Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jun 1979

Vol. 315 No. 9

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The interesting thing about the Minister's contribution on the motion to impose the levy, which is contained in substance in his Bill, was his complete failure to make an attempt to defend the principle of this levy. At no time did he seek to justify the idea that a levy of this sort should be imposed. He made a number of what, to use his own words, were totally irrelevant contributions in relation to the urgency of disease eradication, which is not affected in the least by whether or not this levy is imposed. The imposition of this levy neither accelerates nor decelerates disease eradication in itself. The Minister is seeking to pretend that it does, and is not putting forward an argument in favour of the levy.

He referred to what he described completely inaccurately as the total abandonment of disease eradication when the Coalition were in office. He knows as well as anybody else in this House that during that period disease eradication did not proceed as fast as it would otherwise have done because of an industrial dispute on a genuine issue of principle between the then Minister and the veterinary surgeons. It is no more sensible for the present Minister to say that the problems that arose in relation to disease eradication at that time constituted an abandonment by the Government of disease eradication than it would be for him to say now that because we did not have a postal service for the past few months it was an abandonment by the present Government of the postal service. I do not think he or his colleagues would claim that nor that he would claim the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs abandoned the postal service for the past few months. Does the Minister believe the postal service has been abandoned by his Government? I do not think he will say that, but if he uses those words to describe his predecessor he must use them to describe his colleague. He referred to the decline in the cattle herd, the fatal decision to admit cows to intervention and so on, but he did not attempt to defend the levy.

I would like to make a few points. First of all, this levy will be paid, regardless of ability to pay, by every farmer on every animal slaughtered regardless of whether that farmer has a taxable income and regardless of the size of the farm. It will be paid at the same rate, £3 per animal, regardless of the value of the animal. An animal worth £1,000 will pay £3 and an animal worth £10 will pay £3. The levy is one of a number of levies. It is accompanied by a 2 per cent levy which is being imposed across the board on all products. A dairy inspection levy is to follow in a Bill which is before the House. It is accompanied by what is tantamount to a levy in the form of increased veterinary fees, and by a fifth levy to finance the CBF, which is not a controversial matter but is now one of five levies being imposed by the present Government. Yet that Government, who so seem to favour levies as a means of raising revenue, go out to Brussels and try to argue that we should not have a co-responsibility levy for milk. If ever a Government weakened their own bargaining position in the EEC by means of their own policy, this is the best example of it. It is going to be very difficult for them to resist the idea of a co-responsibility levy on the grounds that it is unfair, that it discriminates and does not take account of needs. All these arguments will be put forward for not having a co-responsibility levy on this country because we are a special case and we need to be allowed to encourage milk production without a levy. All those arguments which the Minister will be putting forward against a co-responsibility levy on milk in Brussels can be and are being put forward against the levies which this Minister is imposing in this country. These are exactly the same arguments about not having reference to need, not taking account of special circumstances, not allowing people who have only one means of expanding, namely milk production, to expand. All of those arguments which the Minister is putting forward in Brussels on behalf of Ireland can be put forward on behalf of the farmers here against the levies which the Minister is introducing here.

We are told by the Minister that this levy is to be used for assisting the eradication of disease. We are not told specifically what disease, although the inference is brucellosis and tuberculosis, but no concrete assurance is given that even after brucellosis and tuberculosis have been eradicated this levy will not continue long beyond that date. There is nothing to prevent this levy becoming a permanent levy on all cattle slaughtered and all milk sent into creameries and dairies. From starting out as a form of levy for a particular purpose, after the purpose for which it was set up has been achieved it could become just another part of the general taxation system.

In section 2 of the Bill it is stated that the levy is to be 0.5 new pence per gallon as regards milk and £3 per animal in the case of beef. Under section 2 (5) the Minister may, by regulation, increase the rate of this levy. It could be increased to £9, £10 or £20 per animal simply by the introduction of an order. The Minister would have to get approval of that order from the House under the terms of the Bill, but it would be a simple matter of introducing that order and having it approved by the House, on a short debate with no requirement on the Minister to introduce new legislation if he wished to increase this levy to any amount that he chose. He has the power to increase this levy from its present amount to any amount he chooses by order. In agreeing to this legislation we are giving the Minister power to introduce further taxation at a much higher level by order. We do not give the Minister for Finance power to do that in respect of general taxation. We should not be giving to the Minister for Agriculture power to do this in respect of this form of taxation.

We were told by the Minister that the levy was to be used as a means of paying for disease eradication. If that were the case one would have expected that the proceeds of the levy would have been paid into a separate fund which would be available and usable only for disease eradication, but that is not to happen. There is no provision whatever in the Bill for the creation of a separate fund for this purpose. There is no guarantee anywhere in the Bill that the proceeds of the levy need necessarily be used solely for disease eradication. I will be introducing an amendment on Committee Stage to ensure that such a special fund is set up so that if this levy goes ahead—naturally, one hopes that it will not but that hope is unrealistic in view of the fact that the Government have circulated this legislation—it will be put into a special fund earmarked solely for disease eradication and that the people paying the levy will have an important say in the way in which it is used. I will be proposing that a committee or a group of trustees be set up, including a majority representative of the farming community, to administer this fund, so that those who are paying the levy will have a say in the way in which it is spent. At the moment the Minister is saying to the farmers "you pay the levy and I will decide how the money is spent". That is not acceptable to the farming community if this is really a disease eradication levy.

If this is nothing more than another taxation measure, then it is acceptable for the Minister to say "I will decide it because this is taxation", but he has pretended and sought to portray that this is not a taxation measure but a special disease eradication levy. If it is a special disease eradication levy, why is it not being earmarked for a special fund in disease eradication? Why are the people directly involved in disease eradication not being given a say in the way in which it is spent? The evidence is that this is just another means of taxation under another guise and that the Minister for Finance, who does not like introducing taxation himself, has come up with the very good idea of getting other Ministers to introduce taxation measures by making them impose levies for their individual purposes and thereby himself avoiding the odium of having to come into the House and impose taxation. He gets other Ministers to introduce levies which are not supposed to be taxation but which are nothing but taxation, because there is no guarantee that they will be used for the purposes for which ostensibly they are being introduced.

The Minister seemed to pretend that this levy would not be paid by small farmers in respect of cattle because the majority of small farmers do not at the moment produce cattle directly for slaughter, although that is not to say that they should not do so if the opportunity were given to them. They usually produce them for further fattening by other farmers who finally send them into slaughter-houses. The Minister was seeking to pretend that in that situation the levy would be paid only by the fattener and not by the small farmer producing the store beast. This is not necessarily the case.

In the situation which can easily occur where the supply of cattle for fattening exceeds demand the buyer will have greater strength than the seller, namely the small store producer from the West. There is no way in which the Minister can stop the fattener passing on the levy in full and, perhaps, on the double in the form of a reduced price to the smaller farmer. When supply exceeds demand the buyer has the greater bargaining strength. That is a simple axiom of economics which I am sure the Minister understands. In those circumstances the levy will be passed back to the producer, whose need to dispose of the animal is greater than the need of the buyer to acquire it. I am not contending that this situation will arise at all times; it will arise at those times of the year when demand for store animals is less than supply.

