largest sheep meat processors regarding efforts to improve transparency in that sector.

Strong foundations have been laid for the organisation, but the regulator needs the power to be able to compel the provision of price and market data where required so that the office can fulfil its legislative mandate in the promotion of fairness and transparency in business-to-business relationships along the agrifood supply chain. I welcome any questions from members of the committee for myself or my colleagues.

I thank Mr. Healy very much. I congratulate him on his position as chairman of the Agri-Food Regulator.

I welcome Mr. Healy and the team here. I thank them very much. I am going to stick to some of the key points that Mr. Healy highlighted in his opening statement. I will refer to one item he mentioned in relation to livestock and issues around the resolution of that matter he touched on. I and one or two other members on this committee were involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny in the establishment of the regulator. It is great to see it up and running. It has clearly had a few teething problems and Mr. Healy has outlined some of them. It is important that we acknowledge and focus in on them. I will ask my questions first and then I will hand over to the witnesses for a response. I ask them to log these questions.

Mr. Healy mentioned staff capacity and that the regulator is up to 17 staff. He has put in a request for an addition of five extra staff for next year. Are they fully sanctioned? When are they starting? Is that sufficient? Does the regulator need more?

On the issue that Mr. Healy mentioned - I think it was about Lidl, but correct me if I am wrong - in relation to the concerns of the non-payment for livestock through a processing plant. That is of concern to us as members as we are active in the agriculture committee. It is an appalling situation. I do not know all the circumstances, so I do not want to make too much of a judgement that any one farmer would make the effort to enter some sort of contractual arrangement to supply and find that the terms and conditions were not being met. I do not know the full terms, but Mr. Healy might enlighten us on that. More importantly, what powers and influence did the regulator use to exercise, procure or bring about a resolution?

We need to learn from that, and we need to send a clear message that if people enter into a contract or arrangement in good faith, they should, at a minimum, expect to have the price they had initially contracted for. I would be interested to hear a little about that.

Earlier, Mr. Healy used the phrase, "despite extensive engagement with stakeholders in the months after establishment, when the regulator issued data requests in the egg and horticulture sectors". We know about that. On 28 May 2025, I raised a Commencement matter in Seanad Éireann in which I asked the Minister about these matters. He stated:

The Act does not permit the regulator to compel such data. However, the Act provides that the Minister may make regulations on price and market information. In addition, the programme for Government commits to giving the Agri-Food Regulator enhanced powers to ensure transparency in the food supply chain ...

I am fully committed to ensuring that the regulator is equipped with the necessary powers to fulfil its statutory function, subject to the legislative ... [consultation]. I need to ensure that the powers granted are proportionate. My Department and I are in discussions with the Agri-Food Regulator and other key stakeholders to see how this can be achieved. As part of that process, it is appropriate for me to consider relevant factors before making any such regulations [he said "regulations" as opposed to amending legislation.]

In particular, I must have regard for the SME test, which is also a programme for Government commitment relating to legislation. I am aware that there is a concern in the business sector [he is concerned about the business sector]. I have met with IBEC and business representatives and heard their concern that compelling Irish agrifood businesses to provide financial data may give rise to competitive advantages for businesses in other EU member states. This is because ...

It goes on and on.

Mr. Healy knows the story. I am somewhat disappointed that he is telling us that he wrote to the Minister to seek additional powers in September 2024. Last week - he clearly knew he was coming in here - Mr. Healy decided to write another letter to the Minister. It would be helpful if Mr. Healy were to agree to share the contents of that letter with us letter because I would like to see what he said and to assess how compelling and how forceful he was. That is important. Mr. Healy is not going to get anything unless he is robust in his demands. He might enlighten us and explain the nature of the pressure he exerted. Perhaps Mr. Healy might comment on those matters.

Any of the witnesses can take any of the Senator's questions.

Mr. Healy is the central man in terms of the letter.

We can share them around.

Share them out, yes.

The Senator's first question was in relation to the five new staff starting. I will hand that over to Ms Lenehan. The 17 who are in place were taken on board as needs arose over the past two years as the work rate ramped up. We were delighted to have that 17th person start recently. We have a full complement in the context of the original number.

The non-payment of the farmer that we had the prosecution for was Asba Meats-----

It was Asba meats; I am sorry.

-----based in Ennis.

It was an extra power, as opposed to powers, that we sought. The only power we have is to seek information. To fulfil our remit in the context of what we were set up to do, we need the power to compel. We started off hoping that the power to seek would be adequate when we did the egg report. That was our first report, and we decided to act on it straight away. When a player or two did not play ball and give us the information immediately, the board felt that rather than wasting the time of staff members, it was time to seek the power to compel. That was in September 2024, and it has been ongoing ever since. We have engaged fully in the consultative process, which has been completed. Draft legislation has been drafted and is currently the subject of legal scrutiny to ensure that it will fulfil its purpose while avoiding any consequences.

In terms of the Senator's first question regarding staff, one of the key matters for any new body is to build capacity in terms of staff. Upon establishment, we were allocated 17 full-time equivalent staff. As the Mr. Healy stated, the 17th member of staff was only appointed this week. We have been building capacity on the basis of our experience in the context of the skills we need. Earlier this year, we conducted a significant workforce planning exercise. The purpose of that was, of course, to look again at the skills we need. For example, we were getting an increasing number of complaints and issues being brought to our attention, which is useful. We would like to have more teams on the ground in terms of carrying out inspections. That exercise yielded a result in that we would like 21 more staff going forward to take account of the functions we have now, but also with an eye to the future and any powers that might be provided to us. The additional staff who have been allocated to us number five, as we understand it, but we are waiting for the formal notification of that.

In terms of the Senator's second question on Asba Meats, the prosecution in late 2024 was on foot of a breach of one of the specific unfair trading practices. As we know, this is an EU directive, so the actual matter that was at play was non-payment in respect of a non-perishable product. The farmer in question had provided live animals, and they were not paid for within 60 days. That was where the breach of the legislation arose. It is not that the regulator is a debt collection agency; we are prosecuting in respect of an unfair trading practice.

I thank the witnesses for being here. It is very interesting to listen to the different aspects of what is going on and to hear what they need and what they do not have. They said that there has been one conviction so far in the context of unfair trading practices. Are there more such practices that are being investigated at the moment? Do they have the powers and staff in to continue with their investigations? Does the existing legislative framework give them enough power or have they been given something that does not have teeth, which means they cannot actually complete what they need to complete?

In terms of investigations in respect of unfair trading practices, which is from the EU directive, we have extensive powers to carry out our work. As already stated, we have asked for additional staff. Some of the five additional staff we have been allocated will go for more proactive inspections on the ground in the context of visiting buyer businesses. Did that answer the Senator's questions? I am sorry; I might have missed some.

It is okay. Are more investigations taking place?

I am sorry. Yes, there are a number of investigations ongoing. Obviously, however, I cannot speak about them.

That is perfect. The witnesses have highlighted resistance on the part of retailers they have spoken about when it comes to the egg and horticulture sector. What sanctions do they think should be put in place if people are resisting? The regulator does not yet have powers to compel. If it gets those powers and retailers do not comply, should sanctions be imposed on the retailers in question?

It is kind of a wait-and-see scenario. We are hoping that we will get the power to compel. We would expect that if we get the power to compel, we will also get the information we require. We have not thought beyond that in terms of imposing sanctions if retailers refuse our requests in circumstances were we would have the power to compel.

It is probably a null and void question but is there a timeline? It is another hypothetical situation, where the Minister responds and gives the Agri-Food Regulator those powers.

In the first instance, it is obviously not within our gift. The Department undertook a consultation exercise earlier this year that we were very actively involved in, so we responded to any questions there were.

In terms of any power, the board has essentially recommended a power to compel where necessary. Our starting point would always be to request a business to provide information for the purpose of being appropriately aggregated so as not to do any damage to any individual business.

The Agri-Food Regulator's remit includes protecting small food businesses and the fishers. What specific steps does it have to ensure they will not get squeezed out by dominant buyers?

