Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in the name of Deputy J. O'Keeffe are related. Therefore I suggest that they be debated together with separate decisions, if required. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
Córas Beostoic agus Feola (Amendment) Bill, 1988: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, paragraph (a), line 15, after "animals" to insert "and poultry".
These are two technical amendments. I observe from the explanatory and financial memorandum that it is the intention to extend the role of Córas Beostoic agus Feola to cover pigmeat and, should the occasion arise, to other meats such as venison and poultry, a view I endorse. I can foresee the possibility of the mandate of CBF being extended in the future to cover venison and poultry.
The question then arises of whether the definitions section is correctly framed to permit that extension of mandate to take place should circumstances so demand. The definition of "livestock", as drafted, means bovine animals, sheep and pigs and such other species of animals as may be specified from time to time by the Minister by regulations. The net question is whether the word "animals" includes poultry. I am open to correction on this but, at first glance, I would contend that it does not include poultry. I tabled these amendments to ensure that the obvious intent of the Bill is implemented. No doubt the Minister's dictionary research will have been more in-depth than mine. There is nothing contentious about these amendments.
I appreciate that the intent of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's amendments is to ensure that poultry, venison and other meats would be included within the definition of "meat". Let me assure him —as the explanatory and financial memorandum says—that is also my intention. I have checked the legal interpretation of the word "animals" and I find that it includes poultry. Therefore, there is no amendment necessary for the insertion or inclusion of poultry. Because the definition of "animals" does include poultry and other meats, if I were to include poultry specifically, that would imply that I was excluding poultry and other meats from the present definition. That is the confirmed view of the legal advice available to me. I am advised that not only is its insertion not necessary but that its inclusion could give rise to other interpretations that neither the Deputy nor I would wish.
I oppose Deputy O'Keeffe's amendment. Possibly the definition of "meat" is sufficiently wide, as at present drafted, but I oppose his amendment for another reason. Essentially, the provisions of the Bill empower CBF to promote red meats. Therefore, to specifically include white meats that have captured an inordinate share of the traditional red meat market would lead to a certain conflict of interests within the organisation and its mandate. Córas Beostoic agus Feola are doing a very good job at present. It might interest the House to know that the consumption of poultry has surpassed that of red meats in the United States, Britain last year and, I understand, some continental European countries. Whereas poultry would not constitute a very large export commodity — because of its dependence on imported grain, representing 75 per cent of the market value of the finished commodity or product — on the other hand beef and lamb are of immense importance for our export purposes. It is for that reason I oppose the amendment. I would see it leading to a conflict of interests within the activities of CBF.
My colleague, Deputy McCoy, opposes the whole notion of the possibility of poultry being included in the CBF mandate whereas I have the Minister's absolute assurance that, if it is decided to do so in the future, poultry can be included under the present definition. Whatever about any immediate decision being taken in that regard I would prefer that the mandate of CBF could be extended to poultry in the future if circumstances so warranted. On the basis of the statement on the part of the Minister that the advice from his legal advisers and parliamentary draftsmen, that the definition, as drafted, is sufficiently wide to enable that be done, I am prepared to withdraw my amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 2 agreed to.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."
Why was my amendment ruled out of order?
It involves a potential charge on the Revenue and the Deputy has been so informed.
I was not so informed.
I assure the Deputy that a communication to that effect issued from my office.
I was also informed.
I presume I may speak on the section?
Certainly.
My purpose in putting down an amendment was to raise quite an important issue. I am seeking an assurance from the Minister that he has the same outlook on the funding issue as I have. My party did not oppose the imposition of the levies in relation to pigs or — more importantly — in relation to cattle and sheep.
It is important that sufficient funding is available to CBF for market development. I am cognisant of the fact that Ireland is the largest net exporter of beef in the European Community. I accept that CBF must have a reasonable amount of funding available to them to ensure that market development is properly funded and catered for. My concern is that the increased funding now available in the levies to CBF would not be available for market development and would, to a substantial degree, be devoted to the fixed costs of CBF.