Equally this levy will be paid by the consumer and not by the fattener of cattle when the demand for beef exceeds supply. The butcher will need beef so badly to keep his customers happy and his own employees in work that he will have to pay whatever price is demanded. He will not be able to pass back the levy to the fattener but will have to pass it on to the consumer. It is a simple matter of understanding the economics of supply and demand. In certain circumstances the levy will be paid by the consumer and in other circumstances by the small store producer. The Minister says it is not intended that the levy should be paid by either of these, but this legislation does not contain any provisions which would protect them from paying the levy. It is perfectly impossible to prevent the levy being paid by the consumer in the circumstances I have described in the absence of any retail price control of meat. Because of the varieties of cuts and qualities of meat it would be impossible to administer such a system of retail price control. Where demand for meat exceeds supply I state categorically that this levy will be paid not by the farmer or the butcher but by the consumer, and the Minister has no means at his disposal to prevent this.

The essential objection to a levy as a means of taxation is that there is no control in a free market situation as to where the levy will fall. This is a fundamental canon of public finance. The levy will not necessarily fall on the person who is supposed to pay it. Depending on circumstances in the market, it will fall either on him, on people to whom he is selling or from whom he is buying. The Government have no control over this levy or any of the other four levies which they have introduced. There is injustice as between farmers big and small and in its potential incidence as a tax on consumers and on small farmers. This is a fundamentally wrong way of paying for disease eradication.

The Minister for Agriculture said there was no mention on this side of the House of other means of paying the expenses which arise in respect of disease eradication. It is for the Minister and his colleagues in Government to find means of paying for the programmes they are implementing. The Opposition should not have to tell them how to raise taxation. The argument put forward by the Minister to justify his levy that the Opposition have not come up with anything better is certainly the argument of someone who has failed utterly to find any self-sustaining justification for what he is doing and has to find justification in the absence of arguments from other people who are far less well placed and have far less access than the Government to sources of information. It is no argument for any Government to say that their course of action must be right because the Opposition have not come up with anything better.

My personal opinion on this matter has been put on record on a number of occasions. I believe that the farming community should pay taxation on accounts on what they actually earn. Farmers who have a net income which exceeds their tax-free allowances should ultimately pay taxation on accounts just as everyone else. This is the system which obtains in Northern Ireland. I suggest that the Minister for Agriculture, the farming organisations and the Revenue Commissioners should examine that system with a view to its implementation here. This is a personal suggestion made on my own behalf.

It is in order to suggest alternative methods of raising money but it is not in order to debate ways and means of taxing farmers. The Deputy will appreciate that.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate that the Minister asked for alternatives.

We cannot debate the full scheme of farmer taxation.

I appreciate that. In Northern Ireland there are no rates on agricultural land and neither are there levies but all farmers pay income tax on accounts. The system works without any excess of bureaucracy and there is no controversy about taxation as between town and country. Each sector accepts that the other is paying a fair share. That is the sort of taxation. I should like to see, not this penal levy. The Minister sought refuge in asking the Opposition to produce an alternative. I have now produced one and I hope he will do better in reply to the debate and seek to justify the levy on its own grounds, not by reference to something which happened in 1974 or 1977 or something the Opposition did or did not say. He should justify the levy he is imposing.

I accept the provision in section 22 whereby fines for offences which encourage the spread of disease are increased to £500. We have been pressing the Minister to introduce these measures for a long time. I also accept the provision contained in section 17 whereby a prosecution may be taken up to two years after the date of an offence. The situation has been that a prosecution could only be brought within six months of an offence. Evidence of such an offence may not be available for some time afterwards, and it is not right that the Minister should be prevented from prosecuting people after six months from the date of the offence.

I have doubts about the provisions contained in section 23 (1) which reads:

Anything done pursuant to an order made by the Minister in exercise of the powers conferred on him by section 22 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1894, as amended by section 2 of the Diseases of Animals (Bovine Tuberculosis) Act, 1957 (as amended by section 5 of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1960), shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings on the grounds that there was not made by the Minister in relation to an area to which the order applies a declaration by him either declaring the area to be an attested area or declaring the area to be an attested or disease-free area.

Section 23 is retrospective legislation. It is saying that something that was not a criminal offence at the time of its commission shall now be a criminal offence. The validity of the proceedings is being reasserted notwithstanding the legal flaw that may have existed at the time of the offence. In his speech the Minister said that this section was necessary because of "some vague doubts" which had been expressed about the power to take prosecutions by virtue of the fact that in some cases this declaration of an area as being an attested area had not been made.

Retrospective legislation that affects criminal proceedings should not be made without the greatest care. It is not doing the House a service for the Minister to introduce retrospective legislation of criminal effect based on nothing more than unspecified vague doubts. The Minister did not explain the doubts or the reasons for retrospective criminal legislation. I believe that he should have done so in his speech which was read for him by the Minister for Justice. We have too much retrospective validating legislation. We have had retrospective validating legislation from the Minister for Justice in relation to the sacking of Commissioner Garvey and now, because of some other mistake, we have more retrospective legislation from the Minister for Agriculture. That is not a good way to proceed. It is too easy for Ministers to cover up mistakes by introducing validating legislation. These mistakes should not have been made in the first place. There are not many parallels for retrospective validating legislation in our history. There was a recent one in the case of the sacking of Commissioner Garvey and there were ones after the civil war when actions taken by various people during that time were retrospectively validated. To the best of my knowledge it has not been a common occurrence. Where it is necessary to introduce it in the public interest, the House and the public are entitled to know why it is being done.

I should like to refer to some other sections which are particularly obnoxious. Under section 12 an authorised officer is being given the power to go into any creamery, any butcher's shop, any place where animals are being slaughtered and where milk is being disposed of, to inspect records at any time he sees fit without a search warrant. In his speech the Minister said that these were not new powers. If they are not new powers I cannot see why it is necessary to include them in the Bill. The Minister is incorrect in his claim that they are not new powers, because they would not be in the Bill if they were not necessary. I should like to draw attention to the fact that the inspector is not required to have any objective reasonable grounds for entering a premises. The inspector is the sole judge of whether it is necessary to enter premises to carry out extensive searches. He can enter premises at any time to look for documents.

Further, he is not restricted by the provisions of the section even to entering the premises solely for the purposes of the enforcement of this legislation. I believe this legislation gives an authorised officer power to enter and inspect the premises and inspect any documents for any purpose because it says in section 12 that he may retain such records, books or other documents for such purpose as may be reasonable for their examination or for the purpose of any proceedings for the recovery of levy payable or by virtue of this Act, or for an offence under this Act. There are four alternatives. So, any purpose for the examination of records is sufficient within the Bill regardless of whether or not it is for the purpose of proceedings under this legislation. The first alternative "reasonable for their examination" gives the Minister power to retain documents owned by creameries, butchers' shops or slaughtering plants for any purpose for their examination regardless of whether it has anything even remotely to do with responsibility for this levy. That is taking a power which it is quite unnecessary and oppressive to take.

