Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 1986

Vol. 363 No. 5

Slaughtered and Detained Animals (Compensation) Bill, 1985: Second Stage.

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".

Under the Slaughtered and Detained Animals (Compensation) Acts, 1928 to 1938, a special fund was established for use in compensating livestock exporters who might suffer financial loss if, as a result of an outbreak or a suspected outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain, their animals were slaughtered, died or were unduly detained at a British landing port. The fund is administered by trustees appointed by the national executive of the Irish Livestock trade and is financed entirely by charges levied on livestock exported to Britain. The Bill now before the House arises from a request by the trustees for amendments to the basic legislation to enable them to purchase offices and to provide greater flexibility in the fixing of the export charges payable under the Acts and of the amount of remuneration payable to their secretary. The Bill also includes provisions whereby the trustees might be wound up if, at some further date, such winding-up is considered necessary or appropriate.

The trustees have traditionally occupied offices in premises owned by the Exported Live Stock Insurance Board. That board is in the course of being wound up on foot of an enactment which was passed by the House in 1984. The board's premises must be sold and the trustees wish to purchase it to provide their accommodation. As the trustees have no legal power under the Acts to purchase or rent offices, an appropriate enabling provision is included in the Bill.

The Acts provide that the collection of export charges may be suspended whenever the fund amounts to £40,000. The levies have been accordingly suspended since 1973. Indeed, the amount in the fund has been increasing each year since as a result of income received from investments. However, in the event that it might be necessary at some time in the future to re-introduce collection, the Bill provides a flexible mechanism for the fixing of these charges by regulations in place of the fixed and now uneconomic charges stipulated in the 1928 Act.

Under the Acts the maximum amount of remuneration payable to the secretary to the trustees was fixed at £300 per annum. This ceiling was fixed in 1938 and is clearly unrealistic in present day terms. The Bill proposes that the trustees themselves, with my consent and the concurrence of the Minister for the Public Service, may determine the amount of their secretary's salary.

The Acts under which the compensation scheme was set up contain no provisions for winding up the trustees. While there is no intention at present to terminate the scheme, the Bill provides enabling powers so that winding up, if considered necessary or appropriate at some future date, can be effected without the need for further amendments to the basic legislation.

As I indicated at the outset, the Bill is designed to afford a greater measure of flexibility to the trustees in their operations, to remove some unnecessary rigidities in the existing set-up and to provide a mechanism for wind-up should the need arise.

(Limerick West): The Bill before the House cannot be taken in isolation. It must be viewed in the context of the beef industry as a whole.

I welcome the Bill, especially since its introduction has been at the behest of the livestock trade, as the Minister of State correctly pointed out. Its provisions constitute a tidying up operation updating pre-war legislation. The provisions of the Acts of 1928 to 1938 established a special fund, financed through charges on livestock exports, to compensate exporters for losses resulting from an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Britain. At that time those Acts dealt specifically with exports of cattle to the United Kingdom. The provisions of this Bill update standards bringing them into line with trends prevailing.

The introduction of this Bill may afford the Minister an opportunity to have a meeting of minds with those directly involved in the cattle trade. There is urgent need to have the views of producers, the Department of Agriculture and the livestock trade generally taken into account. The provisions of this Bill will enable the livestock trade, to a certain extent, to have control over their destiny. Its introduction may afford an opportunity for a coherent approach to the future of the whole livestock industry.

When one examines the Acts of 1928 to 1938 one sees that we have made much progress since those days when most of our exports were to the United Kingdom. The approach now is to get all interested parties together in view of the obvious problems facing the industry such as the threat of the EC quotas and the levy system and, more so, imported beef and livestock flooding the EC markets from outside.

I assure the Minister from this side of the House that he will have my full support in resisting the GATT agreement on importing beef and livestock into the Community. I need hardly remind the House at this time that there is already an over-production of beef in Europe and any additional imports can come about only at the expense of countries like ours which are so dependent on the beef industry. It is no exaggeration to say that the livestock industry, already representing 36 per cent of total agricultural production, could become the greatest single contributor to the national economy from the agricultural sector, but it will not develop under existing policies. It might be boring to repeat, but it is worth repeating, that it is in the national interest that the cattle breeding herd be increased. The herd is currently at its lowest level for many years and unless Government incentives are introduced it will soon reach the stage where it cannot be revived to its full potential. While the dwindling national breeding herd remains a threat to the industry, it is in our own hands to overcome that. However, I fear that proposals at EC level to tamper with or abolish the intervention system might be put through over our heads. I appeal to the Minister at this stage to be extra vigilant on this matter which involves a vital national interest.