At present CBF are a pretty tightly run body and employ about 30 people. The level of staff is considerably lower than the numbers prior to the establishment of the organisation as a statutory body in 1979. They certainly fulfil the requirement of being — like the product they sell — a lean body and are cost effective. At the same time, they have fixed costs in relation to salaries, administrative costs, travelling expenses for promotion abroad and the maintenance of their four overseas offices. The administration costs in all those areas are about £1 million per year. By coincidence, the Exchequer subvention is just under that figure, around £915,000. In broad terms, the Exchequer subvention roughly covers administration costs and the consequence is that the moneys available from the levies and the additional moneys which will now be available from the increased rates are — and should be — fully available in future for market development. I am not demanding extra Exchequer funding from the Minister. I have agreed the increase in the levies but I want them to be devoted to the market development aspect of CBF instead of going towards administration costs.
The Minister could resolve my concern by giving an indication that he shares my views in this regard. I appreciate that he cannot give a specific commitment in terms of money but I should like an indication from the Government, represented here by the Minister for Agriculture and Food, that they share the approach which I outlined. The case stands four square. There is substantial Exchequer support for CTT — and I do not denigrate their work — but quite clearly, exports of our indigenous products are essentially of far greater benefit, pound for pound, than many of our industrial exports. This arises principally because the inputs to our beef exports are produced domestically whereas a large part of inputs for industrial exports are themselves imported. I understand that the relevant figures are approximately 84 per cent of the input for some of our industrial exports as opposed to about 16 per cent of import inputs to our food exports. Therefore, when we look at our export figures, we must look at the exports net of their import content. That, coupled with the substantial profit repatriation involved in our industrial exports, shows that our food exports are of equivalent value in net terms compared to our industrial exports.
I mention those figures on the basis that the Exchequer contributes by way of subvention about £20 million to Coras Tráchtála and there is a strong case for a continuation of the Exchequer subvention to CBF. I hope the Minister will be in a position to give an assurance to the House that he shares this outlook, that he wants to see our food exports growing from strength to strength, the additional levy raised by this Bill devoted to market development and, therefore, contributing to those additional exports which we need in the food sector.
I accept that CBF, through their own levies and revenue, are setting a headline for the type of responsibility which attaches to each sector in terms of export promotion. Deputy O'Keeffe was right to draw attention to the fact that CBF are contributing in a ratio of at least two to one of tax-payers' contribution to the promotion of our meat exports abroad. I should like to draw the attention of the House and the public to the fact that the meat industry is exceptional in that it is, as Deputy O'Keeffe pointed out the only sector where the industry makes the major contribution to the promotion of its own export products.
Bord Bainne is not State funded, as the Deputy knows. In relation to other exports funded under CTT there is a very considerable contribution from the State with no balancing contribution from the sector itself. What has developed as a healthy process should be maintained and encouraged. I commend CBF for achieving such worthwhile consequences and benefits for the economy generally and for the sector on such a funding basis. In advance of any Government decisions, decisions which will be concluded before the end of the year in accordance with proceedings for the Book of Estimates it is not possible for me to give any formal commitment as to what the position will be. However, it is evident from the fact that a sum of money was reallocated within the general votes to take account of the extra responsibility given to CBF for pigmeat, that the Government are aware of the role of CBF and acknowledge their role in this very important sector of the economy. We have seen a very welcome trend and expansion here in the development of the agricultural food sector and we all want to maintain that trend. The total meat exports for 1987 were 540,000 tonnes valued at £930 million, with important quantities going to other member states of the European Communities and to Third World countries. The output of cattle, sheep and pigs represented 45 per cent of farm output or about £1,300 million annually. We are talking about a major contribution to the well-being of our economy and to our balance of trade within that economy. By comparison, the current cost of the Exchequer grant in aid to the organisation, at £915,000 is not substantial. We want to see this contribution from the industry continuing.
