Seanad Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Jul 1988

Vol. 120 No. 12

Córas Beostoic agus Feola (Amendment) Bill, 1988: Committee and Final Stages.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Connor

Section 3 amends section 6 of the Principal Act by increasing the number of ordinary CBF board members from nine to eleven. The two additional members, one representative of producers and one representative of the meat export trade, are proposed in the light of the extension of CBF's role to pigmeat. This section also allows the number of ordinary members to be further increased by the Minister by regulations. I am reading from the explanatory memorandum.

I would like some assurances from the Minister in relation to the make-up of the board. The point has been made — and I glad that it has been expanded — to include people from the pigmeat industry. I would like to see a board made up of representatives of the pigmeat, sheepmeat and the beef industry. It is important that the Minister gets a proper balance of interests on the board of CBF. There would be a lot of resentment among the sheepmeat people if they were excluded. I urge the Minister when he is appointing his members and expanding the board that due cognisance will be taken of all the interests in the meat export trace whether it be beef, pigmeat or sheepmeat. The Minister might like to give some assurances along those lines.

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. J. Walsh)

In response to Senator Connor's request that the broadest possible representation be given on the board, I want to point out that the board will comprise, in addition to the chairman, four producer representatives and that they should be representative of the main sectors of the industry. That is in the interests of the industry and of CBF because they are getting the substantial part of their funding from the industry. It would be prudent to have representation on the board reflective of the entire industry including the sheepmeat industry. There are four producer representatives, three exporter representatives, one domestic meat trade representative, one livestock export trade representative and two ministerial appointments. I give a commitment that I will bring the Senator's concern in relation to this matter to the attention of the Minister when the nominations come in from the appropriate bodies nominating members to the board.

Mr. Hussey

The Minister said on Second Stage that it may be possible to expand into the poultry business and into venison. Does the Minister think it necessary that a representative from the poultry industry should be appointed to the board at this stage so that they could see what the market is like and try to get openings for the export of poultry meat to the Continent?

Mr. J. Walsh

In response to Senator Hussey's question in relation to the poultry industry, it is important to have a representative board of the entire industry. On Second Stage I said that I regarded the poultry industry as a growth area and an area for tremendous potential. I have no doubt that the producer organisations will ensure adequate and appropriate representation to reflect the importance of the different sectors and as the industry develops, there is no doubt that appropriate representation will be given to the poultry industry.

Mr. Ferris

I welcome the Minister's assurance that the board will be representative of the industry. In the previous section the definition of livestock has been categorised as bovine animals, sheep and pigs. The producer sectors are now being assured of a place on this board. Can we take it that the Minister is likely to extend it by ministerial order which this Bill gives him the power to do to the poultry area and, if so, will the board be automatically extended to include that sector?

Mr. J. Walsh

As Senator Ferris pointed out, there is provision for the regulation by ministerial order for extension of the board to ensure adequate representation from the industry. If there is a weakness on the board in relation to any sector, particulary the poultry sector, which is a growth area, I have no doubt that the Minister will speedily introduce an order to ensure that the board of CBF are as broadly based and as reflective of the industry as possible because that is very much in the interests of the board, the industry and the organisation itself.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ferris

This section deals with the actual designation of levies which are stated to be £1.50 per bovine animal and 20p per porcine animal. In comparable terms when you look at the value of the animals themselves, £1.50 on what is, in fact, a very expensive bovine animal and 20p on a pig is not in accordance with fair play. Perhaps the Minister would advise us as to how he decided on these figures. Are these just nominal figures chosen for sheep and pigs because of their present value in comparison with the bovine animal which is a very expensive animal to purchase now? I note that if he intends to change these he will bring an order before the House to do so.

Mr. J. Walsh

The position is that the levies proposed, that is, £1.50 for bovine animals and 20p for sheep and pigs, were recommended by CBF. CBF are very broadly representative of the industry generally and put a lot of work into a five year programme for the development of the meat industry. After much discussion and debate they came up with these figures, as recommendations from CBF, to the Department of Agriculture and Food as appropriate figures. I would think that the reason the pig levy is at 20p is the depressed state of the industry for a long number of years. A very genuine effort is being made by everybody now to develop the pigmeat industry. The levy figures as suggested are appropriate.

Mr. Connor

I agree that the figures are appropriate but I do not honestly believe that the budgetary position in which the CBF find themselves is adequate. CBF should have a more aggressive and much wider role and they should have the resources to play a greater role in the promotion of the Irish meat product abroad. In my Second Stage speech I made the point that in Ireland we spend around 0.2 per cent on promotion, that is, the value of the product on promotion. That is much less than is spent by the Meat and Livestock Commission in the United Kingdom and by CBF's counterpart in France — the title of which I cannot give because my French is not very good. We should in the future seek to increase the resources of the promotion board. I would not be adverse to this — I know we live in times of great financial constraints — but in terms of the long term investment and economic development of the country, money invested by the Government in a promotion board like CBF would be very well spent.

Mr. Ferris

At least the Minister recognised that the figures are nominal because of the depressed state of the pig industry. There were times when the 20p and sometimes 50p, was about the only profit per head. In good times it was £1, so at least he recognised that that industry has gone through a valley period. I take an optimistic view of it. We have an efficient production system in pigs, admittedly confined to larger units, but there are some areas of reservation amongst producers now. They do not object to paying the 20p if somebody takes the responsibility. I am sure the new board will accept the responsibility to have a major thrust to develop our pigmeat into the export market where I am sure the quality is as good as if not better than that of any other country producing pig, bacon and pork products.