The Bill before us today is in its concept very narrow and does not allow us to discuss to any great extent the whole aspect of the livestock trade and the beef industry generally. In earlier years most of our exports were to the UK only. The Bill before us today originated in the early years of the existence of the State to insure exporters against losses in the event of foot and mouth disease. At the time and right up to the sixties when live exports peaked at 650,000 head of cattle our main destination was the UK. Now, thanks to, among other factors, the restrictive veterinary regulations involved in importing cattle to Britain, that section of the trade unfortunately has dwindled to a mere 16,000 or so. I am afraid that the effects of this drop have been felt most strongly among the west of Ireland farmers who specialsied in producing store and breeding cattle. I ask the Minister to look into the possibility of initiating talks with the British authorities that perhaps would lead to the streamlining of the veterinary regulations and eventually to an increase in the export of cattle in this section of the industry.

I accept the Minister's good faith in presenting this Bill as an improvement in the service to the beef and livestock industry. I welcome the Bill and my party will be giving it full support.

The Minister said in his speech:

The trustees have traditionally occupied offices in premises owned by the Exported Live Stock Insurance Board. That board is in the course of being wound up on foot of an enactment which was passed by the House in 1984.

The Minister might outline what is involved when he stated:

The board's premises must be sold and the trustees wish to purchase it to provide their own accommodation. As the trustees have no legal power under the Acts to purchase or rent offices an appropriate enabling provision is included in the Bill.

Perhaps the Minister in his reply will be more specific about any plans that his Department may have for the trustees who are appointed and who will continue in operation under this Bill. Have the Department any plans to give him extra powers or does he envisage the trustees continuing or is it totally at the behest of the livestock trade? It is important that the House be aware of what the trustees have in mind, if anything, in the furthering of their interest.

The Minister might also tell us if it is the intention of the trustees under this Act to reintroduce a levy at a more realistic rate. I know that the levy under the older Acts is now totally unrealistic. The Minister might outline to the House if the trustees have anything in mind, whether there will be a risk and whether it will be necessary to insure and compensate the livestock exporters against anything that may happen. They have the power under this legislation.

I understand that the old legislation provides for a ceiling and that the amount collected in levies cannot exceed £40,000. Of course, it exceeded that many years ago. I ask the Minister if a ceiling will be provided as it was in the past, if the trustees in future can change that ceiling with the consent of the Minister for Agriculture, if they can impose a levy and if they can alter the amount of that levy either upwards or downwards as occasion may arise. I ask the Minister to explain in detail the extra powers that will accrue to the trustees as a result of this legislation.

The Bill gives power to the trustees to wind up the whole operation of this scheme. Does the Minister see this arising in the foreseeable future; is it necessary that it will arise or will it be to the benefit of the trade generally that the trustees remain just in case something may happen in the future? Those are a few questions that I want to pose to the Minister. The Bill is narrow and brief and does not give an opportunity to discuss the whole aspect of the lifestock trade, but I want to welcome it.

I also welcome the Bill. As the Minister pointed out, all sections of the trade are quite happy with it. It is before us today as a result of the recent winding-up of the Export Livestock Insurance Board by the Minister. There was also the necessity for the premises of that board to be purchased by the trustees of the Slaughtered and Detained Animals Compensation Board. At the moment the latter board are using the premises of the board which has been wound up.

There are a few other matters also being attended to in the Bill, apart from the acquisition of the premises. It is ironic that in this day and age any public servant — albeit only in a part time job — finds himself, as the secretary to the Slaughtered Animals (Compensation) Trustees does, working for £300 a year since 1938. Previous to that, the figure laid down by statute was only £200 a year. The present incumbent of that job is Mr. Paddy O'Donoghue of the Irish Livestock Export Traders. It is considered at the moment by the national executive of the livestock world that we must continue with this cover pro tem. All of us who can recall the last foot and mouth outbreak in Britain in 1968 can remember the ripples and fears that went through the trade here at the time. It is easy to become casual about it when there has not been an outbreak of this horrific disease in our neighbouring country for some time. We have only to remind ourselves of the value of our livestock exports and how important they are, not just to the agricultural community but to the country as a whole.

