Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 32, to delete "0.5" and substitute "0.2".
This amendment is to reduce the amount of the levy. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 are related to one another. They are both intended to reduce the levy by approximately half the amount specified in the legislation. This amendment to reduce the levy in no way suggests that we agree with the principle of the levy. In fact, we are resolutely opposed to the entire concept of raising money from the farming community in the form of taxation by levies on production. We are against it because it discourages production. It is indiscriminate in that people pay those levies regardless of whether or not they have made a profit or whether or not they have an income sufficient to put them within the tax net.
We also oppose the concept of levies because there is no control over who will actually pay them in a given market situation. In some circumstances, where supply exceeds demand, the farmer will certainly pay the levy. In other circumstances, where demand exceeds supply, the tendency will be for the levy to be passed on to the person who has a greater demand than the supply is there to meet, that is the consumer. In certain circumstances there is no doubt that this bovine disease levy will be paid by the consumer. In other circumstances it will be paid by the farmer. In all circumstances it will be paid by people without regard to their ability to pay. In all circumstances it will be paid by people without regard to whether or not they have an income that would in normal circumstances put them within the income tax net. This levy form of taxation is highly objectionable on all those grounds. We do not in any sense accept the principle of those levies by putting in this amendment, which is merely intended to reduce them. We will be opposing the principle of the levy when we come to the discussion on section 2.
We are endeavouring, in introducing this amendment, to mitigate in some small way the obnoxious effect of the levies by reducing them by half. Amendment No. 1 is intended to reduce the levy on milk from .5p per gallon to .2p per gallon and amendment No. 2 reduces the levy from £3 per head to £1.50 per head. We have put down those amendments in the belief that we will at least reduce the obnoxious effect of what is a fundamentally objectionable form of taxation.
I support this amendment. This year has been a particularly bad year for the small dairy farmer. It is a well-known fact, particularly in my county, that a number of those small farmers are in debt to the co-ops. They have not received any cheque in profit this year. If they receive cheques they are told that they owe more money to the co-ops. It has been a harsh, long winter. I ask the Minister to seriously consider the position of those people who have not made any profit so far this year out of their dairy produce. This can be verified by any of the Minister's officials if they contact the co-ops, particularly in Kerry. I appeal to the Minister at this late stage, seeing that those farmers have not got one decent cheque yet, and they still owe money to the co-ops for meal and other products, because there was no grass due to the harsh winter, to help those people. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the position in Kerry.
The intention of these amendments is to reduce the rate of levies by half. The rates as laid down in the Bill—0.5p per gallon on milk and £3 per animal slaughtered or exported—are expected to yield about £10 million in a full year towards disease eradication. This is less than half the amount provided in this year's Estimate for the disease eradication scheme.
Expenditure will be showing an upward trend for the next couple of years. This is because full compulsory measures for brucellosis eradication will be extended during that time in those counties not already within the full compulsory programme. In the longer term, as the incidence of disease falls and fewer reactors have to be removed, the cost of eradication should stabilise and then start to go down. However, that is a long way off at this stage.
So long as total expenditure remains at its present level or higher, a contribution of £10 million per year from farmers is, in the view of the Government, a reasonable one. The rates proposed in the amendments would cut the total contribution to less than £5 million and this would be a very minor contribution relative to the expected total cost in the next few years. On that account I am afraid the amendments cannot be accepted.
In his contribution the Minister made no effort to justify the principle of the levy. He referred to the cost of disease eradication. We are all aware of the cost of disease eradication, as we are aware of the cost of the entire range of Government services which are being financed by various forms of taxation, but to say that it costs money to run the State's services——
The principle of the levy is not involved in the amendment. The amendment deals with a reduction of the levy. The Deputy will have an opportunity to deal with the principle on the section.
The Minister has not endeavoured at any stage to justify the principle. Having regard to the fact that this has been a very bad year for farmers, this is the wrong time to look for this money. In fact, in the recent history of agriculture it is the most inappropriate time to impose the levy. The confidence of people in the dairying and beef sectors has been severely shaken. The dairying section has been affected seriously by rapidly increasing costs combined with a price freeze. There is considerable disquite among dairy farmers regarding the medium-term prospects for income for them in this area of production which is the only one in which small farmers can obtain a fulltime living.
The same situation applies in the beef sector. There has been a huge increase in costs and in interest rates. It has been particularly hard on the beef section because of the high capital investment needed to carry a large number of cattle from the time they are bought to the time they are sold.
A number of levies have been introduced at the same time when the confidence of farmers has been shaken. The effect on investment will be severe because of this lack of confidence. The Minister should give consideration to this amendment.
Question: "That the figures proposed to be deleted stand" put and declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 4, line 36, to delete "£3" and substitute "£1.50".
This amendment is intended to reduce the amount in respect of animals. The arguments that I put forward on the previous amendment are of equal merit so far as this amendment is concerned. In the cattle industry there are serious fears in the minds of farmers whether the summer fattening of cattle will be profitable this year. There is every reason to believe that farmers dealing in the bullock trade as distinct from the heifer trade will lose money this summer. It is very unfair that a person losing money should have to pay a levy on top of his loss. The result will be that farmers will not invest for next year as much as we would like. In turn, that will mean fewer cattle going to the factories to be killed with consequent redundancies in the meat processing industry. Even with existing levels of supply that industry is working with costly overheads. Any reduction in the present level of supply resulting from a loss-making situation in the cattle industry brought about by direct Government action will lead to further redundancies in the meat industry. If this happens the responsibility can be laid at the door of the Government because by the levies they are introducing they are sapping the confidence of farmers and they are reducing and even eliminating the profit that farmers are getting from cattle production, thus making it unprofitable to produce the raw materials necessary for meat processing. As a result they are causing a decline in the industry and redundancies.