The levies I am proposing in this section were unanimously recommended to me by the board of CBF. I appreciate the work of this board which represents all the farming organisations. It is their unanimous recommendation that I have transferred into this section of the Bill.
We have all seen the work of CBF at first hand here and in other countries but most recently I saw it at a magnificently organised international meat symposium held in Killarney which attracted representatives of the meat trade from 18 different countries and from all the continents of the world. The biggest buyers in the trade agreed that the presentation and the professionalism of CBF was to be highly commended. I am very encouraged at this particularly good example of the effective promotion of the image of Ireland and Irish meat which enhances the market advantages in several countries. CBF engage in promotional activities to a great extent.
Deputy O'Keeffe is right to want the maximum of funds to be employed for marketing purposes. The Deputy also wants the minimum amount to be applied for general administration. The Deputy will be glad to know that within a tight budget over two-thirds of the income goes towards market development and promotion, and market information, and less than one-third is spent on personnel and administration. In any promotional organisation there is inevitably a high overhead in terms of personnel, because personnel make the organisation. Administration covers a very wide range of activities including equipment. The money spent on promotion as against personnel and administration is a very good balance and the success which has been achieved is quite remarkable.
Different elements in the meat industry rely to a greater or lesser extent on the promotion of CBF. Some firms are big enough to promote themselves almost all of the time but others, not quite so large scale, need CBF. It is in our interests to ensure that we get a balanced promotional and marketing programme on behalf of the industry. The five year plan which CBF are following with considerable success with regard to the promotion and expansion of the cattle trade and the Vac Pac beef export, proposes to increase total beef exports from 10 per cent to 25 per cent in 1990. That is a major target which I have no doubt they will achieve. They propose to double further downstream processing from the current share of 5 per cent of all exports and to expand the total value of exports from the industry to £1,100 million by 1990. We are talking about an overall plan and I have produced this legislation to give effect to that plan.
Over the years from 1985 to 1987 funding has been almost on a basis of two to one from the industry. I am proposing to maintain that ratio. The Deputy will appreciate that, happy though I am with the performance of CBF, and my actions will demonstrate my respect for what they have done, I cannot give firm commitments at the moment in respect of what is an ongoing Government exercise.
CBF have made it very clear, as I have, that marketing promotion is based on quality Irish, the quality of our environment and so on, and that has enabled us to get the highest possible price, which is evident in the beef trade, particularly in the last number of months. I will have more to say during the next few days about the risk to our environment, sometimes from the people who benefit most from it. I hope that what so far has been a very successful promotion will not be undermined by the neglect or carelessness of a few who have damaged our environment and our reputation. I assure the House that I and my colleagues will not stand for that sort of attitude.
I understand that the Minister shares my outlook on the need to continue existing Exchequer funding to cover overheads. I am glad to have that understanding in the Official Report. On that basis I am prepared to agree the section imposing the levies on the clear understanding that they will be devoted in full to market development in the interests of producers and processors alike.
I want to add my support to the section which increases these levies in the case of beef and sheepmeat and which imposes a new levy in the case of pig meat. Córas Beostoic agus Feola now have responsibility for pig meat whereas previously it was the responsibility of Córas Tráchtála. The increase of 50p — from £1 to £1.50 — cannot be regarded, in the circumstances, as a punitive amount. The farming organisations are very foolish, shortsighted and childish in criticising the measure because it is imperative that we sell what we produce. It must be obvious to anybody that restrictions on intervention for beef will increase rather than decrease. If we cannot sell the beef we produce on the open market, without recourse to intervention, in a short period we will be in very serious difficulty in this country. It is imperative that in the marketplace particularly in Britain and in Europe we get rid of the beef we produce. Any movement in any other direction would be unwise. It is essential for all of us to face up to the facts.
