Vol. 102 No. 9
I move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:
Pigs and Bacon Act, 1935 (Part II) (No. 10) Regulations, 1983 and
Agricultural Produce (Fresh Meat) Act, 1930 (Exporter's Licences) (Fees) Regulations, 1983
copies of which were laid in draft before the Seanad on the 9th day of December 1983.
Fees are payable to the Department of Agriculture in respect of cattle, horses, sheep and pigs presented for veterinary inspection at meat factories under the Fresh Meat Acts and the Pigs and Bacon Acts. The present rates of fees are inadequate to meet the cost of the veterinary inspection service provided by my Department. The cost of providing these services has increased steadily over the years. This is mainly attributable to increased salaries and inflation as well as to some expansion in the industry and increased diversification. It is necessary that these fees should be brought more into line with the cost of the service.
The draft regulations now before the House propose to raise the fee for cattle from £2.20 to £3.25 per head, for sheep from 38p to 55p per head, for horses from £2.20 to £3.25 per head and for pigs from 72p to £1.10 per head. This will bring receipts more into line with the true cost of the inspection service in that area.
On the basis of the rates proposed, the receipts will be £5.8 million in a full year while the cost of the meat service is estimated at £7.3 million. I propose to bring the increases into effect on 1 January 1984. It is my intention to increase correspondingly the fees in respect of veterinary inspection of live animals as from the same date.
I oppose the imposition of any new levies at this time in view of the economic situation in agriculture. We all know, and the Minister realises, that agriculture is going through a very tough period, and has done so all through 1983. We have heard in both Houses of the number of farmers who got into financial difficulties through borrowing from lending institutions to develop their farms and who now find they cannot meet the interest rates being charged and at the same time the Government are suspending the farm modernisation scheme in an effort to save money. This was a very bad move.
I hoped that before the end of the year the Minister would have announced the reintroduction of the farm modernisation scheme, but unfortunately that is not so. The Government, by suspending the scheme, have taken almost £11 million out of agriculture at a time when that kind of investment was very badly needed. Earlier in the year the Minister of State promised that this scheme would be reintroduced in November and that special notice would be taken of providing accommodation to get cattle in off the land. Unfortunately that has not happened. Cattle should be off the land by now but unfortunately they still have no roof over their heads. The Minister has not reintroduced the farm modernisation scheme and, apparently, we will be facing into the new year without it being reintroduced. For those reasons I oppose the imposition of those charges.
Some years ago when we were in Government and similar charges were being introduced, there was an outcry from the Minister's party, although agricultural earnings were much higher then than they are now and prospects for agriculture were much better then than now. Those charges were withdrawn at a later period. Until such time as we can chart the way forward more clearly and see light at the end of the tunnel, those charges should not be increased.
We saw the opposition there was to the milk super-levy from all sections of the community. Until such time as that issue is settled and farmers know and understand where they are going, we should not agree to the imposition of those charges. That is the stand I am taking and the Minister would be well advised to hold off for the time being because I am sure he, like every other public representative, has been under pressure from the farming organisations not to increase those charges.
In conclusion I would like to thank the Minister for last night's announcement about the Tuam sugar factory, even though it does not come under this motion. As I have been involved in that campaign for so long it is only right that I should compliment the Minister on finally giving a decision, even though it does not suit everybody — and it does not suit me. All I am afraid of is that the cure may be worse than the disease. It would be unfortunate if we had to let go half the work force to achieve what the Minister intends. I am sure nobody in Tuam wants to see that happen. I ask the Minister, in this season of goodwill, to make sure that, whatever capital allocations are made to Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann Teoranta, half will be allocated to Tuam to modernise the plant and make it more efficient.
I would like to refer to the very excellent and wise decision taken by the Minister and his colleagues in relation to the Tuam factory. They are to be commended for deciding positively——
That is enough about Tuam.
I want to say just one sentence.
Leave Tuam alone.
