I want to address a few remarks on this enabling draft that is before us. There is no relationship whatsoever between the charges here and what it probably costs in veterinary inspection, for cattle, sheep and pigs and, to a limited extent horses. In principle, we agree that some charge has to be made. But I think it is the feeling of the House that this particular function is the responsibility of the State rather than of the industry. One of the reasons that there is veterinary inspection in factories, irrespective of trying to decide on the quality or otherwise of carcasses is the hygienic aspect of it, both for our home market and for the export trade. In that instance I do not think we should exempt the State from its responsibilities in this matter. To foist increases, which run from 50 per cent to quite a steep increase in cattle, at a time when the processing industry on which employment in agriculture is so dependent and in which there has been tremendous loss of employment over the last couple of years, would be taken as an added blow to the disincentives that are already there for producers to sell to factories. In 1974 the factories, through the co-operatives, made colossal profits at the expense of the producer. Very few of us had sympathy for the factories at that time, very few of us have sympathy for them now because with the export of live cattle they can now close their factories or work a three day week. In spite of extensive processing facilities which are totally under-utilised, increased charges are being levied on the industry using this processing and that will be a further disincentive to make the fullest use of the processing plants.
You may say that 75p on the price of a bovine animal is not a considerable amount relative to its total cost but an increase to 50p in the price of a pig for inspection of a carcass is often the total amount of profit that is available to a pig producer. I would like the Minister to realise that when you talk about an increase of this nature in a section of the industry which has its peaks and valleys and because of our improvement in production, breeding and food conversion, the pig producers who have remained in pig production are more than likely to stay in it but they have to be prepared to work on minimum profit and, at times, no profit. I dwell on the pig industry particularly, because that increase is so close to the profit margins which are applicable to this industry. The State seems to be abdicating what is a statutory function relative to hygiene and passing it back to the industry which, unfortunately, according to all economists cannot take these kind of charges. Perhaps this is the fault of the industry, but in 1980 we produced something like 2 million pigs which were valued at about £130 million and the projection for 1986 is that we will produce about 2½ million pigs. In spite of that increased production, the number of people that have managed to stay in pig production has dropped considerably, something like 1,000 pig farmers are all that will be left producing pigs, which means that they have had to rationalise. They have had to have a complete look at their housing, input costs, feed conversion and have had to improve breeding efficiency. They have managed to do that to stay in business, and that is good. Nobody wants to prop up any sector of society whether it is in agriculture or otherwise unless there is justification for it.
We must realise that our bacon and pork industry has been the backbone of small farmers for a long time. Unfortunately, because of economics they have slowly gone out of the business. Now we have a chosen few who have had the courage to stay, and we must admire them. These farmers have increased pig producing figures, the numbers per sow and numbers of bonhams and they have increased dramatically over the last decade. It is doubtful whether the EEC compensation announced by the Council of Ministers yesterday of 10½ per cent in pigmeat, will be sufficient to compensate the people who are at present in the pig trade.
The Minister outlined another anomaly in his introductory speech, that is the predicament that the Pigs and Bacon Commission found themselves in. I agree totally with Senator Hourigan's proposal that we should look at the whole sales spectrum, particularly regarding pork and bacon, because they are now surviving on a voluntary levy which is applied at the slaughter house to prop up the exports to make us competitive with our EEC partners, especially the Danes. Because it is voluntary, the whole structure of the sale of bacon and pork in foreign countries is in a most unhappy situation. It is likely to change if this voluntary levy is removed at any time or the industry will put the responsibility on the State who have accepted it in the past but, because of EEC regulations, have had to rationalise and go to the co-operative movement.
If this is the way forward I think the State should clearly indicate that we do not want the bacon industry to collapse, because it gives a lot of employment to the limited numbers in it. It gives tremendous potential to the people who produce the cereal for pig feeding and it will benefit, in the long term, the whole national economy and the hygiene if even this voluntary levy was extended to pork butchers who are now unlicensed. I am worried that they can indiscriminately carry on a business in which bacon curers who are licensed have to comply with certain regulations. We should take a complete look at our processing industry.
This draft regulation does not allow us to go into full detail of how important the agricultural industry is, but I resent the charges being suddenly foisted on an industry at a time when they are at a tremendous loss. Factories are totally under-utilised and workers are losing their jobs which are directly involved in agriculture which we all aspire to having improved and maintained. If as a nation we are to survive we must ensure that agriculture does survive and is maintained. The State has a role to play in this. Increasing these charges, passing them to the industry indiscriminately and abdicating our rights under the hygienic regulations that we would like to see operated, is an unfair measure. The principle of it is correct. I would not argue about costs because they are probably not comparable with what it costs the State to carry out these inspections.
Senator Lennon asked the Minister, in regard to the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication scheme, to comment on the fact that there is £4 million approved by our European partners for the acceleration of the disease eradication programme to assist farmers in the pre-sale testing of animals, but that, because of staff embargo, this cannot be implemented here. That is a national disgrace. We have a responsibility to ensure that all animals moved in this State are tested. The money is available from our European partners to do so and, because of that, the State has a responsibility to the industry to ensure that there will be no further delay in eliminating the indiscriminate movement of non-tested animals at tremendous risk to the clear herds and the reasonably clear status of all our herds. If that is implemented it will go some way towards removing the dread and fear of people who avail of the live export trade because of the fact that you can ship to Libya without going through the regulations of testing, without going through the worry of locking up your herd, in an industry which at the moment is in dire straits about making its economic package meet the requirements of its input costs. Any one who has any knowledge of the industry realises that the outlook is anything but rosy. We will have another opportunity soon, I hope, to debate the full economics of agriculture but I object to charges being passed on to an industry which cannot afford it.