Under section 11 of the Bill a butcher even though he may be only slaughtering one or two animals a week is required to retain in his possession for six years after the date of the slaughter of an animal any document which relates to the transaction whereby he bought the animal. Presumably he would have to keep the dockets he gave, receipts, blue cards, tags and so on. All this must be retained up to six years after the date of the transaction. If five years later a Department inspector arrives and says: "You slaughtered an animal five years ago: where are the tags and receipts?" and if the man cannot produce the material required he will be liable to prosecution and a fine not exceeding £500 or at the discretion of the court imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months if he is deemed not to be cooperating with the Department by not having retained this material for the full six years after the date when the animal was slaughtered.

I realise that it is not the intention of the Minister or of the officials implementing the legislation to use the powers in this extreme manner but with the greatest respect to all of them the point is that the powers are being taken, unnecessarily in my view. There is a tendency for Ministers of all parties in legislation of this sort to take powers which are about five times as great as what they require for the purpose of implementing their legislation simply to be on the safe side. They are making very substantial incursions into the civil liberties of people without really needing to do so in order to be sure that in a difficult situation they have sufficient power to do everything they might possibly want to do to get a prosecution. I do not think that should be the approach of any Minister in a matter of this sort. The approach should be for the Minister to take to himself the powers necessary to secure the enforcement of the legislation alone and no single power more whereas this Minister—he is not alone in this—is in this Bill taking far more powers than he really needs to secure enforcement of the legislation.

Under section 8 the Minister will have power to reduce the amount payable to any milk producer whose herd is infected with brucellosis or TB. He will have power to require the creamery or dairy which is taking the milk from that producer, regardless of what they might want to pay the farmer, regardless of the value of the milk being supplied, to pay a lower price to that farmer than to other farmers to an extent determined by the Minister only. In my view this gives power for an unlimited reduction in the price paid to producers without any reference to objectivity or to need or to the purposes of disease eradication. I know that the Minister does not intend to use this power in an oppressive way. When he replies to what I have said that is what he will say but the point is that he is taking the power which may be used by him or his successor for purposes that have no relation to disease eradication—to reduce the price of milk to individual producers to an unlimited and unreasonable extent. A safeguard must be written into this section to ensure that if it is to be used it shall only be used in strictly limited circumstances and for strictly reasonable purposes. That is not the case as the section is drafted.

The Minister said that if the creamery or dairy was going to pay a certain producer a lesser price under the provision which gives the Minister power to require them to do so, the money saved would be used—what the Minister said was that "these funds could be used by the processors either to increase the price paid for milk from disease-free herds or to provide appropriate services to help herd owners fight disease. It is important to note that the Minister says only that they could be used for those purposes; he is giving no guarantee that they will be used for such purposes nor is he taking any power in the Bill in respect of section 8 which allows an unlimited reduction in the price of milk to farmers who have a disease problem, to ensure that any money raised in that way is used for such purposes. The Bill is seriously deficient when that is not being done.

Further, there is no provision for using this power in such a way as to discriminate between farmers where the incidence of disease in the herd is their own fault and farmers where the incidence of disease is due to factors totally beyond their control. We know that these diseases can spread from one farm to another even though every precaution is taken to keep animals separate and the herd owner does not allow his cattle to come into any contact if he has a clear herd and his neighbour has an infected herd. The disease can spread on the wind. It can spread through water supplies, or in one way or another, from one herd to another, notwithstanding every precaution being taken by the farmer with the clear herd.

Under this Bill, if a farmer through no fault of his own—having taken every precaution to prevent the disease coming into his herd—finds that the disease comes into his herd because of the malevolence or negligence of his neighbour, there is nothing to say that the Minister, in the exercise of his power, will not reduce the price paid for milk to the farmer who has taken every possible precaution against the disease arising in his herd by the same amount as it is being reduced in respect of the farmer who has taken no precautions and has been responsible for the spread of the disease. There is nothing in the Bill to give us any assurance on that point. This is something which must be attended to in the drafting of the amendments for Committee Stage and I hope the Minister will do so.

I should like to make a few remarks about disease eradication generally but, before doing so, I should like to ask the Minister a question in relation to the purposes for which the Bill is being introduced and the purposes for which the levy is being imposed. The title of the Bill is Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill. In all the publicity about the Bill, reference has been made to brucellosis and tuberculosis. It would seem it is possible within the terms of the Bill for these powers to be used to raise a levy for the purpose of meeting the costs which arise in respect of other bovine diseases as well as brucellosis and tuberculosis. Is it possible, for instance, that this Bill could be used to raise levies to meet the cost of warble fly eradication, the cost of measures taken against bovine leucosis, or any other disease which may arise in respect of bovine animals, costs which must be borne by the Department? If so we should be told so. That matter remains unclear.

The Minister laid considerable stress on the urgency of the disease eradication programme. I should like to endorse what he said about the urgent need to eradicate brucellosis and tuberculosis. I will advance three basic reasons in support of what the Minister said about the urgency of the need to eradicate these diseases. The first, of course, is the loss incurred by herd owners because of the existence of these diseases in their herds. The second is the danger to our exports arising from the fact that we have a far higher incidence of brucellosis and tuberculosis than exists in any of the customer nations with which we are dealing in the EEC. The third one—and to my mind the most important one by far—is the danger brucellosis and tuberculosis pose to human health. I propose to deal with the second two reasons. The one in relation to losses by farmers because of disease in their herds is so obvious that it does not need to be dealt with in a debate of this sort.

At the moment there is a directive in draft form before the Council of Ministers which provides that no fresh milk may be sold from one country to another in the European Community if it comes from a herd which is infected with brucellosis or tuberculosis. When there is a surplus of milk, the Ministers of the EEC will tend to search around for ways and means to restrict the production and sale of milk. There is no better excuse—and that might well be all that it would be—for restricting the sale of milk products than the threat of disease arising among humans.

In the case of fresh milk there is justification for not allowing it to be sold if it has not been pasteurised and if it comes from brucellosis- and tuberculosis-infected herds. It is quite possible that the Commission might seek at some date in the not-too-distant future to say that processed milk products which come from brucellosis- and tuberculosis-infected herds could not be sold in inter-Community trade. I contend there is no danger whatever to human health in the case of processed milk products even if they come from infected herds because, in the course of processing, they will have been pasturised and measures will have been taken to prevent them posing any danger to human health.

There is every reason to fear that this excuse—and that is all it would be—would be used by our partners in the EEC to restrict us in the sale of milk products which come from herds which are not clear of brucellosis and tuberculosis. That would be a very serious matter. It would strangle our trade. We would have to go and look for a derogation for Ireland in respect of the proposals they might be making. They would come back to us and say: "You are looking for a derogation to allow you to continue exporting your material even though you have certain diseases. At the same time, you are keeping out our meat and our animals on the grounds that we have certain diseases. Let us do a deal. We will give you your derogation if you let in our cattle, beef, and so on."

The danger then could be that diseases which are prevalent on the Continent and which do not exist here might be introduced. We do not allow animals to come from countries in which the following diseases are prevalent, even though they may now be clear of them: foot and mouth, swine fever, blue tongue and Newcastle disease. Even though the animals may be perfectly clear, if they come from a country where those diseases existed at any time in the recent past we will not allow them in. The danger is not only that we would be prevented from exporting, but that the derogations we already have to keep out animals from those countries on the grounds that they contain disease could be challenged on the grounds that what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander.

