There are some aspects of this Bill with which I should like to deal briefly in so far as they are acceptable to us. Those are the ones concerned with the increases in penalties. There is common case on all sides of the House that the penalties which were set in 1966, at a time when money was worth a lot more than it is worth now, and when perhaps the disease problem was not as acute or as urgent as it is now, have become out of date. Therefore, the provisions in section 22 to increase them are acceptable in principle.
The provisions in the section concerned with the lengthening of the time within which proceedings can be taken are also acceptable to us in principle—section 17—subject to the matter being worked out in some detail on Committee Stage. There is something in what the Minister said. Evidence of intent in relation to this matter does not come to notice all that quickly and there may be a need to remove the limit of a mere six months within which proceedings may be taken against people who have prima facie committed an offence against the diseases of animals legislation. We all agree that those who are engaged in breaches of the law in this area are deserving of rigorous pursuit by the appropriate authorities.
I have some doubts about the provisions in section 23, which is another of the relatively non-contentious provisions in the Bill, concerning the validation of acts done by the Minister notwithstanding the fact that they were not done by the Minister in relation to an area to which by order a declaration had been made by him either declaring the area to be an attested area or an attested or disease free area.
This section is justified by the Minister on the grounds that "some vague doubts have been expressed about the validity of some orders made previously under certain Diseases of Animals Acts". The Minister should have been a little more specific as to what he meant by "some vague doubts". He is not taking the House or the country into his confidence if he justifies an unusual provision in any legislation on the grounds of vague unspecified doubts.
We are having too much experience in this House of subsequent validating legislation where something has been done wrong by the Minister, or perhaps his predecessor or predecessors, and the Minister, whether he be the Minister for Agriculture or another Minister, validating it subsequently. We had a recent and more controversial example in-the case of the Minister for Justice concerning the Garda Commissioner. Something that has been done illegally, it appears, or without the full process of law, has to be validated subsequently in retrospective fashion.
To my mind that-is not good law making. A situation should not arise where matters which have been dealt with improperly at the time, and as a result of the impropriety a person has a good cause of action, have to be put right by retro-active legislation. Section 23 is another example from this Government of more retro-active legislation. It is bad legislation. Anybody who has studied law knows that is the case, and anybody who is a student of common sense knows that a law which says something was illegal in the past, even though at the time the act was committed there was no certainty that it was illegal, is clearly a bad law.
What is particularly of interest in the case of section 23 is that this may be validating potential criminal proceedings whereby offences committed, which on the basis of the legislation then existing may well not have been offences because the legislation was inadequate, now by virtue of section 23 become offences subsequently. There is a great need for clarity on exactly what will be the consequences of section 23. If this will make something a criminal offence which was done in the past, and which at the time it was committed was not technically a criminal offence, it seems to me to be very wrong that this should be done.
The need for section 23 arises from a particular court case in Birr, if I am not mistaken, in the District Court or the Circuit Court. I am not sure which court it was. If that is the case, we should have been told that. We should not have been told it is a question of some vague doubts. I hope in his reply the Minister, who appreciates the need for clarifying these matters, will give fuller information than the Minister on whose behalf he is reading the brief deemed it necessary to give in the brief.
I have been dealing with the uncontroversial parts of the Bill and I now come to the more controversial parts. The first is the provision for payment of a levy on all milk supplies for processing and on all cattle slaughtered in the country or for live export. We in Fine Gael will be, throughout the process of the Bill through the House, resolutely opposing this levy by every parliamentary means available to us. I hope the Government make no effort to steamroll this measure through the House or to curtail debate on it. It is a measure of considerable importance. Not only will the levy as it is at present composed constitute a charge of approximately £10 million in the full year on farmers, but it is clear from the Minister's speech that there is the likelihood that the levy, which as it stands at present is .5p per gallon in the case of milk and £3 in the case of a bovine animal, will be increased substantially and frequently in the future if the Government have their way. They have built into the Bill a provision whereby this levy may be increased by order without need of subsequent legislation. I, and I know I speak for my party, do not want to give the Government power to introduce the levy or increase it to an indeterminate amount by order.
