Before reporting progress on Thursday last I had, I hope, made it quite clear that I was totally opposed to the levies proposed in this Bill. I hope I made it abundantly clear also that the proposed levies cannot be viewed in isolation from all the other product and service levies imposed by the present Government since they assumed office two years ago. This future proposal for a series of levies comes particularly badly from a Government that made so many extravagant promises, I might say, fraudulent promises in the General Election campaign just two years ago now.
Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Hear, hear.
Since then we have seen farmer confidence totally eroded and the development of the agricultural industry take a down-hill turn. We have more than sufficient evidence to support this contention. I am surprised that the Minister has not asked himself seriously why that it so. For example, has he considered that the series of levies on products and services has a very significant effect on the development of the agricultural industry? And I am sure the Minister would be the last person in the House to question the fact that one of the most important features of our economy is the development of the agricultural industry.
Certainly there is nothing in this Bill that will help increase livestock numbers. Indeed the Minister referred to his concern about livestock numbers. Of course, he gave other reasons than the correct ones for the present position.
Because of the criticisms of me by the Minister it would be no harm for me to place a few figures on the record. For example, the year before I took office exports of beef amounted to £59.3 million. The year I left office those exports had risen to £300.5 million. Again when I assumed office live cattle stood at £58.6 million and subsequently rose to £130 million. Dairy products rose from £46.4 million to £226.5 million, and total agricultural exports from £240.8 million to £975 million. Anybody who likes may criticise me in regard to those figures but certainly I am not ashamed of them. I might add that if the Minister leaves office after a similar period with a similar record, certainly I will not come into the House and be critical of him.
I would hate to have the Deputy's record for animal disease.
Those are Central Statistics Office figures and cannot be questioned.
And they mean exactly nothing.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Clinton is in possession. We must get back to the Bill before the House.
(Interruptions.)
I gave Deputy Clinton an opportunity of replying to whatever the Minister said.
He did not interrupt——
Deputy L'Estrange should not be interrupting. We will have one Deputy speaking at a time, and on the Bill which deals with levies and two diseases, nothing else. Deputy Clinton on the Bill.
We cannot be too narrow about this. If we object to levies we must give our reasons for objecting. The objections to the levies are so serious that they should be put on the record of the House.
The case for the development of the agricultural industry is beyond question. A recent NESC report pointed out that agriculture plus its dependent industries accounts for the same proportion of GNP as all other industries combined and also pointed out that a high rate of development on farms along with intensive processing of our meat and dairy products could over a period of ten years generate up to 76,000 extra jobs. I am concerned because we are in a situation where supplies of cattle to the factories in the first four months of this year were down by 25 per cent and exports were down by one-third. I do not know what the six-monthly figures will be like, but I do not expect them to be good. I hope that even at this late stage the Minister will seriously consider the destruction being wrought by the introduction of a Bill with these additional levies and will go back to his Cabinet colleagues, who had the figures in front of them when they made their decision, and say that he could not get one Deputy to back him in the House because they are all afraid to do so. Any Deputy in contact with the realities of the situation knows the damage these levies are doing and the depressing effect of them.
At a Baltinglass mart recently a man with a nice bunch of cattle sold them for £500 each. I remarked that it was a nice bunch of cattle and that I hoped he had done well. The man said that he had kept exact figures on the cattle and that his net profit was £40 each but that he had to pay the Government a 2 per cent levy which amounted to 25 per cent of his net profit. If the present levy is added on the Government will get well over 30 per cent of his net profit. Anybody who knows anything about cattle or beef farming knows that the profit margin has always been poor in dry cattle. It is one of the sectors of farming with the lowest margin. It is imperative that we expand our dairy herds because our dairy herds supply both the milk and the beef industry. The Minister has not made a case that anybody could support in relation to these additional product levies which are depressing the industry.
It has been a long time since there was a comparable loss of confidence, where plans for expansion are being dropped and investment is being reduced, but this has happened because the farmers do not know from day to day what will next come on their backs. There is no long-term decision making in relation to the development of the agricultural industry and this creates a very serious situation. Having condemned the levy as fully as I can I would remind the Minister that in 1977 we had a volume output increase in agriculture, a massive increase of 9.5 per cent. In 1978 it was reasonably respectable but well down, and the forecast from the Department earlier this year is for another decline this year. In these circumstances is this what the Government should be doing and the Minister agreeing to? Obviously no other Fianna Fáil Deputy agrees or he would be in here supporting the Minister.
I want to make it absolutely clear that I fully realise the urgency for disease eradication. This deserves not only the support of every Member of the House but the support of everybody because so much depends on the livestock industry where cattle, beef and milk alone represent approximately two-thirds of total output. Everybody is paying some of the cost of disease eradication. I agree with a lot of things in this Bill although I disagree with some items.