I am putting these matters on record—I do not know whether the Minister has already put them on record; perhaps I am more free to do so than he is—in order to stress the urgency of disease eradication and my full support for the Minister in any reasonable measure to deal with disease eradication. This levy has nothing to do with disease eradication and it is not reasonable. It is nothing but a revenue measure. The eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis from our herds is important because of the danger to human health. I have been advised by people more eminently qualified than I that there is a danger that not only can brucellosis spread to humans from animals but that bovine tuberculosis can infect humans as well. This is of great concern. Tuberculosis was the main problem in the forties and prior to that. If, arising from our failure to eradicate bovine tuberculosis, there was to be a recrudescence of tuberculosis as a human condition the Minister or those on this side of the House would not be forgiven for not taking all necessary measures to eradicate it.

The situation is that not all precautions that should be taken by the authorities to prevent brucellosis and tuberculosis, where they exist in cattle, spreading to humans are being taken. Approximately 25 per cent of milk consumed is consumed in an unpasteurised form. There is a similar proportion of herds in those parts of the country where a lot of milk is produced where brucellosis and tuberculosis are endemic in the herd. The fact that we allow unpasteurised milk to be sold from herds where we are not certain that these diseases have been totally eradicated is a serious matter. I understand that it is the responsibility of local authorities to make orders where they deem it necessary requiring the pasteurisation of all milk sold for human consumption. I do not have information on this but I understand that there are a number of local authorities which have not made orders requiring that milk sold for human consumption be pasteurised. If that milk is coming from herds where there is a risk of those diseases present in the herd we are taking a most unacceptable risk with the health of the community.

Apart from milk which is actually sold in an unpasteurised form there is a considerable amount of milk in this form consumed by farmers' families. I should like the Minister to ensure that wherever brucellosis is found special measures are taken to alert the family and anybody who might be consuming milk from that herd to the fact that that milk can only be safely consumed if it has been boiled and pasteurised. Such precautions are not being taken on a general scale in respect of such herds. In their absence we are taking a serious risk.

A point I have repeatedly made is that no proper means of liaison has been developed between the health authorities concerned with human health and the Department of Agriculture authorities who are concerned with the eradication of the disease. There should be a regular system at each county level of liaison between the district veterinary office and the health authorities whereby all outbreaks of these diseases which have a human health connotation are automatically notified to the health authorities. The families concerned and other humans who might be at risk should be warned immediately of the danger to their own health by the health authorities. There are far more elaborate precautions for preventing the spread of this disease from one animal to another than there are for preventing the spread of the disease from an animal to a human. This is due to the fact that the Department of Agriculture have been far more assiduous in doing their job than the Department of Health have been in doing theirs in this context.

I should like to refer to two reports which have been presented in respect of milk and meat relating to the dangers of the spread of animal disease to humans.

The Deputy is getting very much into the health side of the matter, which would be for another Minister. He is entitled to refer to it but not to go into it in great detail.

I suppose that one of the main reasons for wanting to eradicate these diseases is their danger to human health. The report of the Joint Services Committee on Zoonosis, presented by the Minister for Health in 1974 in respect of milk and meat, should be published because it contains information about the danger of the spread of animal disease to humans and the precautions that should be taken to prevent that happening. If the reports were published they would lead to a more informed discussion than exists at present.

I should like to make reference to the serious inadequacy of the inspection which takes place at slaughter houses other than export plants. We are highly assiduous in eliminating any animal that contains evidence of tuberculosis on its body if that animal is going for export. The precautions we take to prevent animals being used as meat for domestic consumption are in no way comparable. There is a professional full-time veterinary inspection service in the export plants inspecting meat to ensure that it does not contain these diseases, but we have a part-time service inspecting the other premises. In respect of slaughter houses for domestic consumption the inspection is by veterinary surgeons most of whom have other jobs and are given this one as a perk. They are told they can do about half a day's work looking at individual butcher's stalls and so on. If a butcher slaughters on a Tuesday but the vet did not happen to come around until a Thursday, he would not see any slaughtering or any animal slaughtered because no animal would be slaughtered on that day.

There is an inefficient means of inspection of premises from a disease point of view where the meat is destined for domestic consumption. There is insufficient staff dealing with tuberculosis in the Department's veterinary laboratory at Abbottstown. In the past there were two veterinary surgeons concerned with the question of the incidence of tuberculosis, but this complement has been reduced to one in the entire research services of the Department of Agriculture concerned with bovine tuberculosis. I do not believe that a disease which is costing us so much can be properly eradicated from a research point of view by one veterinary surgeon acting on his own in Abbottstown. There should be a considerable increase in this matter.

I would like to make one or two other points about bovine diseases. We have a problem at the moment with bovine leucosis which has broken out here in the last year or two as a result of the importation of Canadian Holstein bulls. I understand that this disease, which is a form of leukemia or blood cancer in cattle, has now spread to about 70 or 80 herds here. I understand also that it is not an easy disease to detect and that it can be present in animals, and indeed present to a degree that it infects other animals, for up to four years before any tumor or any visible evidence comes to light. If we do not take resolute action now to eradicate this disease we run the risk that the disease will become endemic. In Denmark they wiped this disease out completely, but they did so by slaughtering all the animals in the herds where the disease was prevalent. They had to take highly unpleasant and highly stringent measures to get rid of it. This disease has been present here for about 18 months, and I gather that there are measures being taken to follow up the disease and find out where it exists and lock up those herds where it has been shown to exist. But is the Minister satisfied that these measures are sufficient and will in fact eradicate the disease by a specific time? When this disease first came to light I asked the Minister if any date had been set for the eradication of this disease and he said that there was no date set. We must set a specific date for getting rid of bovine blood cancer. We must say that by 1985 this disease will not exist here but we will take every measure that is necessary to get it out of this country. Any sort of softly, softly approach to this disease will not work. This is the information that I have from people who are qualified to give it to me, and I would ask the Minister to take a hard look at it.

I would like to make one last point about disease eradication, and I hope the Minister will agree with me. Urgent attention needs to be given not just to the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis but to the prevention of the outbreak of them. There is a great deal more that can be done to encourage farmers to take preventive measures to avoid the outbreak of disease in their herds. We need qualified people who are prepared to go along to farmers and advise them on the type of disinfection procedures that they can take where an outbreak had taken place, and to advise farmers on preventive measures so that they will avoid getting the disease in the first place. I have no criticism at all to make of the veterinary profession who are working on their own behalf, but the fact is that they are so busy running from one point to another in a fire brigade operation, dealing with diseases that have broken out in one herd or another, that they do not have the time to spend with a farmer to sit down and advise him on the various steps he should take to avoid brucellosis and call back, say, in two months' time to see how that farmer is getting on and to give him any further help if he needs it. The fact of the matter is that the practitioner who is working for himself has not the time to do that sort of educational and advisory work with his clients because he is so busy doing fire brigade operations, putting out fires in the form of disease that have arisen on some farms; he rushes into the yard and out again to another man. There must be an educational veterinary service here designed solely to help farmers to prevent disease. I urged very strongly on the Minister at the time that this should be included in the advisory services under the new Comhairle Oiliúna Talmhaíochta. The Minister did not accept the amendment which would have done this, but notwithstanding that the case I made then is still absolutely valid, and a tremendous amount of money could be saved by a proper prevention and education programme directed at all the farmers in the country. I would ask the Minister if he would consider setting up a unit specifically concerned with the

Educational requirements in the prevention of diseases. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate he will do that.

