I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—
Córas Beostoic agus Feola Act, 1979 (Levy on Slaughtered or Exported Livestock) Order, 1982
a copy of which was laid in draft before the Seanad on the 14th day of June, 1982.
Córas Beostoic agus Feola Order: Motion.
It is proposed in this order to increase the levy payable to CBF in respect of cattle and sheep slaughtered within the State or exported live. The present rates, at 50p per head for cattle and 5p per head for sheep, have remained unchanged since 1 October 1979. The new rates proposed are 70p per head for cattle and 7p per head for sheep. Section 28 of the Córas Beostoic agus Feola Act, 1979, requires that the draft of such orders must be approved by resolution of each House of the Oireachtas.
Córas Beostoic agus Feola are a statutory body which replaced Córas Beostoic agus Feola Teoranta, a company limited by guarantee, in 1979. Their purposes are, broadly, to promote the export of beef, mutton and lamb, and of cattle and sheep, and to furnish promotion and marketing support to exporters and the promotion of beef, mutton and lamb on the home market. The body's activities in the past year included intensive promotion of vacuum-packed beef, particularly in Germany, together with the market intelligence work which it developed in previous years.
CBF have two sources of income, namely an Exchequer grant-in-aid from the Vote for Agriculture and the proceeds of a levy on cattle and sheep slaughtered within the State or exported live. In considering the Estimates for 1982 the previous Government promised an increased grant-in-aid of £765,000 for CBF, on condition that an additional £300,000 was raised in levy income in 1982. To meet this condition, the board of CBF have agreed that the levy rates should be increased to 70p for cattle and 7p for sheep.
The new rates of levy are expected to yield a total income of £1 million in 1982 which together with the Exchequer grant-in-aid of £765,000 is considered to be the minimum amount necessary to enable CBF to meet their planned work programme for the current year.
I propose to bring the new rates into effect on 26 July 1982.
I would like to welcome the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Lenihan, and to say that from this side of the House we support the regulation proposed by the Minister. However, there are a few brief points I would like to make and they relate mainly to the functions of CBF and marketing generally. I have said in this House before — on a previous occasion when marketing indirectly came up for discussion — that CBF ought to become a marketing board or a marketing agency on the lines of Bord Bainne and other marketing boards. At present CBF are only a promotions body. I would like to emphasise the point that they are effective in promoting but they do not have the power of selling. This is quite important. Frankly, I think centralised marketing of all our agricultural produce is something also to be aimed at, where we would centralise the areas of dairy products, pig meat, beef and so on together. Before we reach that position, I believe CBF, as an agency, ought to have the functions and powers of a marketing authority. I recognise, and I know the Minister is well aware of the problems of channelling all the marketing forces together into one agency. I believe nothing but good can come out of it. It would help enormously in the whole area of identification of our product and of branding and so on.
While I acknowledge very fully that CBF are doing a good job within their rather limited terms of reference I feel the concept of levies as far as agriculture is concerned — not necessarily the amount in this case — can be brought too far because we are dealing with an ailing industry at present. The principle of levies can hit it fairly severely. Recently we introduced a levy on livestock, on cattle, sheep and pigs, in respect of veterinary charges. This is yet another levy and I feel while these amounts in themselves are not very great, added together with the insurance that comes off at factories and so on there is a fairly formidable amount of money deducted at a factory from each animal. In the end it is the total amount of deductions made at a factory that counts to the producer. While cattle prices at factories may be high at present it is only correct to state that margins are not enormous. People are in fact living on tight margins, those in the beef industry as well as other areas. I would like to say while the Minister is here that the concept of levies as far as they apply to agricultural produce generally is something that needs to be watched. The profit margin, whether it be in the dairy sector, or the beef sector is something that is not very great. I do not think there is an unlimited distance one can go there. I know the Minister will take cognisance of that.
I would like to see CBF as a marketing agency, with full marketing authority. I believe that in that capacity rather than in their present state as a promotions body, they can do a much better job.
The point the Senator has made is a very valid one, the whole question of giving serious consideration to having a more active marketing role as far as CBF are concerned. I have asked them to look into their own situation on the lines of what the Senator has suggested with a view to coming forward to me with practical proposals. I am awaiting their feasibility study as to what direction they should move towards a more active marketing role. Heretofore, they have been a strictly promotional body. I feel there is some scope in that direction. However, it is not as easy as in the case of Bord Bainne, who are an obvious parallel. There one had a State body that could be transposed into a co-operative marketing body. It is on that basis that Bord Bainne have functioned with an overall role for an industry that is very tightly knit together whereas in the case of cattle and sheep, meat, and lamb, live or processed, it has tended to be very much a private enterprise operation in this country. Traditionally it has been such. There are co-operatives which engage in it also, but it is very much a private enterprise operation. How to fit CBF into that business scene, as it were, in the Irish context, is going to be difficult. In principle, I would go along with the Senator's suggestion. As I have said, I have asked them to look at themselves with a view to coming up with suggestions along the lines that have been made by Senator Hourigan and I am hoping to hear from them fairly shortly in that respect.
Apart from that it is only right that a levy aspect should be written in here. We have substantial export refunds available to the industry which, in my view, are going to encourage particularly the processed meat aspect of the industry in a very substantial way in the immediate future. We have got outlets, particularly in the Meditteranean and the Middle East, that are now diversifying our export performance. This can only be for our good, and the levy proposal makes extra finance available to the body that is looking after an industry which has tremendous scope.
The most important single development that has occurred during my few months in Agriculture has been the recognition by the Commission of the importance of the processing side of the meat industry and the extension of the export refunds to the more added-value type of boned-out meat product. The extension of this refund for added-value production is good and will, of course, apart from employment, form the basis of an industry that will develop more in this direction. I respect the need for differing outlets, live and dead meat outlets. It is tremendously important that we tilt the balance towards processed meats and particularly value-added meats of every kind. It is in that direction the future should lie, and I welcome the decision of the Commission now for the first time to take positive Community steps towards extending export refunds right into the whole added-value area that can be of enormous benefit to our economy from the economic and social point of view.
Question put and agreed to.
Before calling on Senator Hourigan in connection with the matter on the Adjournment of the House, could I have an indication of when we will sit again?
It is proposed to sit tomorrow at 10.30 a.m.