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.