The Government have adopted a policy of taxation of the farming community by means of levies on goods produced by them. The use of a levy as a means of taxation is crude and unfair. It is crude because it takes no account of the circumstances of particular industries. The £3 per bovine animal slaughtered will be collected, if it is to be collected, on every animal being sold for slaughter or for export regardless of whether or not that animal has made a profit or loss to the person selling it. The evidence presenting itself in relation to the likely profits to be made from the summer fattening of cattle for beef suggests that, if a profit is made, it will be very small, and there is a strong possibility that a loss will be made. If the Government have their way and this legislation is introduced, a farmer who may have a loss of £10 a head on the fattening of an animal will have to pay another £3 in levy to the Minister. He will also have to pay a 2 per cent levy to the Minister for Finance, which will probably add another £7 or £8 to the loss. Instead of a loss of £10, he will have a loss of £20 per head directly as a result of levies introduced by the Government, one to finance disease eradication and one to finance the Minister for Finance. That is not acceptable to us. If the Government intend to impose this levy without adequate parliamentary debate and bludgeon it through the House, we will resist it in every way we can.
It is an unfair levy as between individual farmers. Some farmers have incomes which are so low that if they were assessed for income tax purposes they would not be in the income tax net at all and would possibly qualify for supplements of one kind or another to their income, supplements which they do not get. Every farmer, no matter how poor or badly off he is, will have to pay £3 levy per animal slaughtered or exported and .5p per gallon of milk. The disease levy is also unfair as between farmers who have co-operated with disease eradication measures and those who have not. There were campaigns in the past where farmers were encouraged by people who saw fit to give them advice—these are people with whom I have, in this respect no sympathy—to hold on to diseased cattle, whereas if these animals had been got rid of the incidence of disease would have been considerably less than it is. Some farmers did not accept this advice but got rid of their animals and co-operated fully with the Department in disease eradication. The farmer who got rid of disease from his own herd and prevented it spreading into other herds and those who have made no effort to eradicate the disease will be paying the same levy. That is another ground on which it can be argued that this levy, as well as being crude, is unfair.
In relation to the meat trade, is it not possible that this levy may well be a levy to be paid by the consumer in certain circumstances? It will be paid on all heifers slaughtered for the domestic butchers trade—it is mostly heifers that are slaughtered for that trade—in the same way as it will be levied on all cattle either slaughtered here or destined for export live. In a situation where the demand for beef in the market-place is greater than the supply, butchers would be competing with each other for beef and in such circumstances who could guarantee that the levy would be paid by the farmer, and apparently the intention is that the farmer is to pay the levy? In a situation in which demand exceeds supply it is axiomatic that the levy will be paid by the Irish consumer though I know that is not what is intended. I do not agree with the imposition of a levy at all, either on the farmer or on the consumer, but I am sure that not even the Government would wish to impose this levy on the consumer. However, they have not taken any measure either in this Bill or in any legislation in relation to levies to prevent the levy being passed on in full in certain circumstances to the consumer.
In the case of milk for liquid consumption, for instance, there are possibilities of preventing a levy from being passed on to the consumer by reason of there being a controlled retail price for liquid milk. Therefore, the dairies can be prevented by law from charging the consumer more than the fixed price by way of adding on a levy. The same applies in respect of any product which is the subject of retail price control or which is being exported in substantial quantities. In the case of a product that is being exported in large quantities and in respect of which the price is being set outside the country, the price will apply both to the portion of the product that is being sold within the country and that which is being exported because at the time of its sale there is no way of distinguishing whether it is for export or for consumption on the domestic market.