When the Minister was speaking on this section he made reference to the recent conference in Killarney where the assistant director general of the agricultural commission, Mr. Peter Pooley, made it clear that there was a serious problem arising with regard to beef in the Community and that the existing stocks in intervention of 755,000 tonnes would, by the end of the year, have reached something in the order of one million tonnes and that the Commission would be likely to take action to stop that happening by imposing penalties such as lengthening the delay in payments for beef going into intervention. They have done it on relatively small scales at times and perhaps on a larger scale at other times. That is a serious penalty to our producers and to our processors. It is important that we get away from the crutch of intervention and that we be able to sell everything without recourse to intervention. The way to do that is by putting money in CBF and ensuring that their role is expanded. Those opportunities have been limited because of the shortage of cash up to now.
The farming organisations when criticising the increase in this levy should bear in mind that we got a special beef premium in December 1985 — only 18 months ago — of £15 per beast — which we were not supposed to get originally. We got it only by virtue of threat of implementing the veto. Now when one thirtieth of that £15 is to be taken away in order to sell beef we get these stupid objections. The levy has been increased by 50p. They got £15 and that should be regarded as a major boost. It was one of the reasons cattle prices have steadily increased ever since, the main reason being that cow numbers are down and there was a shortage of fresh beef. There should not be any objection because the meat premium is such a large boost and it is in their own interest that the beef be sold.
Regarding the sheep meat increases levy from 10p to 20p one would have to be very shortsighted to oppose that increase. Sheep farmers and the sheep meat industry have done better in recent years than most other sectors of agriculture. It is the one area where people have been able to expand numbers without any restriction whatsoever. It can still be done in the beef area if you can sell the beef. There is a deficiency of sheepmeat in the Community and there will be for several years.
I was not as reassured as the Minister or, perhaps, as some other people by the statement at the Killarney conference to which he referred that there would not be any problems in the sheep meat industry in the near future. There are bound to be problems because we are reaching a stage of self-sufficiency within the EC where sheep meat is concerned. As well as that the New Zealanders have access to the Community markets and are pumping in 260,000 tonnes of sheep meat a year. That is bound to have an effect fairly soon. It is imperative that we have a marketing process whereby we get rid of all the sheep meat we produce. We need that badly.
We have got to devise better breeding systems whereby the fat content in our sheep meat is reduced because there is resistance to it on the Continent, primarily in France — which is the largest market — but also in Germany and Belgium which are markets which have got to be considered because they are reasonably large. There is an incredible resistance to any meat, particularly sheep meat, which has fat attached so we must improve our breeding strains. I have been preaching that for five or six years and I keep saying it. One cannot say often enough that breeding strains for sheep will have to be improved. The British have been doing it now for the past 15 or 20 years with positive results. The British could be the basis for our problems in the future in the sheep meat sector because the numbers of sheep being produced there are astronomical. One county alone in Britain, Devon, has more sheep than the whole of Ireland. If that was multiplied it would be seen that they have a vast amount of sheep. The total amount of sheep in Britain at present is something of the order of 30 million. In Ireland we are approaching a figure of three million sheep. As regards sheep we are underpopulated.
There is potential in sheep production but we did not do what we should have done even prior to our entry to the EC. Invariably what will happen as time goes on is that the market will become selfsufficient in sheep meat and the 260,000 tonnes of New Zealand lamb which is coming in unrestricted can come in unrestricted for ever more. I do not believe that there are two or three Members of this House who realise or understand that. Because of GATT agreements, that 260,000 tonnes of New Zealind sheep meat cannot be stopped or curtailed. They have an absolute right to continue that importation into the Community. We could stop their butter importation into the Community overnight. The reason we have not done it up to now is because there is a political involvement. The Germans and the French in particular are not keen that butter importation be stopped. We cannot do anything about the sheep meat. We cannot veto it. We cannot stop it. We can object to it but unless there is a vote in the Community to compensate them nothing can happen. I am told that the compensation would amount to billions of pounds and it is not an alternative. There could be a real problem. Therefore, it is imperative that we sell the sheep meat. The levy is not a huge amount. Farming organisations and individuals will object to 20p per head of sheep but it is minor if you consider the problems we could face in that sector if we cannot sell it.