The Government should consider this levy in that context. If they do this they will see they are making a foolish decision from their own point of view and from the point of view of the country. They should not persist in using the levy system to raise revenue. If they thought about it in the overall economic context they would see that levies are not the way to raise taxation. They should find some other way that does not have the damaging effect of levies.
I support Deputy Bruton on this issue. As we said on Second Stage, the levy system is objectionable because it bears no relation to the income of the person to pay it. Deputy Bruton has rightly made the case about the need for investment in agriculture. There is no doubt in my mind that the levy system has shaken the confidence of those in the agricultural community. The results of this system will be seen before the end of the year.
The situation regarding cattle is serious. Most of the factories are operating at half capacity because they are not getting the supply of beef. Since the levy system was talked about first in March last redundancies have been occurring in the factories. To make matters worse this levy is only one of five. It will hit the milk producers very hard. The cattle producers have been in a non-profit making situation since March last because cattle that were bought in January and February, for grass in particular, were bought too dear. The Minister may say that that was not his fault, but it is his job to ensure a steady flow of cattle to the factories and to have confidence in the beef side of the industry. The situation in regard to milk is every bit as serious. After a very difficult winter and a late start to the summer as a result of the bad weather in April and part of May there will be a slight increase this year in production, but these levies will affect milk production in no small way in 1980. Two very big factories that had been making arrangements for expansion have shelved these arrangements and do not intend acting further on them until such time as confidence is restored among the milk producers. I would appeal to the Minister to give a sympathetic hearing to this amendment.
Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy have highlighted the problems facing the farmers and the meat industry, but we must realise that if we do not eradicate disease the prospects for the meat industry will be much worse than anything visualised now. Our meat would be suspect on the export market and could be excluded from that market, a thought too horrifying to contemplate.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 5, after line 5, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(6) The amount of the levy prescribed by the Minister under subsection (2) of this section shall not exceed the amount necessary to pay for costs incurred and necessary to be incurred for the purpose of the eradication of bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis.".
The purpose of this amendment is to impose an upper limit on this levy. As proposed the levy would amount to approximately half the cost of disease eradication this year. Therefore, this amendment would not be operable at this stage, but it is possible within the terms of the Bill for the Government to increase the levy by order to any amount they might wish. Indeed, they could increase it to a figure far in excess of the amount necessary for the eradication of these two diseases. For instance, in the event of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis being reduced and perhaps eradicated eventually, it would still be possible within the terms of the Bill to continue to charge the levy. There is no limit on the amount that may be raised by way of this levy. It is not related directly or otherwise to the amount actually being spent by the Government on disease eradication. I am anticipating the Minister's reply to the effect that the levy may be used only for the purpose of animal disease eradication but there is no such provision in the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent the levy being used for other purposes or being increased to three or four times the amount necessary to finance disease eradication. The Government like so much the concept of levies as a means of taxation that one might not be surprised if, later, they would use these levies as a means of raising even more taxation than is necessary for disease eradication. The attraction of the levy from the Government's point of view is that it is an easy tax to collect. There is nothing in the Bill to protect the farmers and the rest of the community against the levy being increased to any figure the Government may wish.
The Bill envisages a farmer contribution for the purpose of facilitating the eradication, the prevention or the spread of bovine diseases. This provision is in the Long Title of the Bill. "Disease" for this purpose is confined by definition to bovine TB and brucellosis. Therefore, receipts from the levy must be used for the eradication of these two diseases. To use the levy for any other purpose would be outside the scope of the Bill.
The intention is that farmers should contribute to the cost of disease eradication, that they should pay a certain proportion of the cost but the Deputy's amendment would suggest clearly that the total cost of eradication could be met from the levy payment. The amount of the expenditure on disease eradication will always appear in the annual estimates as will appear also the expected receipts from the levy, so that the relationship between the two will be there for all to see. It would be immediately evident if the receipts were even approaching, not to mention exceeding, the total expenditure. For these reasons I consider the amendment to be unnecessary and, consequently, I cannot accept it.
The Minister says that disease is defined as bovine TB and brucellosis but there is nothing in section 2, which relates to the amount of the levy, to the effect that the levy may not be in excess of the amount being spent on disease eradication. If there were such a limit envisaged it would be stipulated in section 2. Consequently, I do not believe that there is any such safeguard as the Minister claims. Could he refer me to any subsection in the Bill which provides for such a safeguard? If the Minister says, as he does, that it is not intended that it would exceed that amount, I cannot see why he will not accept the amendment which would give statutory form to the word of honour he has given. I cannot reconcile what the Minister is doing. Either he does not intend to increase the levy beyond the amount necessary to finance disease eradication, in which case he should accept the amendment, or he does, in which case he should say so.
I am sure the Deputy will accept that the possibility of the receipts from the levy exceeding the charge for disease eradication is highly unlikely and will remain so for a long time. Over the years we have seen the high cost of disease eradication. The amount taken in this levy is only a small proportion of the overall cost. Expenditure on disease eradication will always be shown in the annual estimate, and also the receipts from the levy. At that stage the relationship between the two will be there for everybody to see. I do not think there is any need to go any further than we are going here.
