First, I should like to make it clear that the service which this levy goes some of the way to pay for is obviously very desirable and that it is of great importance to our exporters that there be adequate inspection so that the standard of Irish beef, mutton and pigmeat will retain its reputation of being among the best in the world.
It is not my wish to be taken as being opposed in any way to the service being carried out. It is a service that should be provided as efficiently, as effectively and as conscientiously as possible. However, the question is that of the method to be employed and of how the service should be paid for. The proposal before the House will add in effect another £1 million to the costs of the farming community or, to put it another way, will take from them £1 million in income because obviously these fees that are being borne by the factories will be reflected immediately in the prices paid to farmers. Therefore, there will be £1 million less available to pay farmers for their pigmeat, mutton, and beef. Such an increase must be considered against the background of similar steps taken by the Government, for example, the removal of the fertiliser subsidy at a cost to the farmers of £4 million, the removal of the cheese subsidy and the change in the assessment in relation to rates, plus the failure to increase thresholds for inheritance tax under table 1 and a variety of other measures which are taking money from the farmers in a backhanded way.
The regulation before us is another instalment in a plan, the duration and extent of which we are not yet aware. It would be well for the Government to state clearly what other measures they have in mind for taking money from agriculture. Each measure is presented as if it were on its own. The change in the fertiliser subsidy, for instance, was presented as being one measure and farmers may have taken the line that in such circumstances it was not necessary to create a great fuss about the change, but then there was the change in the cheese subsidy followed by the change in rates assessment as well as the failure to make the adjustment in the inheritance tax threshold. Therefore, each measure seems to be one of a succession of measures.
If the Minister has any other such measure in mind he should tell us so now so that farmers when being asked to pass judgment on the budget and on the Government's attitude to agriculture will have all the facts at their disposal. The Government should not be surreptitious in their approach to this matter.
There are dangers inherent in increasing fees which must be borne by people seeking to slaughter cattle, pigs or sheep within the State. There are alternatives to having the animals slaughtered in the country. It is possible to export the animals live. In the event of their being exported by sea to Britain there is some check and the levy can be collected, but it is not possible to have similar control in relation to the live exports of cattle across the land boundary within the island.
There is a proposal, too, that a similar levy should be initiated to pay for the cost of the operations of CBF, the body responsible for promoting and perhaps trading in Irish beef exports in other parts of the world. It is proposed that part of their costs be defrayed by the imposition of another levy on the slaughter of cattle within the State.
We have suggestions that perhaps at some stage some aspects of research might be paid for by levy. There is also the possibility that costs incurred in the course of implementing the beef carcase classification scheme may be separately met by levy. We do not know this. We hope not. But, the consequence of this progression of increasing the levies on cattle slaughtered within the State would be to encourage live exports across the land boundary into Northern Ireland.
All parties in this House have been laying great stress on the need to slaughter the maximum number of animals within the State and to process the meat to the maximum extent within the State, in order to give the maximum employment. If this process continues—and this is a significant one that we are dealing with here today and may be only part of a series—and if levies are added to the cost of slaughter, the incentive will be to export animals live and the opportunity for giving employment both in slaughtering and further processing will be lost and the very welcome trend of recent years where more slaughterings have been taking place within the State will be reversed. That will be very undesirable from the national point of view and is a matter about which one must express the gravest concern.
The Minister has said that the cost of the veterinary inspection is not being fully met even by the increased fees and the suggestion seems to be that he believes that in an ideal situation the levy should pay for the full cost of veterinary inspection. If that is the Minister's opinion, he should say so because farmers will then know that it is his intention to increase the levy yet again. If, on the other hand, he does not believe that farmers should pay the full cost of the inspection through the levy, he should say exactly what proportion he believes is the correct one and, again, farmers will know where they stand. At the present time, because the Minister has said that it does not cover the full cost but has left vague the appropriate proportion of the full cost he believes should be paid in the ultimate situation as distinct from this present measure, which it may be implied by the way the Minister has treated of it is just a temporary measure, the farmer is left in the dark as to the full and final intentions of the Minister in this matter. I should like to have a clear statement from the Minister as to his long-term intentions.
I should also like to ask the Minister if he would consider, if he has not already done so, having a detailed investigation of the cost and the efficiency of the service which is being carried out at the factories. I notice he has said that this current increase was the subject of an investigation by the National Prices Commission. It would be desirable, if this has not been done already, that the National Prices Commission be asked through their consultants to investigate the efficiency of the service to see if there are possibilities for savings and if there are possibilities for using different grades of personnel for some of the tasks involved.
Obviously, whatever we do, we must employ sufficient staff and staff of a sufficiently high grade to ensure that the results of the inspection are accepted in all foreign markets. That would be the overriding consideration in any study which would be carried out on this matter. But perhaps it would be appropriate to make enquiries as to the type of staff and number of staff involved in this sort of work in other countries to see if there is room for greater efficiency in the inspection service here in Ireland.
Broadly speaking, the amount of money involved—an extra £1 million— being taken from the farming community to pay for these levies is not in itself a large amount but, when seen as part of a process of what one might call backdoor farmer taxation which has been adopted by the present Government, in addition to straight-forward farmer taxation, the trend expressed in this motion is one which gives me the gravest concern and this motion, if the trend continues, could endanger employment in the meat processing industry in this State. For those two reasons I express the greatest reservations about this motion.