Except to say one sentence. The Government have taken a decision and it is now a matter for the Irish Sugar Company to run Tuam effectively.
While supporting these regulations, they should be stabilished at this level and we should not have to face further increases in inspection levies of this sort for some time because the margins in the beef and pigs sectors are becoming tighter. This relates particularly to the area of pig production where margins are very tight at present and increases per head have a severe effect. There is a reduction in slaughterings of beef at factories as against overall slaughterings. This is a factor which has to be borne in mind. People who are now doing this work slaughtered more animals in the past. That fact cannot be overlooked by the Minister and his Department.
We must make certain that the standard of our products coming from bacon factories or meat plants, be they sheep meat or beef, is of the highest order possible. This relates to the home market and to the very important export market. While people will complain about the level of headage payments for inspection, we must leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have a product of a very high quality. These charges are necessary. On top of other charges we will be discussing later, they are putting a fair burden on people. I would like to think we could see a stabilisation of these charges at this level.
Like Senator Hussey, I want to express my opposition to these proposed increases. The proposed increases are £1.5 per head in respect of cattle, from 38p to 55p in respect of sheep, £1.5 in respect of horses, and 72p to £1.10 in respect of pigs. The last is a very savage increase when you consider that every pig in this country at the moment is "dying in debt" and very few of them are leaving a clean slate behind them. Anybody who looks at the pig industry will see that is the position as of now. The Minister's action in increasing these charges shows his lack of knowledge of and his lack of insight into the pig industry. He should have allowed the present charges to continue until such time as the pig industry was in a position to pay extra charges, which appears to be a long way off.
With regard to the increased charges and fees for cattle, the direct State deduction for every animal slaughtered is approximately £4 per head, which is made up of £3.25 under the new regulation for veterinary inspections and 70p for CBF. It might be better if it was the other way around. If you look at the amount of money being put into CBF and their activities, you will see they are not being given the necessary funds to carry out a proper marketing job for our No. 1 product, namely, meat. I wonder how these charges are justified. In a factory that slaughters 400 cattle per day — and that is not a big factory as far as we are concerned — a charge of £3.25 per head means that £1,300 a day will be collected in that factory from the farmers. How many people are employed on meat inspections and AO work in those meat factories? I would love to know what the wages bill for a factory like that would be per week. A figure of £1,300 a day collected five days a week is £6,500 in inspection fees. That £6,500 would pay many veterinary inspectors.
In taking this action the Minister will reduce the number of cattle killed on this side of the Border. For the past 12 or 18 months it has been much more beneficial for farmers to kill their cattle in Northern Ireland with the variable permium, which the Minister promised to deal with some months ago. It would leave fair competition for Irish factories if it were still in operation. We could mention many other things this Minister and this Government promised the farmers in the past 12 or 18 months. We had an agreement with the EEC for a free pre-movement test. We have not heard anything about that.
Senator Hussey mentioned the fact that the farm modernisation scheme was suspended supposedly until October 1983. I am beginning to think it will be extended to October 1984 because, while the Minister has a commitment to agriculture, he has not got a commitment from the other members of the Government to give farming a fair crack of the whip.
I appeal to the Minister to defer these increases because it is a simple case of taking more money out of farmers' pockets. We all know the situation in which the beef farmers and the dairy farmers find themselves. Like Senator Hussey, I am totally opposed to these increased charges which are aimed at the sections who are forced to pay them because you have to pay them to have your animals slaughtered. Possibly the Minister will be coming back here in the future looking for further increases. It appears that this Government have an ambition to charge farmers for every facility being provided for them.
No one likes to raise charges for anything. I remember Senator Hussey actually proposing a similar Bill here. He made the point that values were slightly different then. The reality is that the Minister has a responsibility to provide this service which costs the taxpayer something in the region of £7.3 million. If the Minister did not carry out his responsibility in this regard, he would be doing a disservice to the consumer who depends totally on the inspectorate to inspect throughly animals slaughtered for human consumption. Recently there was an outcry about contamination of food products, much of which the media overplayed. The Department's figures contradicted much of what was said about antibiotic residues. These inspectors have to be vigilant about lesions in animals killed for human consumption. That responsibility rests with the Minister. It is only fair that the sector involved should pay a contribution towards it. They are not being asked to pay the full cost, which would be extremely high. I agree that levels of profits, particularly in these areas, are pretty slim. I do not think the position in the pig industry is as bad as Senator Ellis said.