The whole background to the Agri-Food Regulator is just that, namely, protecting the weaker suppliers in our supply chain against the bigger buyers. We have worked very hard to communicate our role in terms of unfair trading practices and the word is getting out there. We have a significant number of queries and complaints coming in now, which is useful for informing our work. We also have a monitoring framework where the bigger buyers in our State are required to submit an annual compliance report. That is providing a lot of information to us on how they comply with these rules, which informs our risk-based inspections on the ground.

There is also our price and market analysis side. What we are trying to do is supplement publicly available information on value along the supply chain. This is where we are trying to provide that information, particularly for smaller businesses under our remit, so they would have more information available to help to manage their businesses. We have a number of interactive reports on different sectors on the website.

That is brilliant and I thank Ms Lenehan for her time.

I welcome the witnesses. Like Senator Boyhan, I am one of the elder lemons here; I was here for the pre-legislative scrutiny.

I have a broad question. The Agri-Food Regulator is in its infancy because it was established in 2023. If we were back there again and it knew then what it knows now, what would the regulator's ask be? There might be something that is hindering the regulator that we could have changed or done differently during its formation, additional powers aside. That was the big debate at the time. I remember there was a lot of discussion about how the regulator would fit into the system with the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC. Now that the Agri-Food Regulator is up and running, what crossovers has it found there? A lot of people at the time thought there was no need for the Agri-Food Regulator, as the CCPC was there and should have been doing anything the Agri-Food Regulator would be doing. How is the regulator finding that relationship now? How is it working out? How is the regulator fitting into the whole scheme?

I have two quick questions and will leave the witnesses with time to answer. As was said in the opening statement, agrifood products include animals sold by farmers. A couple of weeks ago, there was a threat of exporters boycotting marts because of non-vaccinated cattle. If that situation had escalated, would the Agri-Food Regulator have had a role, where the farmer was losing out because of being held to ransom by the purchaser?

Hypothetically speaking, for the purposes of this debate, if Mercosur was to happen in its current format, would the Agri-Food Regulator see itself as having a role in checking or implementing the safeguards - the buzzword is "safeguards" - or doing a price watch or quality watch on beef based on what was coming in? Would that be part of the regulator's remit if Mercosur was to go through in its current format with the current safeguards?

I thank the Senator. There were a couple of questions and we will share them around.

On being back there again, we are fairly well covered apart form one thing that has kind of restrained us in the work we have tried to do, namely, the power to compel. The people and businesses that worked with us were great, and we try to work with them all, but there were one or two who did not give us the information, unfortunately. I think if we had the power to compel, it would make a big difference to us and to our reports.

In my previous life, as some of the members would know, we would have seen that the CCPC was geared more towards the consumer and the producer and those along the food supply chain did not really have a voice or someone to stand up for them. We lobbied at national and EU levels and worked closely with Commissioner Hogan at the time and his agricultural markets task force, AMTF, to ensure the directive was put in place.

I do not know if it was the Senator or someone else who mentioned we were in our infancy. We will be two years old next month. It was last month, in 2023, that we were set up. There have obviously been a few lessons, as in any infancy, but that power to compel would be the one we need most. That is very obvious. It is not just crying foul. It is something we know at ground level that we need to do our job properly and to fulfil the role that was set up. Do Mr. Levins or Ms Lenehan wish to come in?

What we need is what we touched on earlier. Outside of the power to compel where required, there are some functions, for example, the function related to guidelines. The regulator has the power to publish guidelines for buyers for the purpose of protecting supplier interests and it is something we want to look at further. With the additional staff we have been provided with, we hope to look at those. Although they are not statutory, we think they could have an impact in terms of promoting fairness and transparency.

We have a very good relationship with the CCPC. It is important to stay in the lane and know what other agencies are responsible for. What the regulator is specifically looking at is enforcing agrifood unfair trading law and we know the EU directive is being reviewed at the moment. It has actually just been completed and there may be additional items coming from that. We do not know whether there will be additional UTPs we will need to police as the enforcement authority, so that is something we have to keep an eye on.

In terms of the price and market data analysis, the work continues in the interim while we have recommended the powers. Colleagues publish interactive reports and they contain publicly available information and could be a basis for showing gaps where we could ask businesses for private information.

The influence of Mercosur is an example I used. Would the regulator see itself as having a role in that if the safeguards included in the deal are not being adhered to?

At the moment, the functions that we have been given fall under the two main areas we have been talking about. We do not have a role in price setting or interventions, or in terms of quality. That is the remit we have at the moment.

There are 16 very clear unfair trading practices, UTPs, that we have powers over. There are the ten and the six. Those are the very clear ones.

I thank the witnesses for coming. The job of the regulator is important. Rebalancing power within the agrifood supply chain is fundamentally important. It is important for consumers and is very important for farmers. The dairy price has fallen below 40 cent for some farmers this week. While the beef price is good now, it was on the floor a few years ago.

Listening and studying the material over the past number of weeks, it appears that the intentions are fantastic but the regulator is built like a car without fuel. It is built for the journey. It is staffed up and ready to go but without the powers to compel, it cannot move. It has the powers to ask, but that is it. When it asks a retailer or processor, it is well within their gift to say, "No, thanks". What percentage of processors and retailers are not engaging or co-operating with the regulator?

I thank the Deputy. In terms of the regulator's main functions, we have robust powers on the unfair trading practices side, if you like.

I am really referring to the price transparency aspect.

Sure. We have the power to seek information. Very early in 2024, we set out on a significant stakeholder engagement programme to introduce ourselves.

How many processors and retailers are complying and how many are refusing to comply? What is the breakdown? What is the percentage? Can the regulator provide that today?

Sure. We set out with a request in the egg sector. To break it down simply, egg packers and retailers are the businesses we went out to. All of the egg packers and a number of the retailers provided information. Three retailers at that point did not provide information. On foot of that, we made the submission to the Minister on 12 September 2024. We continued with our work in terms of a horticulture request. There are consolidators in the middle of the chain and then there are the retailers. There was an increasing number of businesses involved. At the end of the day, one retailer has not provided-----

One retailer.

Yes. As we have gone from one request into the other, there has been more engagement.

What about the beef and dairy sectors?

In the beef sector, we have sought information from the four largest beef processors. They provide, and we update weekly, the value accruing to the processing stage. That is shown by beef forequarter and hindquarter and minced beef in a 600 g pack.

Is the regulator happy with that data? Does it need more?

We are on a journey here. We have been trying to look at matters sector by sector because not one approach fits all sectors, if you like. We have not made a request of the dairy sector yet. As Mr. Healy said in the opening statement, we have proposed a transparency initiative in the sheep sector.

Does the regulator know what percentage of monetary value in the beef sector is opaque and for which the data cannot be accessed by the regulator?

I can pass over to my colleague to expand on my answer. What we are trying to do is to show the value as we go along the supply chain. Most of our beef is exported. We do not buy live animals in the supermarket. A live animal is provided by a farmer. We must have some way of showing an indicative value along the supply chain. That is why we want a possible approach with certain products as we go along. The initiative and the reporting we have had in place since the end of last year is one step in that. I will pass over to my colleague, who might expand on my answer.

In relation to specific beef values, the data is obtained from the four largest processors in the country. I do not have an exact figure, but I believe they account for over 80% of the total production of beef in the country. That would be a rough estimate for the value.

Is the regulator happy that the four processors are providing all the data that is required?

To be clear on the data being provided, it is an EU market transparency price reporting value that is provided to the Department of agriculture. There is an extensive audit process built under that with the Department of agriculture to reconstitute an animal. As Ms Lenehan said, the processors do not retail a hindquarter or forequarter, so to speak, so in order to come up with a standard value across Europe, we have reconstituted the parts back into hindquarters and forequarters. That represents the animal being sold. We then have a separate minced beef value. We report that aggregate of those three values. While not offering complete transparency, it does provide an additional level of transparency for the sector.

I will go back to Mr. Healy and the letter to the Minister. Was he requesting the Minister to change the legislation to provide powers to compel? What engagement has he received from the Minister in that regard?

I will come in on an earlier question to which the Deputy has returned. That one retailer is a significant player. It is very important to include that retailer, as the Deputy can imagine.

As I pointed out in my opening statement, we wrote to the Minister in September 2024. We have engaged with that consultative process anytime we were requested to do so. That consultative process is now complete. Draft legislation has been prepared and our understanding at the moment is that it is currently undergoing legal scrutiny. That is where we are on it. We hope we will get an answer soon. We also hope we will get the power that we require and that is necessary. I thank the Deputy for his question.