I disagree with the second main provision to allow the operation of a price differential by creameries, pasteurisers and other milk processors as between milk supplied from disease free herds and that supplied from infected herds. This could be extremely unfair. I know of a large herd not 100 miles away from here that was extremely well managed and was disease free for years but was subsequently wiped out by disease through nobody's fault. A farmer who finds himself in that position is faced with a dreadful loss, but if he has the further imposition of a substantial fine in what he gets for his milk he will be out of business. Anybody with experience knows that a breakdown can occur for which the herd owner cannot be held responsible. In these circumstances will this reduction in the price of milk be imposed? A lot can be said for a bonus over and above the ordinary going price for milk supplied from disease free herds.
That would be an inducement to people to make an extra effort. It is totally wrong and is unfair interference to allow a reduced price to be paid to a man who made a very serious effort to clear his herd or who had his herd clear for a long time but who found himself in serious trouble through circumstances beyond his control. The Minister talked about a significant reduction in the price for milk supplied from herds with either TB or brucellosis infection; this could prove also to be a most effective way of letting herd owners know that we can no longer tolerate continuing delay in regard to the eradication of disease. I have referred already to the cases of the herd owners who, at no expense whatsoever to the State, have cleared their herds of brucellosis but who now must pay for the clearance of other people's herds. These are areas in which there is not a fair deal.
There is provision in the Bill for a great deal of interference in the affairs of the processing industry, whether the individual industry considered is a co-operative or a meat- or milk-processing industry. If there is a situation whereby somebody from a Government Department can walk into a business, take away the books and keep them for as long as is considered necessary to find out certain matters, we are very near to a totalitarian-type State.
It is obvious that the provision in respect of the levies will be bulldozed through the House. We may talk about the proposal for as long as we wish but we know that the Minister will have a sufficient majority to ensure that the legislation will be passed. However, I should like him to tell us whether, in relation to the use of the money that will be collected, it is his intention to continue the 30-day test. Now that this test has been in operation for a considerable period, would the Minister not agree that it is doing more by way of spreading disease than eradicating it? My information is that cattle are passing freely from one herd owner to another because there is a 15-month period within which the tests are carried out. A farmer might hold cattle for five or six months and then sell them to a neighbour whose herd is disease-free. In the main cattle are not being sold at present through the normal channels. Initially I thought there might have been some good in this scheme of testing and, consequently, I did not oppose it publicly, but I am of the opinion now that it should be discontinued. I expect it is a costly operation but it is proving to be harmful.
The Minister might tell us, too, the length of time involved now in a full round of testing. If the 30-day test were discontinued, would it be possible to have two full tests within a year, at least for a sufficient time to get eradication really under way and to bring about a significant reduction in the level of disease? We should not be afraid to take stock of matters such as this and if we think that what we have been doing is not doing the job that was intended, we should try something else. All the people concerned in disease eradication are represented on the Animal Health Council. Having regard to the human health question involved in animal disease eradication and also to the possibility of our reaching a point quite soon when we might be very restricted in export outlets for the products concerned, it should not be beyond the ability of the people on that council to decide whether certain practices should be continued.
Regarding the checking at cattle marts and in the processing centres is the Minister satisfied that there is an adequate number of staff engaged in this work? I suspect that the answer is in the negative and that the level of staffing is hardly sufficient for supervision in these places. However, that is only an opinion.
I have a fair idea of all the malpractices that have obtained down through the years, for example, tag switching, fiddling with cards, the unscrupulous shifting of diseased animals into disease-free areas and so on. I commend the Minister for being tough with offenders in this regard. The fines that are being proposed are not in any way too high. Anybody who is found to be guilty of the type of offence concerned should not be shown any mercy because the eradication measures of the diseases in question have cost far too much up to now while there has been exceedingly little progress in the field of eradication. All of us who are concerned with the development of the agricultural industry should be anxious that diseases in herds be eradicated as quickly and as efficiently as possible. I shall support the Minister fully in any measure he may take in an effort to wipe out the type of malpractices of which we are all aware.
I am totally opposed to the imposition of the levies, having regard to the depressing effect that this proposal is having on the development of the agricultural industry. Nothing is more important to our economy than the development of this industry but it is an industry in which development has been halted and in which there has begun a downhill turn. I trust that the Minister will accept my contribution in the sincere manner in which it has been offered.
The principle of bovine disease eradication is not in issue. Up to now the cost of the eradication schemes has been borne by the State but the Minister is proposing to offload a large part of the cost to the farming community. However, the levies proposed in this Bill will have serious implications not only for the farming community but also for the urban dweller.
Considering the situation from the farmers' point of view, I recall the situation during the term of office of the Coalition when efforts were made regarding the introduction of the payment of income tax by farmers whose valuations were of more than £100. Though I was not here then, I recall the tears, crocodile or otherwise, that were shed by Fianna Fáil on behalf of the farmers. Bearing in mind that party's approach, while in Opposition, to the farmers and having regard also to their pre-election pledges to the farmers, both written and oral but perhaps more important, the oral promises, it is obvious that the farmers have been misled seriously by this Government.