The Senator would not know. He was never in it.
The Senator should check the records before making wild accusations across the floor. I saw and bred and fed more pigs than he ever smelled and made quite a bit of profit.
We do not need to know who fed pigs. Senator Ferris to continue with his contribution.
If the Leas-Chathaoirleach would inform Senator Ellis that the accusation that I know nothing about them is unfounded, I would be happy to withdraw my comment. However, we will not argue about pigs. If we reach Christmas we might eat them.
We have a responsibility to the consumer and if we approach it on that basis and if the Minister, when he looks at the four-year plan on agriculture, implements sections of it within the required period, agriculture can proceed with a specific plan. The animals which we are talking about — cattle, horses, sheep and pigs — will come into their own and there will be a proper programme. Reference was also made by Senator Ellis to the disease eradication programme which the EEC were prepared to fund. I must correct him and say that it was his Minister for Finance who negotiated the deal in Brussels and put the embargo on the public sector which could not allow the scheme to be implemented.
I believe this motion is necessary.
On a point of order, Senator Ferris should check the records to see who introduced the embargo.
I would be the last to claim any close working involvement with the subject matter of this motion but I am interested in an aspect which has not so far been discussed, namely, the Minister's intention to increase correspondingly fees in respect of veterinary inspection of live animals as from the same date. I presume this is a reference to the proposed draft order in relation to fees for exporters' licences. I would welcome further explanation and clarification from the Minister since under Community law we would only be entitled to charge fees in this area if they were quite definitely related to the cost of inspection; otherwise they would be potentially a charge on exports, contrary to the free movement of goods. It would be helpful to have further details of how these licences are issued and the cost. Is it the case that even with the increase in export licences they would not bear the full cost, or is there a spread cost between inspection fees for cattle and other animals slaughtered and the export licences? Are they all covered by the same scheme without a breakdown? I could see the danger of the possibility of a challenge to an increase in fees for exports raising an issue of Community law.
I agree with the point already made that these fees are being increased quite substantially in real terms and must necessarily be a burden borne by those either bringing cattle for slaughter or for export. I fully support the view that it is necessary to maintain a high quality and to be very careful about the quality of our fresh meat. We must be concerned about recent reports and analyses of the situation.
Perhaps the Minister would give the House further information on the way in which the fees are composed. Are they determined by the veterinary profession or are they strictly controlled by the Government? If we are dealing with a profession setting their fees, our approach should be to look seriously at the basis for those fees to see whether they are justified and whether we should be passing them on by way of these orders. It would be helpful to have this information, particularly for somebody like myself who is not as familiar with the situation as some other Senators.
I accept that these fees are very necessary. The figure of £3.25 per animal may look a little high and it is a fairly steep increase. I accept that the Minister has investigated the matter and finds this level of fees to be necessary. It is very important that these inspections should take place. We are all aware of the amount of taxpayers' money which has been spent on the disease eradication programme and it is to be hoped that we are now making some progress. Nobody likes an increase which will hit his pocket and the person producing beef has no escape. I am not sure that Senator Ellis is correct in saying there will be a greater movement of cattle across the Border. I do not think this will happen to any great extent, although even without these increases there has been a certain amount of cattle movement.
I do not know how the Minister intends to introduce this measure in relation to the live trade. The levies introduced between 1979 and 1981 by the Fianna Fáil Government were counter-productive. Many people tried to escape payment and the best way to avoid paying the levies was to have more sales on the land. There was a lot of movement of cattle from one farm to another in an attempt to escape the levies. This may have contributed to the spread of disease.