Before I go to Deputy Kenny, I want to clarify one or two points. The witnesses have privilege and anything they say, as long as it is correct and true, is privileged. We are trying to understand. The witnesses are telling us there are organisations the regulator has sought data from but it has not been forthcoming.

Yes.

Which organisations? Let us put it out there and put it up to them. Sooner or later, no matter when the legislation is made available, that information is going to be forthcoming from them, one way or another. Perhaps they would start giving that information much sooner if we knew who we were talking about.

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaoirligh. As Ms Lenehan said, three retailers did not provide information when we did the egg report. The situation improved and when we did the horticulture report, only one retailer did not supply information. That retailer was Dunnes Stores.

As things go along, there are lessons for the different retailers - that they need to play ball and share information with the regulator.

Ms Lenehan can come in on this. There has been extensive engagement, right from the very start, in building a relationship of trust, as well as everything else, with all the stakeholders. In fairness, Ms Lenehan and her staff have had well over 100 meetings with the stakeholders. Everyone has met with them. Perhaps Ms Lenehan can expand on that.

To expand on what the chair was saying, one of the items is the stakeholder engagement piece and the building of trust. The power that we have is the power to seek information. What we went out to do was to set out, in conjunction with them in a partnership approach, how we were going to try to fulfil the mandate we were given. We set out certain points of a co-operation framework, and that was accepted by the majority of businesses.

On the general approach, one of the main issues for businesses is to ensure a level playing field, so that if they are providing information, the others who are asked for it will also provide it. Obviously, time and investment are needed in order to deal with the regulator, so there is that piece of it as well. They want a level playing field so everybody is involved and it will be for the benefit of everybody.

I thank the witnesses for the opening statement. I attended the conference of the Agri-Food Regulator earlier this year and, at that time, the big ask was around compellability and getting information from the various players. That is something we certainly want to see happen with haste.

I am interested in a couple of things in the opening statement. With regard to unfair trading practices, it stated: “all businesses that buy agricultural and food products and have an annual turnover of more than €50 million in the previous trading year are aware of their obligation to submit an annual compliance report to the regulator.” What is the status of businesses that have a turnover of less than €50 million? There are a lot of smaller businesses out there but, at the same time, when they are all put together, I am sure they represent a sizeable section of the people involved in buying products from farmers.

The larger buyers are what is termed in the legislation “compliance reporting buyers”, so they have specific obligations in terms of an annual compliance report. The smaller businesses still fall under the rules on unfair trading practices. The distinction is that in order to get the protection of the regulations in place, the supplier has to be smaller in turnover than the buyer. That is the main access to the protections.

With regard to the other function on increased transparency, I have some small sympathy with the argument put forward by businesses that they do not want to expose themselves to a situation where there is commercial sensitivity, or where they can lose contracts because they have put information into the public domain that others may not have. That is the issue here. Where one or more are refusing to do it or are hesitant to do it, the others are at a disadvantage. We need to see if there is a mechanism. What process has the regulator in place to give that assurance to people and businesses that they will not be put at a commercial disadvantage?

I will ask Mr. Levins to come in on this. On the information that is being requested, in the first instance, we have to see the information that is there in order to make those important decisions. It would certainly fall to the regulator to ensure that it has robust processes in place if the power was given to be able to compel businesses to provide it. We know, for example, that there may be some sectors where there are very small numbers of businesses. If we published certain items, they could possibly be identified, so we could not possibly do that.

We try to address the concerns in a number of ways. When we first engage with them on a data request, we engage in a collaborative and consultative manner. We explain what it is that we are trying to achieve, and we talk to them to try to work with them to get a dataset that achieves our aim while protecting them. If we get that dataset and are reporting on it, we have to be aware of commercial sensitivity - we are requested in the Act to be aware of that. If we were looking to publish any information, in the first instance, we would not look to publish information specifically about a company per se, but rather about averages across the general sector. We would be looking to take several companies’ business, aggregate that into an aggregated value and talk about that. Hopefully, that would reduce some of the commercial risk. Depending on the dataset, the sector and the types of information we are reporting on, we can build in a number of other mechanisms to protect people. We can delay the publication if publishing it too soon was seen as commercially sensitive, we can aggregate it or we can look for other aggregations and normalisations. We are absolutely willing to work with any of the stakeholders in relation to protecting their information.

The cross-national or international aspect of this also comes into play. As was said, a large portion of our agri-food produce is exported to other markets. I know there is collaboration with similar bodies in other countries. Are there instances where the Agri-Food Regulator foresees investigations into products that may have originated in Ireland but are sold in other countries, or vice versa? Another issue that comes into this is labelling and how the regulator deals with those situations.

This goes back to our powers on unfair trading practices in the EU directive. The EU directive, which was transposed by Ireland in 2021, always envisaged cross-border co-operation, so in every member state there is an enforcement authority. Earlier this year, we were involved through the Department in relation to the new cross-border regulations that are on the way - they need to be finally agreed by the end of this year at an EU level. Essentially, that gives a practical mechanism to facilitate co-operation across borders. A lot of the trade is happening across borders, and this provides a more practical mechanism to facilitate that co-operation across borders.

Does Ms Lenehan foresee the regulator opening up other investigations? If she does, will that require additional staff or will the regulator be able to work collaboratively? For instance, if there is a need to investigate something happening in another European country, will it be the regulator in that country that does the investigation or the work in respect of it, and then report back to the Agri-Food Regulator? How does that work?

It may. I know some of our colleagues in the other enforcement authorities have a lot more cross-border work, although that has not been so much the case in Ireland to date. The proposed new regulations include the ability to ask questions of other enforcement authorities where a business may have a head office here, for example. That may result in additional queries coming our way. We need to keep monitoring that with regard to the resources we will need. Certainly, there may be a resource implication.

I thank the witnesses for coming in and for the opening statement. One of the regulator’s functions is increasing the transparency of how businesses interact at different stages of the agri-food supply chain. I firmly believe the public should know where and how much the economic benefits are captured on the journey between the primary producer and the shop counter.

The witnesses have stated that some companies do not reply to the regulator's queries. In the interests of the transparency, does the regulator have a mechanism available to allow it to put into the public domain the names of the companies from which the regulator sought information and to identify those that provided the information and those that did not?

We have done so. We stated the companies that came on board with the information at the inaugural conference we had last May, which Deputy Kenny mentioned being at. We have highlighted here today the business that did not give us the information.

I presume the regulator has dealt with those companies. What is the update for those companies now? Are they still trading? What will happen, going forward?

All the companies we have been dealing with are still in business. To get over the roadblock of the business that did not come forward to us with the information, we sought the power, for which we are awaiting an answer, to compel all companies, but particularly the likes of that specific company, to give us the information we require to fulfil our role.

The regulator is awaiting more power so it can carry out those duties.

At the moment, we have the power to seek the information. That has not worked. It has worked with 90% or more of the businesses, but there is one business that has not given the information. As I said to Deputy Lawless, it is a significant business. Its information is needed for a number of different products. We would need it on board to fulfil the remit we are there for.

At the moment, the regulator does not have the power to go any further with this issue. There is nothing more it can do. Its hands are tied.

I can hand over to my colleague, Mr. Levins, who at this stage has dealt with the issue a lot. What we need is the power to compel to ensure we get the information from that business as well. Perhaps Mr. Levins would expand on that point a little.

To follow up on that, we have not stopped engaging and we continue to engage. We have done two data requests of the egg and horticulture sectors. We have also engaged with the beef sector and are publishing those values. We will continue to engage in another sector and look to see what we can do while we await the new powers. We are still actively trying to use the power we have to see while we await change.

When is it hoped that the power will be in place to allow the regulator to progress further?

As I said, it has constantly moved forward, albeit at a slow pace. The consultative process is over at this stage and the draft legislation is being prepared. It is going through legal scrutiny at the moment. We have to wait at this stage. We are obviously hoping it will come as soon as possible.