I have spent quite an amount of time talking generally about disease in what I hope was a constructive spirit. However I would not like to end my contribution without saying that we are resolutely opposed to the imposition of this levy and we are highly sceptical about the need for some of the powers that have been taken by the Minister to inspect premises and reduce the price of milk without any check being put on whether or not those powers are being exercised in a reasonable manner. Because of the levy, if for no other reason, we will be opposing the giving of a Second Reading to the Bill.

I just want to make a few points on this Bill. Anything that would help in the eradication of diseases has my full support. Having said that, I think the method being adopted to finance this and the levy being introduced in the Bill are unjust. It takes no account of the person's income or ability to pay. There are other ways in which the levy will work unfairly not alone for the producer but for the consumer. For that reason we must find some other way of getting a fair and equitable share of taxation from the farmers. But in introducing legislation of this type we must take into account the ability of farmers to pay. The 2 per cent levy which was announced in the budget and was later scrapped, changed around and then reintroduced in a most unedifying manner by the Government can be justified to a certain extent but the same cannot be said about the levy under discussion which is not a percentage levy.

The levy is imposed on a gallon of milk, irrespective of the number of gallons a farmer may bring to a creamery or the income of a farmer. I will continue to oppose the 2 per cent levy because it did not take into account the ability of the farmer to pay but at least it is listed as a percentage of the gross income.

The levy under discussion makes a farce of the whole idea of levies. It will be applied to beasts, irrespective of the value of the animal. It is a most unfair system which cannot be justified. I accept that farmers must pay their fair share of taxation but it must be within the competence of a government to devise a fair and equitable system of taxation for farmers. In my view this levy will not encourage farmers to improve production and is something which would not be tolerated in any other industry. It will discourage people from getting involved in the production of milk and beef and will act as another blow to those who are anxious to improve their holdings. It must be remembered that many people are depending on farmers producing more milk and beef for the creation of more jobs.

We should also be made aware of how long this levy will remain in operation. When the diseases are finally eradicated will the levy continue to be collected and used to finance other schemes? We are all anxious to see diseases eradicated but farmers are also anxious to know if this levy will become a normal part of taxation when we achieve total disease eradication. Is this system an indication of what is likely to happen in other industries which are serviced in one way or another by public funds? The introduction of the levy will create great difficulties for butchers who are in business in a small way. They will be obliged to keep accounts for a long time. In my view, because of the way such people operate, it will be impossible for them to charge the levy to the farmer who sells animals to them from time to time. The result will be that the consumer will have to pay the cost. The only way such traders can compensate themselves in this regard is to charge the consumer extra for meat.

I view this as an easy way out for the Government. I do not know whether the Minister likes this method of collecting taxes. While I accept that we must step up our efforts to eradicate disease the finance for such schemes must come from central funds. If farmers are to be asked to pay extra for those schemes it should be done in a fair and equitable manner. The income and profits of farmers must be taken into consideration. Some years ago I was very unpopular when I advocated the accounts system as a fair and equitable means of farmer taxation but I believe many of them now accept it as the best method. It must be remembered that a levy system affects small farmers most, many of whom do not earn enough to make them liable for income tax.

I fear that the levy will discourage farmers from producting more beef, a fear which is also held by managers of meat factories. It will also discourage owners of large farms from engaging in beef fattening during the winter months for sale to the meat farmers. Cattle will not be available to the factory if we make the profitability on them too small. Factory managers and people concerned in the trade recognise that fact. Those people can change their methods of farming and will not be at any loss. The loss of employment in the factories will be severe as a result of this levy.

I have no doubt that this 3 per cent levy will go on to consumers. Does it go on to every beast, whatever its size, irrespective of whether it is sold for £600 or is a small beast worth around £100? It is unfair to put the same levy on all beasts. Does it refer to beasts which are sold at a very poor price when they have some disease? Many of those might be sold for £10 each. They could be old as animal feed or to bonemeal factories. Is this levy to be collected from the factories on reactors in the eradication scheme we have been talking about? The Minister should think again. I have the full support of my party for any just scheme he wants to introduce which will help in the eradication of animal disease which affects our exports of meat. If money has to be collected it should be collected on an equitable basis and take into account the ability of a person to pay. This Bill does not recognise the ability of people to pay and, therefore, my party must oppose it.

In supporting my colleague, Deputy Bruton, in opposing this Bill it is only right that I should say a few words on the Minister's attitude in relation to motion No. 10. He complains that our contributions had little meat in them as far as the Bill is concerned. He has consistently in the House been going back over the situation and blaming his predecessor, Deputy Clinton, for the abandonment of disease eradication in 1975 and 1976. I am the owner of a herd of cattle and this is unjustified.

Deputy Bruton pointed out that we had industrial dispute at that time and progress was slow prior to that dispute. It was essential that new measures be taken to speed up the disease eradication then. I do not blame Deputy Clinton for taking the action he took. The Minister should think back over the 14 or 15 years during which he and the two other Ministers before him have held office and see what progress was made in the 10 years prior to the Coalition Government coming into power. Very little progress was made in disease eradication, particularly of TB, which was being eradicated then. Almost the same percentage of incidence of TB was in the herds in 1971 as in 1960.

The Minister comes into the House and blames everything on a particular action taken by a man who conscientiously believed that certain measures had to be taken to speed up the eradication of disease. He has consistently made a further point about the slaughter of 700,000 cows. He never asked himself what cows were slaughtered. He said that the slaughter of cows at that time led to deficiency. I accept that but we should ask ourselves the type of cows that were slaughtered. Suckler herds were slaughtered then. I would never encourage any farmer, no matter how big or small, to invest in a suckler herd. No farmer should be foolish enough to believe that he could have a good standard of living unless he has 400 or 500 acres of land. The lowest possible income any man can get here from any enterprise in agriculture is from a suckler herd. One will still get a very low income if one has multiple sucklers.

The Fianna Fáil Party encouraged this in the years 1970 and 1971. I know that the beef mountain in Europe had an effect on our prices at that time. The people who had suckler herds and got rid of them have never got back into them again. It is impossible to have an income in agriculture from a suckler herd. Let us look at the income a man will get from having a cow to suck one, two or three calves and let us imagine keeping a cow to produce liquid milk. The lowest possible rate for a herd is about 620 gallons which yields approximately £300. If one has a cow which suckles three calves and one makes £30 each on the three calves the income from that is approximately £100. No good, sound milking cows were slaughtered in that period.