We are a net exporting country and agriculture in round figures and agricultural output amount to about 25 per cent of our exports. Of that figure, cattle exports alone take up 19 per cent. The value that can be put on that cannot be over-estimated to the community at large. We have had from time to time, and increasingly in recent years, a conflict between urban and rural communities and a lack of understanding of how interdependent both communities are on each other. It is easy to forget, particularly in urban Ireland, that we are an agriculturally based country and that the future, particularly in the job line, will depend to a great extent on the agriculturally based industries, particularly in the food processing and value added sector. High in the list of importance in this area are our beef herds, cattle exports and, it is hoped, an increasing trade in value-added products from beef. With the advent of the super-levy again, we must increasingly turn our attentions to the importance of livestock exports, both on the hoof and in dead meat.

This Bill deals specifically with an insurance fund to compensate against losses due to foot and mouth outbreak in Britain. At the time of the last outbreak in Britain there was no need to draw on the fund. None of our exporters got caught up in the problem there. The last time that this fund had to pay out was in 1963. As the Minister has pointed out, in 1973 it ceased levying exporters of livestock to Britain because the fund had reached an acceptable level: £40,000 is deemed acceptable. Since then, even though no levies have been imposed on exporters, the amount in the insurance fund has gone to well over £100,000. It is deemed prudent, and rightly so, that this fund now be invested in the building owned by the company that the Minister has just wound up, the Exported Live Stock Insurance Board. The Minister is also providing that export charges payable under the Acts may be fixed by him by regulation from time to time, as is deemed necessary. The final inclusion in the Bill allows him the power of dissolution and of winding up the trustees board concerned, even though it is stated — and I would like to underline this — that there is no intention of doing so at the moment.

The live trade to Britain has taken a back seat to Third World exports in recent years. Traditionally, going back over the decades, Britain has been one of our main markets for our cattle, both store and beef. Indeed, in 1985 there was a reversal of the decline in the trend of exports to Britain for the first time in several years. The figures were up, particularly in June, July and August. Frankly, they are dictated by prices and with a very buoyant Third World market the exporters and producers had their eyes on that part of the world and not so much on Britain. For different reasons, such as the slackening of Third World trade in the middle part of 1985 and with the exchange rates and MCAs coming in their favour, there was an overnight pickup in exports to Britain. At the moment there is only one boat per fortnight going out of Greenore to Britain. There are ro-ro facilities in Dublin and Rosslare but for some time since the autumn these have not been overstretched, to put it mildly. Greenore is the only port at the moment which is engaged in active livestock export to Britain.

In June, July and August my local co-operative, County Wexford Marts, were involved in a tremendous increase in activity in livestock exports though Rosslare using the excellent ro-ro facilities that we have down there. The mart in Wexford provided the lairage facilities necessary for the exporters and this has proved a tremendous asset to farmers and exporters from the south east and southern parts of the country.

Rosslare traditionally was a very important export port to the southern part of England where they had a tradition of taking our store and beef cattle over the years. It is hoped that this trade will pick up again. The scene in the Middle East and the Third World is very volatile from month to month, let alone from year to year. It is very hard to know the position. Apart from the political climate in the countries out there, the trade depends to a large extent on the subvention from Europe as to whether it will continue to be viable. With the CAP and the difficulties that we all know about in that connection, the future could be uncertain, even though it is a very valuable market to us. If there should be any difficulties in the Third World, there would be an immediate increase in the activity of live cattle exports to Britain and it would be very necessary that this would happen, to have an outlet for what is generally an increasingly important beef herd in this country.

The super levy and all that has imposed on us concentrated our attentions on beef, even, may I say, beef specialisation in which traditionally this country has not taken a No. 1 role. We have produced beef cattle from our dairy herd with no specialisation at all, unlike many of our European partners. The general pattern of putting a continental bull on our dairy cow has continued and has served us very well, in latter years particularly.

The suckler premium, particularly the increase in the premium given to those in the disadvantaged areas, will encourage those who perhaps are not in dairying in a viable way to consider switching to a beef herd. It is hoped that Europe will increase incentives to make our beef herd viable. Single suckling and suckler herds generally have not proved economic over the years, but there has to be a future in this. This country, with our insular position which should make us relatively disease free, with our temperate climate and limestone grasslands, is an ideal part of Europe in which to produce these herds. I have repeated often and do so again that one of the premises for the setting up of the EC was that production would be concentrated in areas of greatest natural advantage. Where in Europe is there an area of greater advantage for beef production than in our country?

The importance of this Bill will be appreciated when we remember our insular position in regard to meat exports. We have had an excellent record in regard to foot-and-mouth disease and because of that our farmers, particularly younger farmers, are in the luxurious position that they give little thought to the problem of this disease — they never experienced it or felt the economic pinch caused by an outbreak.