However, we have a situation now whereby a substantial amount of revenue is being raised from the farming community by unfair, inequitable and generally obnoxious means. Any proposal to raise taxation from any sector of the community by way of a levy is not worthy of support in this House. Raising moneys by this means results in members of the farming community paying tax whether or not they are in a profit situation. Surely that is an unjust situation. I come from an area where there are many small farmers and I observe that there is no exemption for such small farmers.
The definition of a herd in the Bill includes a herd consisting of one animal only. The Minister has closed the loophole of the small farmer with one animal only. There are such herds in the country. However, to be honest, many of the small farmers that I represent have more than one animal. At the same time many of them would be exempt from income tax applied according to any PAYE system because their incomes are not such that, after allowances, they would be in the tax bracket. This Bill makes no allowance for people in that category. Small or big, with one cow or a hundred, they all have to pay. Many of these farmers have such a poor level of existence that they are in receipt of assistance from the State. Surely it is wrong social thinking to have a situation where people in that category are pushed into the tax net.
The whole outlook of the present administration appears to be to raise money from the farming community by a system of levies. Whether it is that they are afraid to tackle the problem head on or whether it is that they hope to mislead the farmers by dealing with the matter on a piecemeal basis, I am not sure, but they seem to be attracted by the notion of abstracting money from the farming community by a system of levies. We have the 2 per cent levy, the dairy inspection levy, the CBF levy and the EEC levy. The whole system is wrong. I would not object to a proper and fair system of farm taxation. However, I do object to a system which is unfair and unrelated to ability to pay. In regard to the 2 per cent levy, I recall that the Minister for Finance made certain exemptions. I suggest that the Minister for Agriculture should consider some form of mitigation for the small farmer.
I said that the Bill has implications for the urban dweller as well as the farming community. The charge in regard to the slaughtering of animals will ultimately be added to the cost of meat and will, in certain circumstances, be ultimately paid in part at least by the consumer through higher charges. In regard to milk, the Minister may well respond that there is price control. However, I am not aware of any effective system of price control in regard to meat. In that situation the consumer has an interest. The consumer can expect that the increased charges will be added in whole or in part to his bill. From that point of view the urban dweller has an interest in this Bill and in the system. There is another interest for urban dwellers, particularly those employed in meat processing plants, because any type of approach which limits production will ultimately affect the end product and will therefore affect employment. All this relates to the system which has been adopted by the Minister and his colleagues of attempting to abstract moneys from the farming community by using a number of subterfuges to abstract the money and hoping that they will not notice the accumulation. Apart from that, the Minister must consider the injustice of the approach. It is not too late to call on the Minister and his colleagues to revise their thinking.
The Bill is entitled an Act to provide for the raising of money for the purpose of facilitating the eradication or the prevention of the spread of bovine diseases. The Bill does not contain a section providing that the moneys raised will be used for the purpose of facilitating the eradication or the prevention of the spread of bovine diseases. Section 20 provides that "Moneys paid to the Minister in pursuance of any provision of this Act shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in such a manner as the Minister for Finance may direct." If my suspicions are correct and moneys paid under the Bill are going via the Minister for Agriculture directly into the Exchequer, surely it is pure camouflage to include in the title of the Bill the suggestion that the moneys are being raised for the purpose of facilitating the eradication or the prevention of the spread of bovine disease. If I am correct, I strongly suggest that it is not the way in which legislation should be framed and that the title should be removed from the Bill. The Minister should tell the people honestly and bluntly what the situation is. If he is raising tax that is going to be paid into the Exchequer he should tell the people so.
The other aspect in the early part of the Bill which gives cause for concern is the fact that the Minister reserves power to increase the amounts of these levies at any time by order. For instance, I see that there is a specific amount referred to in section 2 for animals slaughtered or exported live and this amount is mentioned in the Bill as £3 per annum. But there is a proviso that the amount can be the amount per animal standing for the time being prescribed for the purpose of this paragraph. I presume that the Minister has no notion of reducing the amount even if, as we hope, the disease is eradicated or virtually eradicated. I can only assume that the Minister intends to push up this figure every now and again when the purse strings are tightened. For all we know this figure of £3 could be £10 before the year is out. This then is certainly quite a disturbing provision. The Minister will probably be basing his defence of this Bill on the figures which are included here, the 5p per gallon of milk and the £3 per animal slaughtered or exported. But that is not the basis on which he must defend the Bill. There is the safety clause, the escape hatch for the Minister and it is a very dangerous one indeed; it is one that, whatever about the justification for the Bill itself, cannot be justified under any circumstances. The Minister can come into this House and double or triple the amount raised under these provisions by mere order.