The Minister should not be so foolish as to encourage people to go back into suckler herds. The foundations of the State were laid on cow herds. They produce the milk and the beef for the factories. The Minister should try to bring in a system whereby calf rearing, which is quite modern now, can be successfully done. He should talk about calf rearing rather than about suckler herds. He complained about our contributions this morning. He is not fooling us or he is not fooling the people. The disease eradication has to go on whether this levy goes on or not. It will be necessary to continue the scheme in order to save the herds but I am prepared to accept that progress has been slow.

Animal disease in Ireland must be described as serious. Progress in all areas has been very slow. We cannot make real progress unless we get the co-operation of the Department of Agriculture, the veterinary profession and, most important, the herd-owners. This co-operation is vital if we are to succeed in eradicating disease. If anyone believes that any one of these three groups can eradicate disease on their own he is fooling himself. All three parties have a vital interest in the eradication of disease and they must pull together. The Minister has complained about our contributions. It is my intention to speak on the practical problems attached to disease eradication and I will be critical of all three parties. I will start with the Department of Agriculture.

The main purpose of the Department is to supervise and in this area they have fallen down badly. There is a Department office in Carlow. I have always believed that each county should have its own local office. We made this case to the previous Minister for Agriculture; I understand it was made to the Minister, Deputy Gibbons, before 1972 and we will make the case to him again today. Supervision is necessary in any business but supervision over the expenditure of public money is absolutely essential. A huge sum of approximately £22 million is spent each year by the Department on disease eradication. I do not think they have the necessary exports in the local offices. When a farmer is having his cattle tested the local vet notifies him. I understand that the local office is also notified but to my knowledge there have not been any spot inspections by inspectors although I understand there are some inspections now. Although we may have the veterinary profession on our back, it must be pointed out that it is not necessary that the people involved be veterinary surgeons. All that is needed is an inspection to ensure that all the cattle are presented for testing and, secondly, that the vet concerned is given the necessary time to examine the herd properly.

As in every profession, 10 per cent of people in this area are not prepared to do the job as it should be done. They will abuse the system. I have yet to see a summons carried out by the Department in my area. I know of reports being made of certain things happening but little notice has been taken. I claim that the Department should tighten up their own system. They should be able to guarantee that the entire herd is presented and that the veterinary officer concerned gives sufficient time to see that the test is carried out properly. I had a personal experience with regard to my own herd. An inspector came into my yard, asked for the books and got them. We went through the cattle twice and we were one tag short. In a large herd this is quite understandable and it is often due to human error. We put the cattle through the crush on three occasions but we failed to find the missing tag. The following morning three of my cattle had pneumonia. I told the officer that anyone could make a mistake with one tag and I said I saw no reason why the cattle should be pushed backwards and forwards through the crush but he insisted that the beast had to be found. We did not find the animal. In my opinion it was total over-reaction.

The Department have records of every herd in the country for the past 15 years and they should be able to identify from the records where the disease is recurring. Special attention should be given to such herds. A farmer may be clear of disease for four or five years but all of a sudden he may find that an animal has disease and on a second test other animals may be affected. The Department should check all their records.

It is my belief that they have not the experts to identify the source of disease. We have heard that badgers bring down the disease from the hills or that hens roosting in a cow-house can infect the herd. I have never heard of anyone going through a farm and identifying the source of disease. The Department, by checking the records, should be able to see where the breakdown is taking place in the various herds. They should have an expert team in each office to identify the source of disease.

I understand that some improvements have been made with regard to disinfectant. Up to now this had not been the case. If a farmer found that one of his beasts was affected he got a leaflet stating that certain regulations laid down by the Department should be carried out, but his was never done. There should be some attempt to see that regulations are carried out. This is in the interest of the Department who are spending large sums of public money on disease eradication.

I have never hammered the veterinary profession but I must state that certain abuses have taken place during the years and the Department are aware of this. Certain action had to be taken but I claim that there is a small percentage of vets who are not carrying out their duties properly and in accordance with the Department's regulations. If we are to have real success in eradicating disease it is essential that these people be tracked down. With regard to farmers, I claim that about 10 per cent of them are prepared to abuse every regulation the Department will make. One of the most serious matters is tag-switching. I have never understood why a watertight system is not devised so that tag-switching could not be done. It is the easiest thing in the world to switch a tag from one animal to another. I have been on a few deputations to the Department about this issue but for some peculiar reason they never come up with a watertight system which cannot be abused.

The Minister said he tightened up the regulations, increased the penalties and so on, but the tags are no different now than they were five years ago. It is as easy to switch a tag now as it was then. If I switched tags it cannot be proved by anybody because there is no ear identification. The only identification that exists is the number on the tag. I find it very difficult to suggest proposals to remedy this tag situation. I understand that it is possible to put a plastic tag in a beast's ear which cannot be removed and if it is cut off it cannot be put in another beast's ear. I understand the Department have been discussing this matter with a plastics manufacturer. I appeal to them to try and come up with a solution to this problem.

Whether we like it or not, tag switching is, and always has been, carried out on a wide scale. I buy cattle from the southern counties and they are very good at tag switching. I will not mention any county. I heard the Minister say this morning that a particular southern county had the highest incidence of disease not alone in Ireland but in Europe. He does not have to look far to see the truth in what I am saying.

The Minister of State said it, not me. The main purpose of this Bill is to extract £10 million from the farming community. Is this sum part of the Minister for Finance's £100 million which he said should be taken from farmers this year in the form of tax? Does he intend increasing this .5p per gallon, or approximately 1 per cent, year by year? I believe he does. This is the thin end of the wedge. It is very wrong that this system should be used.

A number of levies have been imposed on farming commodities which bear no relation to the income of the person concerned. This is hitting our small farmers, particularly those under 50 acres, very hard. I am sure the Minister of State has seen the first cheques out this month and the levies attaching to them. There is the agricultural production duty of 2 per cent, the Bord Bainne levy of .3p per gallon, about .6 per cent per gallon, the EEC levy, this new levy, and yet another one. That makes five levies, This system of extracting money from the farming community is unfortunate, and I oppose the principle involved. This will affect the confidence of the farming community, because each month there will be these enormous stoppages from the cheques received from the dairies or factories. These five levies will represent approximately 12 per cent of the profits made by milk producers. To a lesser degree the Minister is responsible for an increase in overheads of around 14 per cent. He did not get an increase in the price for milk products in Brussels. Will this increase confidence in the farming community?

As far as cattle are concerned the situation is slightly worse. I have always believed that the cattle industry is vital to our economy. After a very difficult year beef producers' profits have slumped. They made very little profit over the winter period. The papers claimed there was a reduction in profits of over 40 per cent but in my opinion that is a slight exaggeration. There was a 25 per cent reduction in profits. This will not create confidence in the industry and will undoubtedly damage prospects for the future.