I am well aware that all these things take time. In a survey published by the office of the regulator in May 2025, almost 15% reported being subject to unfair trading practices from eight buyers within the retail and wholesale sector. The two biggest issues highlighted were, first, requiring the supplier to pay for loss or deterioration and, second, delayed payments. Was a common buyer or buyers identified as mainly responsible or were these issues a common thread across all buyers? Is the issue the problem or are the buyers the problem? Does the regulator have a mechanism that allows it to publish the details of those buyers who engage in these unfair trading practices?

I will take that question. This was a survey of suppliers into the biggest retail and wholesale buyers in our State. There were eight buyers involved and most of them co-operated by sending the survey to their suppliers. A very collaborative approach was taken with them. It is a survey. Generally, the high-level findings were good news. Suppliers are reporting a very high rate of compliance with the unfair trading law. We also took the opportunity to ask about other issues that suppliers may be experiencing. The purpose of that was to get an insight, of course, about suppliers' experiences on the ground, but also to possibly inform those guidelines I spoke about earlier, which can be published by the regulator. That was the inaugural survey. We plan to run it every year and that survey with the eight businesses will be run again in January.

We mentioned in our opening statement that a significant amount of effort has gone into communicating our role, what UTPs are and how unfair trading law regulations can help smaller suppliers. The survey showed there is still a way to go in terms of awareness and understanding of the rules in place. For example, this year, we are going to do the survey but the intention is also to conduct a number of interviews or qualitative research too, so that we get an insight into the responses of suppliers to better understand the findings. That has been very well received by the buyers involved.

We all know that unfair trading practices are not good. It is important to have a level playing field. I thank the witnesses.

I welcome the witnesses. They are saying that the regulator's powers are limited. They do represent farmers. Mr. Healy said in his opening statement that the regulator has "particular regard to the circumstances and needs of farmers, fishers and small food businesses". Is the regulator another arm of the Department of agriculture?

No, Deputy, we are an independent agency of the Department of agriculture.

Can the regulator ask questions of the Department of agriculture?

We can make recommendations, for example on legislation, etc.

We all know that TB is rampant. In my parish, 26 cows belonging to a dairy farmer went down last Friday. He had a number of issues He never bought in an animal. He has a number of issues. He had highly bred cows. The cows have been tagged and gone down. He is asking for those cows to be blood tested by the Department vet but they are refusing to do so. They will blood test the rest of the animals, the remaining animals which did not go down in the skin test. That is one question.

This is the Agri-Food Regulator.

The witnesses say they are representing farmers. I am only wondering whether the regulator can ask the Department questions. I have a couple more questions.

The Minister will be before the committee later.

Is there a problem with me asking these questions?

The Agri-Food Regulator would be unlikely to be able to answer questions on-----

We all know farmers. Mr. Healy said in the opening statement that the regulator is representing the needs of farmers. That is just one question that this particular farmer wanted to ask. I know it is applicable to many others.

The farmer in question knows that the cattle that have gone down will not be taken for five or six weeks.

That is not right either. It is important to contain the disease and not allow it to spread. They are two things.

The farmer knows the maximum amount of compensation he will get is about €3,000, give or take a few euro. He says his type of cows are worth in the region of €8,000 to €10,000 each. This herd took years to build up. I will go no further with this line of questioning if the witnesses do not think they can answer the questions.

The answer is that it is not really within our remit. The Deputy mentioned his constituent. My best friend at home had a test done yesterday and he will have to wait until Friday to see whether it will be clear. He has already lost 100 animals. It is an incredible problem everywhere in the country. The figures have gone from 17,000 reactors a few years ago to being in the 40,000s at the moment. In the budget, €85 million more was given to the TB scheme. However, the problems at farm level are not an issue for the Agri-Food Regulator at this stage.

It is important to acknowledge the huge stress on the Deputy's neighbour with the situation he outlined.

It is on many others as well, but this fellow is very close to me and it has been weighing heavily on my mind since I left home.

The Minister will be here later.

That is good.

I have another unrelated question I have asked many times in the Chamber previously. Processes and factors create different scenarios and demand certain rules and regulations. They are damn glad to get animals at all at this time. However, one issue that has driven me to be incensed is the thing about the four movements. When an animal is hung up in a slaughterhouse, no one can tell how many times it was moved, whether it was two, three, four, five or ten times. No less value can be demanded because of that. However, if cattle get plentiful again, that will be used to their advantage to reduce the price of the animal that is being slaughtered. Does the regulator have any say over that kind of scenario?

No, we do not have a say in that. However, probably on a more positive note, I was at the Teagasc beef conference in Athenry last night. There were more than 500 people there and it was one of the best age structures I have seen at a meeting for a long time. There was good positivity. A figure was given that in Europe there will be a shortage of 830,000 tonnes of meat and it is unlikely to improve in the near future. Therefore, I hope the demand will continue. What last night highlighted was that if the prices are good enough, the interest is there from farmers in the sector.

I spoke to a man Deputy Martin Kenny might know, John Barron from Donegal. He had three people in the car with him travelling from Donegal to Athenry and there were people there from Waterford, Cork and Kerry as well. It was great to see, and long may it last.

As a matter of interest, we held our local IFA meeting in Kilgarvan the other night and the room was full of more active younger men and women than it has been in recent years at other IFA or farmers' meetings. Things are looking up in that regard.

The returns are there and the interest is there.

Before we move on from Deputy Healy-Rae's point, why does that movement restriction not fall under the regulator's remit as an unfair practice? It means an animal might be acceptable now but not at another time.

Sixteen specific practices are set out under the unfair trading practices and our remit is to ensure compliance with those is overseen. Those movements seem to be one of the agreements in terms of the supply between a buyer and a supplier.

I apologise. I had a deputation with the Minister for justice about a new courthouse in Portlaoise. That is where I was. I am sorry. It had been arranged for a while.

We thought Deputy Aird had gone with Paschal Donohoe.

No, I did not. He is not looking for an assistant. With other fortune, I would go with him.

I welcome the witnesses. I will ask my questions and I ask the witnesses to give quick answers. What enforcement powers are currently available to the Agri-Food Regulator?

We have extensive powers to oversee unfair trading law under the EU directive.

The regulator works under the umbrella of the EU directive, does it? It has all the powers under that.

Yes, in terms of the 16 unfair trading practices that are in place.

We can ensure businesses are taken all the way to court for prosecution under the unfair practices.

For example, if a farmer is not paid for cattle.

Yes.

I was following that. Is the Agri-Food Regulator satisfied that its powers are sufficient to ensure compliance across the food supply chain?

In terms of the unfair trading practices function of the regulator, yes, we are.

That is grand. Do the witnesses believe additional legislation is needed to strengthen its role?

Yes, as the Cathaoirleach said, for our analysis of price and market data function, the board has recommended to the Minister that we be given additional powers to compel information from businesses, where required.

Has the Minister given an indication that he will bestow those powers on the regulator so it can get the information people are refusing to give at the moment to allow the regulator to do its job?

What we have heard has been positive all along, but until we get an answer, we will not know. As I said earlier, it has seemed to move always in the right direction, but perhaps more slowly than we would like. The consultative process has been completed and the draft legislation is in place and is under legal scrutiny at the moment. However, we would like an answer as soon as possible.

We have two areas, unfair trading practices and the price and market data and transparency. We have the powers required-----

That is grand. How is the Agri-Food Regulator addressing concerns raised by primary producers about unfair trading practices and the lack of price transparency? How does it do that?

The unfair trading practices are where there are issues with 16 specific unfair trading practices under the EU directive. We have been receiving more queries and complaints from primary producers and we have been looking at those. We have a number of ongoing investigations, including the-----

Has the regulator got any results?

The first successful prosecution was in late 2024.

It has got one result so it has a lot of work to do on that. I say that because a lot of undercutting is going on, as the witnesses will be aware.

To what extent has the Agri-Food Regulator examined the role of large retailers in the pricing and contractual arrangements in the food supply chain? The witnesses will know what I mean by that question.

Our other significant function is the analysis of information about price and market data for the purpose of looking at price formation along the supply chain, that is, the prices paid and received by businesses. We have initiated a number of data requests in the egg and horticulture sectors, for example, for the purpose of supplementing publicly available information. As the Cathaoirleach said-----

Is the regulator satisfied with the treatment of producers and suppliers? Is Mr. Healy satisfied with what he is seeing to date regarding producers and suppliers who are producing their goods going into the supply chain? Is he happy with what he has seen? He is on this every day.

