Vol. 84 No. 1
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft.
Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935 (Part II) (No. 5) Regulations, 1976, and Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 (Exporter's Licences) (Fees) Regulations, 1976,
copies of which Regulations were laid in draft before the Seanad on the 5th day of May, 1976.
These regulations propose to raise the fees payable in respect of cattle, sheep and pigs presented for veterinary inspection under the Fresh Meat Acts and the Pigs and Bacon Acts. The present rates of fees are at completely unrealistic levels and it is necessary that they should be brought more up-to-date. It is proposed to raise the fee for cattle from 5p to 45p per head and that for sheep from 0.625p to 8p per head. In the case of pigs the increase will be from 1.25p for a pork pig and 2.08p for a bacon pig to a flat rate of 12p for both types.
The present rates of fees are in fact those fixed in 1930 and 1935 when the Acts first came into force and when livestock were worth far less than to-day's record values. In the intervening years, because of such factors as increases in salaries, inflation and the need for more intensive supervision at the factories, the cost of veterinary control at the factories has been increasing steadily. The cost has risen particularly steeply in the past few years so that receipts now bear no real relation to the cost of the inspection service.
For example, receipts from fees in 1975 were only about £100,000, whereas the cost of veterinary supervision of meat and bacon factories was £1.6 million. Obviously this kind of situation has to be rectified.
At present levels of slaughterings the new rates of fees can be expected to yield about £500,000 in the current year and about £700,000 in a full year. This is far short of what is required to bring receipts and outgoings into balance and the recovery of the full cost of veterinary supervision must be the ultimate aim. However, an immediate increase to levels which would meet the full cost of veterinary supervision would not be warranted at this stage and in one step.
Fees in respect of horses presented for veterinary examination at meat factories cannot be increased by order, and so I propose to introduce amending legislation shortly to enable the fee for horses to be increased to the same level as that for cattle. The legislation will also enable the fees for all species to be collected monthly instead of half-yearly, as at present.
Finally, I should explain that the proposed new fees will not apply to slaughtering premises catering for the home market only, which are under local authority supervision.
When a similar motion was being debated in the Dáil this morning I was asked if the National Prices Commission had been consulted about the proposed increases, I made it clear to them, and I wish to do so again, that the Commission were consulted in advance. Some doubt was also cast on the estimated increased receipts of £700,000 in a full year. It was suggested that if receipts in 1975 had been about £100,000 the proposed new rates should bring in appreciably more than £700,000 per annum. The figures are quite correct. Any apparent difficulty here arises largely from the fact that fees collected in any 12-month period do not necessarily relate to slaughterings in a 12-month period also. There is always some carry-over.
I now recommend the motion to the Seanad for approval.
Although we are not opposing the motion, I should like to make it clear that we are not at all happy about it. The Minister has stated that the present charge of 5p is unrealistic. That may be, but the increase is unrealistic also. An increase from 5p to 45p per lb. is certainly a big jump. I do not know how many pounds of meat are actually weighed when the Minister says 45p per lb. If we take an animal whose dead weight is 600 lbs. and the 45p is put on on the full 600 lbs., it would mean about £27 on the animal, according to my recollection. This is an 800 per cent increase, which is a very steep increase. I feel it should be staggered.
The Minister said that at the commencement the new fees will yield £500,000 and then it will go to £700,000. We believe that it will go to £1 million in a very short time. This 1 per cent increase will come from the producer's pocket. Cattle prices are very high at the moment but they were not very high a year ago. Cattle were being given away for nothing. That could very easily occur again. Instead of trying to stifle production we should increase it.
All the meat factories are going through a very difficult period. They are finding it difficult to purchase cattle. They are not able to compete on the open market against cattle going for export. The result is that some of our meat factories have closed. The factory in Clonmel, County Tipperary, has closed down and others are running on a 50 per cent production and have let quite a lot of their staff go. This further increase will mean that more people will be let go from factories and more factories will close down. It will cost the IMP people £125,000. I know it is time there was an increase, but such a steep increase is not necessary at this time.
It has been mentioned that the vets have to be paid. I understand a lot of the vets are Department vets and are paid their salaries anyway. I also understand that the Minister is asking the industry to pay monthly instead of quarterly premiums. This will be a further hardship on the meat industry. I want to point out that, while we are not opposing it, we are not at all happy with the order.