The Minister said it is a small proportion of the total cost but I understand it is approximately 50 per cent of the total cost in one year. I am subject to correction, but I think it is £22 million for disease eradication and the Minister expects to get between £10 million and £11 million from the levy. Therefore, it is wrong to say it is a small proportion of the cost. One would expect that in a couple of years' time we will have a reducing cost instead of an increasing cost. The Government have scaled down the level of compensation for reactors. I would expect production to keep increasing, so the levy will increase while the compensation side is being scaled down. Next year by order the Government could double this figure which would give them the entire cost of disease eradication. The amendment will not do the Bill any harm. It just gives a guarantee that, if there is money over, it will not be spent on some other enterprise. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment.
I can see the Minister's dilemma. Obviously he has to consult the Minister for Agriculture before he accepts an amendment of this sort. I accept his good faith and that he does not intend that the levy should be used to raise more money than is necessary for disease eradication. I cannot see any reason why he should not accept the amendment if that is the case. It does not preclude the Government from increasing the levy to any amount necessary to pay for disease eradication. It just puts an upper limit on it and prevents the Government from using the levy as a device for raising general taxation. It is a safeguard against increasing the levy to an unreasonable extent.
If the Minister would guarantee that between now and Report Stage— presumably next Tuesday—he will consider this amendment, I would be prepared to accept that and to withdraw the amendment. If he cannot give that guarantee we will have to press the amendment.
I am afraid I could not give any such guarantee. The necessary safeguards are there.
Could the Minister point them out?
The receipts must be accounted for annually and the Oireachtas retains control and supervision at all times. Any proposed increase in the levy is subject to the control of this House. If at any time it is proposed to increase this levy the Minister will have to come back to the House. That safeguard is there and I do not think there is any need to accept this amendment.
There is no statutory provision to prevent the levy being increased to a figure above the amount necessary for disease eradication. The Minister should not attempt to pretend there is.
The fact that the receipts will be shown is no guarantee. That is only information. It is no guarantee that, if the amount of the levy is increased by 50 per cent next year and there is money left over from the disease eradication programme, it will not be spent on something else. Surely the farmers are entitled to know that if they are being charged for a specific purpose that money will be spent for that purpose only. That guarantee should be given in the Bill.
I would be delighted if we had reached the stage where money would be left over but the Deputy knows that is highly unlikely.
Fifty per cent in one year is not bad.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 5, after line 5, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"(7) The amount prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section shall not exceed 0.5 new pence per gallon in the case of milk and £3 per animal in the case of animals slaughtered or exported live.".
This is a simple amendment. It provides that the levy shall not be increased beyond the figures specified in the Bill. It prevents the Minister from increasing the levy beyond the figures specified. I fear, as I believe the farming community fear, that this levy is the thin end of the wedge and that it will be increased to any unlimited amount in subsequent years. There must be a statutory guarantee against that happening. This amendment gives that guarantee. It provides that the levy shall not be increased beyond .5 new pence per gallon in the case of milk and £3 per animal in the case of animals without new legislation being enacted. That is a necessary assurance to the farming community with regard to the Government's intentions, that they will not use this levy as a means of collecting general taxation.
I consider that the levy is general taxation. Heretofore this expenditure was met out of the national purse. It has been described as the thin end of the wedge, but it is a fairly thick lump of the wedge because it goes 50 per cent of the distance. We put down this amendment in the hope that it would stay at that figure. I hope the disease eradication programme will make good progress and that the amount of money required will be reduced. After all, £10 million is a sizeable sum. We regard this amendment as a safeguard.
The effect of this amendment would be that no increase in the rates of levy above those now proposed could be made in the future except by way of a full amending Bill. As the Bill stands, the Oireachtas is left in control of any future changes in the rates of levy. This is so because any order to change the rates must be laid in draft form before each House of the Oireachtas and each House must then pass a positive motion approving of the draft before any such order can be put into effect. That procedure is very specific and leaves the Oireachtas in full control. It would not make sense in these circumstances that if at any time the rate of payments were to be increased the full panoply of an amending Act should be necessary. For that reason I cannot accept this amendment.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 60.
Tá
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Creed, Donal.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John F.
- FitzGerald, Garrett.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Lipper, Mick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Quinn, Ruairi.
- Taylor, Frank.
Níl
- Ahern, Kit.
- Andrews, David.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies W. O'Brien and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Woods and Briscoe.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Section 2 contains the principle of the levy and the provision whereby this levy may be increased to an unlimited figure by means of regulations. We in the Fine Gael Party object strongly to the principle of money, for disease eradication or any other such purpose, being raised by means of a levy on production. This levy is a wrong form of taxation because it is unrelated to ability to pay. It would be charged whether or not a person had a taxable income and whether or not the product being sold was one on which the seller had made a loss. This levy is also potentially a consumer tax.