That can vary from time to time. For example, if we go back a few years to the treatment of beef producers, for example, you could not be happy with it.

What about vegetable growers?

Absolutely.

Three for the price of one.

Yes.

I am only asking about all that.

Yes. There are different sectors that would change. You might not be happy with the treatment of them at one stage, and you might be happy with the treatment of another sector. It is very seldom that all the sectors would be satisfied. For instance, in the past year, tillage farmers-----

Absolutely, yes. Does Mr. Healy believe further measures are necessary to ensure fair treatment for producers and suppliers?

One thing we definitely want is the power to compel. We want maximum transparency for each leg along the chain.

The regulator needs more power in order to satisfy me in that. What steps has it taken to improve transparency in pricing and market data along the agrifood supply chain?

In brief, we have attempted this in a number of ways. We have done our two-day request, as we have already spoke about, regarding horticulture and eggs. We have also engaged with the beef sector, and we are publishing those values. For other sectors, we have produced reports on publicly available data that looked to improve transparency using data that is already out there. We have done reports on dairy, horticulture, eggs and poultry and obviously we publish our beef values. Since we were established, those are the ways we have looked to improve transparency.

What further measures are planned to give producers more accurate and timely market information? I could also ask why so many have gone out of business, but I will leave that for the moment.

To follow on from Mr. Levins, we have continued our work while the recommendation for additional powers is being considered. We have been looking at the publicly available information. In some sectors, we have identified gaps. We request the significant businesses in that sector to provide information to fill those gaps. That is to provide more transparency for people, when they go into a supermarket to buy certain food products, regarding the value for each point along the supply chain for what they pay. In simple terms, it is to show what the producer gets, what the processor gets and what the retailer gets. We have been doing that. We have proposed a transparency initiative in terms of sheep and we are looking at that.

Milk is down by 4 cent today. Where are we going to get that? Who is getting that money?

I am a dairy farmer.

He is down by 4 cent. Does he know that?

Yes, I absolutely do. That follows on from 2 cent and 3 cent last month.

I am just asking where it is finishing.

I am part of a dairy discussion group at home. We export 85% to 90% of our milk. Worldwide, the butter and cheese market has collapsed compared with where it was. That is having a huge effect. I spent a year in New Zealand milking cows a few years ago and they are at their peak at the moment.

It is the cheap grain.

I was just coming to that. At a meeting a few years ago, the chairman of Fonterra, Henry van der Heyden, was asked for his view on milk prices going forward. He answered that he would not be a hostage to fortune and put a price on milk going forward. All he would say was that the price of milk would be dictated by the cost of production plus a margin for the American farmer and that the cost of production would be dictated by the availability of cheap grain. That is exactly what Deputy Aird said.

It is welcome to have a food regulator for the first time. A number of years ago, when we did not have a food regulator, we were crying out for one. Mr. Healy stated, "The board is obviously very disappointed at the length of time in getting a response regarding the necessary powers to deliver on the regulator’s core function of improving transparency." That tells me, from this meeting today, that it is welcome to have a regulator but that, unfortunately, it is hampered in doing its functions in the way they should be done. How many staff does the regulator have?

We have 17 staff.

The regulator has said it has dealt with eggs, horticulture and the beef sector. I will not go into eggs or horticulture, but I will go into the beef sector. In the beef sector, we are dealing with multiples of billions of euro. Has the regulator dealt with Meat Industry Ireland, MII, regarding the data? Have all the companies given the regulator statistics and data regarding imports, labelling and the beef sector itself?

Yes, through the transparency initiative my colleague was talking about earlier. Late last year, we engaged with the four largest beef processors on the information they supply under an EU transparency regulation. It is provided to us, with their agreement, through the Department and it gives a value to the processing stage for forequarter, hindquarter and the minced beef pack. Those are provided on a weekly basis on our website in an interactive report. We have dealt with MMI in the course of our work, but we have been building relationships directly with the businesses we are asking to provide information.

Regarding the four big processors, when the price of beef falls with one, all of a sudden it automatically falls in the other two or three. Does the regulator not see a collaboration between factories price-fixing in the meat industry?

The regulator does not have a role in intervening in prices or in setting prices. Our role is to improve transparency, gather that information and put it out there. It is published in aggregate form.

Labelling does not come under the remit of the regulator. Is that correct?

No, it does not.

We have seen carrots and parsnips on the supermarket shelf at Christmas priced at 37 cent. Everybody knows they cannot be produced for that. In certain supermarket chains last week, milk prices fell. Does the regulator have regulations regarding that?

In terms of unfair trading practices, one regulation, for example, relates to being paid within a certain period for perishable products. In the case of carrots, for example, the grower has to be paid within 30 days.

Another unfair trading practice is a unilateral change of contract. As the Senator was saying, while a retailer may reduce the cost of carrots, that does not necessarily mean that there is a change in the contract and what the primary producer is being paid, because if there was a unilateral change of contract, that would be an unfair trading practice.

On unfair trading practices going forward, if we intend to do all sectors of the agrifood industry, including horticulture, eggs, fish, poultry and all the rest, staffing will have to multiply into the thousands. For the regulator to investigate the whole sector and get its teeth into it, would the witnesses accept that it needs many more staff?

Yes. As I said, we carried out a comprehensive workforce planning exercise earlier this year. It was bringing together our experience to date. I mentioned an increase in complaints and so on earlier. All of that takes resources. I also mentioned that we would like to be more proactive. With the complaints and issues coming in, we have a team on the ground for inspections, but we would like more people on the ground. The Senator is quite right that we have asked for additional staff.

Is there a backlog at the moment?

We have people on the ground for inspections but we would like to do more because there is much ground to cover with agrifood businesses. We have identified places where we could or want to make an impact. One of those is the guidelines that I mentioned earlier.

If the regulator finds an unfair practice taking place, how long is it before it goes to court? Does it automatically end up in court? Is there a phasing-in period with a slap on the wrist and does it move on from there?

It depends on the complexity of the case. There is an interim step rather than the last step. We do not necessarily want to be there. We put a lot of emphasis into communicating the obligations and rights of suppliers and buyers. Unfortunately, court may sometimes be the only option left to the regulator, but there are other interim steps, for example, compliance notices that we can issue.

I welcome the witnesses. I know they are talking about legislation and the Department should be ashamed that it has not strengthened this legislation to give the regulator the powers it needs. I know the regulator has been talking about this for eight or nine months and the Department still has not done it. I think everyone here would agree that we would facilitate a Minister bringing in legislation. We told the Department that already and it has not been done. That is the first thing to clarify.

What is it costing to run the whole outfit, with the 17 staff?

We had a total allocation of €1.96 million this year that will increase to €3.19 million next year.

From what the regulator has investigated so far, be it the farmer or the consumer, what value has it found, be it for the Exchequer, the farmer, the consumer, the taxpayer or whatever way Ms Lenehan wants to put it?

I do not have a particular figure. I will divide the two functions. On the unfair trading practices side, by virtue of the regulator even existing in the first place-----

Surely in the regulator's investigations, it has figures for what advantage its findings provide to the taxpayer, the consumer or the farmer so as to estimate its success so far and prove its worth.

Maybe I do not understand the question fully. The investigations are into breaches. We are looking at the-----

I will try to explain myself better. A breach costs money. If there is a cartel, it costs someone money. It either costs a farmer or a consumer money. If there is an unfair trading practice and someone has an advantage, there is a monetary cost, which is what I am trying to establish.

I met a member of this committee outside today and he congratulated the Agri-Food Regulator on weanlings making €1,000 more this year than last year. It was a flippant comment. We are not taking credit for that, but I would say-----

I will try to explain myself with regard to what the regulator has investigated so far. It had a case in Ennis. There was a fine for someone. Was the farmer paid? Was there a beneficial cost? Does the regulator not do an analysis like that to say it is worth having here?

The farmer was paid at the time. The Deputy might remember Christine Tacon. She was the UK grocery code adjudicator. Some members might have been at the meeting she attended. Deputy Kenny was. He might have heard her say she was like a police car on the side of the road. Even if there was not a garda in it, it meant that vehicles slowed down. She felt that the grocery code adjudicator's presence was like that in the UK. Right at the very start, she brought a case against Tesco. It was successful. She said to businesses that if they did everything right, they got their money back at the end of the year because they were funding the grocery code adjudicator. That is how she measured it, because it is impossible to put an overall measurement on it. How long is a piece of string?