I would agree with other speakers regarding the level of profit on cattle. I am in this business and I know that the margin of profit is very small. We should be encouraging more people to go into beef production. I have noticed a reluctance on the part of farmers during the past few months to buy in cattle for fattening in the winter. This is due to the very small profit margin. I am referring to the sales at Ashbourne, Kells and other places. Barley is very expensive and if a farmer has to borrow money his profit will be very small. Successive Governments in recent years have been attempting to increase cattle numbers. This encouragement must be sustained because it also affects other sectors. We must have people to fatten cattle, otherwise the dairyman will have trouble selling his calves. We have to think of the barley growers. We must fatten cattle and by doing so we are making a market available for the barley growers. I know that it gives the Minister no great pleasure to introduce these charges. It is something that has been done before and will possibly be done again.
The only thing that concerns me at the moment is the question of the levy on live cattle. Perhaps the Minister might explain how he intends ot introduce that. I am sure that he has no choice in the factories. I want to warn him about the effects the last levies introduced had on cattle sold in 1979 and 1981. There were then great complaints from everybody involved in the disease eradiction programme. I know a bit about that as I was on the Animal Health Council for some years and I am chairman of the Animal Health Council in County Louth. Many farmers at that time expressed the view that the levies had an effect because people were moving cattle at night from one farm to another, rather than pay the levies. I hope that the Minister will keep that in mind. We spend millions of pounds on the disease eradication programme. Perhaps we are making some progress though maybe not as much as we would like. The DVO in my own county told me that he is very happy with the results. Hopefully, the results will be as good elsewhere during 1984.
None of us likes to speak in support of the introduction of any kind of levy but these levies are necessary and it is better that we pay for them in this way rather than borrow for them because that option is no longer open. I would like to move slightly from the subject matter of the motion to talk about the administration of disease eradication schemes.
No, Senator.
You are blocked from dealing with Tuam.
I wish to point out that this increase which the Minister has brought forward must be seen in the right light with regard to charges and quality control in one of our most important expert sectors, the carcase meat sector. Like Senators Ferris and Robinson, I believe that if we are to maintain standards it is important that we have proper and adequate inspection by the Department. The Department and the Government must be able to stand over these products and we must pay for these services.
In recent times there has been much publicity about the quality of meats. At one stage the export of animals and meat to an EEC country from here was held over because of a refusal to finalise approval for export. In such a situation the Opposition must realise that the Minister, is weighing up the pros and cons of this additional charge, must take into consideration the possible jeopardising of that very important export trade. Results from inspections must be forthcoming and the onus is on the veterinary profession who carry out these inspections to report back. If there is a particular reason for any carcase or its origin to be identified, that must be done as a follow-up in return for the expenditure involved.
Much of the criticism from the other side of the House today has concerned a lack of commitment by this Government to agriculture in general. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Agriculture for the way in which he has shown a very great commitment to certain sectors of agriculture, particularly in the west, by his proposal to keep Tuam sugar factory open. This was long awaited and the Minister at all times had said that——
Senator Burke, we cannot discuss Tuam at this stage.
It is so seldom that a Senator says nice things about me.
I too said a lot of nice things about the Minister.
As a Senator from the west the Leas-Chathaoirleach cannot deny me this opportunity of welcoming a very important decision for the people of the west. It was a decision on which the Minister was often criticised and he came forward——
Senator Burke, I made a ruling for your colleague beside you and you cannot make a speech on Tuam. That is a ruling from the Chair. Please return to the motion.
I cannot allow the opportunity to pass without congratulating the Minister in the warmest manner possible for keeping the Tuam factory open.
On a point of order could I be allowed to comment on Tuam also, after Senator Burke? I understood when speaking that I could not.
Senator Ellis, just because it is Christmas week it does not mean that you can run the show from the floor of the House. Please get back to the motion and forget about Tuam, Senator Burke. The Cathaoirleach made a ruling and I will abide by that ruling. We will not discuss Tuam.