However, EC regulations generally have been relaxed, our borders are becoming more open in regard to imports of dead and live meat and this means we will have to be increasingly vigilant. Even though only one boat a fortnight goes from Greenore, there is always the possibility that there will be an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Britain or elsewhere which would seal borders. The fund we are discussing this morning compensates exporters for any loss through slaughtering or detention at British ports preventing livestock from reaching their destination. Exporters will be fully compensated for that.

Such a fund proved to be an excellent servant to those involved in the sixties and back to the time when it was set up. I am delighted it has been decided to continue it lest it should ever be called into action. The likelihood of this is not great but one outbreak is sufficient to bring to our minds the dangers of foot-and-mouth.

Before 1940, all livestock exported to Britain were insured by British insurers and the late Paddy Hogan decided that Irish companies should have the benefit of any levies for insurance rather than have all the money go across the water. He initiated the Exported Livestock Insurance Board which was wound up a few months ago. They fulfilled a useful role and, with the Slaughtered Animals (Compensation) Act and the Detained Animals Act between 1928 and 1938, took care of all the insurance problems and other difficulties experienced at the time.

Recently we were issued with the CBF annual review for 1985 which gave us very succinctly the position in relation to live cattle exports, particularly to Britain, and it is very pertinent to this Bill. It would appear from the review that there has been an increase in exports to Britain, particularly in 1985, of live cattle. This is a reversal of the trend we have been experiencing for many years. We exported 16,000 head to Britain in 1985, a 68 per cent increase in the numbers exported in 1984. We hope that trend will continue. The fund before us and the insurance provided thereby could become all the more important. There is increasing attention in the EC to greater herd numbers. Here our beef cow numbers are rising slowly for the first time since the seventies, and even though growth is slow it will continue with the decline in the dairy herd, to be expected because of the super-levy.

All of us will be happy about the provisions of the Bill. I am delighted that we are to continue with the cover provided in the Slaughtered Animals Acts, pro tem, but I would urge the Minister, even though he has made provision for winding up this fund if it should become necessary, not to consider doing so because future exports to Britain will increase if we follow the pattern we have seen recently and particularly considering the volatility of the Third World market We have some excellent men operating as trustees on the compensation board, people such as Hugh Walsh, Dan Richardson, Con Horgan, John Cullen, Brendan Dukes and Patrick Lalor. They have done excellent work, and with the importance of the British market to Irish livestock exporters and the ever present threat of foot-and-mouth outbreaks and the damage that would do to us as an insular agricultural nation, the provisions being made this morning are very wise. All the trade will support the Minister in what he is doing.

I welcome this necessary legislation but I am worried about section 5 which seems to indicate that the existing provisions will be terminated. Why is it necessary to have this section included? Would a simple order not be possible in the years ahead if the Government wished to terminate the compensation provisions? The livestock trade is in a serious position. This is a transition period. We still have the super-levy and we do not know where we will go from here.

We have been an EC member for 12 years. At the beginning we were talking in terms of a cattle herd of seven million and we expressed hopes that we would reach a figure of nine million or ten million by the early nineties. Now we are fighting desperately to reach the seven million mark.

When we look back at our history in this regard we have improved our carcases and so on but we must now seriously consider profitability. Those in the trade have stated in reports on beef production that people involved in it have been making only slender profits in recent years. As recently as last January beef prices were as high as £1.18 per pound. At present producers have to fight hard to get as much as £1. That is not satisfactory for producers. There is increased sheep production and more poultry are being produced. There has been a reduction in calf and veal production. Continental animal carcases are now being brought to a higher weight than before and it might make up a little for the fact that we cannot increase cattle numbers as we had anticipated.

In relation to cattle exports, there is little joy for us in the accession of Spain and Portugal to the EC. While a fairly substantial amount of meat will be imported into Spain, most of it will be consumed in the Canary Islands, which is not in the EC, so benefit there will not be great.

This Bill was necessary certainly in so far as premises were concerned. It is interesting to note the amount of money provided in previous Acts for compensation for losses incurred as a result of foot and mouth disease in Britain. Although we are scourged with disease problems, particularly TB and brucellosis, we must be thankful that foot and mouth disease has never come in here. TB and brucellosis are giving rise for serious concern especially now that there is a reduction in herd testing. We cannot object to this Bill when we depend on the livestock industry to charter a course for the future of meat production and for farming generally. We will continue to depend on this industry in the years ahead.