Mr. Healy will be familiar with this. He talked about it earlier. Of things the regulator looks at, everyone knows that the price of cattle has gone up in the last year. Is he not shocked to see that with all the cattle with TB, the price in the factories has stagnated since 2023? Is that not worrying for the regulator to look at? I am talking about the price that the factories give, not about the Department. It will be the Department that has to pick up the rest of it.

To ensure there is understanding of the role of the regulator, aside from the 16 unfair trading practices that we have talked at length about, our role is to improve transparency of the price and market data along the supply chain. The regulator is in no way involved in the setting of price or intervention.

I am not talking about that. I am referring to unfair trading practices.

There are 16 specific unfair trading practices. The Deputy might be referring to the one about being paid. One of the practices specified is that if you are supplying perishable products, you must be paid within 30 days while it is 60 days for non-perishable products.

It is not about the price, it is about the payment period. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the question.

Can the regulator get involved in anything to do with price?

We are not involved in any way.

Could it get powers to do that if it felt there was an unfair trading practice going on and collaboration between a group? Would that be the CCPC?

The CCPC is involved in looking at competition. In terms of ourselves, the EU directive is being reviewed and there may be other unfair trading practices that might come out of that.

At the moment, under the directive, none of our colleagues in Europe can get involved in it either.

We looked at things and we stood at gates down through the years, and some of the lads who are close to us here got into a bit of bother. The one question I would ask-----

We will have a second round of questions.

I will take two minutes.

One.

We spoke about there being four movements but there could be 24 movements now and people would still grab them. This is a question for Mr. Healy. Is a lot of this about supply and demand, in that when people have their tongue out for them, they will do anything?

The simple answer is that they would do anything if they needed cattle. Earlier I responded to Deputy Aird, and do not hold me to it but the figure I think I heard last night is a shortfall of 830,000 tonnes. That is a lot of beef. If this shortfall is there, that is what is helping the price.

I thank the witnesses for coming before the committee. I am sorry I missed the earlier part of the meeting but I was listening to most of it on the television. When he was replying to Deputy Aird, Mr. Healy said that a few years ago, he was not happy with the beef processing plants. What did he mean by that?

It is very simple. I was not happy with them a few years ago because of the price being paid to farmers. When we compare-----

It was about the price and not about the way the cattle were being slaughtered or anything like that. It was down to the price.

It has been mentioned here a few times. I was not happy at the time. The four movements and other various measures were agreed between Bord Bia, the processors and the farm organisations. That is one area people might not be happy with. I was not happy with the plants because of price. Deputies Brady or Fitzmaurice might have alluded to the fact that when it suited the plants, a weight restriction was imposed, and when it did not suit them, that weight restriction was removed. From one year to the next, a farmer did not know whether to slaughter at 350 kg. Doing so might mean there would be a shortage and then the price would go up. Not only would the farmer have lost the extra price but he would have lost the extra weight as well. An extra 50 kg at the current price of €7 a kilo is a lot of money. I hope that answers Deputy Newsome Drennan's question.

It does. I was just interested to hear it. I do not know whether Mr. Healy can answer my next question. We do not have a processor for horses and we have an issue with that. The plants that were there had huge issues, whether it was labelling horsemeat as beef meat or the neglect and abuse of horses. Can Mr. Healy foresee another plant coming in for the horse industry?

In fairness, that is an issue between the Department and the plants in general.

I was just wondering whether Mr. Healy had anything to say on it. I will go back to my questions. Does the regulator have any input or any say on produce being served in hotels or restaurants?

In terms of our price and market data analysis, we can of course ask businesses along the supply chain about the prices they have paid and received for produce. All of the businesses must comply with agrifood law, as provided for in the EU directive. As we said earlier, for basic access to that protection, the supplier must be smaller in turnover than the buyer. The whole purpose behind it is to protect the weaker suppliers.

Has the regulator had any issue with hotels or restaurants? Has it had an issue raised that meant it has had to go into one?

No, we have not had any complaints.

Are most of the inspections done only when complaints are made? What triggers an inspection? Are there spot inspections?

We have the power to arrive at a premises. At present, as we said earlier, we would like more staff for another team to undertake inspections. Most of the inspections to date have been on foot of complaints or something we have been made aware of.

The regulator will have five extra staff next year. I presume they will be able to do more spot checks.

Yes, it is the intention to have another team.

My next question is on labelling. Most supermarkets do not highlight where their loose fruit and vegetables come from. There may be a tiny label but not all fruit and vegetables have stickers. We need more traceability on where our food comes from. What onus is on the shops? Is there a law in place whereby they must clearly state where apples or whatever have come from originally? Is there a law in place such that a supermarket must clearly state where produce comes from?

I understand there is but the regulator has no role at all in labelling.

In any labelling?

No.

Perhaps it should. We will get it more staff. A lot of this is about fair practices and fair trade. Does the regulator consider produce from Mercosur countries that use GMOs and hormones to reflect fair trading practices? What issues can the regulator foresee itself having under the Mercosur trade deal?

Quality is not a responsibility of the regulator. Regarding unfair trading practices, if the supplier or buyer is based in an EU country, the rules apply. As we spoke about earlier, there are enforcement authorities in the EU member states and in the past year regulations have been proposed to strengthen co-operation between them to share information. There is a lot of trading across borders. That is on the unfair trading practices side.

With regard to price and market analysis, the regulator's role is to improve transparency by looking for information on the price formation mechanisms and the prices paid and received by businesses along the supply chain. Regardless of where the product is from, we will still be asking for this information.

But not on the actual product that is in the packet.

No.

It does not matter where or how it has been treated, therefore. It is just about whether it is sold at the same price.

It is not fair and transparent that the meat in a package from an animal that has been farmed in Ireland will be treated differently from the meat in a package that is coming in. Clearly, the imported product is treated completely differently. That is not a fair trading practice, no matter what way you look at it. Regardless of the price, we should not be compelled to have this product. In addition, the labelling does not clearly state where the meat comes from. Are people shopping in the supermarket going to spend three hours reading all the labels properly? People will need to make sure to bring their glasses because the labels are in tiny writing. I cannot understand why labelling is not in the remit of the Agri-Food Regulator.

There are rules on labelling but I am certainly no expert and will not go into them here in terms of the role of the regulator.

There are very specific unfair trading practices and we have been given the remit to enforce them, so we can only look at those 16 practices. They include payment periods, unilateral change of contract or, for example, where a producer wants a written contract, they must be given one. It is those sorts of rules. As we know, the EU directive is being reviewed and more could be added to the list.

On the price and market data analysis, I will ask my colleague, Mr. Levins, to expand on that. On our data requests so far, in horticulture we know that we do not have a 12-month growing season, so we import food and those sort of products. When we started the data requests we requested a breakdown so that when we ask for prices, paid and received we would be able, perhaps when it is aggregated properly, to report on the prices paid and received, as distinct from imports and Irish-grown products.

Ms Lenehan has covered the main points. This office has no role in labelling. On how imports affect the price mechanism at various stages, we would look to incorporate that as best we could in any reports, depending on the availability of data. We would look to review it.

Does Mr. Levins see any issues with the Mercosur deal, from the Agri-Food Regulator's perspective?

In terms of the price and market data-----

That is it.

-----it would not really form a concern. We would look at the prices specifically for the goods regardless of country of origin. We might incorporate country of origin into the data request to determine if imports are affecting prices or coming in at a lower or higher price and what impacts that might have on it. The specifics of the Mercosur deal would not likely change the price and market data requests.

I wear two hats. One of them is where I can argue against the Mercosur deal and, exactly as the Deputy has said, about the difference in the standards of production. In relation to the Agri-Food Regulator, the deal is not really our role. The EU is responsible for doing that trade deal. Obviously, on a personal note, we might disagree totally with the deal in respect of the standards of production, etc., but it is really not a role for the Agri-Food Regulator.

