asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when he proposes to introduce the 7 per cent compensatory tax on immature live cattle exports to other EEC countries.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cattle Exports.
110.
The relevant amendment to EEC Regulation No. 974/71 enabling a monetary charge based on the fall in the value of sterling to be made on exports of young cattle and calves from Ireland and the UK will come into operation on the date of publication of the amending regulation being made by the council.
Does this mean that the people who rear these young calves will not be in the position in which we thought we would be when we went into the EEC and would get the benefit of the EEC prices? Now, if they want to stop the export of young calves from this country, then pay a bonus or something of the kind to the man who buys them at home, but do not put a tax on the people. I come from an area where the people are in either milk or in a small way in beef and they have to sell these calves. When we went round looking to get into the EEC we told them they were going to get the benefit and apparently now it is the man who finishes the beef who will get the benefit of the full EEC prices. The man who sells the calf will not get the benefit. I should like to get the Minister's views on that because, after all, what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander and I am speaking on behalf of the low income farmer, the man who produces the calf.
The Deputy is making a statement.
I am sorry. I did make a statement.
It is quite obvious there are two views on the benches over there. I had another Deputy over there a week or so ago attacking me on the other score, namely, that I was not protecting the cattle trade in this country against this sort of subsidisation, by the Italians principally. It is very difficult to please everybody.
I am not interested in that. I am not interested in what another Deputy asks. I am interested in my own constituency and in my own area and I certainly say that if there is going to be a tax put on the smaller farmer——
An Lean-Cheann Comhairle
The Deputy is making a statement.
——and the big rancher can buy them here to make them cheap for him, is that the idea?
Might I ask the Minister is there any real justification for this? I may say I have read what was said about it as published in the newspapers at the time, but is there any real justification for this tax? Secondly, if there is justification for it, and it is something within these various regulations and laws that should be done or must be done, then I would ask the Minister to consider the restoration of the cut imposed last year to take effect this year in the beef cattle subsidy scheme which, surely to God, is cutting off the benefits to these same people who will now have this additional tax.
I think Deputies opposite know how this has arisen. The Italians always have had the privilege of getting young cows and cattle up to six cwt. This was temporarily suspended on account of the scarcity regulations being put into operation and they felt they were having difficulty in getting young cattle. In France they had more than enough young cattle and this regulation came in which would enable the Italians to pay £8 more on a six cwt. animal. I have discussed this with the farming organisations and the feeling all over the country is that the effect of this would be to drain the country of young cattle and that it would be to the benefit of the country to have the added value provision in operation before cattle left the country.
Surely nobody will disagree with the situation as outlined by the Minister, but is he not completely overlooking the obvious remedy and the benefit of doing something to encourage increased production of calves rather than restricting production by coming along now and adding an imposition of 7 per cent or 8 per cent on young cattle being exported? Surely he must realise this will have a bad effect. His predecessor cut the subsidy and he is continuing that.
I do not understand Deputy Blaney when he says that I cut the subsidy. I did nothing of the kind.
I am saying he should restore the cut made by his predecessor who announced the cut last year. The present Minister is operating the cut still to the disadvantage of the farmers.
I am saying that the Minister should not do something which will mean losses to the farmers in my area who will lose £8 per animal. The Minister should agree to give them a subsidy to keep these animals in the country.
This does not represent the views of the farming organisations.
I have two questions to put to the Minister. Is it in order for him, under EEC regulations and directives, to impose this tax? Why did his Parliamentary Secretary inform this House in the past couple of weeks that there is nothing he could do under EEC regulations to discourage the export of young cattle and that therefore he had to resort to exhortation?
The statement made by the Parliamentary Secretary was absolutely correct. It was only last week that this arrangement was come to.
It is a little disturb ing to this side of the House.
It is a little disturbing for you to be on that side of the House.
We had very considerable difficulty in getting this through the Council of Ministers
Is the Minister satisfied that the imposition of this tax. and the consequential discouragement. it will bring to this export trade will not have any adverse effects on the future of the cattle trade?
We have all the evidence we need that cattle numbers are increasing very rapidly. I am speaking about the existing position. I would point out that the producers of calves are £1 better off than they were.
They are losing the £8 subsidy.
That statement is incorrect.
I am seeking an authoratitive opinion from the Minister. It is very important from the point of view of us farmers. There is some doubt in people's minds about the future of the cattle trade. I do not accept that but——
I am glad the Deputy does not accept it.
——1 would ask the Minister to give us a positive assurance that no adverse effect will follow to the cattle trade later on this year.
The position before the imposition of this tax was that there was no difference. Now we are back where we were ten days ago except that the person who produces a calf gets £1 more—a matter of £8 as against £7.
I am looking for an assurance——
There cannot be a discussion.
We have a reduction of £8 per head through the subsidy cut operated by the Minister's predecessor. Add the two together.
We cannot have further debate on this. I am calling Question No. III.