There is a commitment there and it is an overall policy to rectify a situation that had been allowed to proceed in an ad hoc way over the years. As a result of these increases, we will get a return for finances expended in this case. In conjunction with the motion to follow, we will have a return by way of experience, control of disease and identification of areas that may have led to spread of the disease in the past.
Could the Minister inform the House as to when he intends to declare the relevant areas of the west free of brucellosis? There are three or four counties concerned, including Roscommon, Sligo and Mayo.
I wish to thank the Senators who contributed to the debate. Some speakers confused item 2 on the agenda with item 3, notably Senators Hussey and Lennon. The item we are dealing with refers to veterinary inspection fees. Item 3 refers to bovine disease levies. I am somewhat worried about the introduction of the increase in the inspection fee on pigs from 72p to £1.10p because of the very depressed state of the pig industry at present. My departmental advisers tell me that the pig trade is cyclical in nature and that hopefully the present depression will not last too long. I would hope their judgement in this regard is found to be correct.
Some Members of the Opposition objected to the increases. They must bear in mind that the services in question cost £7.3 million and, even taking these increases into account, the fees will realise a sum of £5.8 million only. If the fees were not increased the extra cost would have to be borne by the long-suffering taxpayer. That is the option. Ideally, the fees should equate with the cost of the service. Having said that, I should mention that I met a deputation yesterday from the Fresh Meat Exporters' Association when I promised that I would examine the whole system of veterinary inspections at factories to ascertain whether its costs could be reduced. Obviously, such would involve discussion with the veterinary unions concerned. In that regard I might answer a question posed by Senator Robinson as to who fixes the fees. They are fixed by the Department of Agriculture who, having studied the cost involved, then decide on the appropriate fees.
Another question the Senator posed was that of live exports. She asked: why did the veterinary fees apply to live exports. Each country to which we export requires a veterinary certificate in respect of each animal exported. Therefore, each individual animal must be examined by a veterinary surgeon; hence the cost of a veterinary fee for live exports. Also we must bear in mind that the value of our beef exports, that is meat and live cattle exports, is £800 million per annum — a sizeable sum. It is vital that we do not do anything that would jeopardise that trade. For example, if our veterinary services were seen to be less than adeqate, it could damage our export potential.
There has already been the controversy in regard to antibiotics in milk and hormone growth promotors in animals which has given rise to a certain fear among the public and has reduced considerably the actual comsumption of milk here. I would hate to incur the risk of jeopardising our export trade in beef which, as I have said, runs to the extent of £800 million per annum. Therefore, it will be seen that this service is absolutely vital.
Senator Ellis said I had promised to deal with the variable premium operated in Northern Ireland and Britain as an incentive to meat factories in both places to export at lesser prices than is the case here in the South. I promised I would raise the matter with the EEC Commission at the Council of Ministers' meetings in Brussels. We have repeatedly done so but have been unsuccessful in persuading the Commission to bring forward a proposal for the elimination of the variable premium or, more correctly, for the introduction of what might be termed "a claw-back" on the premium as at present obtaining. The variable premium constitutes a rather complex system of supporting prices in Northern Ireland and in Britain. We do not totally oppose that variable premium because it benefits considerably our beef producers. What we object to is its use in order to bring about unfair competition with our meat factories. That is why we are seeking the removal of an element only of that variable premium, not the premium in its entirely.
Reference was made to the farm modernisation scheme which we had proposed to reintroduce in late autumn. But then we had hoped also to bring in the Book of Estimates in October. The reintroduction of the scheme in its revised form has been delayed because, for a variety of reasons, the Estimates have run approximately two months later than had been anticipated. Now that the Estimates have been published an announcement of the revised scheme is imminent. I would hope it will be announced within a matter of days.
I think that covers the bulk of the questions raised in the course of this debate. The point raised by Senator de Brún is not relevant to the motion before the House. But I shall communicate with him letting him know the up-to-date position in regard to that matter.