I, too, would like to say that any increases, no matter what type, will be opposed by the sections that will be bearing the cost. This increase of 5p to 45p per animal is a realistic figure because the 5p has been unrealistic for the past number of years. There has been no increase, but the increase in the price of animals has been substantial. Naturally everybody expected that there would be an increase in the inspection service. That service were going to demand an increase so, therefore, somebody had to pay for the increase naturally it was through the animal the increase would be paid. An animal today realises £240 to £300 going into a factory and the 45p is a very small percentage of the cost—.01 or .02 per cent. It is very little to ask anybody to pay for the inspection service. I have no objection to this increase. It should be recommended.
It is not so much the increase, as Senator Ryan said, but the principle behind the increase we are opposed to—the principle behind the attitude of the Government towards farmers for the last 12 months. It is now clear that the attitude of the Government and the Minister for Agriculture is to allow taxation of every kind so that they can get at farmers. The Minister is today in this House, as he was this morning in the other House, gathering obviously much wanted loot to try and exist in office for another couple of months.
The president of the IFA said this morning that there is no doubt now but that this Government are demonstrating their desire to tax production in agriculture. It is not very often, as the Minister knows, that I stand at the shoulder of the IFA in any statements. The Minister's performance in the co-operative movement taxation and again this morning in his application of further taxation has made public the attitude of the Government. I can assure the Minister and the Government that the Prices Commission, about which there is so much talk, have become a joke among the people. Humourous stories are told about that organisation. The Minister knows well that all he has to do is scribble out the request on a piece of paper and send it to the Prices Commission: back it comes to the Minister, then in here and out to the meat factories. It appears to be as simple as that. The Prices Commission have become a laughing stock.
I wonder who will pay the price. It will not be the big rancher, the big producer or the fat stock keeper who will pay. It will be the store cattle man at the mart who will carry the brunt. The producers in Connacht who produce the stores will pay it.
I invite the Minister or any Member on the Government side to come to any of the marts in Tuam next Monday, or in Galway, where we produce a lot of store cattle. The first thing they will hear is: "It is shocking—45p a head off our cattle." They are not the people who will be sending those cattle into the market at all. The buyers will come and transfer that price back down to the special producer. The same applies to sheep. It is a lot easier to take more money out of sheep and do very little towards formulating a structure in which the sheep producers will know exactly where they are going at any particular time of the year.
In the last two or three years there was a huge anomaly in the sheep sales. There were different prices in different weeks—in some instances in particular days—in County Galway, where there was a huge sheep production. It is most unstable and I cannot see why the Minister would have to attack the lamb at all. I can see a reason for putting the levy on the cattle producers because they know where they are going and they have intervention price, but in the sheep trade there is nothing. The price of sheep can drop and can vary from week to week by as much as £5. The Minister knows that himself. Yet there is a set levy put on it. When one sees the amount of money that can accumulate from the sheep trade, particularly from the export of lamb, one can clearly see that it is an easy catch.
There is another question I should like to ask the Minister. As there are veterinary inspections on live sheep at points of transportation, is there to be a levy where sheep are exported on the hoof in containers or other ways across the sea? If so, is it included in the amount of money which the Minister mentioned in his speech?
While one must admit that something will have to be done, it is the attitude, the means and the timing of it that seems so irregular and, to me, so unnecessary. It is no wonder that Mr. Lane, the president of the IFA, said that it now appears to him, and indeed to the IFA, that this Government's main aim in life appears to be to tax agricultural production to the maximum.
Unlike the previous speaker, who started off by saying that he was grudgingly in agreement with the National Farmers Association, I want to say that all my life I have been a member of that organisation, have supported them in their principles and the work they are trying to do and, generally speaking, the constructive way in which they have approached the problems of agriculture, regardless of who was in office. However, on this subject I feel that I cannot disagree with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who says that it is reasonable for the agricultural industry to pay for the inspection of our agricultural produce passing through our factories. It is a small price for farmers to be asked to pay to ensure that the standards and quality of our products are at all times acceptable in foreign markets and will give credit to Irish farmers.
It is not indeed the small farmer who will complain about this sort of charge. I am completely confident that the only people who will raise any serious complaints are the people who have very big numbers, because it is only when you operate with very large numbers of stock that this becomes of any significance. While the levy remained static over the years the price of cattle has gone up tenfold since I became actively engaged in agriculture. I have seen the price of pigs go up 500 to 600 per cent and the levy remain static. While the IFA have a responsibility to watch everything, to speak on behalf of the farmer and to ensure that nothing is taken from him that the IFA cannot stop, nevertheless I feel that the IFA would admit that they have bigger problems to be concerned about than this one.