Regarding pigmeat I was delighted to see that CBF have got the responsibility for marketing it here and abroad, because we have fallen far behind in the pigmeat industry vis-à-vis our competitors in Denmark and Holland, and it is not good enough. We have fallen behind basically because our processing plants have not been up to scratch. Most of them are fit only to be bulldozed.
I am glad that because of the 75 per cent grant-aid which we procured from Europe two and a half or maybe three years ago a number of individuals, co-operatives and industries are in the process of investing heavily in pigmeat. I can see the pig numbers in this country are going to increase dramatically as a result of these new slaughtering and processing facilities. It is acknowledged right around the world that Irish pigmeat is the best; it is better than Dutch or Danish and quite often we find our pigmeat is being marketed by those countries as their own. Our producers, have produced in recent years a quality which is outstanding. Probably no other segment of Irish farmers is as good as the pig producers. They are small in number at the moment but they are absolute geniuses at their job. If the producers have a system, a structure which they can work through to the consumer in America, Japan, on the Continent or at home they are going to achieve absolute wonders.
There is a tremendous future for the pigmeat industry and the 20p levy suggested here is really a drop in the ocean. The producers will be only too glad to pay it when they see the benefits they will derive from the salesmanship of CBF. They have been left in limbo ever since the collapse of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. They have really had no way of promoting their produce on a national or international basis. We should welcome this takeover by CBF of the function of selling pigmeat and we should not oppose the 20p levy suggested here in section 4.
I want to express my appreciation to Deputy Deasy and to Deputy O'Keeffe for the manner in which they have approached this proposal which in any event was the unanimous proposal of the board of CBF. Deputy Deasy in particular has made a very strong and direct statement to the producers, or at least to some of the organisations who suggest they represent them, that to cavil with the amounts involved here would be, to say the least, against their own interests. I agree with him entirely. The developments he has referred to require that the marketing particularly of all these sectors and now we are adding pigmeat into it, will be done in the most professional way possible.
Let me give some encouraging indications to the House of what is happening. Deputy Deasy is quite right to say we cannot continue to rely on intervention. I am glad to tell him — and I will give further details tomorrow in the House in reply to questions on this — that more than any other beef-producing country in the EC we are relying less rather than more on intervention. The market he has referred to is now the target for all our production and processing effort, and intervention is really only a fail-safe or floor which has been introduced against the possibility of an overall decline, but Deputy Deasy will be aware that only for the second time since we joined the EC we have been triggered out of intervention for certain categories of beef very recently. In line with what he has expressed and the direction he has pointed I hope we will see that pattern continue. Intervention is not what we want. We want to get out there and not only win the markets but keep them. If other countries are relying more on intervention — and they are — that is their problem.
The Deputy has referred rightly to Peter Pooley. The fact of the matter is that other European countries are increasing their reliance on intervention and it is costing the EC more. The proposals that follow from that, of course, could be seen in the first instance perhaps to impact on us, but I am confident they will not for as long as we hit the market as our target and use intervention for what it is for, only a fail-safe. The real problem is not that we are putting more into intervention; others are. Secondly, it is not being sold out of intervention sources at the same rate as it should be. I am glad to say we are all of one mind and view in relation to this, and I will continue to advocate a continuing attack on the market and a movement away from intervention.
The Deputy is right, a major issue is coming up here on sheep. I have reminded my colleagues in the EC that we should not introduce penalties on the Community producer without having regard to the fact that we are not in surplus in the EC in sheep. The surplus, if it is one, is because, as Deputy Deasy pointed out, there is an established right, rather than an automatic right, for New Zealand particularly to export into the EC. We have to strengthen our capacity in this area and that is precisely what we are doing. We have introduced a whole range both in terms of getting away from the fatty mutton Deputy Deasy referred to and producing quality for the market. We have introduced a code of conduct and support for handling right from day one on the farm into transportation, right through the processing. I have attended numerous functions and seminars in relation to this, trying to demonstrate as much as one Minister can or should that this is the only direction. There, again, the evidence is that we are seeing an improvement in the quality of our sheepmeat but it will need to be sustained to ward off the attack which, Deputy Deasy has quite rightly pointed out, will be coming even more from New Zealand. No one is going to be in this business for charity, much less our competitors, and the bigger we get the less charity we can expect out there in the market, but if we are not looking for charity from others let them be aware that we will not be giving them much either. We will be out there with quality and we are going to ensure that the income increase we have seen based on quality will be maintained.