I have one or two quick questions, after which everybody else who wants to ask a question can do so in the time remaining. I return to the earlier point made about cattle heading to factories and the tighter supply now than there was heretofore. The CCPC was referred to as the main actor on that question. What kind of engagement does the Agri-Food Regulator have with the CCPC or to what extent does the regulator engage with the CCPC on things that look like unfair practices? What kind of a relationship exists between the Agri-Food Regulator and the CCPC? Has the regulator encountered issues like the question about the cattle going to the factory? People might presume this is the business of the Agri-Food Regulator but it is actually the other agency's business.

Does the Cathaoirleach mean the movements before the factory?

No. I refer to the earlier question concerning the fact that the price that producers get at the factory does not reflect the fact that there are now tighter supplies.

Obviously, there is a big supply and demand element in terms of the price. We have a good relationship with the CCPC and in terms of understanding where one role starts and the other one ends, if you like.

Are there shared issues?

The Agri-Food Regulator is responsible for enforcing the rules on unfair trading practices. The CCPC is involved in competition law, so there is a significant distinction.

We have 16 very specific unfair trading practices. No matter where or when any of those happen, we can have a role to play in any of those 16 but they are very specific.

I have a half-related question on the Mercosur deal. There are regulators across the EU that are similar to the Agri-Food Regulator and a great deal of food products travel across borders for different levels of processing. What kind of engagement does the Agri-Food Regulator have with the other EU regulators? We will talk about beyond the EU after that.

The EU directive has a requirement for every EU member state to have an enforcement authority. We are the enforcement authority in Ireland, so there is quite a lot of interaction. Earlier today, we attended remotely a meeting at which representatives from enforcement authorities came together to discuss issues at hand. There is quite a lot of interaction. Specifically, as I mentioned-----

Do they have the same issue as the Agri-Food Regulator here has with compellability or do they have that kind of clout?

The matter with being able to compel versus request is on the price and market data analysis side. The enforcement authorities are in terms of the unfair trading practices, as a regulatory body.

To be clear, we have no issue with our powers of enforcement in relation to enforcing the unfair trading practices. As I said earlier, it went all the way to a court case and a prosecution. It is on the price and market transparency issue that we need the extra power to get the information.

The Agri-Food Regulator is following up on the unfair trade, on the one hand, and the transparency and data, on the other hand. How much of its time and how many staff are spent on that? What is the split between the energy and the effort? Where is it getting satisfaction? A question was asked earlier on how the office measures its success, from where it is getting satisfaction and where the results are emerging.

The results are emerging from all of the teams. We organise ourselves into three main units. Our 17 staff members are divided between a corporate services role, which we obviously have to fulfil, the price of market data analysis team and an unfair trading practices team. At this moment in time, there are slightly more bodies, if you like, on the unfair trading practices side because there are significant legislation requirements on that side, as we talked about earlier. Compliance reporting buyers, which are these bigger buyers with a turnover of over €50 million, for example, must submit annual compliance reports. There are quite a lot of statutory deadlines on that side. Obviously, we are required to carry out inspections, etc.

We have a lot of investigations ongoing at the moment and that takes a lot of manpower.

We have about half an hour remaining. Members can take five minutes each and we will follow the same rota. I call Senator Boyhan.

It has been a very meaningful engagement. Robust and all as it is, everyone appreciates the significance and the importance of the food regulator. The office is still progressing and building on experience and various engagements.

In regard to the letter to the Minister, while I am somewhat disappointed that he is not here, we will have an opportunity to see him. The witnesses may even meet him in the corridors as he is coming here at 6.30 p.m. In any case, we have another topic to discuss that is not relevant to this matter. I will certainly bring it up with the Minister. I want to reassure the witnesses on that. It would be helpful if they could keep the pressure on because they have a job to do.

The Oireachtas passed legislation. This is where people are held to account, or partially held to account. My takeaway from this is the compellability issue. The point has been made strongly. We do not quite know about the need for additional powers. It can be helpful to have a list of the additional powers. The witnesses might just articulate them to us, or we can follow up on this. Our engagement does not end here today. The witnesses can submit information or follow up on issues through the secretariat on some of their considerations on our engagement here today. That is always open to people. The secretariat and the Chair would welcome that.

One thing that strikes me is that at the end of the day we have to think of the customer – the consumer. People are generally happy that there is such a thing as a food regulator. I took some time to try to track this today. The food regulator could do a better job. This is not a criticism as it may be to do with resources. I know the organisation does not have infinite resources so it has to apply its resources where it is most appropriate, but we could do with some marketing of the food regulator service so that people clearly understand the parameters. People may have different degrees of understanding as to what exactly its function is. There is a bit of work to do on that. Again, I am conscious that it is not the most important thing when there are limited resources.

That is what I would like to leave with the witnesses. I thank them. It is a very important function. It does need a bit of polishing up, but that comes with time and some sort of engagement through a marketing campaign to communicate what it is really about. The Food Safety Authority is particularly good at this. It has regular reports. I constantly check in on it. It is a model that the witnesses might even look at. They would have to tweak it depending on their own set of circumstances and what messages it is trying to communicate, but there is a bit of work to be done on communicating its work.

From what I have heard internally and in the sector, I have no doubt that people are happy that there is such a thing as a food regulator and that it is independent. That is the key message; it is not beholden to the Minister or to the Government. It is a stand-alone statutory process. I encourage the witnesses not to be afraid and to shout out, to use us, and engage with us if they need to put a bit more pressure on the Minister to deliver. The witnesses cannot do their job if they do not have the staffing, resources and compellability piece – the missing pieces of legislation that will strengthen their function. I wish them well.

I thank Senator Boyhan very much for the encouraging words. We really appreciate the invitation to come here today to meet with members, to explain what we are at, and to bring them up to date with what we are doing.

I agree with Senator Boyhan. It is a constant thing, which I even alluded to in my opening speech, to get our message out there. We try to attend as many meetings as is possible. Ms Lenehan has addressed Bord Bia conferences. It is exactly as he says. That is why we had a presence at the Tullamore Show this year and at the ploughing championships for the past two years. It is a constant effort to get the message out there about who we are. We are not even set up two years yet, so it is important to get the message out there.

Senator Boyhan also referred to our ask at the moment. It is very simple: it is one power, and that is the power to compel. We want to change the word "seek" to "compel". It might sound very simple but that is our ask. I hope that answers Senator Boyhan's question. I again thank him for his kind words.

I thank Mr. Healy.

A lot of it has been covered but I have one or two small points to raise. There are 16 grounds for unfair trading practices. Is there scope for them to be expanded? As the witnesses go through cases I am sure instances come up where they can see the problem but it does not fit anything they do and they do not know where to send the person who has raised the concern.

Mr. Healy mentioned in his opening statement that grain merchants are one of the areas he covers. What about a case where a merchant is selling grain as Irish but in fact he is mixing half of it with some other grain that was bought in at a cheaper price and selling it for a higher price? Stuff like that can happen. I am not saying it does happen, but if an instance like that or in some other field were to come up, is that considered an unfair trading practice that the regulator would investigate or is it almost a labelling issue? Where does it fit?

At the moment there are 16 areas and we have been given the power to enforce them. There is an opportunity for the regulator to recommend the amendment of the legislation to the Minister. The review of the EU directive has just been completed so there will be an assessment of the feedback that was included in the review. There may be more unfair trading practices added to the list.

I will also mention guidelines at this point because Deputy Kenny mentions other issues that may come up that are not necessarily unfair trading practices. We have been heartened by people coming forward explaining what their issues are so that we have a database to work from. That is why I specifically mention guidelines. They may not be statutory guidelines but there is a large scope to help to improve fairness and transparency through the guidelines. We mentioned the extra staff that we are going to get. We intend to allocate some of them to looking at further guidelines.

I also want to look a bit wider than that. Many years ago we grew mushrooms at home. We had a kind of contract with the company that provided the compost, which was also the company that provided the packaging. It is a sort of package and within it there is a contract. It is difficult for people in those kinds of circumstances if they see a problem because it would be very clear who it is that is making the complaint. It is almost like the old skit on the television where the man goes into the police station and says a guy is being stabbed outside and the policeman takes off his hat and says "What is your name then?". They almost have to fill a form and get all the details of the person making the complaint rather than actually looking into it.