Again, to suggest that this increase of 45p per head will go back to the store cattle producer in the west of Ireland is absolutely ridiculous. I only wish that we could say to the store cattle producer in the west: "Prices have been guaranteed for beef, the intervention level will be applicable to you at all times and any change in that will be reflected back in store cattle". In fact the opposite is true. At the present time we have store cattle prices in the west which bear no relationship whatsoever to the price of the finished product—indeed they very seldom do. Two years ago we had a situation where there was no relationship. I do not believe any small farmer will accept for one minute that this will have any effect on the price of store cattle. As a farmer, and one with a lot more to lose because of this particular order introduced by the Minister than any Seanad salary, I still say it is a reasonable charge and the agricultural industry will not mind paying it.
I fully support the Minister in his motion to increase these levies on slaughtered animals. I do not think it is out of proportion, in comparison with the big increase in the price of cattle, sheep and pigs since the 1930s. In fact, I suggest that all have gone up perhaps 20 times in price. In the 1930s I remember the purchase of cattle at £8 and £10 a piece. They are now making £300 a piece. I feel that the meat packer plants should bear some of the cost of this increase. I am afraid that the meat packing proprietors will deduct the amount of the levy from the price of cattle, sheep or whatever it may be. I hope that the Minister will not allow such a procedure. They have not done it previously because the levy was only 6p or 8p. The meat factories made enough in 1974 to do them for the next ten years and they should not be allowed at this stage to deduct 45p per head off cattle going through the factories. That is all I am concerned about, I would like the Minister to assure me that he will not allow that to happen.
I do not intend to say very much on this matter. I have listened to the statement of the Minister and the observations from the Opposition benches, particularly that of Senator Killilea. One aspect of his contribution was rather disturbing when he referred to the Minister's exercise here as procurement of loot. Loot refers to taking money unlawfully. It has been written that he who steals my purse steals thrash but he who steals my good name takes from me that which makes me very poor indeed and enriches him not. This is an exercise on the part of Senator Killilea, to take away the good name of the Government, an exercise that has been indulged in by the Fianna Fáil Party over the years in relation to every vote that comes up in this House or in the other House, when they demanded that more and more be spent and less and less collected.
Many of the increases we have had have been made inevitable either because of the increased cost of providing services or because of inflation. Members have a right to criticise the Minister and, indeed, constructive criticism is welcome. I would be glad if the people opposite, who seek to show that this increased levy is not appropriate, would tell us whether they would base the increase on the value of stock sold or on the value of money —in other words, on the consequence of inflation.
All these could be considered as a reasonable basis for assessment, but when we hear observations which obviously are misinformed, or, if they are not misinformed, tend to present an unthinking public with a picture which is a distortion of facts and a misrepresentation of what the Government are doing, or should do, in the circumstances which obtain today we must realise that the Minister is doing a good job, not in regard to the sort of circumstances that Fianna Fáil people would present as the reason behind this, but because of the expenses incurred in consequence of inflation, the high cost of stock and the circumstances that obtain generally if you look at this matter today, on a fair and reasonable basis.
I think the Minister who has this motion has succeeded in handling some of the most difficult problems with honour and dignity and with a personal approach that has added prestige to that high office. His performance is comparable with that of any Minister for Agriculture in the EEC countries.
Canvassing for the next general election is not allowed.
He has got co-operation from people who are tolerant, broadminded, fair and appreciative of good government. He has got the compliments of everybody who has come to know him and of his administration.
Somebody who would not be considered as fair even at a crossroads might be regarded as the sort of person who would argue with Senator Killilea. I am not going to argue with him but say to the Minister that he deserves from this House approval of this motion and I give it 100 per cent.
Applause is not customary in the House.
When one sees a man giving a performance like that—canvassing for the next general election —one would have to applaud.
This Bill comes before us immediately after the withdrawal of the decision by the Minister for Finance to tax co-ops and I am convinced that this is a sort of an appeasement effort on the part of the Minister going some of the way towards satisfying those who have been advocating taxation of co-ops. It would appear to me that this small measure does go some of the way towards meeting the desires of those who have been so loud in advocating taxation of farm co-ops, namely the Minister's colleagues of the Labour Party.
This measure is coming before us at a time when agriculture is being threatened from many angles. Most people seem to believe now that we must tax agriculture to the maximum. In another aspect of industry we see that industrialists enjoy tax concessions for exports. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why we must continue to tax the farmers and the farm products because we know that agriculture is producing products which are being exported to every market in the world and is therefore helping to earn for this country and for the economy of the country much needed revenue from abroad. Every incentive should be given to further increase agricultural exports instead of introducing incentives in the opposite direction.