I would ask the Minister to answer this in a proper fashion. As far as I am aware this question has not been answered properly by any Minister yet. In circumstances where the demand for meat exceeds supply this levy in common with other levies will be paid by the consumer. In the case of meat the animals bought by butchers for the domestic trade are usually heifers and are smaller animals than those sold for slaughter for export, so that a butcher buying an animal for sale to the Irish consumer competes with the farmer buying similar animals for further fattening. A farmer buying an animal for further fattening does not have to pay the levy on that transaction but the butcher must pay the levy and pass it on to the farmer selling the animal. Inevitably, the fattener has a market advantage over the butcher who in that situation has no option but to pay the going price dictated by the fattener. In other words the butcher must bear the levy and must then pass it on to the consumer. There is no way in which the Government can stop this happening because there is no retail price control on meat and no way in which the retail price can be controlled. It would be technically impossible because of the varieties of cuts and qualities that exist in the case of meat. In the supply and demand situation in the market place because of the fact that a given animal can be used for further fattening or by butchers in the domestic meat trade, and the fact that the retail price cannot be controlled there is no way in which the Government can prevent the levy being passed to the consumer.
The Government or the Minister may attempt to argue that this can be prevented because the price for cattle generally is related to European prices, that Irish farmers cannot get any more than the general European price for animals, that in that situation any levy imposed here must be borne by the farmer, and that the Irish farmer cannot add to his price in order to compensate himself for the levy he has to pay. That is not a valid argument because when we talk about meat for the domestic consumer we are talking about an intrinsically different commodity than meat for export, the type of meat determined by European prices. The type of animal used in the domestic butchers trade is a smaller animal, usually a heifer, which itself is usually a smaller animal than a bullock, a different animal with a different system of pricing.
The fact that there is a generalised system of pricing operating for bullocks at European level does not in any sense prevent this levy in relation to heifer meat, which is the type of meat used on the domestic market, being passed on to the Irish consumer. The small heifer animal is used for the provision of meat on the domestic Irish market. In a market where demand exceeds supply and where there is no control on retail prices there is no way any Government can prevent the levy being passed on to the consumer. I would say further that, given the present situation in which supplies are falling and the number of cattle being slaughtered, generally speaking, is less than this time last year, inevitably demand exceeds supply. I contend that this levy, immediately it takes effect in the market situation to be anticipated over the next four or five months, will be a consumer tax.
At some future date, when supply exceeds demand, it will become a farmers' tax; but in the immediate future this bovine diseases levy will be paid by the consumer and it is very important to recognise that fact. We are all perhaps in this discussion, as spokesmen on agriculture, tending to be concerned more with the problems of the farming community and losing sight of that fact. I assert that, in the market situation obtaining and liable to obtain at the time this levy takes effect, this levy will be paid by the consumer of Irish meat on the Irish market. The Minister must either take steps to prevent that happening or admit that this is not a form of farmer taxation but will be a form of consumer taxation in the immediate future.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The section we are discussing proposes to impose a levy on milk, on all cattle slaughtered in the country and on all live animals exported. I shall not detain the House very long, but I want to make a point or two regarding the difficulties cattle exporters are experiencing in exporting their animals through some ports here. The levy will be collected on all animals exported. The purpose of the levy is said to be to pay for eradication of animal disease. There is a feeling abroad that the Government are determined to kill the live cattle export trade. I quite appreciate that it is in the national interest that a fair percentage of our animals be slaughtered at home and, as far as possible, processed at home in the interests of employment. I think also, in the interest of the producers of animals and farmers in general, it is essential that the live trade be permitted to continue. Otherwise these people will not get a fair price for their cattle. The feeling is that the Government seem to be determined to kill the live cattle export trade.
Some people are of the opinion that exporters are being harrassed at ports, such as the North Wall, when exporting cattle. As we know there is a 30-day test, and I shall not go into the merits or demerits of that. The point I want to make is I am told that when cattle are brought to the North Wall on the 29th or 30th day after the test, while still qualifying for export, through no fault of the exporters, a boat may not be going out for a day or two and those cattle are not permitted to be exported. They have to be taken away and slaughtered at home at a loss or retained for another test. That seems to me to be quite unreasonable because they are virtually in quarantine at the North Wall when they arrive there on the 29th or 30th day. If a boat is held up for a day or two they should be allowed to be exported provided they arrive at the point of export within the specified time.
I understand there was a change of staff at the North Wall not so long ago, when the position seems to have become more difficult. Veterinary surgeons certify animals for export or certify them as having passed the test on a form prescribed by the Department of Agriculture. My information is that these forms ran out of print last year, when some inspectors accepted certificates on informal forms of the veterinary surgeons as evidence that the animals had passed the test. After some time, notwithstanding the fact that these forms were not available to veterinary surgeons and had run out of print, the inspectors refused to accept a certificate on any other form. That created great difficulty for exporters, veterinary surgeons——
The Deputy is certainly broadening the scope of this section.
(Cavan-Monaghan): Perhaps a little, Sir.
Quite a bit in the view of the Chair.
(Cavan-Monaghan): I could perhaps make these points on another Bill. The levy is actually being collected for animal disease eradication and that it what I am talking about.
Actually the section deals only with levies. We are getting into all sorts of administration problems and other items.
(Cavan-Monaghan): That is what the levy will be used for. It was quite unreasonable not to accept these certificates on veterinary surgeons' printed notepaper when the other forms were out of stock. These informal forms are accepted in Northern Ireland but not here. This unreasonable harassment of exporters is not justified. The matter should be examined and a reasonable approach adopted. I do not condone abuse of animal disease eradication, I am all for it, but it should be applied reasonably. The scheme should not be used for purposes for which it was never intended. I think that has been done at the North Wall, certainly towards the end of last year and perhaps also into this year.