In the case of meat the Government's argument will be that because we export a lot of meat, its price will be determined at the time of the sale of the cattle by the export price and that, consequently, it should not be possible for anybody to have to pay more for an animal by reason of the existence of a levy and to pass that levy to the consumer since the levy cannot be passed to the foreign consumer who, if he so wishes, can buy elsewhere. That is the likely argument to be put forward in respect of the case I am making, but the counter-argument to that can be put forward by anybody who has any knowledge of the way in which the Irish beef trade operates. Beef destined for the domestic market is heifer beef generally. It is rare that heifer beef finds its way into the factories for export to foreign markets. This is the case sometimes in respect of cow beef but that is mainly for the canning trade. Bullock beef is what is used largely for supplying the export market.
I submit that basically heifer and bullock beef are intrinsically different commodities and that the type of beef that is bought for the domestic market is specifically heifer beef while what is bought for the export market by the large meat factories such as those at Grand Canal Street, Leixlip and Midleton is bullock beef. It is possible that in regard to heifers the price will be bid up to include the £3 per head levy in such a way as to ensure that the levy will be paid by the consumer. There is no precaution in this Bill or in any other measure to prevent that happening. The only way in which it could be prevented would be to have a retail price order for meat, though that, too, would be virtually impossible to draft because meat, unlike milk or butter, for instance, is not a uniform commodity. It varies in quality. Some meat is hung well but if it is not hung well it is very tough. Also, some animals produce better beef than other animals. Much depends on the breed. Therefore, one sirloin steak is not the same as another. Consequently, it would be impossible to have one maximum price level for sirloin steak. In addition, it would not be possible to apply the same price per pound to other cuts as might be applied to sirloin.
Having regard to the difficulty of imposing a retail price order for meat I submit that in a situation in which demand exceeds supply on the domestic beef market, the £3 levy will be paid by the consumer though that is not what is intended and is something which would be opposed strongly by Deputies on all sides. But it is not sufficient for the Government to say that it is not the intention that the levy be passed to the consumer. They must indicate precisely how, in the circumstances I have outlined at some length, they can and will prevent this levy being paid by the consumer. They have not done this so far in relation to the 2 per cent levy introduced on 1 May in respect of all agricultural commodities. I am not optimistic that they will succeed in doing it in the case of this commodity. If the Government want proof that the 2 per cent levy in the case of meat is being paid by the consumer all they need to do is to ask any housewife, who is accustomed to buying this commodity, if she thinks she is paying the 2 per cent levy or if she thinks somebody else is paying it. I am quite sure that her answer will be that the levy is being paid by her. This levy will also be paid by the housewife.
This is another reason why I believe this levy is a bad one. It is a bad tax in principle; it is unfair, it is crude, and it is capable of being paid by the consumer. Those are good reasons why this levy is wrong in concept and wrong in execution. If the Government want to find some way of raising money to finance disease eradication this certainly is not the way in which it should be done. I do not know who thought up the idea of the levy. I would be very surprised if the Department of Agriculture were the inspiration behind this levy. I do not believe this levy was conceived in the Department of Agriculture. It certainly was not conceived by anybody who has any knowledge of the way Irish agriculture works or the way in which the market for foods in Ireland works. It was obviously thought up by somebody who has little knowledge of either and little sympathy for either.
There is another aspect of this Bill I would like to draw attention to, that is the provision in relation to a milk price differential. The best way of explaining this is to read out section 8 which states:
In case a notice under section 6 of this Act is given, then for so long as the notice is in force the following provisions shall apply:
(a) notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement, the amount payable as regards milk supplied to and received by a dairy produce manufacturer, milk pasteuriser, milk bottler or other person described in section 6 (1) of this Act, at any time while the notice is in force from a herd to which the notice relates, shall be, and shall only be, the amount payable apart from this section reduced by an amount calculated at the rate per gallon standing for the time being prescribed for the purposes of this section,
(b) it shall be unlawful for such manufacturer, pasteuriser, bottler or other person to pay in respect of such milk an amount other than that which is appropriate having regard to paragraph (a) of this section.