This, in my opinion, is a tax on production. It may seem to be insignificant but it is in the long run a disincentive to farmers to continue increasing production. We know that there has been a decline in the cattle population, in the pig population and in the sheep numbers in recent years and this measure will act as a deterrent to farmers to continue production because farmers will never forget the latter half of 1974 or the early part of 1975. I notice that in this measure no provision is made for a decrease in the prices of farm produce. I feel that is necessary because the farming community have no guarantee that agricultural prices will be maintained at their present level; they have no real guarantee of markets in the future and therefore even though this measure is small it will be a disincentive towards the increase in agricultural production.
The previous speaker seems to be of the opinion that nobody has the right to criticise. I maintain that this is a democratic institution and must be preserved as a place where Members of the Oireachtas will have the right to criticise or to praise. I believe that it is the essence of democracy to allow freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of debate. We must have that situation if we are to preserve the democracy we all value so dearly at present. Therefore, I believe that criticism is necessary and I know that every Minister worth his salt will welcome criticism. Therefore I was surprised that the previous speaker seemed to deny other people the right to criticise because the day that that happens is a black day in any democratic society. I believe that this measure is a sop to those who have been so loud in their demands for increases in farm taxation over the past few months.
We on this side of the House oppose this measure mainly on the basis that the existing levies have been in operation since the Acts of 1930 and 1935. It seems to me that it was never the policy of any Minister or any Government down through the years to bring about a situation where those levies would, perhaps, meet in full the payments that were made to the veterinary surgeons. Now in 1976 the levies are being increased 800 per cent. Cattle prices have varied over the years since the Acts of 1930 and 1935 and no Minister for Agriculture, irrespective of which Government he was attached to, at any stage came before the Houses of the Oireachtas and asked for such a staggering increase.
I see this measure as a complete change of policy by the Department of Agriculture. They are now getting at the farmer again in this taxation measure, as I would describe it, because up to now the moneys collected through these fees bore no relation whatsoever at any time, irrespective of cattle prices, to what the Minister is aiming to do in this particular order —meet the cost in regard to those fees brought about by the veterinary men in question. It is on that basis that we totally oppose it. To ask farmers to pay an 800 per cent increase now is a deplorable action on the basis that the fees in question have been unchanged for the past 40 years or 50 years.
I would also like to raise my voice in protest against this measure in which the Government set a very poor example. There is no consistency whatever within the Cabinet when the Government can make an order at any time they wish and tax the farmer. An 800 per cent increase of taxation on the farmer is something unbelievable when we find that the same Cabinet have to apply to the Labour Court in order to put up a plea that they are unable to pay the men who are working for them, as they have already done. It shows a very bad economic situation in this country when the Government have to plead before the court that they are not able to pay the increases sought. They do not mind about themselves if they get away with it in the Labour Court. How then can the same Government put an 800 per cent tax on the pig producer, the cattle producer and even the horse producer? It is a wonder that the Taoiseach allowed that to happen.
No, no.
He did not? That is in keeping with his views about horses. It is unbelievable that this can happen on top of a 12 per cent increase already granted in pig feed by the adding of skim milk to pig feed and to cattle feed which the Minister said, in a reply in Dáil Éireann some time ago, would go across the board to the cattle producers or the pig producers.
There is no consistency within that Government. If the Minister would set out an agricultural plan and tell the farmers what they can expect in one year, one-and-a-half years or two years and not come out with these orders every two or three months in the form of hidden taxation, people would know what to do. The taxation imposed in the last budget was unforgivable and I am sure that in the near future when the people get an opportunity of voicing their opinions they will show that it is unforgivable. These orders have been coming out every second month, or every second week with price increases imposing taxation like this. Any man who does not do an eight-hour day, which the vets are not doing at the present time in the factories, and who get from £16 to £20 a day is very well paid. The Minister should not put another increase on the farmers to give them more money and take himself off the hook in the row that is going on with the vets. We have spent already £91 million on the eradication of brucellosis and TB and everything like that and it has gone down the drain in 18 months because the schemes are not being carried on due to this row.
If I were the Minister I would resign before I would allow this to happen. I oppose it strenuously. It is a dreadful burden of taxation to put on the farming community, especially after the increase of 12 per cent on the feeding stuffs. There is no mention at all about this. The farmers objected to it but they got no place. As Senator Keegan has already said, this is probably a sort of appeasement to the tail that is wagging the dog, to the Labour Party, that the Government are going to tax the farmers severely. I want to state my opinion as strongly as I can against this order.