The one thing we should all realise when speaking on a Bill of this kind is that disease eradication is for the benefit of the farmers. They are the people we are concerned with and are trying to help because the eradication of disease will guarantee the future development of the dairy and livestock industries. It is important that we do everything possible to come to grips with this problem which has been with us for so long and which has cost the taxpayer so much money already.
I understand that competitive conditions normally apply in the meat industry. Where the bulk of our production is destined for export, the factory trade determines the market price. The butcher already has specific overheads which determine costs and so on. He will now have to include the levy which is a known and specific amount and will pitch his price on that basis.
Which price will he pitch on that basis? The price he pays or the price at which he sells?
There is no guarantee of that.
There is nothing new in this. There are other costs which he has to take into consideration when he is buying the animal——
Or when he is selling the meat.
The Minister should be allowed to make his case without interruption.
The levy will be included in the price.
There is nothing new for the butcher in this. He will have to take the levy into consideration when he is buying the animal at the mart. He already has overheads and he will add the levy at this stage and fix his price accordingly.
Deputy Fitzpatrick said there was a feeling abroad that the Government were determined to kill the live export trade. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister and I believe it is important that there be an element of competition there all the time. The one thing that will kill our live export trade is disease. Time is running out on us. If we do not come to grips with the problem of disease eradication we are putting the live export trade in serious danger.
The Minister did not answer the point I made about this levy being passed on to the consumer. He said it can be related by the butcher to the price. One accepts that the butcher will ensure that he recoups the cost of the levy in the price, but will it be included in the price he pays or the price at which he sells? It is easier for the butcher to include it in his selling price because he has complete control over that price. He can mark up that price every day. On the other hand if he goes into a mart he does not have control over the price he has to pay, which is determined by the going market price at that time. He cannot say they are charging too much, that the price is too high and that he will not buy the meat. He has to buy cattle or close his shop. He has to pay the price in the mart. His opportunities of passing the levy on in the mart are very limited, if they exist. On the other hand, he has a free opportunity of passing it on in his shop because he marks up the prices but he does not determine the price in the mart. Unless there is a grave situation where supply exceeds demand, this levy will be paid by the consumer. This is a consumer tax and the Minister has not answered that case at all.
We made this case on Second Stage and the Minister did not answer it then either. The majority of butchers have land close to the towns in which they live and buy their cattle half fattened in the marts. When they decide to slaughter and sell those cattle they are responsible for them. They have to charge the levy to the consumer or else bear the cost of the levy themselves, which they will not do. There is no such thing as charging the levy in the marts; it can only be charged at slaughter, either in the factories or on the butcher's premises. When the butcher buys two, three or four heifers in the mart he will automatically include the levy in the price he charges his consumers.
The Minister of State stated that disease eradication benefits the farmers, and I want to add the nation, but in the process of eradication the Minister should not harass people to the degree that the industry will be damaged. Since Deputy Gibbons became Minister for Agriculture many issues have been raised. He is harassing the agricultural community to the extent that they are slowing up. This is only one more nail in the farmers' coffin. I object to the 30-day tests—I slightly disagree with Deputy Bruton on this issue—because if the tests had been for 60 days there might have been some hope——
The 30-day tests do not arise under this section.
This is another levy on farmers, a further harassment by the Minister.
The Government have no intention of harassing the farmers. It is in the farmers' and the national interests that we are doing this. As I said before, it is important that we come to grips with disease eradication. Farmers realise this and want a determined effort made on their behalf to get rid of this problem because if our meat trade is in danger the consequences will be too serious to contemplate.
The Minister has completely ignored the point I made that this levy will be paid by the consumer. It is only where supply greatly exceeds demand that it will not be paid by the consumer. Because the butcher can mark up the price in his own shop more easily than he can determine the price he pays in the mart, it will be easier for him to recoup the levy from the consumer than from the producer. In the case of meat this levy will be a consumer tax. The Minister of State, like the Minister, has ignored this case and refused to answer it. Unless he does answer it the attention of the House should be drawn to the fact that the Minister has chosen to ignore the obvious case, that this levy in the case of meat is a consumer tax and nothing else.
I have already said that this is not a consumer tax, and a situation where demand exceeds supply is the exception. The reverse position is more normal. There is no reason for Deputy Bruton to say I did not answer his point. I have said already that what determines the price a butcher pays is competition with other butchers, overheads to be met and costs generally. The butcher knows beforehand what these are and they will now include the levy which is a known and specific amount and he will fix his prices on that basis. There is no question of passing this on as a consumer tax. The butcher will have to take it into consideration when he is purchasing the animals. That is the answer.
With respect, it is not the answer. The butchers themselves have said quite clearly, through their representative body, that it will be a consumer tax. If the Minister wants any better authority than the butchers themselves through their representative organisation, he will not find it. They have said that this levy will be paid by the consumer and not by the producer. Who is in a better position to tell the truth about this issue than the butchers?
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 5, lines 11 and 12, to delete "in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners,".