The Bill provides for service of notices by an inspector of the Department. I am referring to sections 6 and 7 and the powers of the inspector. Here I would like to make a general point. While all of us would like to see bovine disease eradicated we must at the same time bear in mind in the means taken to do so, the personal and individual rights of persons who may be affected by these measures. To a certain degree there could be a conflict between this very ambition to eradicate disease and those individual rights. Section 6 gives the inspector of the Department power to serve a section 7 notice as a result of a belief which is not illustrated in any way and which does not have to be based, so far as I can see, on any evidence. It may be a belief based purely on a flight of fancy and that type of power can be a dangerous one. I know and accept that the officials of the Department of Agriculture in the main are not going to abuse this power. But there may be one individual who, for one reason or another, would do so. Surely when we bring in legislation now for the future we have to bear in mind the principles involved and not just the individuals presently in the Department. This is a draconian power given to a departmental inspector under section 6. It is a power that apparently can be exercised on the basis of a belief on the part of the inspector that does not have to be based on any solid evidence of any description. Even worse, it is a power that can be exercised without any right of appeal to anybody. I would seriously suggest to the Minister that this is a section that should be reviewed. He may have a strong case for giving an inspector this power. It may be a weapon that is absolutely necessary in the interests of disease eradication but all power given to the State must be balanced and it must be counter-balanced; it must be counter-balanced to the extent that individual rights are protected and not restricted or reduced to an undue degree. Here there is an overriding draconian power given to a departmental inspector which can be exercised on a mere belief on the part of the inspector and against which there is no right of appeal. That is not the type of legislation which we should have and I would strongly suggest to the Minister and his advisers that there should be some modifying clause put in to provide for the situation where even if only one individual is unjustly treated by the exercise of such power, that individual could raise the question and, if it were proved that the power had been unjustly exercised, receive some form of compensation. It could happen and it is the duty of the Minister and this House to ensure that if that did happen such individual would not have his individual and personal rights restricted by legislation put through this House.
The other aspect of the Bill which, coming from small farmer country, concerns me seriously is the section which provides for a reduction in the amount paid to a farmer who is unfortunate enough to have diseased animals in his herd. This certainly is something to which serious exception must be taken. I am not a farmer but through people coming to see me about constituency problems I am very well aware of the serious upset and the tremendous financial loss which is borne by farmers, particularly small farmers, when there is an outbreak of TB in their herd. These farmers are assisted, to some small degree, by the State. If I recollect correctly there is a grant of £130 given by the State to help in replacing infected animals. Despite this there is a very considerable loss which, in many cases, can run to perhaps £300 or more to be paid by the farmer to find a replacement. The Minister now suggests that in addition farmers should be further penalised. If the Minister came into this House and suggested that he was doubling the amount of the grant to help farmers to get back on their feet and find replacements and get on with the business of farming that would be a reasonable approach, but to come into this House and suggest that the farmer should be further penalised by a reduction in the price of milk is just beyond comprehension.
It is even worse that a farmer is put in this situation because of the serving of a notice under section 6 of the Bill. This is the notice to which I took exception and which can be served on the farmer because an inspector believes that an animal in that man's herd is infected. There is no appeal against that decision by the inspector. A farmer put in that situation has a reduction made in the price of the milk which he sells to creameries. The Minister has not yet specified the rate of that reduction. This can be prescribed in an order from time to time. Surely this is a blatant injustice?
I suggest that the principle is wrong. A farmer in that situation who suffers a breakdown in his herd must be helped to get back on his feet. The manner in which the Minister proposes to have this draconian power exercised is totally unjust and I suggest it its possibly unconstitutional. It seems to be a complete denial of the individual rights of the citizen in this situation. I ask the Minister to think again about this procedure in relation to the principle of it and the manner in which he suggests this power should be implemented.
Those are particular points which strike me in relation to this Bill and I ask the Minister to take account of them. It does not take from my overall opposition to this Bill which is of significance to the farming community and the urban dwellers. This Bill will have consequences for everybody. We could do without this measure. I am totally opposed to it.
I want to add my voice in opposition to the Bill and to support the view expressed by the members of my party. In case anybody is under any misapprehension I want to say that I believe that disease eradication in our national herd is a matter of urgency. The Minister will have the full support of the Fine Gael Party in any effort he makes to speed up the eradication of disease in our national herd. We are totally opposed to the system by which the Minister proposes to pay for this eradication. I believe this is a major job and that we have been very lax in the past in regard to disease eradication. We have not come to grips with the seriousness of the problem. We should bear in mind that our time is running out. There is still a lot of work to be done and a number of factors which are contributing to the spread of disease. The Minister should come to grips with this matter.
I wholeheartedly support the penalties the Minister proposes to introduce against those people who are involved in every kind of trickery to try to avoid the steps being taken to eradicate disease in our national herd. I would like to bring to the Minister's attention the complaints we regularly get from people involved in the dairy industry in particular who find that farms next door to them or in their vicinity are let to cattle dealers. They are very concerned about the way cattle are moved freely in and out of those farms. There are many streams throughout the country which are the only source of water supply for cattle. This water could be flowing through 30, 40 or 50 farms. We have not considered those problems in the past and therefore we have done very little about them.