This section gives the Minister for Agriculture power to say that in the case of a farmer who has received a notice that his herd is infected, whether or not it was his fault—it may well be that his herd became infected through somebody else's fault—the price for his milk is reduced. We all know the situation where a farmer has a bad neighbour who does not look after his herd properly. Disease can spread in the case of tuberculosis on the wind across the fences from one farm to another. We have no vet in the House at the moment who would be in a position to give us technical advice on this matter. It is a well-known fact that disease can spread and that a farmer who has a perfectly clear herd, who has taken every precaution to prevent disease breaking out in his herd, can become infected and become the recipient of a notice of infection under section 6 of this Bill. If that man receives such a notice it is open to the Minister under section 8 to decree that the price for any milk produced by him can be reduced to any extent the Minister decides. The Minister could decide to reduce the price of that man's milk by 80 per cent. The Minister could decide that the price for the milk would be cut to one-fifth of what it was before the notice of infection was issued.
There are no limits on the amount by which the price can be reduced under this section. There are no provisions which say that this power shall not be used where the herd owner is not at fault in a situation where disease has broken out in his herd. The Minister is absolutely free to introduce this drastic and unlimited reduction in the price being received by that farmer for milk sold by him to the creamery because the notice of infection has been issued.
This gives the Minister a power which, in those terms, he should not have. I do not dispute the principle that milk from a clear herd is worth more than milk from an infected one and, if that milk from a clear herd is worth more, more money should be paid for it. That is a sound principle but I dispute the possibility that the Minister could introduce a heavy penalty whereby the price for milk is reduced by far more than the value it is reduced in real terms by the incidence of disease. This could be exercised under the provision of section 8 in a discriminatory fashion. There is no saver in this Bill against this happening within the terms of section 8.
The Minister can prescribe the amount by which the price paid to those farmers may be reduced without necessarily having to receive the approval of the House before he does so. I take it that the Minister will be able to do this by order under the Bill. If he does it by order there is no requirement within the provisions of section 18, which deals with orders, for those orders having to be approved by the House. The procedure is the normal 21-day procedure whereby orders may be annulled without the need for the affirmation of the House to be given to the Minister in exercising powers given to him under section 8. It is possible for the Minister to introduce, without the approval of the House, a most discriminatory and unfair scheme for penalising milk producers without regard to fault and without regard to the real, if any, reduction in value of the milk being sold to the creamery as a result of a notice of infection having been issued to them indicating that there was an incidence of TB and brucellosis in the herd. This is unfair and we strongly oppose it. No Government have the right to take that sort of power no matter how just the cause in which they take it. It is not enough for the Minister to come in here with a series of platitudes about the need to eradicate disease and so forth as if all those who oppose him are not in favour of disease eradication. The Minister should not come in here and give us a lengthy oration about his dedication to disease eradication in justification for this unfair measure and imply that those opposing him are not dedicated to the eradication of disease. That certainly is not the case, because we are all in favour of disease eradication. That type of argument should not be used and I hope the Minister will justify line by line the provisions contained in section 8 and other sections which I outlined as being discriminatory and unfair.
I challenge the Minister to tell us exactly how he intends to use the powers of section 8, because he did not spell out how he will use them in the speech he made in introducing the Bill. All the Minister said was that the provisions in the Bill related to the operation of a prices differential as between milk from disease free herds and that from infected herds and are all of enabling nature. The Minister does not say what he will be enabled to do and what he intends to do. Why did the Minister choose in his brief speech, in which he introduced a very strange set of proposals, not to tell us what he proposed to do when he got these enabling powers under section 8? The Minister's silence in the matter is ominous. Even if the Minister's intentions are perfectly good, which I accept, and even if he intends to exercise these powers in an even handed way in the national interest, that should be written into the legislation. Just because the Minister has good intentions is no justification for making bad law. The provisions in section 8 will be on the Statute Book long after the Minister has ceased to be Minister, if they are not repealed by a successor, so it is no justification for the Minister to say that he has good intentions. Section 8, as it stands, constitutes bad law because it is vague and gives the Minister unspecified powers.