Section 3 says that the exportation live from the State of an animal shall be prohibited unless, before exportation and subject to such conditions as the Revenue Commissioners may impose, the amount of the levy is paid to the Revenue Commissioners or such security as is, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, adequate for its payment is given to the Revenue Commissioners. We want to delete the freedom that the Revenue Commissioners have to determine what is adequate security. This should be determined statutorily. The Revenue Commissioners should not have the freedom to determine any old security they like that an exporter would be required to give in respect of, for instance, a small consignment. The determination of what is reasonable security should be based on an objective and impartial test laid down in law rather than on merely the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners who could conceivably require an unreasonable security. In the terms of section 3 there is nothing to stop them requiring an unreasonable security. The deletion of the words "in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners" leaves the Bill to read, "such security as is adequate for its payment is given". That is an adequate safeguard. There is no need to give the Revenue Commissioners the freedom which this section appears to give them to set any security they like, even when it is more than adequate to secure that in the case of an animal exported before payment of the levy the levy will in fact be paid.
To delete the phrase as suggested in amendment No. 5 would still make it necessary for somebody to decide what security is or might be adequate. The only body who can effectively so decide are the revenue authority. It cannot be maintained that the exporter, for example, should himself decide what is adequate nor, indeed, would it be proper that the Minister for Agriculture or his Department should get involved in an area which is proper exclusively to the Revenue Commissioners. The commissioners operate their controls already in relation to MCAs and any other export charges that arise and they have the experience and knowledge to decide what security is reasonable. It is only right that they would have a say in this area also. I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 5, between lines 20 and 21, to insert a new paragraph as follows:
"(c) The Revenue Commissioners shall not unreasonably refuse to accept security for the payment of the levy proffered in accordance with paragraph (a) of this subsection.".
I concede the point made by the Minister in respect of the last amendment. Probably I was trying in two ways to achieve the same objective which was to prevent the Revenue Commissioners from acting unreasonably in refusing to accept security. Perhaps the method contained in amendment No. 5 was not the best way because somebody certainly has to determine the matter. However, there is a strong case to be made for amendment No. 6 which provides that where the Revenue Commissioners do refuse security offered they shall not do so unreasonably. This does not say that they do not determine it but in determining it they must act reasonably. That is a fair compromise. The Minister in an amendment which he has introduced to section 6 and which has just been circulated accepts that in the case of a notice of inspection being issued it shall be issued only on reasonable grounds. Equally in the case of security not being accepted the Minister can see the principle of allowing the Revenue Commissioners to determine the matter but saying statutorily that they must act reasonably. If the Chair will forgive my repetition, this is a reasonable proposition and I ask the Minister to accept amendment No. 6. It does not affect the Bill appreciably in its enforcement. It is a useful protection.
I see no need for the amendment. The Revenue Commissioners have long experience of handling situations where export charges arise and to my knowledge there has been no suggestion that they acted in an unreasonable way. They must decide in individual cases, on the basis of their knowledge and experience, what is reasonable or unreasonable. If Deputies have any concrete reason for being uneasy on the basis of specific cases about the situation I will undertake to convey their views to the proper quarter. In practice the exporter has two options. Either he pays the appropriate amount of levy in cash or he proffers security. Both are covered legally in the Bill. I believe we can rely on the Revenue Commissioners to apply the terms of the Bill in a responsible and reasonable manner. For that reason I cannot accept the amendment.
Are there other cases where security is undertaken by the Revenue Commissioners in the export of cattle? The Minister has said that the Revenue Commissioners have behaved reasonably in the past. This levy has not existed in the past, so there must be some other area where he alleges that they have been behaving reasonably.
In the case of MCAs, and there may be other areas. I am not too sure.
The Revenue Commissioners behaved reasonably?
Have there been any complaints?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 22, to delete "or which relate to the exportation of goods".
This is nothing more than a drafting amendment to tidy up the position. The phrase to be deleted is superfluous in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners and it is they who would be concerned with the implementation of the section.
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 4.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 32, to delete "fourteen" and substitute "twenty-eight".
This amendment extends to 28 days instead of 14 days the time allowed for the submission of monthly returns and the obtaining of the appropriate amounts of levy due. This is designed to facilitate firms and organisations whose accounting systems might make it difficult for them to meet the 14-day period. A number of larger bodies now avail of computer systems and the 28-day period is believed to be more than ample to allow all firms to meet it without upsetting their normal accounting systems.
This amendment is not only agreed; it is welcomed.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 5, subsection (2), line 36, to delete "manner" and substitute "manner and form (including in particular the quantity of milk or the number of animals, as may be appropriate)".
This is a drafting amendment. The original test would allow the Minister to prescribe the manner in which returns would be submitted. In this context "manner" would cover only such things as the person who should sign the returns and the way they should be sent, whether by post or otherwise. It is necessary to lay down also the contents of the returns, in other words, the form in which they should be made up. This would include in particular the quantities of milk received and the number of animals slaughtered. The returns required will be kept extremely simple and in the vast majority of cases will be the same as returns made for other purposes.
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
It is stated in subsection (6) that all moneys received by the Revenue Commissioners on account of the levy shall be paid by them to the Minister. How soon will this money be paid over? I note that the levy period is one month—in other words, that payments of the levy will have to be made every month and there will be 12 payments in the year. Would it not be better to allow the levy period to be, say, three months because this would reduce the amount of paper work necessary by accountable persons? While they would have to keep records of all transactions, they would have to make returns only every three months. We would all like to reduce the amount of paper work, particularly for unpaid tax collectors such as the butchers and processors will become under this Bill.
The monthly payment system is the one normally used. Farmers are paid their cheques monthly. Even though it might cut down the amount of paper work, it would be a departure from normal practice.