I should like to express my appreciation of the manner in which this motion has been discussed. I think it is obvious to all of us that the Members of the Seanad appreciate fully the need and the justification for the sort of increase being sought here, after 40 to 45 years. There were two Acts, in 1930 and 1935. I think there will be some Members old enough to recall that at the time the 1935 Act was introduced and the existing fees were insisted upon by the then Government, now the Opposition, good cows and good cattle were freely changing hands at £10 apiece. They are now going at prices in excess of £300.
Was it not because of the Economic War that has happened, that we got back the ports and the freedom of Ireland?
That was Fianna Fáil policy at the time.
The Minister to conclude the discussion on the motion.
Senator W. Ryan, who led for the Opposition in this debate, referred to the 800 per cent increase and he emphasised this very much particularly in the case of cattle that had gone from 5p—at the time, as I say, they were £10 each—to 45p now at a time when they are making in excess of £300. I would like to tell the House that the fee for the same inspection in the North of Ireland is 50p not 45p.
Do we take what is done in Britain?
You take it from Ireland.
In the North of Ireland, just across the Border, they are paying 50p and apparently they do not consider it excessive. There has been a considerable amount of confusion about this that I would like to clear up. There has been confusion among certain reporters in the papers as well in that it is being said that this increase is being sought to pay more to the vets in the factories. It has no connection whatever with what the members of the veterinary profession are being paid and will have no effect on what they are being paid. Their salaries—for the information of the Members of the Seanad who do not already know— move in line with national pay agreements and where the awards are decided in that way they get the benefit of those awards. But there is no association with the fees charged for veterinary inspections.
I said in the course of my opening statement that in a full year we will recoup £700,000 and that the total cost is £1,600,000. There will still be £900,000 to be collected from the taxpayers of this country in order to ensure that an efficient veterinary service will be provided for the processing factories and for, in the last analysis, the producers.
Now, some Members of this House asked me to ensure that this would not be passed back to the producer. I think every cost in processing is, and has always been, passed back to the producer in the last analysis. Of course it is the producer who will have to pay. I cannot see processors reducing the margins of profit simply because we are trying to find ways of relieving the taxpayer of some of the cost of his meat inspection. This is a normal cost for producers to pay. It is very much in the interests of producers that there should be an efficient inspection; if our exports are not of a high standard the producers must bear the ill-effects. We are trying to safeguard them against this.
The question was also asked if a similar fee would be charged on cattle being inspected at the ports. In my opening speech I stated specifically that this fee will only be charged in processing factories which are licensed for export; not only does it not apply at the ports, but it does not apply to cattle butchered in the normal way for the home market. Therefore home supplies should not be affected.
This morning I was told that arising out of this levy there would be an enormous increase in the price of bacon to the consumer. The charge is 12p per pig and this is supposed to result in an enormous increase to the consumer. It only indicates how. unrealistic we can become and how we can magnify the effect of things when it appears to be good propaganda for those who oppose the introduction of something new and when they have very little factual material on which to base their opposition.
I have been chided because the Government did not have consultations with different groups, the IFA and the processors. Nobody wants to pay. What would be the outcome of such consultations? The outcome would be that they would want no part in the scheme. Nobody knows that better than those who are complaining that they have not been consulted.
The Government of consultation.
The Government consult with organisations when there is a chance of worth-while results.
Like last Friday.
This is all supposed to land on the unfortunate producers of store cattle in the west of Ireland. Could anything be further from reality at present? The unfortunate producers of store cattle in the west at present are finding it difficult to take £35-£40 per cwt. for their stores. Good luck to them; they saw the other side of the picture. They had a rough passage and no matter how well it goes, they will have my blessing for some time to come.
This is not a levy on slaughterhouses; it is a fee for an inspection which the slaughterhouses will be asked to collect in the normal way. My attitude to farmers and farming has been criticised at some length as well as the timing of this operation. When would there be a suitable time for increasing a fee to producers if it is not at a time when prices were never higher, incomes never better than they are at present in the farming community?
And prices for foodstuff?
Prices for cattle, for pigs and sheep; the price of milk was never better. I am very proud of that fact.
They will give the Minister the answer.
Agriculture is being attacked from many angles. I should like to be attacked in the same way if I was farming today, which I should like to be.
What about the stunt you pulled off last week?
All sorts of irrelevancies have been raised in the course of this discussion but that can be expected from the Opposition no matter in which House the discussion is taking place.
I do not propose to pursue these irrelevancies because the Cathaoirleach would not allow me to do so.
I trust the Minister is not implying criticism of the Chair for not intervening earlier?
No, Sir. I think I have answered all the criticisms and I am grateful for the appreciation of the Senators of the justification for this increase which still falls short of the full cost of the veterinary inspection which we insist must continue to be efficiently carried out. I recommend the motion for the approval of the Seanad.