I do not think there is anything else I should say except to acknowledge in relation to pigmeat that Deputy Deasy in his time made a major contribution with the special provision for the rationalisation of the pigmeat sector. I am endeavouring to follow through on that and to encourage pig producers themselves to maximise the benefits that will now be available to them through a much more efficient and cost competitive processing industry than was available to them previously. All in all, as has been heralded here, we are seeing through these levies we are talking about a degree of responsibility in terms of funding which we all recognise. We are seeing for the first time a confidence that we do not need intervention in any of these areas. We can rely on our capacity in the marketplace. Intervention is there as a fail-safe and will remain there.
Since I addressed my first reply to Deputy O'Keeffe in relation to the balance between administration and marketing, I am glad to tell him, I have just ascertained that even in the determination within existing funds, never mind increasing funds, CBF have reallocated as much as possible from administration to marketing and promotion. I have not got the figures here at the moment but that is the trend we all want to see while maintaining a certain basic level of administration.
Could the Minister elaborate on the special agreement New Zealand has? He and Deputy Deasy both spoke of the special agreement New Zealand has with us.
It is not entirely relevant to this discussion, but for what it is worth let me say that New Zealand has negotiated special access to the EC. It is part of a binding agreement that arose originally on the accession of Britain to the EC as much as anything else because of the special preference Britain enjoyed for cheap sheepmeat from New Zealand and they had as much an interest in maintaining that position as New Zealand had in maintaining access.
As Deputy Deasy pointed out, this is now being caught up in the GATT negotiations where they do not have the same right—if you want to call it that — for dairy imports. They are all intermingled in terms of the balance in the GATT and these matters are being addressed at present and will be over the next few years. As Deputy Deasy pointed out, we will have to live with access of sheepmeat from New Zealand for some considerable time and the best way to do that is to produce the product which will get a better return on the market.
It is very disturbing that despite the reduction in cow numbers, the amount of beef in intervention has increased considerably. Does this mean red meats are being rated as health hazards and that there is consumer resistence on the advice of the medical profession? Has the Minister any evidence of that? What were the consumption figures for the past two years? I am a little out of date. It is only commonsense to realise that if cow numbers are down beef production should be down, but stocks in intervention keep increasing. Is there a rational explanation for that, other than that people are being advised not to eat red meat?
The second point I want to raise deals with the overall amount of money to be realised by these levies. The Minister pointed out that the original figure being raised by the levies was £1.9 million, with the new levies the figure would be £3 million and when we add the pigmeat levy it would be £3.4 million. Did I hear him say there would be funding for the Government on a two to one ratio? I am particularly concerned that there would be a ratio maintained vis-à-vis funding paid by the producer and funding provided by the Government. I would be apprehensive that there might be an effort to substitute funding being provided by the producer for funding which was previously provided by the Government. I do not want to draw parallels or to bring in red herrings, but there could be a parallel with the rod licence issue. I would like an assurance from the Minister that we are not substituting moneys being provided by the producer for moneys which were provided by the Government.
I have two queries. As regards the levies, I hope this will be accepted by the farmers because it is in their interests as much as anybody else's that Córas Beostoic agus Feola be developed and given the resources necessary to do the job. Arising from the Minister's statement about intervention, the exports of live cattle in the early eighties reached 500,000 per year and are still running at a huge level. In 1986 we expoeted 322,000 live cattle, and consequently, we were exporting jobs. I would ask the Minister to give some indication of how he sees that picture changing for the purpose of providing jobs here.