There are reservations about the overall thrust of this now in that we will have a limited number of facilities available in the country. We will have six or seven facilities which will not be located adjacent to all the producers and there will be some additional costs in trying to get their produce from the area of production into the processing areas which will now be rationalised. I know there are plans afoot already for the development of the processing units which the Minister mentioned in his Second Stage speech, but at least he recognises the difficulties the pig industry, in particular, has gone through. I am happy that the industry accepts this as a token figure and, if there are good results which ensure that there is a better buoyancy in the production of pigmeat, I am sure Members of this House can have a debate on how well this board have done, particularly in the area of pigmeat, if and when the Minister comes back to revise these levies which he inevitably will as his predecessors have always done.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Connor

The explanatory memorandum states that:

Section 5 amends section 29 of the Principal Act by increasing the maximum penalty on summary conviction for failure to make returns and pay levies due, from £500 to £1,000 and by introducing an additional fine of up to £50 per day for a continuing offence ...

This implies that there has been default by a number of operators in making levies which were collected on behalf of CBF or on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Food for veterinary services or whatever. Can the Minister let us know how widespread this practice has been? Obviously there is a difficulty and a problem since the inclusion of this section clearly implies that there has been a difficulty here and it was put in here to address that problem.

Mr. J. Walsh

I do not have specific details in relation to any contravention of the regulations under this section but I do know that CBF indicated to the Department that they wanted fines brought up to a realistic level and adequate monitoring of the collection. It was on the basis of a recommendation from CBF that the Department framed this particular section.

Mr. Hussey

I am opposed to this section if it has anything to do with the administration of hormones. Do penalties for that problem come under another Act? It is very serious at present and I believe that, even though it is illegal, it is being carried out by underhand methods and is fairly widespread. I wonder if anything could be done under this section to try to curtail it.

Mr. Ferris

I understand that this section deals only with the points raised by Senator Connor about making returns, particularly for the payment of levies. It does not address itself to the problem, which is a very serious and significant problem, which has been referred to by Senator Hussey. I understand that this section deals with fines in relation to the non-return of figures so that levies can be levied on the people who are expected to pay them.

If they want to increase these, CBF must have some evidence that there was some hesitancy on the part of some people in paying their levies. I know there has been controversy about these levies in the past and about a whole lot of other levies such as disease eradication levies. While there is a dispute in progress, the national farming organisations have a major responsibility, instead of initiating a campaign suggesting that levies should not be paid, to use their good offices to ensure that the purpose of these particular levies is explained to their members and that they are in the members' interests. They should not be used by the farming organisations to suggest that they be withheld pending clarification of this, or that, or in any other area. Levies have been used in the past by some of the farming organisations as a weapon, so to speak, which has not been conducive to good legislation because they were brought in here for a specific purpose and should not be used as an ultimatum for any other purpose. Let us hope, although we do not like increasing fines, that the reason for suggesting the increase is not the hidden reason we suspect it might be, which is the first point of Senator Connor's address.

Mr. M. O'Toole

If there are defaulters, do they come from the larger areas rather than the small domestic butcher or victualler? While we tend in the legislation to increase the fines, a compliment must be paid especially to the smaller traders who have geared themselves for the collection of this levy. Did the main portion of this come from the bigger producer rather than the small one? My interpretation of it over a number of years was that the small producers may have been slow in submitting returns but nevertheless they collected and they are really only collectors. They are the middlemen to collect the money for CBF in this and the producer is willing to pay the levy because he feels that the marketing CBF are doing is giving him a better price for his animal. That is very important and there is no crib in that regard.

The drafters of this Bill, when they increased the fine did it for a reason. I do not think it was an accumulation of money because you do not get an accumulation of money by increasing fines the proceeds of which go to different authorities. Increasing the fine would not bring more moneys into CBF. For efficiency of collection fines are never the answer. The co-operation of people in the trade can be secured by other methods. Has the Minister of State the figures available? If not, can he tell us broadly if it is from the bigger factories rather than the small domestic butcher?

Mr. J. Walsh

First, Senator Hussey inquired about hormones. That does not come under this section of the Bill. This section is involved exclusively with the failure to make returns, as Senator Ferris mentioned. I have not got detailed information in relation to whether the bigger or smaller people are defaulting but — and this point has been made by a number of speakers — CBF are a national promotional marketing agency for a major, £1 billion industry. It is a relatively small operation, and, as I said in my Second Stage speech, the amount of money expended by CBF for the industry is minimal. We have to compete with organisations throughout Europe who are multinationals and massive in size and funding relative to CBF.

The number of staff of CBF is only 30. The point I made to the Department was that quite a number of the staff are tied up in trying to get in levies and in contacting people. It is a question of people going into arrears and CBF personnel, rather than being out in the field and promoting the industry, spending a good deal of their time chasing up levies and chasing different people to get the money in to fund the organisation. Therefore, they made representations to the Department to have this section tidied up to allow their staff to spend the maximum time on the field doing the job they should be doing, that is, promoting a most important industry on behalf of the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 6 to 12, inclusive, agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment and received for Final Consideration.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture and Food (Mr. J. Walsh)

May I express my appreciation to the Senators and everybody in the House for the speedy and efficient way in which this legislation was put through the House?

Question put and agreed to.