In the course of his speech the Minister said:
I should emphasise that any funds accruing to milk processors as a result of operating a price differential system will not go to the Exchequer. These funds could rather be used by the processors either to increase the price paid for milk from disease-free herds or to provide proper services to herd owners to help them fight disease.
What guarantee is there that they will be used for that purpose? There is no guarantee, and yet we are asked to accept section 8 on the grounds that the Minister thinks the funds could be used to increase the price paid to other herd owners or to provide appropriate services to herd owners. Who will decide what are the proper services to herd owners to help them fight disease? There is no machinery for deciding whether a service is appropriate or not for deciding whether or not this money is being properly used and is being passed on to herd owners who are clearing their herd properly. All we have here is a statement from the Minister that these funds could rather be used for this purpose. The Minister, referring to sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 of the Bill, also said:
I want to emphasise that there is nothing whatsoever in this Bill to give officers of the Revenue Commissioners any new powers of access to records kept by meat factories or milk processing plants.
If they are not getting new powers, why are they listed in the Bill? The very fact that these powers to the Revenue Commissioners to inspect the records of meat processors and milk processing plants are in the Bill at all is an indication that the Minister is not telling the truth when he says that the Bill does not contain any new powers. If the powers already exist there will be no need to have them in the Bill. Every butcher will have to keep records of every animal he slaugters for a period of six years afterwards. One can imagine a butcher keeping information about every animal from every herd owner for six years. Section 11 sets out the documents to be kept:
(2) Records or other documents kept by a person pursuant to the requirements of subsection (1) of this section which are in the power, possession or procurement of the person and, in the case of any such record or other document which has been issued by the person to another person, any copy thereof which is in the power, possession or procurement of the person, shall be retained in his power, possession or procurement for a period of six years from the date of the latest transaction to which the records or other documents relate: provided that this section shall not require the retention of records or invoices or any other documents in respect of which the Minister notifies the person concerned that retention is not required, nor shall it apply to the books and papers of a company which have been disposed of in accordance with section 305 (1) of the Act of 1963.
Then the section sets out what an accountable person means: any dairy produce manufacturer, milk pasteuriser or milk bottler, or a person by whom milk is sold or offered for sale, or who receives milk from a herd for processing, and so on. It includes a person with a small milk round who purchases milk from three or four farmers and sells to 30 or 40 households in the neighbourhood. We must keep records for a period of six years.
We have been told that these are not new powers. A person who might slaughter one animal a week for sale in his own stall must keep and produce such record. Section 12 provides:
(1) An inspector or an authorised officer may, for the purpose of making an enquiry which he reasonably considers to be necessary either in relation to liability to levy (other than levy payable in respect of an animal which is exported live from the State), or an obligation to make reductions under section 8 of this Act, of any person, enter at any reasonable time any premises in which the inspector or officer, has reason to believe that such person is carrying on business and the inspector or officer may request the production of, search for and inspect any records, books or other documents whatsoever relating to milk or animals and may remove and retain any such records, books, or other documents for such period as may be reasonable for their examination or for the purpose of any proceedings for the recovery of levy payable under or by virtue of this Act or for an offence under this Act.
If you have not been keeping a record for six years there are penalties. The Revenue Commissioners will be entitled to visit the premises at any time, including a Sunday, and demand to see the record, say, for an animal slaughtered five years previously. We have been told by the Minister that this Bill does not give the Revenue Commissioners any new powers. Section 12 also provides:
(2) Upon request made by an inspector or an authorised officer at any premises in which a person carries on business, the person, or any person employed by him, shall produce to the inspector or officer all records, books, or other documents relating, whether solely or otherwise, to levy, a reduction under section 8 of this Act or milk in relation to which such a reduction is made, and which may be in the power, possession or procurement of the person to whom the request is made and shall permit the inspector or officer to inspect and remove any documents so produced.
(3) A person shall not impede or obstruct an inspector or an authorised officer in the exercise of his powers under this section.