The vast majority of the farming community are very conscious of the seriousness of disease eradication and the problems which are involved in eradicating TB and brucellosis from our national herd. I support any of the penalties which will be imposed on the people who are in breach of the law in relation to this matter. I readily concede that the Minister has great knowledge of the agricultural industry as far as the grain growers and the beef and bullock men in the midlands are concerned. Is he aware of the problems which are facing the dairy industry at the moment? I come from the heart of the dairy industry in Munster and I would like to bring to the Minister's attention the problems facing that industry.
This Bill is imposing another levy on all of those people. We are just out of the worst winter which farmers have had for a long time when they had almost six months of having to feed their cattle indoors with the high cost of feed and the high cost of labour. The farming community, particularly dairy farmers, were looking forward to their monthly cheques to pay for feeding stuff and to pay for the heavy losses incurred as a result of the bad winter. The Minister now proposes to extract another levy from them. Farmers are infuriated that this is an extra levy imposed on them. While the income to farmers has remained static the cost of production over the last two years has increased dramatically.
A farmer who receives a creamery cheque has several deductions made from it. There is the co-responsibility levy, the Bord Bainne levy, the 2 per cent tax and other levies which the Minister is not responsible for, levies in which farmers contribute to their own organisation, the IFA and the ICMSA. All those deductions are made each month from the creamery suppliers' cheques. It is constant dripping which wears the stone and the last straw which breaks the camel's back. Deputy O'Keeffe dealt with the legalities and the niceties of the Bill but farmers, particularly dairy farmers, in the south are concerned that this is just a subtle system of taxation.
I would like the Minister to consider the position of the farming community at the moment. We are opposing this Bill because there is no consideration for the capacity of farmers to pay this levy. Many farmers are heavily in debt. I have already mentioned the deductions from the creamery cheques but it is quite possible that because farmers were encouraged to modernise by the creameries and the co-ops further deductions have to be made for a number of items which farmers have installed in their efforts to try to improve their production. I believe that this levy will hit employment.
We are very concerned about the number of people who are unemployed. I had occasion recently to visit three major co-operatives in County Cork employing approximately 1,100 people. These co-operatives are geared towards further expansion and the creation of more jobs in the area for farmers' sons who have to leave the land. So far as dairy farmers are concerned, this levy will militate against increased production and it will hinder efforts to expand the agricultural industry. The levy will also affect housewives. I am sure the Minister is aware that they have demonstrated against and objected to the levy. There is no doubt that ultimately it will hit the consumer in a major way.
The Minister should be aware of the dramatic reduction in our exports of beef and meat in the past few months. Two years ago when Fianna Fáil were campaigning in the general election we were informed by them that the taxation introduced by the National Coalition was unfair. Many promises were made by the Minister, his party and by other Fianna Fáil candidates and farmers fell for them. At the moment the farmers are up in arms at the attitude of the Government. There was an example of this recently. When the Minister for Finance in his budget imposed a 2 per cent levy on farmers they demonstrated against it. There will be further demonstrations by the farming community because they are not prepared to continue indefinitely to pay levy after levy.
The Minister should examine what has happened since he took office with respect to the income of the farming community. The agricultural grant is to be reduced to £40 in 1980, the tax threshold has been reduced to a PLV of £40, the multiplier has increased to 125, there has been the 2 per cent tax, the removal of the lime and fertiliser subsidies and now there is talk of a resource tax of 15 per cent. This accumulation of taxation on the farming community has hit production and stopped expansion of the industry. Consideration should be given to the capacity of small farmers to pay these taxes. In this levy no consideration is given to whether a farmer is in a position to pay; nobody cares. Irrespective of whether a farmer is in debt, whether he owns one cow or 200 cows, he will have to pay the levy.
It will be very difficult to implement the charge of £3 for every animal slaughtered. Many problems will be created. In the past few years people have been buying and killing their own animals. How can the Minister trace an animal that is slaughtered by a butcher who does this work privately for a farmer? Will it be necessary to have a horde of inspectors? That would defeat the purpose of the Bill, which is to raise extra taxation. The Minister should take note of these points. I doubt very much if the measure can be implemented.
For example, does the Minister consider that hoteliers should pay a levy because of the work of Bord Fáilte in trying to attract tourists here? It is unfair that the farming community should be asked to pay the charge proposed by the Minister. I would ask him to consider seriously the situation of the dairy farmer who is supplying milk to the creamery, who has considerable expenses and whose income is eroded daily by levies of this kind. At this stage the levy is small, but as money becomes scarcer and as the Minister for Finance demands more there is nothing to stop the Minister increasing the levy. This appears to be the work of an economist who is not aware of the problems of the farming community.
We are all aware of the importance of disease eradication. We know that time is running out and so far as Fine Gael are concerned we will support every effort to eradicate disease. It is something that can hit the economy very severely and we could lose valuable markets. However, we disagree with the way the Minister is financing the disease eradication schemes. It is totally unfair and inequitable and I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter.