On the question of how soon the payments will be made, this is a matter which can be worked out with the Revenue Commissioners and the money will probably be paid every month or so.
It will become an appropriation-in-aid. What will happen if the amount paid in levy either exceeds or is less than the amount estimated? If the amount estimated is £10 million and the Revenue Commissioners have paid that sum to the Minister by the end of September, what will happen for the remaining three months? Will the money still be paid to the Minister? If so, for what purpose will it be used? Will it be used solely for disease eradication or will it be regarded as an overall saving on all agricultural services? My experience is that where there have been savings they are not retained for the same purpose but are used for a general balancing of accounts over the entire Vote for the Department.
This type of question would appear to be more appropriate to section 20, but the Minister may answer the question now if he wishes.
The answer is very brief because the question is hypothetical. The Revenue Commissioners collect only on live exports and the amount they would collect would be only a small fraction of the £10 million. There is no question of a surplus.
Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 10 and 13 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert the following new section:
"5.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any order made under the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Acts, 1936 to 1967, any milk pasteuriser or milk bottler shall be entitled to withhold from the amount to be paid by him to the seller of milk in respect of which levy is payable a sum equal to the amount of levy.
(2) The amount paid to a seller after the withholding of levy under this section shall be a good discharge of the amount due to him.
(3) Any sum which a person is entitled to withhold from a seller under this section may be recovered as a simple contract debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.".
This new section is necessary because of the position governing milk prices in the Dublin and Cork Milk Board areas. In these areas the minimum prices payable to producers of milk for liquid consumption are fixed by orders made under the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Act. Because of this it is necessary to provide that pasteurisers and others buying milk from producers will be able to withhold the amount of the levy without conflicting with the minimum prices laid down. Subsection (1) of the new section provides for this.
The second subsection is a consequence of subsection (1). It provides that, where a purchaser of milk—for example, a pasteuriser—withholds the levy, the amount paid by him to the producer after withholding it will be a valid discharge of his debt to the producer.
Subsection (3) is designed to meet particular situations. One might be where the producer owes more money to the pasteuriser than is owed to him. He might, for example, have bought materials or equipment in excess of the value of his milk or the pasteuriser might have forgotten to withhold the levy. In such cases it is right that there should be provision for recovery of the levy from the producer.
I do not see any need for this section. These cases are very unlikely to occur, particularly that provided for in subsection (3). I could envisage a case such as this arising in the manufacturing area but not in the liquid milk area. In the former case the farmers are attached to co-ops. I could not envisage such a case arising in regard to liquid milk sales either in Dublin or Cork. Does the section apply only to liquid milk?
This seems to be on the wrong side. People involved in the pasteurising and bottling of milk do not engage in the same activities as the co-operatives.
There is a possibility that this will never arise. It is merely a contingency arrangement.
I can see it arising in the manufacturing area. The only things those in the liquid trade make provision for are AI fees and repayments to ACC or moneylenders. They do not make provision for the buying of seeds or manure.
I do not see any need for it.
If there is no need for it, it will not do any harm.
The Minister should have accepted the same argument about our amendments earlier and put them in.
Amendment agreed to.
There is an error in the preparation of the amendment sheet and amendment No. 12 should be before amendment No. 11. I am, therefore, taking amendment No. 12 first. Amendment No. 20 is consequential so we will discuss amendment No. 20 with amendment No. 12.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 6, before section 5, to insert a new section as follows:
"5.—There shall be established a fund to be known as the Disease Eradication Fund. The expenditure of all moneys in the fund shall be as authorised by the trustees of the fund for the purpose of the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis and for no other purpose. The trustees of the fund shall be appointed by the Minister on the following basis:
(a) two persons appointed by the Minister one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister;
(b) three persons who shall represent the producers of bovine animals shall be appointed by the Minister on the nomination of such organisations as the Minister considers to be representative of such producers and
(c) one person who shall represent the members of the veterinary profession on the nomination of such organisation as the Minister considers to be representative of such profession.".
The purpose of these two amendments is to set up a fund to be known as the Disease Eradication Fund to be managed by a group of trustees—three farmers, one veterinary surgeon and two nominated by the Minister, one of whom shall be an officer of the Minister. We want to make sure that this money is only used for disease eradication and that the farmers, who will be paying this money in all cases except in certain circumstances which I have outlined—meat on the domestic market, where it is a consumer tax—will have a say in the way it is used. By setting up this Disease Eradication Fund with strong farmer representation in the control of it—three out of the six people on the board of trustees will be farmers—the farmers will have a direct say in how the money collected from them is used.
This money can only be used for disease eradication, so there is no question of the Minister saying that once the farmers got control of it they would use it for some unrelated purposes. If the Government are sincere in saying that this is for disease eradication only and that the farmers see the need for disease eradication, they should be prepared to accept this amendment which makes sure that it is paid into a fund for disease eradication, used only for that purpose and that the farmers have a say in the way it is used.
I should like to support Deputy Bruton's argument that those people are allowed supervise how the money should be spent. Now that we know the money will be collected this would create goodwill among the farming community. I believe that some compensation would not be out of place, particularly when farmers are being asked to put up 50 per cent of the money required for disease eradication. I am sorry the Minister for Agriculture is not here because I know the Minister of State is in a difficult position as he cannot make such decisions.
We should really have someone who can make decisions.