(4) Where, in pursuance of this section, an inspector or an authorised officer enters any premises, carries out any search or requests production of any document, he shall, on request, produce his warrant of appointment or his authorisation under this Act, as may be appropriate, to any person affected.
If anybody fails to co-operate with the inspector he shall be liable to prosecution and if convicted to a fine not exceeding £500 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for six months or to both. The Minister's statement that this does not give new powers to the Revenue Commissioners is of doubtful veracity unless one accepts that similar powers have been given in the order introduced six weeks ago to facilitate the collection of the 2 per cent levy, which we have been assured is to be of strictly temporary duration. Of course that order was not made under the Finance Bill, in which case the Oireachtas would have been given an opportunity to debate it. These powers were introduced deliberately in a way which prevented discussion in the Oireachtas.
I should like to refer generally to the operation of the disease eradication scheme throughout the country. It is of considerable urgency that every measure be taken to eradicate disease. Unless we take urgent action we face the possibility that it will not be open to us to export our livestock or livestock products to other parts of the EEC. I support any reasonable measures taken to accelerate disease eradication in this country and I have forborne deliberately from criticising certain measures in principle which, although unpopular, I considered necessary from the point of view of disease eradication. Certain decisions taken by the Minister were very unpopular with certain sections of the farming community. I am speaking particularly of the 30-day test. Such measures were introduced at the wrong time or were in the wrong manner and without the proper notice. I have said in the past that I did not believe that they were wrong in principle and I did not criticise them in principle when the Minister introduced them. This was deliberate on my part because I believed that action along these lines, although perhaps not in the precise form that the Minister took, was necessary to eradicate disease and if we do not take such action we will face serious problems as a community.
Many other disease problems will come up in the future which will have to be dealt with in a serious fashion. Bovine leucosis may become a problem in this country. We have had an outbreak of bovine leucosis here resulting from the importation of Canadian cattle brought in for breeding purposes. If this problem becomes severe action will have to be taken to eradicate this disease in a similar manner to the action taken to eradicate brucellosis. This is a possible problem which we will have to face in the years ahead. It is important that we get bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis off the agenda so that other diseases which may arise can be dealt with. Both bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis are a severe health hazard to humans. A considerable amount of unpasteurised milk is consumed which comes from areas where these diseases exist and there is a danger to health in this situation as long as these diseases are endemic in the community. Many people here, not all of them directly connected with agriculture, are suffering from the human version of brucellosis. This is most acute among people who are in direct contact with livestock as part of their normal work but it is not by any means confined to them. I would like to see action taken to get rid of the root cause of this, which is the widespread existence of brucellosis in cattle from which the disease spreads to humans.
I would also like to see better public health measures taken to prevent the spread of the disease. The liaison between the officials responsible in the Department of Agriculture and in the health boards in relation to potential outbreaks of brucellosis in humans arising out of the high level of incidence of the disease is inadequate. There is no established procedure whereby officials of the Department of Agriculture who become cognisant of the existence of an outbreak of the disease in their area notify the health boards of this and of its possible consequences for human health. These officers and the district veterinary officers perhaps in some cases have informal contact with the health boards and in some cases they may even meet the health boards and give information which would be useful to the health boards in helping to prevent these diseases occurring in an area and to warn families of the precautions they should take if they are likely to be in contact with this disease in order to prevent it taking place among the humans. That may happen on an informal basis or an ad hoc arrangement between individual veterinary surgeons or individual officers of the Department of Agriculture in some areas and either doctors or officials of the health boards in the same areas, but there is no form of procedure whatever for liaison between these two arms of the fight against these diseases, the veterinary and medical arms. There should be a clearly established statutory procedure for requiring that the public health authorities be notified of any outbreak of an agricultural disease which has potential danger for human health, and that statutory notice be served by the officials of the Department of Agriculture or by any person qualified to know that such danger exists. That provision should include veterinary surgeons.