The Government have the necessary votes to push this measure through the House in spite of opposition from the farming community and in spite of the efforts of the Opposition in this House. However the Minister will have difficulty in administering the scheme and in extracting by subtle means more taxation from the farming community.
All of us accept the fact that disease eradication is a vital element in the future development of our agricultural industry. We are aware of the detrimental effects of bovine TB and brucellosis on the expansion of our agricultural industry and the realisation of its potential. However, I reject completely the concept of the levy. The eradication of bovine diseases is a matter of urgent national priority. Because of the vital importance of agriculture to the national economy, because the potential of this small nation depends on the development of agriculture, disease eradication should be a national charge. The elimination of disease will lead to expansion of our agricultural exports and, inevitably, this will benefit the national economy. For these reasons the cost of disease eradication should be borne by the Central Exchequer.
The Minister for Agriculture is becoming known as the Minister for Levies. This Government introduced a new concept into agricultural financing and farm taxation. Week after week new levies are being imposed on the farming community. My main reason for contributing to this debate is that I believe the concept of a levy as applied to any aspect of agricultural development is a bad idea. The levy concept is socially unjust and economically and socially indefensible. There is no way one can attempt to justify the levy concept on the basis of equity and social justice.
It is a crazy approach to apply the levy concept to the eradication of animal diseases. We are penalising farmers when we should be making every effort to help them eradicate animal diseases. There is no doubt in my mind that the morale of the agricultural community is being detrimentally affected by the continuous sequence of levies being imposed on them by this Government. Their morale will sink even lower if the Minister continues to think up new ways of imposing unjust taxes on the farmers.
We cannot close our eyes to the very significant report published last week dealing with the present position and the future prospects particularly of smaller farmers. The report indicated that a growing number of smaller farmers were going out of milk production. If so, this is a very serious and alarming situation for the future development of agriculture. If we accept that agriculture is the foundation of our national economy, we must be logical and admit that the dairy industry is the most fundamental and vital part of our agricultural industry. I am very concerned about the continued imposition of levies, particularly in the dairy industry. It is a crazy idea to impose levies on the farmers when we should be encouraging them to eradicate animal diseases.
I want to re-emphasise that I am convinced that the levy concept, and particularly the sequence of new levies which have been introduced by this Government and implemented by the Minister, represents the most retrograde step in the history of Irish agriculture. This is the most retrograde step taken by any Minister for Agriculture in the history of Dáil Éireann. I appeal to the Minister to have a serious rethink on this whole question and to analyse very carefully the short-term and, more particularly, the long-term implications for Irish agriculture of the imposition of indefensible and socially unjust levies such as that which the Minister is seeking to introduce in this Bill.
I want to record my opposition to this Bill. When the Minister was appointed to his office in 1977 it was felt in many quarters that he would hit the Department with increased vigour, even beyond the tremendous heights reached by his predecessor. He would not be considered in a very favourable light in many parts of the country now.
The imposition of yet another levy on farmers, particularly those in the west, is another nail in the coffin of many small farmers who had to struggle to reach the relatively low standard of income they have at present. As an island nation it is imperative that we rid the country of diseases that infect our animals. Nobody would disagree with that. We may have tackled disease eradication in the wrong way previously. It is possible that we might have eliminated many of these diseases if we had adopted a different approach. Be that as it may, we are now imposing a £3 levy per beast under this Bill. There is a dangerous element in this Bill. It does not limit the Minister to £3. Next week it could be £5, or £10 the week after. If the Minister ever contemplates raising the levy and then travels beyond the fringes of the Shannon, let him beware because he may meet very strong verbal opposition from many of the farmers in the west.
Many of these people worked very hard on fragmented holdings with poor agricultural land to raise their standard of living. In 1979 they are faced with another levy. I want to record my opposition to the imposition of the levy of £3 per beast for bovine disease eradication. I agree with the principle that we must rid the country of bovine diseases, but the levy could be made a national charge or it could be borne by the Community.
In the west where a farmer may sell four, five or fewer animals per year off ten acres of land, with possibly an undivided share of something like 18,000 acres of commonage which is no good to anybody in its present state, his profit margins are very small, taking into account inclement weather, bad winters and very small amounts of fodder. It would be difficult for him to accept another levy on top of this small profit margin.
As possibly one of the last speakers from this side of the House, at this late stage I ask the Minister to record my opposition to this. I ask him to bear in mind the many thousands of farmers who have worked constantly down the years in very poor conditions with little encouragement. This type of legislation is not in keeping with what these same farmers were promised only two years ago or with what they thought the Minister for Agriculture would do. It is in keeping with their ideas of what the principals of the Department of Agriculture should be doing, that is ridding the country of these bovine diseases, but it is not at all in line with the way they thought these schemes would be implemented. It is all right to talk about them, it is all right to introduce them, but when they hit the farmer's pocket it may be found that the farmer's pocket has very far-reaching effects.