I would draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that, whereas there has been a vast improvement in recent years in eliminating unlicensed slaughtering of animals and much higher standards of hygiene now prevail in municipal abbatoirs, there is a degree of unlicensed slaughtering of animals in County Limerick. There is a double danger there. There is a threat to public safety and health because the slaughterings are not controlled or monitored by medical authorities. It is also an area developing in the black economy and such activities are not subject to the proper scrutiny and control of the Revenue or tax authorities. In the context of this Bill, will legislation be introduced to ensure that unlicensed slaughterings of animals is brought quickly under public control for the benefit of the public health and public finances?

Deputy Ned O'Keeffe. I would remind Deputies that, even if they have handed in their names, they should rise in their places if they wish to contribute.

I welcome the Bill. I was impressed by Deputy Doyle's speech. She reminded me of an old style cattle exporter in the way she reviewed the history of the cattle export trade. I have great memories of walking to the fairs outside of Mitchelstown and Fermoy, but that was in buoyant times when we had a strong outlet in the UK. We lost that market because of price structures changing, probably for the better. If that market is opening up again it looks as if something is happening to our livestock industry and pricing is not as attractive in Europe.

This Bill gives me an opportunity to refer to a serious problem in west Cork where we had a very modern meat plant with a capacity to kill 2,000 cattle per week. This was one of the finest meat plants in the country but it has now got into difficulties and may have to be sold and a large number of people will be put on the dole queue. I would have thought we would have had considerable development in that area. This was a co-operative venture which was very welcome. A lot of expertise went into the building up of this industry and vast numbers of farmers invested their money in it. I am disappointed that a substantial amount of the investment put in by the farming community will be lost. The highest bidder should be allowed purchase that plant.

The Deputy will make his contribution on the Bill.

It comes under that heading. It is a very relevant subject about which to talk. I am concerned about politicians getting involved in this. Seeing that a statement has been made that Government funding will not be available to rescue the plant it seems to be a matter of a takeover at this stage. It is disappointing that we will have politicians meddling in the affairs of the organisation.

I am sorry. The Deputy is clearly outside the scope of the Bill. I have allowed some latitude, perhaps too much, but the Deputy is so obviously outside the scope of the Bill that I must draw his attention to it.

We have an animal disease problem and this Bill enables us to regularise things for exporting and so on. The Bill introduced many years ago served the country well, but achieving disease free status is now one of our major problems. We have many new diseases introduced here because of the importation of foreign breeds of cattle. We will further compound the problem if we import calves and small cattle, as was suggested recently. This would be a retrograde step and we cannot allow it to happen. It is a pity that we did not renegotiate our derogation with the EC to protect our valuable livestock industry.

Another problem is caused by the cutbacks in the TB eradication scheme. At the moment we have 6,900 herds locked up and we have identified about 5,000 reactor herds. This is very serious. We will have to have a more definite approach to it. The farming and livestock people have always been co-operative in disease eradication, which has cost millions of pounds. A lot of blame has been attached to the farming and livestock community. This is unfair as they have always been co-operative. However, if we do not have a Government commitment to disease eradication it is unreal to expect the farming community to assist. It is of benefit to the nation to have a disease eradication programme. A strong Government commitment is needed in this area. It is a matter of providing the necessary finance for the job. I appeal to the Minister of State, who is very knowledgeable in the livestock industry, to ensure that the Government have a rethink and will co-operate with the farming organisations and will adhere to the programme of disease eradication that was jointly agreed to eliminate the terrible disease which we have been trying to eradicate since 1950 and which is now more serious than it was ten years ago. I expect that we will get the necessary funding to solve that problem.

I am greatly concerned that our intervention system is under threat. We were given a concession in that regard by the EC. We are the largest exporters of beef in the Community, exporting 50 per cent or more of our beef to third countries with 10 per cent going into intervention. Any tampering with that system will further erode the growth of our livestock industry. There should be more growth in our suckler herds.

The Deputy is now dealing with agriculture in general.

The Bill deals with agriculture.

It is about exports to certain countries and disease.

Exports are vital and we cannot have exports unless we have cattle. We must develop our livestock industry so that we can have millions of pounds worth of exports. I appeal to the Minister to press for extra funding for his Department to rid the country once and for all of the terrible scourge of tuberculosis in our cattle herds.