I would like to see also much more stringent inspection of premises where health hazards are likely to exist or to germinate. We know that this is a responsibility not of the district veterinary officers of the Department of Agriculture but of officials who are also veterinary surgeons in private practice who are employed by the county councils. These men have private practices and they are supposed to inspect all places where milk is produced and where animals are being slaughtered, including every butcher's stall and every milking parlour in the counties for which they are responsible. There are not enough of these people. It is possible to imagine that a veterinary surgeon who has a choice of going out to answer a call for which he will be paid by a client or going to the same client to see if his dairy is hygienic and possibly to prosecute him if not, unless he is a saint or has something against his client, is not going to go rushing off enforcing the public health regulations when he can go out to do a job on a sick beast and be paid for it.
The arrangements made for inspection of premises from the point of view of securing adequate hygiene and so forth are quite inadequate and I would like to see action taken to strengthen these. The county councils are not the appropriate bodies to have responsibility for this. It should be dealt with either by the Department of Health or the Department of Agriculture, I am not sure which. I should like to see an interdepartmental committee set up by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health to consider this matter and see what action can be taken to ensure that proper inspection takes place to maintain standards of hygiene. It is vital for the reputation of our food industry, for the protection of tourists and the reputation of this country, that adequate means of enforcement be found in relation to food hygiene.
Prevention is better than cure in relation to bovine disease. There is a great need for a publicity campaign to alert farmers to the ways in which they can prevent an outbreak of disease. In Northern Ireland the veterinary services are very much engaged in educational activity. This is not intended as a criticism of the officers here but rather a criticism of the system under which they are operating and also of the very high work load they bear. Their counterparts in Northern Ireland call meetings of farmers and adopt a somewhat missionary approach to disease eradication. They do not sit in offices waiting for problems to arise and then take penal action. They call meetings of farmers on their own initiative and explain the nature of the problem. They tell them that it is in their interest that these diseases be eradicated and that it is better to adopt some fundamental hygiene and other precautions than to seek compensation from hardship funds. They take farmers into their confidence in that outgoing educational fashion. Much could be done at that level at meetings of farmers in different counties called at the initiative of the district veterinary officers.
A great deal could also be done by advertising in the press and on radio. I regret that it is only good farmers who pay much attention to the farming press and listen to what is said on the radio. The fellow who has a real disease problem does not pay much attention. Disease can spread very easily from the herd of a bad farmer to that of a good farmer. It is only necessary to have one bad egg in a basket for the whole basket to become affected. The outgoing approach I have described is one way in which something could be done. I do not believe the answer is to be found in the penal approach which is reflected in this legislation.
This Bill provides for the introduction of the levy but does not give any indication as to how long the levy will continue. It is quite possible that brucellosis and TB could be eradicated but there is no guarantee that in such a situation the levy will be removed or reduced. There is no connection whatsoever between the level of the incidence of disease or the amount being spent by the Government on disease eradication and the level of the levy. At some time in the future twice as much money could be raised by the levy as is being spent by the Government on disease eradication. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. There should be a provision in the Bill whereby there would automatically be a reduction in the levy in the event of a fall in the level of incidence of disease or a fall in the level of Government expenditure on disease eradication. The Minister has already threatened that the levy might be increased in the years ahead, but he has given no indication that it might be reduced. Why has he not mentioned this possibility?
The levy of £3 per head will be exactly the same for every animal, regardless of its value. It will be charged on an animal being sold to the knacker for £5 because it is so riddled with disease that it is suitable only for dog food. The same levy will be charged on a pedigree animal being sold for £2,000. The farmer selling the valuable animal pays no more than the farmer selling the animal for £5. Equally the farmer selling the calf for slaughter will pay the same as the farmer selling the mature animal. There is no discrimination between different types of animal. That is unfair.
There is also the problem that the hardship fund exists in the clearance areas but does not exist in the pre-intensive areas. It is quite possible for a substantial outbreak of disease to take place in pre-intensive areas. Farmers in those pre-intensive areas do not qualify for the hardship fund, but they will have to pay this levy.