I am grateful to the Opposition Deputies who contributed to this debate if for no other reason than that they exemplified the extraordinarily and dangerously cynical approach of Opposition Deputies to this whole matter of disease and its urgency. In almost all of the contributions their remarks were prefaced with some ritual "against sin" type of observation about animal disease. They proceeded to say that they opposed the raising of any funds from within the industry itself to attain that purpose. Some of them went so far as to become the advocates of the tag switchers, the people who cheat in the matter of breaking regulations. Today Deputy Clinton and Deputy O'Keefe were pleading about the rights of individuals, and on the last day we discussed this matter Deputy Griffin's heart was bleeding for the sufferings of the tag switcher, the cheat and the disseminator of disease and at the notion that the penalties would be increased radically and that the time for the pursuit of a particular case would be extended greatly in order to allow this to be done.
In short, there was no discernible common approach on the part of the people who spoke in this debate, although they pretty well all came from the Fine Gael Party. They seemed to be repeating a parrot cry with some local variations, some of them very interesting, such as the one I have been talking about, the distress that they felt for the sufferings that are in store. I hope that they are in store for the thief, the criminal and the tag switcher who are playing a big part in holding up the eradication programme that we are getting under way in a very encouraging and satisfactory manner.
Several of the Deputies spoke today of the utter decline in farmer morale. The former Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Clinton, gloated over the fact that there was, it seemed to him at any rate, a decline in the numbers of cattle. I have been expressing very grave concern about this. I told the House on the Financial Resolution the origins to which I would attribute principally the decline that Deputy Clinton was talking about and glorying in. He was glorying in the fact that he was selling off all our cows and increasing our exports of beef by selling our breeding stock. The present situation is that we do not have those any more and, therefore, there is a decline in the amount of beef being processed by the meat factories.
Deputy Clinton went on, as some of his colleagues did also, to do some public weeping about the very successful 30-day test. He betrayed the absolute cynicism of the Fine Gael Party and the approach of that party to the whole question of disease eradication, by not admitting that the introduction of the movement certificates for the protection of herd owners—the real purpose of this—from infection by animals from infected herds was really effective. We can show that many hundreds of reactor herds have been detected in this manner that would not have been detected if the tests had not been made. If that alone were the fruit of this 30-day test it would have been well worth while, but it is not the only fruit. A very notable by-product of the introduction of this movement certification has been a growing awareness and a growing insistence on the part of herd owners, in my experience and among my acquaintance, of the really pressing problem that we have on our hands. We have heard umpteen trite, glib, meaningless acknowledgments of the reality of this programme but we have also heard a total reluctance and refusal to face the facts on the part of a party who purport to be responsible.
The facts are grim in the matter of animal disease, and let nobody pretend that they are not. Neither let anyone pretend that the eradication of disease is going to be accomplished without some very difficult passages to be got through. No work as important and worthwhile as this was ever accomplished without some unpleasant phases. There will be unpleasant phases in this eradication scheme, and let everybody know that that will be the case. We do not say this with any glee but with a sense of feeling obliged to give farmers notice that it is no intention of mine, or on the part of the Government either, to relent in any way in our pursuit of the success objective in this eradication scheme.
Great amounts of money are needed for this eradication scheme. A farmer myself, I do not subscribe to the opinion expressed by pretty well every Fine Gael Deputy who spoke on this, that this should be a matter that should be passed on to the taxpayers. As one might say in colloquial English about PAYE payers, how would that grab them? They, like the farmers, are prepared to pay a just amount of tax but, in order to be fair, herd owners must acknowledge that they and they alone will be the first beneficiaries of the successful eradication of animal disease.
I have some figures here and it is worth while to look at them. I can even recall them from memory. For animal reactors for disease eradication in the whole island of Great Britain £135,000 was paid in compensation last year. In our part of this island of Ireland over £4 million has had to be paid. Obviously, that money was subscribed by farmers, workers and everybody else——
Are not the diseases practically eradicated in the UK?
——whom the Fine Gael Party for this purpose described as the National Exchequer.
The Minister is not comparing like with like.
The Exchequer is made up of contributions by the whole body of taxpayers, farmers and otherwise.
The Minister will want to do better than that.
The urgency of the eradication of disease is further pointed out by the time limit mentioned by Deputies Creed, Bruton and Bermingham. They have a notably responsible approach to this matter. Each of them mentioned aspects of the eradication programme, such as Deputy Bruton's reference to the very real dangers to human health occasioned by both tuberculosis and brucellosis. Only now are farmers, veterinary surgeons and others who have to do with cattle discovering the alarming incidence of human infection and the difficulty of eliminating this terrible plague among cattle and people.
I do not propose to devote a great deal of time to contributions such as that made by Deputy O'Keeffe. It was clear that his thinking was so divorced from any farming matter that, try as he might—and he is a very capable man—he could not relate to the realities of the disease eradication problem, which concerns people in rural Ireland before it concerns anyone else. He, like some of his colleagues, worries about the negation of tag switchers' right and about the extension of what he called draconian powers to Department of Agriculture inspectors in their pursuit of criminals and tag switchers. We will be as draconian as we require to be in the pursuit of these criminals and there is no other way in which these people can be brought to their senses and the public in general and herd owners in particular protected from their ravages.