Disease eradication should be the responsibility of the State, whether it be in humans or in animals. I am not saying it should be completely financed by the Exchequer. Whether this .5p per gallon levy goes on milk, the disease eradication programme must continue. This Bill is the thin end of the wedge because it looks as if the farmers will be asked to pay for the implementation of this programme. If they are being asked to pay 50 per cent in a bad year, what will happen if they have a good year? The Minister will have no qualms of conscience in making the 1 per cent into 2 per cent. It seems that farmers are going to be asked to pay for the implementation of the disease eradication programme. If eradication is as slow as it has been over the past ten years farmers should have the right to put an alternative scheme into operation. There is the old saying that the man who pays the piper should be entitled to call the tune. If we are going to spend another ten years eradicating disease and paying at the rate we are being asked to pay at the moment, farmers will not pay indefinitely for a bad scheme which has proved inefficient. I do not know the date of the start of the tuberculosis scheme but it is something like 15 to 20 years ago. The incidence of tuberculosis in the herds of this country is very little lower than it was ten years ago.

The Minister was looking for suggestions here this morning. If disease eradication were handed over to each individual herdsman and if at the end of a period of three to four years he was given a substantial grant, no doubt we would eradicate the disease considerably faster than we will in the way we are trying to do it at the moment. We have to examine the 10 per cent of people who are prepared consistently to abuse the scheme itself. Are we going to ask the 90 per cent of farmers to subsidise this 10 per cent? There are deficiencies on all sides, on the Department side, the veterinary side and the farmers' side. The sooner the Department come up with proper inspection of all concerned the sooner we will get rid of the disease.

Another measure which the Minister put into operation this year is one with which I did not agree, although I disagree to some extent with my colleague, Deputy Bruton, about this. I am referring to the 30-day test. The Minister should ask himself how successful this 30-day test is. I have some figures. It is extremely expensive on the farmers. We tested about 800,000 cattle under the test and we managed to identify approximately 300 as diseased. I am subject to correction on these figures. The cost of this test is enormous and the results from it are not what they should be. I have also from the Wexford marts an accurate account of what has happened since the 30-day test was put into operation. In January of this year compared with January of last year there was a reduction in sales of 43 per cent in the group of marts. In February the reduction was 30 per cent; in March, 26 per cent; April, 20 per cent and May 25.5 per cent. I asked the people concerned why this was happening and they told me that private sales in the county were in full swing. They have put a man on the road to canvass the farmers to bring the cattle to the marts to be sold and to do the 30-day test. Whatever good the Minister is doing by the test is being undone by the private sales.

Let us look at the deficiencies in the test. If my cattle are tested today I can sell them six months later—who is to say that I did not sell them between I July and 30 July—the buyer can sell them to the factory a short time after. I can sell them in six months. If I am prepared to abuse the test nobody can argue that I did not sell them within the 30 days allowed on the test. The Department know that. It is being abused right, left and centre and those figures from the Wexford marts are there as written evidence that the 30-day test is being abused and that private sales are in full swing across the county. Furthermore, as a result of the implementation of the 30-day test and the reduction in sales at the marts, 20 full-time employees were made redundant in that group of marts. That is the effect that it has had in Wexford. I am prepared to accept that 800,000 were tested and that 300 were identified as being diseased. How many were sent around the county in private sales without being identified which are now right across the county? There is no doubt that the abuse is there and will continue to be there.

The cost of the 30-day test and the cost of all these actions, the 2 per cent on a £500 fat beast sold in the market and going to the factory is £10. The figure that I got from the marts for the average cost of the 30-day test is around £4 per beast. It would cost about £3 in the marts to sell the beast to the factory. That amounts to £17 per beast imposed by these regulations. All this will not help. Some people who have fattened cattle have informed me that if they get £40 profit per beast they are doing well, and the Minister is asking for practically half of that.

I hope that the Minister will take some notice of the question of compensation. I am not claiming that the hard-pressed taxpayers should be asked to compensate the farmers for disease eradication completely, but the loss per annum of diseased animals is one of the biggest stumbling blocks in disease eradication. At the moment we can have a loss on replacement of cows in a herd. The source of tuberculosis and brucellosis is the cow herds and the question of compensation is a big one. When the Minister is extracting £10 million from the agricultural community I hope he will see fit to increase the compensation to a reasonable level whereby farmers will not be losing around £400 per cow as a result of tuberculosis and brucellosis.

I would like to get back to the Bill and to refer to section 8. The Minister stated that a significant reduction in the price of milk supplied from herds with either TB or brucellosis infection could also prove to be a most effective way of bringing home to herd owners that we cannot afford to tolerate continuing delay in getting rid of these diseases. He also said that any funds accruing to milk processors as a result of operating a price differential system will not go to the Exchequer. Farmers will be asked to pay for the scheme and will also be penalised. I am surprised the Department have not warned the Minister about this section. By whom is it to be exercised? If there is brucellosis in my herd the Department will state that fact, but who is to state what the reduction per gallon in the price of my milk will be? How long will the reduction apply? This is a very serious section and we are in favour of its deletion.

Brucellosis is a very contagious disease. A farmer who is taking every precaution can find his herd infected by that of a neighbour. I appeal to the Minister of State to make these views known to the Minister. This objectionable section must be removed because it is ridiculous to give anyone this kind of authority. By whom is it to be exercised? What is to be done with the money? A farmer whose herd has been free of infection can suddenly find that he has an infected animal and automatically he will be penalised. The Minister described farm leaders as living in cloud cuckoo land. If he allows this section to stand, he must be living in cloud cuckoo land. This provision will put people out of business.

The Revenue Commissioners already have sufficient powers over farmers. It has been stated that the small butchers must keep records for the Revenue Commissioners of herd owners who sell cattle to them. It has been stated that these butchers will have to pay the 2 per cent and also another £3 per head, but in reality these levies will be passed on to the consumer. With the exception of city butchers, most butchers have land adjacent to their premises and they buy what are known as three-quarters finished heifers and finish them themselves. The marts are not stopping the 2 per cent and neither will they be asked to pay the £3 per head. The consumer will have to pay. These levies have shaken the confidence of farmers and will damage the industry as a whole. I would ask the Minister to reconsider this issue in the interest of the nation.

This can be regarded as an effort to justify a further levy of 2 per cent and this is very dangerous. Eventually it will be passed to the consumer. The producer is in business and nobody can continue working at a loss or on a break-even basis. The average beef producer has invested substantial sums of borrowed money. It was invested at a time when he could convince lending agencies that he could and would meet his commitments to them and make a profit. He invested money in buildings and stock. Anyone involved in beef production or dairying has problems with which to contend. There may be difficulties with the planning authority regarding silage effluent. Large sums of money must be spent in building a proper beef or dairying unit. Once he is in production he has to cope with the disease problem and it has been said that where there are livestock there are also dead stock. That is an occupational hazard for which he must allow. Now the Government are slapping on two further levies.

I appeal to the Minister and the Minister of State not to rush this dangerous legislation through the House on the eve of the Recess. They will not lose face by having another look at it and I would be the first to compliment them if they decided to withhold it. Mistakes are made by every Government, especially when things are done in a hurry and this appears to be a very hurried piece of legislation. It is a question of "We must find money. How shall we find it? This is one way. Let us try it", without really going into the consequences, dangers and problems involved.