I often come across situations even with Revenue here. Some people have phoned Revenue with a problem they have with a particular situation and Revenue will not take it on unless they know the name of the person making the complaint. Therefore, the person says "Ah well, look it, I'm not going to get into that" and they back off. Is there an issue in respect of that? Can people make anonymous complaints without going into the detail of it?

Yes. The fear factor of coming forward, if we want to call it that, is not unique to Ireland. It is very much a factor across the enforcement authorities. We have gone about that in a couple of ways. The first relates to significant buyer businesses worth over €50 million. They are required to have a liaison officer internally to communicate with us. We are building up trust across the supplier network so that people can come forward and give tip-offs. People do not necessarily have to give their name. When it comes to a prosecution, there is a certain amount that people would have to do.

The regulator has to be careful because there could be spurious reports too.

Yes. There is a lot of stuff that we could do before that. People are responding and they are coming forward, which we welcome.

If a person comes forward with an issue and it is not something that falls within the regulator's remit, but it sees that there is probably something there, does the regulator refer them to whoever is the appropriate body to deal with that?

We do of course yes. Depending on what the situation is we try to identify who might be able to help them, yes.

Most of the questions have been asked and answered. To simplify this I just want to look at it as if were to turn back the clock to years ago. Understand that we are talking about agriculture here. We produced milk and we sold it down the town. It was loose milk and we knew what we were getting for it. There was not much between them, we got what we got regarding the milk and we always made a profit. Then what happened was it started to be pasteurised and it was going down. All this only arises when the farmer is losing money. That is when the 10-10-20 hits the fan. When a farmer is asked to produce something below cost and sees it is selling at so and so a price, that is where the problem arises. This is why we are all asking today why the price of beef is where it is. The price for beef is where it is and where it should have been 20 and 25 years ago. Now there is the shortage of cattle because the people who were producing that beef were losing money then. There is nothing as bad as when you lose money, you get very sour, especially if the farmer will persevere and persevere, and a lot of pride is associated with that as well. Then somebody sits down, a member of the family say, or for example he gets married or whatever, and the person says to the farmer "By the way you are working 80 and 100 hours a week and you are making no money", and they compare it to the boy or the girl in the Garda or to the person working in the prison or the council or whatever. We have now ended up in a situation where over 200,000 suckler cows were slaughtered and are now gone. We know it better from the area we are living in. Now they are able to pay for the beef and it is gone. I would like to say that I hope lessons are learned from that and we get to see a situation where a person who is producing a good says "That is what it is costing me exactly and there are my bills for the meal so I can prove this is what it is has cost".

There will always be someone better, there are always better politicians and better everybody, because we all try and compete from that point of view. If a person was always a very successful cattle dealer there would be others trying to watch to see how he or she does his good practice. There are always some people who will be different and better than others. My point is that we are all looking now and we are all scratching heads to know why beef has arrived where it has today. I wonder is this the story, now that the price is where it is, as to why those people were made - there has to have been millions of euro made off the backs of farmers. There has to be. We can see the price of beef now but what happened in between? What was it costing in the shop? That is where I see the regulator's job was. It is a pity the regulator was not out there ten, 15 or 20 years ago to say the price of cattle, and when killing cows, to ask what part of the beef it was, where that was going, and what it was costing the consumer. That is my point.

Consider the vegetable growers. I had vegetable growers around me who were growing vegetables and they were really good at it. They worked fierce hard and were up really early because the buyers wanted the produce fresh, as the witnesses will know, whether they were supplying directly into supermarkets or whatever. They are all gone. Why are they gone? It was not because they were afraid of work. It is because they could not get paid for what they were producing. They could not get a margin. Was it the undercutting in the selling or was it that the markets did not want to buy the produce off them? Was that the reason? The witnesses know and I know we then saw a lot of people going into organic and so on to produce a specialised product that would be sold in the organic area. Do the witnesses understand? They were pleading with themselves to try to keep in the business that they loved. There were benefits because people started to produce yoghurts and ice cream and cheeses. When I was young there was nobody producing cheeses and nobody doing anything that like that. If we turn back to the days before that, they were probably called cottage industries. All this has grown and it has grown out of not being able to get only a reasonable profit. Mr. Joe Healy knows, because he led the farming organisation and did a good job in this country on it, that a small amount of profit keeps them happy but do not ask them to lose money. It is the same as when I am arguing in here with the Minister about the value of cattle and what is being paid for them at the moment. We ask for just the value, but do not tell us that they will pay us for something and then give us less than the value. This is where I am coming from, to see if the regulators will be looking at things like that. Will they be able to come back, whoever will be here in seven or eight years, and be told "Well fair play to the organisation, they were introduced and they did a good job because they were able to pinpoint what was going wrong".

I know we are going to have the whole imports thing to deal with. It used to be terrible to see a package of three for the price of one. That was to lure people into a supermarket.

The loss leaders.

Yes. The Cathaoirleach agrees with me, with a farming background, and he can see it. Who was doing that? Was it the person who was producing it? No, he was the person taking the hit and he is gone now.

Can I also mention the credit?

Briefly.

I will finish on this. The credit was another thing. How long is a piece of string and when do you get paid? I always had to say it when somebody would come to me and ask me "You are producing milk Willie and we are thinking of going into milk". I would always say to them: "Well, if that is what you want that is fair enough, but it is a different game workwise. Forget about that." We all worked under the same price per litre, or gallon at that time. To improve that a bit you improved the quality, but give or take, we knew exactly what the table was. Did Joe know if he was selling a few cull cows exactly what the person next door was getting? No he did not. No-one ever knew. There is no question about it, there would be a different price to Senator Victor Boyhan, for example, than to me or to Joe. That is a cert. Now what is happening? It is all over and they are all gone. This is why we have beef where it is today. Anyway, sorry for that rant.

There was not one thing the Deputy said there, whether he calls it a rant or not, that I could disagree with. The Deputy is dealing with farmers every time he gets out of his car at home until he sits back into it to come up to Dublin again and then he is representing them while he is here. I will tell a quick story about the price. I remember talking to two farmers, and this is going back a good few years. There was a bit of one-upmanship between the two farmers, as you would see. One lad was talking about a price he had got for his lambs in one factory and the other lad had got ten cent less for his lambs in a different factory. I knew the lad who had been to the different factory and I was thinking to myself "God he will not be out of pocket now". It transpired that the lad who was getting the higher price was getting it for half a kilo less. He was being cut off at 22 kg whereas the lad who was getting the ten cent less was going up to 22.5 kg. So, it goes back to what the Deputy said about the cow.

Maybe so, but why are there so many producers going out of business?

The Deputy mentioned that comment. There are two figures used at European level a lot. We are no different actually in Ireland, whether it is an age structure or losing farmers, to anywhere in the European Union. When I say two figures, they are the same figure. In the past 20 years there has been a 40% drop in farmer numbers across the EU from 15 million to 9.1 million. As well as that, and what we often argue, in any sector we want educated and motivated young people coming into a sector. Thankfully, a lot of young people are educated now and motivated. It is difficult to expect them to come into a sector where the average income in the agriculture sector is 40% less than the average of all the other sectors. What we need is a sector that is attractive to young, educated and motivated people.

The Deputy talked about imports and exports. From a farming point of view we have to be open to imports and exports because we need to export 90% of our beef and over 85% of our dairying. We are, however, always within our rights to look for reciprocity, and that is equivalence of standards. Whatever we are competing with on the shelf space, it needs to be at least produced to the same standard as we are expected to produce here in Ireland, or indeed within the EU.

Mercosur was mentioned earlier. I might be going off script now but I am replying to a number of comments. We welcome all of the comments and we very much welcome the opportunity to be here today. I thank the Cathaoirleach in particular, whom I have known since my Macra na Feirme days.

On behalf of the committee, I thank Mr. Healy for his engagement and for the information he provided. He has a hugely important role to play on behalf of consumers, farmers and processors. People need to have confidence that the price of food is fair and that they are not being ripped off in one way or another or being taken advantage of. The regulator is the one standing in the bearna bhaoil, making sure that it all balances up. It is a hugely important role.

The joint committee will be examining the horse and greyhound racing fund regulations 2025 with the Minister, Deputy Heydon, at 6.30 p.m. The select committee will be examining the 2025 Supplementary Estimate for Vote 30 with the Minister following that meeting.