Speakers have dwelt at great length on the inequity and injustice of this levy. They would do well to contemplate the future of the same herdowners if we adopted the means adopted by the Coalition Government of abandoning disease eradication altogether. The prospect then would be total extinction. Some speakers painted heart-rending pictures of appalling losses but the losses will be even greater if we do not finally come to grips with the problem.
Deputy D'Arcy questioned the value of the 30-day test. It is a bit of a nuisance but Deputy D'Arcy and others must realise that it is a nuisance in the same way as several other measures we must yet adopt will also be a nuisance. It is a nuisance which gives very valuable and real protection to the purchasers of cattle. Deputy Clinton referred to the widespread trafficking of animals among farmers, some of the animals being diseased. Farmers who buy animals without movement clearance certificates do not deserve what they get but they do deserve to be punished. They punish themselves most and may well become propagators of disease, just as the group Deputy Clinton spoke about. He spoke with a certain approval about the traditional practice of buying and selling cattle, but now they had better get a movement certificate first.
Is the Minister saying that Deputy Clinton approved of the traditional practice?
Yes. There must be a movement certificate for all cattle moved from one herd to another.
The Minister is guilty of a grave distortion if he is accusing Deputy Clinton of approving.
Deputy Clinton made enough grave distortions in his speech.
The Minister is going beyond the bounds of permissible argument in making such an unfounded charge against Deputy Clinton and he should withdraw it.
Deputy Hegarty was one of the softly softly group of Deputies who did not like this Bill's rugged approach to the criminal element in this problem. He would prefer more grants and incentives and pats on the back. Not once did he mention the unpleasant problem of money. Any farmer knows that, a lot of money will be involved.
Deputy Kenny is worrying about the sufferings of farmers in the west and how the levy will affect them. Certainly the levy will bear on their small milk production but traditionally farmers in the west have been in the store cattle market. It is not clear whether Deputy Kenny was talking about this levy or the 2 per cent levy. The disease eradication levy will be exacted at meat factories, ports of export and urban points of slaughter and in the case of transactions in small store animals it will not be that heavy. On the other side of the coin as far as the west is concerned, we have an undertaking from the Council of Ministers that by 31 December they will have approved a second scheme for the improvement of the infrastructure of the west, as well as the drainage scheme which has already been approved. That should make a decided counterbalance in the scales on behalf of the farmers Deputy Kenny is worried about.
Deputies Bruton, Creed and others were honest enough to see the reality. Deputy Creed spoke plainly on the matter and as a farmer he sees the grim realities. It is not a time for sitting down, wringing our hands and weeping about it. There is a very big job to be done. If Fine Gael Deputies think that the morale of the Irish farmer will sag, his courage break and that he will fly in the teeth of that kind of challenge, then they do not know him as well as I do.
On the question of leucosis mentioned by Deputy Bruton, as far as I know that disease was inadvertently introduced during the period of the Coalition Government by the importation into this country of Canadian Holsteins. I do not approve of the importation of Canadian Holsteins.
We cannot discuss anything without reverting to history.
But I am glad to say that the incidence of the outbreak of the disease is being very closely scrutinised now and I am confident that we will be successful in its elimination.
When would the Minister say he would manage that?
I cannot say. But we know where all the reactors are and we are testing them every three months.
I do not think the Minister has slaughtered any yet. Has he?
I do not know the details of it——
I think he has slaughtered some but has not gone far enough at all. We have two diseases; we do not want a third one.
Actually there are only two diseases involved in this Bill.
There are no diseases mentioned. These levies can go on forever; they can be financing anything you like.
It was regrettable that that importation was made. Some damage has been done but I do not think it is irrevocable.
I shall not delay the House any longer because a great deal of what Deputies had been saying was repetition of two things. They were for the eradication of disease but they were against the imposition of penalties on the whole, not all, and they were against the exaction of any money in the process. All of these things are necessary. The exaction of huge amounts of Government money and farmers' money must go into this campaign because it is the intention of the Government that it will be successful and final.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 41.
Tá
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Cronin, Jerry.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
- Flyn64n, Pádraig.
- French, Seán.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Gibbons, Jim.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacSharry, Ray.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Power, Paddy.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl
- Barry, Peter.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Clinton, Mark.
- Conlan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garrett.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Lipper, Mick.
- Mannion, John M.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Creed, Donal.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Ryan, John J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- White, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Woods and C. Murphy; Níl, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.
When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?
Next week.
Next Tuesday at 2.30 p.m.
Does the Minister agree.
Next Tuesday.
Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 10 July 1979.
Item No. 10.
When will No. 9 be taken? Is the Minister taking the Resolution separately?
Yes.