I will deal with the last point first. I am glad to tell the Deputy the trend in live cattle exports are dropping. I may have further details about this matter as Question Time tomorrow. This is a very healthy trend. Last year out total exports were 270,000, a dramatic drop over the previous year and the indications I have at present are that that healthy trend is continuing. That is what we want to see because the added value in employment and in earnings generated by processing at home in Vac Pac and so on is, and has to be, the priority of the industry at this stage.
As regards the first point raised by Deputy Deasy, there is evidence that some interests are attempting to persuade consumers against eating red meat. As the Deputy pointed out, if production is dropping and intervention is increasing, something does not add up. I am glad to say that that does not apply to our products. We are enjoying premium prices for our products even in beef producing countries, notably Germany. It is for other countries to argue their own case. In a changing consumer market it is for us to demonstrate that our product is pure, natural and additive free. If that is what the consumer wants, that is what the consumer must get, and the price we are getting for our product shows we are giving him what he wants. I have taken a strong position in relation to all matters from hormones down the line, but as I said, I do not have any control over what happens in other countries. I agree with Deputy Deasy that there may be other interests persuading some people from eating red meat but that, I am glad to say, is not affecting our trade.
As far as funding is concerned, I cannot say what will be provided for any part of my Department, much less for a specific sub-Vote, before the Government programme for expenditure determination is concluded. What I was telling Deputy Deasy was that the ratio has generally been of the order of two to one, and I recognise that is a healthy pattern. I cannot say any more than that at this point. I recognise the view of the House and I will be influenced by it when I am making my case. However, no one can give a commitment in advance of a Government decision, and have not done so.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."
It is appropriate that the fines should be increased because, unfortunately, many of our meat plants have the reputation for wholesale abuse and dishonesty. There is plenty of evidence involving not just the failure to make returns on levies to CBF but in many cases there was wholesale fraud, especially involving EC payments. There is a need for improved supervision of the meat industry to ensure that there is no evasion of payment of levies due and that all fraud is stamped out. I hope these issues will be tackled by the strengthened and developed CBF.
That is not relevant to this section which relates to the levies in respect of the appropriate contribution from the industry to the board which are looking after their marketing interests. This section is to enable CBF to get the proper contribution and to have access to accounts and records to ensure that is done. These penalties are included in case there is any distortion of figures.
I agree entirely about our obligation to ensure that fraud at whatever level will be attacked as strongly as possible. We are in good standing in the European Community and I am determined to ensure that we stay that way. We do not have to present constant checks and counterchecks to the Commission of the European Community because they trust the integrity of the establishment. Wherever I see people in the industry trying to engage in any fraudulent practices, I can assure the House that I and my colleagues in Government will use every means available to ensure it stops.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 6 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 7, subsection (4), line 30, to delete "July" and substitute "August".
This is a necessary amendment in view of the delay in getting the matter to the House. The original date proposed would not have given sufficient time for the necessary legislative procedures to be complied with and it is accordingly proposed that the date of operation shall be 1 August this year.
Having agreed to the need for the Bill to go through as quickly as possible, I am somewhat disappointed that we have not been able to get it through by the original target date. What does the dalay of one month mean in terms of loss of revenue to CBF?
It would be one-twelfth of the total extra contribution. There has not been any culpable delay in this matter, having regard to all the legislation we are putting through and the pressures on the Parliamentary Draftsman's office and on the precedures of the House. I signalled to the draftsman that July was the date. One extra month is not something that will break our hearts. We have proceeded very expeditiously. The loss of revenue is at most £100,000.
I accept that the Minister is trying to clear the legislative hurdles as quickly as possible. I dispute the figure of £100,000 at most. I make it £125,000. It reinforces the case we have been making that the Government should not take advantage of the fact that this Bill is in place to cut in any way the Exchequer subvention. There is a £125,000 argument in support of that contention. I urge the Minister to ensure that the comments I and my colleagues have made in this regard are fully borne in mind. He is on record as saying that he shares our concerns and we hope to see this borne out in the continuation of the existing Exchequer subvention.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment and passed.