I should like to thank Deputies who contributed to the debate and tell the House that there is no question of any winding up of the trustees board. The Bill seeks to bring certain matters up to date. The trustees who are using the building in the North Circular Road have money to expend and they propose to purchase the premises which will be a source of revenue. It is agreed that the amount that was paid to the secretary was not realistic. At this stage there is no question of reintroducing levies. If we were to wind up the board it would have to be done by way of new legislation.

I should like to tell Deputy Noonan who referred to the GATT that we are as concerned as he is about imports. We voted against them in Brussels and we will continue to oppose them. There has been a reduction in imports in recent times and many of the imports into the Community involve calves being shipped to Italy. It was suggested that the veterinary regulations should be streamlined and I should like to point out that much of that has to do with the declaration of brucelosis free status, with the blue-greys from the west and so on. However, as Deputy O'Keeffe pointed out, getting our hygiene regulations into line will also cause us further problems. We have to protect ourselves from the widespread import of calves. While there has not been a demand for such imports I can see it posing a problem in the future because of the high price of calves here and the comparatively low price in the UK. Huge numbers of high quality calves are on offer in the UK while few calves are on offer for the many customers here. As Deputy Leonard pointed out when we are talking about cattle at £1 per lb we are talking about the top of the market. Some of the top people in the market are saying that this is the limit to which they can afford to go.

I should like to assure the House that we will defend intervention in the strongest possible way because we believe it is the keystone of CAP. We are in favour of the development of export refunds which have helped to promote our exports. Deputy Prendergast mentioned the slaughtering of animals in unlicensed slaughtering premises and I should like to tell him that legislation to deal with that will be before the House shortly.

I will not apologise to anybody for being involved in the livestock industry locally. I live in the area, I am a shareholder in the industry and I canvassed for shares for it. I am part of that scene.

I am sure the Minister of State canvassed for votes there.

I am sure I did because I have very strong supporters in the area. This is not the first time we have had such a problem. There was a closure there previously but we rectified the matter. This is not a question of Government intervention or Government funding. This morning I had a long discussion with the chairman of Cork Marts and a number of interesting proposals were put forward. They would guarantee jobs and help to expand the operations. There is no doubt but that this is a fine plant.

I prevented Deputy O'Keeffe from going into this matter in depth and I will not allow the Minister to do so.

We would rather argue the matter here than in east Cork.

The Deputy is worried about the matter and I do not mind telling him that there are a number of fairly interesting offers. In my view there will be a satisfactory outcome.

I am relieved to hear the Minister say that legislation will be before us soon to eliminate unlicensed slaughterhouses.

Has the Deputy a question to ask?

Is the Minister of State aware of the grave and urgent need for the earliest possible implementation of legislation to deal with unlicensed slaughterhouses in view of the fact that there have been reports of rats seen moving around such premises?

The Deputy is making another speech.

Will the Minister of State ensure that the legislation to deal with those premises is introduced immediately?

I can give the Deputy an assurance in regard to that but I must point out that the legislation will not solve the problem overnight. A real problem that we must deal with is that those who endeavour to erect a proper slaughterhouse will be faced with 20 or 30 planning objections. Those anxious to erect such premises in a suitable area will be faced with many planning objections and will have to go through An Bord Pleanála and so on. I should like to assure the Deputy that we are conscious of the problem.

Who will provide the funds for the leasing of the premises?

The trustees.

What type of funding will be available to the trustees?

The trustees have adequate funding, well in excess of £132,000.

From what source?

Originally the source was from levies. They collected about £40,000 in levies which, as a result of good investment over the years, has increased.

I take it the levies were collected from the farming community.

They were collected from the exporters.

Where is the money invested?

I imagine it is invested with banks, insurance companies and so on.

What is the total amount of money invested?

A total of £132,000.

What interest is that sum earning?

I do not have that figure. This is a matter for the trustees.

I am anxious to determine if there has been a proper yield from the investment. If we do not get such information we are only wasting our time here.

The Deputy is introducing material that was not raised in his original contribution. I must point out to him that we are not on Committee Stage.

(Limerick West): Am I right in assuming that the Minister does not have power to wind up the affairs of the trustees?

(Limerick West): From the point of view of curiosity, what was the levy when it was in operation?

It was in old pence. The charge in operation in 1973 was fixed under the Slaughtered Animals (Compensation) Act, 1928. It was two and a half pence per head of cattle and one penny and a halfpenny, respectively, for pigs and sheep.

Would the Minister explain why he favours one purchaser over another for the plant at Midleton?

I ruled that out of order although I allowed a short reference to it. It is not relevant to the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 4 February 1986.
Top
Share