asked the Minister for Finance if the 2 per cent levy on agricultural products will be used to finance agricultural education, advice and research as indicated in the Budget Statement, and if so, how.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Levy.
3.
Receipts from the levy will be paid into the Exchequer and will accordingly make a contribution towards financing educational advice and research services for agriculture which would have to be met otherwise by taxpayers in general.
Will the Minister confirm that there will be no direct link between the amount paid through the levy and the amount spent on agricultural education, advice and research and that if that is the case, that is in direct contradiction of the impression given by the Minister in his Budget Statement?
The answer to the first and second parts of the Deputy's supplementary question is no. The 1979 estimate of expenditure on education, research, advisory and inspection services is £31.5 million and the estimated yield from the levy is £12 million so there cannot be a direct link but, as I have indicated, if this money were not collected there would be a corresponding demand on the taxpayers in general.
4.
asked the Minister for Finance the number of premises now licensed under paragraph 4 of Agricultural Produce (Cattle and Milk) Regulations 1979, for the purposes of collecting the 2 per cent levy on milk and cattle; when these were licensed; if the products in question may be sold to other premises; if it is possible for owners of such premises to comply with the provisions of paragraph 4 (2) of the regulations—to apply in writing for such a licence to the Revenue Commissioners —in the absence of a postal service; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Present practice is that licences are applied for and issued in the course of visits made to premises by officers of the Revenue Commissioners. This is a local procedure and centralised records are not maintained. Consequently, whilst the licences have issued since 1 May 1979, I am not in a position to state the number of premises now licensed nor the dates they became licensed. Produce received at a licensed premises may be resold but liability to levy arises only once.
Is the Minister aware that the provisions of the order state that a person shall not receive any fresh milk or meat for slaughter unless he is the holder of a licence? How can the levy be enforced if the Minister is not aware of the premises which are licensed?
There is a provision in the order that all fresh milk received at any premises becomes liable to the levy, but there is a saver for a case in which the same milk is received at more than one premises. In that case, liability to the levy arises only at the premises at which the milk is first received. On the general question, I should like to make it clear that liability for payment of the levy does not arise only where premises are licensed. It arises whether premises are licensed or not in so far as the duty is payable specifically by the proprietor of the premises. Holding a licence is largely an administrative means for identifying premises where liability can arise, but not holding a licence does not affect liability to the levy.
Is the Minister aware that paragraph 4 of the order states clearly that a proprietor shall not slaughter or cause to be slaughtered any live animals unless he is the holder of a licence? That has operated from 1 May last and I think the Minister will agree it has been quite impossible for anybody to apply for a licence in writing, as is required by the order, because of lack of a postal service.
The Deputy is mis-interpreting the terms of the order. The fact that there is prohibition is another matter—it does not affect liability for the levy. In regard to applying in writing, the Deputy will appreciate it is possible to apply in writing even in the context of a postal strike, and indeed I understand that quite a large number of licences have been issued.
Does the Minister expect a butcher in west Kerry, for instance, to travel to Dublin in his car, for which he cannot get petrol, to deliver an application in writing to the Revenue Commissioners? It is clear to me that under the provisions of the order such a person may not slaughter animals unless he has a licence. The Minister has not answered the question.
Which question is the Deputy asking?
How does the Minister expect a person to get a licence, which he must have if he is to slaughter animals—he should have had it since I May last—if to do so he must apply in writing? In the absence of a postal service the only way persons can make written applications to the Department is to drive up from the part of the country where they live, which may be a long distance from Dublin, and deliver the application in writing by hand, and this may be particularly difficult because they cannot get petrol.
There is no question of people having to drive to Dublin from Kerry or Athy. Licences are issued by the local collectors of customs and excise. Indeed officers of the Revenue Commissioners have visited the known premises required to be licensed, have delivered application forms to proprietors for completion, and they have been making further visits to collect completed application forms and to arrange for the issue of the licences. Therefore, the Deputy may take it that neither the postal dispute nor a petrol shortage will interfere with this aspect of the business.
Why, then, was the Minister not able to say how many premises have licences?
Because this has been done locally.
Surely the Minister is in contact with his local officers. He does not even know what his local officers are doing.