Section 45 deals with the levy on agricultural products. The committee is aware of the position regarding meat and livestock and the existing products which are levied. Will the Minister advise as to what other sectors could be — or will be — levied in the future? Has the Minister given any consideration to levying milk?
This is a contentious issue and many people are concerned about the powers to be given to An Bord Bia in this area.
We will charge the interim board to devise a strategic plan. At present I do not envisage the areas where further levies will apply. As with section 12 of the Bill, the further levying would apply to sectors which do not already have a levy provision and the section is, therefore, aimed at generating funds from sectors which would benefit from such a provision. Such a provision should be developed in co-operation between the board and representatives of specific sectors.
I am uncertain as to whether it is a good idea to impose a levy as there must be a response from the industry regarding its appropriateness. In this respect, section 45 (6) states: "Before making an order under this section the Minister shall consult with such persons as the Minster considers appropriate who are engaged in or are representative of those engaged in the production, processing or sale of agricultural products." It is not a provision which will appear suddenly, and hopefully it will be developed jointly in the interest of the sector and the food industry generally.
There is grave anxiety on this issue as the board will be substantially funded from EU funds over the next few years. In view of this, the situation could eventually disimprove from the producer's viewpoint as they may have to pick up the tab if the Government fails to obtain funding from the EU. This is a contentious issue and producers are worried about it.
Many areas are levied at present and increasing the levy, perhaps without the co-operation of the representative organisations of the meat and livestock trade, requires caution. I appreciate that the Minster takes the view that a levy should not be imposed without having it discussed and agreed with the sectoral interests concerned.
After the lifetime of the National Development Plan there can be no guarantee that European compensation payments to agriculture, and the generous payments to agriculture through FEOGA and various other Structural Funds, can continue, especially if consideration is given to the countries seeking to join the EU at present.
The huge problems with the agricultural sectors in eastern Europe would make Ireland appear to be a very wealthy country and would make our farmers, relatively, appear well off, even although they would be at a serious disadvantage in terms of their right to produce arising from the present situation regarding the CAP. The right to produce has been taken from farmers, and quota restrictions and production controls have been imposed on them. At the same time, there can be no long term guarantee of compensation payments for those quota restrictions, especially when the expansion of the EU is considered, with the major problems in those countries of eastern Europe and elsewhere which wish to join the EU.
Legislation is now proposed, which, in the normal course of events will be on the Statute Book for a long time. There is a weak link here if the board can at any stage increase the levy or impose a new levy on any sector to make good a shortfall in European funds. Would it be possible in this section to cover the point the Minister made that levies should not be imposed on any sector but should be levied with agreement on the sectoral interest in return for services rendered by the board? In other words, the board must provide some marketing benefits to an agricultural sector before that sector's contribution can be levied by the board. There must be a quid pro quo. It should not be just an easy way out, when the board needs extra shillings, to impose a general levy across the board. When one looks at the definition of agricultural products — a definition we may have to change given the debate we had yesterday about An Bord Glas — there are many areas on which the Minister or one of his successors could choose to impose a levy if there was shortfall from the Exchequer or from Euro funding. There is a weakness here which leaves sectoral interests unprotected if the board wanted to impose levies without giving them,quid pro quo, a service that would warrant a particular levy. I feel strongly about that point.
I can accept the concerns that underpin the points the Deputy has made. However, I refer the Deputy to section 45 (7) which, effectively, is the ultimate democratic protection. It states:
Whenever the Minister proposes to make an order under this section, a draft of the order shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.
Any changes proposed here obviously have to go through the full democratic process. Opposition to a certain move, can be made known through the political process. The proposal will be openly and transparently debated in both the Dáil and Seanad. Obviously, some people will be opposed to whatever one does but, at the end of the day, that is the ultimate safeguard.
Yes. To be fair, I criticise heavily when secondary legislation is enacted by laying orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Therefore, I must commend the Minister for having the affirmative procedural order in this section which ensures a democratic input. There is some safeguard in that. Nevertheless I am still concerned that some sectors feel unprotected. If the Government of the day wanted to impose a levy on a sector, that sector would have no say. The Minister's point is well taken; that it is by affirmative resolution which is a safeguard.