Our Minister in Europe—and now a full European membership—are endeavouring to do a job for the Irish farmers endeavouring to convince their sophisticated parliamentary colleagues that agriculture here, by their standards, is in its infancy; that we have a long road ahead before we can compete fully with our European counterparts; that we have difficulties of marketing and so on, longer distances to the market-place, as Deputy Clinton has pointed out; that we are endeavouring to break into new markets; but the most vital point, that we, as a nation, have not contributed one iota to beef mountains, dairy mountains or milk powder mountains, or butter mountains. We have always succeeded in selling our produce.

We are certainly weakening the hand of our Minister and our Europarliamentarians in imposing this levy. When they are fighting this co-responsibility levy and all the other levies that will be imposed without doubt, how can they argue against a co-responsibility levy when they can be told "You are doing exactly the same thing at home. Have you not levies of 2 per cent, levies for the eradication of bovine diseases? Are you not thinking about levies to pay for your advisory services?" We shall be a laughing stock if we try to fight a levy in the European market place. We cannot argue against this co-responsibility levy if we impose a levy at home.

We are now talking about a 1/2p a gallon on milk and £3 a head on beef. This is probably only the thin end of the wedge. Inflation being what it is, what is it going to be like next year? Will it be 2p a gallon on milk and £6 a head on beef, or what will it be? We do not know. Once we accept the principle, we cannot argue about the amounts. If we, in this House, accept the principle of this levy as being a just way of paying for eradication of disease, we cannot possibly argue in future about the amounts levied.

As I already said, any form of taxation or levy should be related to the person's ability to pay. Putting this imposition on a struggling young farmer could mean all the difference between success and failure—and I mean failure. Some speakers felt that he could move out and into another operation, into tillage and so on. That is not possible. All his financial commitments, present and future, are already poured into this enterprise; he cannot take up his buildings and bring them to the market place and buy tractors and combine harvesters. He is committed. He is nailed to that policy of beef production or dairy production, and until such time as he makes sufficient money to get out he cannot do so.

The effects of the levy, contrary to what some Deputies on the Labour benches think, will not be seen overnight in industry. However, the long-term effect will be disastrous, for two reasons. Firstly, it will impair the efficiency of that young farmer. Not only does he need finance to develop, he needs finance for day-to-day operations. If he is having problems with his bank his operation will suffer, and there is no way that he can expand further if he cannot justify his original operation. What are we doing? We are saying to that man "You are going to be held up", which is a pity, because we are only in our infancy in regard to beef and dairy production. We have many acres of this fine country to develop further if we expend more and more in beef and dairy. We have a wonderful market place and a great future. We have a natural, Godgiven climate to grow the cheapest food in the world for dairy animals and beef production. Yet, when any responsible Government should be giving incentives and encouraging young people with interest-free loans—and mind you, this whole business of borrowing at the moment is a frightening operation—what are we doing? We are providing disincentives. This is a very serious aspect of this Bill.

Other sectors of the community rightly point to the farmers and say "We think you should carry your fair share of the tax burden". That has been generally accepted by farmers and everybody else. However, there is a hidden tax, a tax for which they will get no credit from anybody, because it will not be recognised by anybody as a tax. They will still be regarded as tax evaders, although they have now on their shoulders income tax, double rates, 2 per cent levies, this levy, probably and advisory levy. I do not know how many other levies they will have before we are finished. This must look like an anti-farmer bias in this House, as if we are about to do them down when we should be encouraging them. As Deputy Bermingham pointed out rightly, agriculture is a source of great employment. The number of people employed in it at the moment is fantastic.

The multi-national companies are pulling industries out at the first bit of a sneeze in their head factory; it becomes pneumonia here and they close the Irish factory down. All these things are happening and the mainstay, the beef and dairy co-ops and fertilisers and so on, are going strength to strength, which is why I believe we here should be giving every encouragement to farmers instead of discouraging them. Have a fair system of tax and be done with it. Do not be putting on all these little aguisins day after day, until the farmers arrive at the stage where they do not know where they are. The end result will be a stalling of further production, a holding operation at a time when we need someone to keep on forging ahead in order to ensure that our people—young people especially—will have jobs here at home, worthwhile, safe jobs, that they will not have to emigrate, but will find the necessary jobs in agriculture, there for the taking, if we continue as we have been doing. Now we have, as it were, put on the brakes when there is no need at all to do so. We are highly competitive; we have the right article for the market place—good quality butter, cheese, beef and horticultural products. Everything is right; our prices are right but we are saying to the producers now: we will levy you out of existence, because that is really what we are doing. What will the producer do? He will be cautious, careful, almost cowardly, when production will grind slowly but surely to a halt.

Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,

There is one other matter to which I might make reference, that is, the philosophy of freedom for industry enunciated by this Government time and again. In the exercise of that freedom the co-operative movement have done their own thing. On their own initiative they have given incentive bonuses over the years for high quality milk production, for high quality products. Indeed because of these voluntary incentives we have been successful in putting a high quality product in the market place.

It is true to say, especially of an Irish farmer, that you can lead him but you cannot drive him. This Bill is an effort to drive him rather than lead him and will be met with resistance all along the line. History has shown that to be the case. Therefore, I would appeal to the Minister of State to have another think about this Bill. By not allowing the market place to operate as it were, bonuses will cease to be an incentive. It seems very unfair that a farmer who is doing everything properly, looking after his herd, keeping a clean and efficient herd, if landed with brucellosis through no fault his own should be classified as a third rate farmer. God knows brucellosis, in itself, is a great penalty without having to pay another. Any Deputy in this House who is a farmer will realise what an agonising penalty it is for a farmer whose herd is stricken. It is nearly as bad as was leprosy of old to a farmer who has perhaps put his whole life's work into building up a dairy herd, and that is not done overnight, nor will money buy a dairy herd. It is something that must be developed slowly. A first class dairy herd must be built up over a period of years. Yet overnight all that work can be undone. That, in itself, is sufficient penalty. Such people should be helped in every way possible instead of imposing the further penalty of getting a lesser price for their milk. One might as well say that they are being put out of business altogether, because that is what is being done.

I am convinced that this is a hurried piece of legislation. I told the Minister so last evening. When talking to his farming colleagues, as he must, because he is a farmer himself, as is the Minister of State, surely they can come up with a better answer. If they are short of £10 million surely there is a better way of recouping it. But if it is done the proper way, at the end of the day, many millions of pounds will be found because people will be encouraged to continue what they have begun, that is, to expand and develop their beef and dairy herds. If anything is put in their way at present then there will be a situation in which these people will halt, which will manifest itself across the board of the economy not in £10 million but in hundreds of millions. This stop-go type of operation is not on, particularly at present when we are so dependent on agriculture for the provision of the additional jobs so badly needed.

I should prefer to see this hurried Bill deferred, when we might have another think about it after, hopefully, what will have been a hot, long summer, when we will have had time to talk to the Minister and his colleagues, when rural Deputies on the opposite benches will have been able to seek the advice of their farming friends and come up with a better answer. God knows they must be embarrassed about this too—levy after levy after levy despite the fact that, at election time, they told us that they were the people with all the solutions and would ease our burdens. That has not happened. This is the beginning of a bad series of levies. That is why I appeal to the Minister, the Minister of State and indeed to the experts in the Department who surely can think of a better way of recovering what is comparatively small sum of money than by upsetting the whole economy and the farming community with this abominable levy.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share