These are important issues. We know the Minister of State cannot make these decisions.
I was a Minister of State for a few years and when I was dealing with my Minister's Bills I could not make any decisions.
That was a Coalition Government.
The Minister of State is responsible for the Bill being discussed at the moment.
We know that the Minister for Agriculture has the ultimate responsibility as far as this issue is concerned and it is a pity he is not here today. It is a very reasonable request asking that this board be set up to supervise the spending of this money. I appeal to the Minister to give this matter some consideration and perhaps come back on the last Stage of the Bill to say if such a board could be set up.
The amendment proposed by the Deputies would place control of expenditure on disease eradication in the hands of a body of trustees over whom there would in effect be no control, legislative or otherwise. This body of trustees would be left in a position where they could frustrate the working of the eradication programme. They could decide not to provide the funds for necessary activities or decide to use them on areas of lesser priority or spend them in a wasteful manner.
Disease eradication is a national problem. There are clear and cogent reasons why it has to be controlled by the Government of the day. Apart from the use of State funds involved there must be uniformity of operation. There must be official control of procedures and tests. Nowadays there are also, in the context of the EEC as well as in terms of trading requirements, international obligations to be discharged. The overall policy must rest with the Government. The State must have control of the funds involved and must be answerable to the Oireachtas for use of the funds in a proper way. Receipts and expenditure are voted annually. It will be clearly evident at all times what is being spent, what is being received from levies and whether those receipts are being used to defray the cost of eradication. The Animal Health Council already advise the Minister on disease eradication and the council have a strong representation of farming interests as well as the veterinary profession. In the light of those considerations I cannot accept this amendment.
The Minister's concern about responsibility to the Oireachtas on the part of the trustees of the Disease Eradication Fund could be easily met by putting in certain requirements, one of which would be to have the accounts passed through the Comptroller and Auditor General and a copy of them laid before the House. I have no objection to that addition being made to the amendment if the Minister is worried about accountability to the Oireachtas.
The Minister felt that the fund would not be used in the best way possible. He seemed to presume that he as Minister would at all times know what the best way was but I do not believe that follows. There is no reason to believe that the Minister for Agriculture is the only man who knows what is right. The fact that there is a body with control of money, consisting of three farmers, two persons appointed by the Minister and one veterinary surgeon, is indicative that those people will know what is necessary. They will also have an interest in disease eradication. Those people will be joined with the Minister in the fight against disease eradication and the farmers through this fund will have a say in the way disease eradication is carried out. This would ensure that the Minister would have access to a wider range of advice than he now has on a continuing basis. That advice would carry real weight because the people giving it control some of the money. The farmers, because they were paying a levy being administered by their own representatives, would have a much greater commitment to disease eradication than they have at the moment, where the levy is simply being taken from them by the Government and spent as the Government think fit, and not as farmers or anybody representing them think it should be spent.
I do not believe the best way to get farmer confidence in disease eradication is to take money from them and tell them that they do not know how it should be spent but that the Government know how it should be spent. The Government are then telling them that they will spend the money as they think fit. That requires a degree of confidence on the part of farmers in the Minister for Agriculture which I do not think they can be expected to have any time no matter who is Minister. I believe that the involvement of farmers, through the Disease Eradication Fund proposed in this amendment, in the spending of the money would be a good thing and would contribute to disease eradication.
I believe the Minister should reconsider his attitude on this matter. Therefore, I propose to withdraw the amendment with a view to reintroducing it on Report Stage where I can meet any of the difficulties the Minister mentioned about accountability to the Oireachtas. Having consulted with the Minister for Agriculture and his officials, I hope the Minister of State will be in a position to accept this amendment or, alternatively, that he will introduce another one along the same lines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
Amendment No. 11 is in the names of Deputy Bruton and Deputy D'Arcy. Amendment No. 12 (a) in the name of the Minister, which was issued this morning, meets amendment No. 11. We will discuss both amendments together.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 6, line 20, to delete "otherwise" and substitute "other adequate and reasonable veterinary grounds".
I welcome the amendment in the name of the Minister. It shows that in some way he accepts the case we were making in our amendment. Basically what we are talking about here is a notice of infection. The position is that where as a result of a test or otherwise an inspector believes a herd to be infected he may issue a notice of infection which can subsequently, by virtue of the provisions in section 8, lead to a reduction in the price for milk.
We object strongly to the idea that the price for milk should be reduced by an arbitrary act of the Minister for a particular producer just because his herd is infected without regard to the fact as to whether the herd became infected through his fault or through no fault of his. It is quite possible that a herd can become infected for reasons totally outside the control of the farmer but once a notice of infection is issued under section 6 the price may be reduced without regard as to whether the farmer was at fault. I understand that the notice of infection is related solely to section 8.
We object to section 6 strongly on the grounds of its connection with section 8 but we object doubly to it where it is possible for a notice of infection to be issued as a result of a test or otherwise. Obviously a test is objective and if an animal fails the test that is that. However, where an inspector, for reasons other than the result of the test, can decide to issue a notice of infection there is the possibility of such notice being issued in a discriminatory and unfair fashion resulting in the reduction in the milk price without any relationship to any objective test as to whether disease even exists in the herd. We want to say that where as a result of a test or other adequate and reasonable veterinary grounds—they would have to be veterinary grounds related to specific evidence that infection existed—the notice of infection could be issued. We are trying to improve the legislation even though we object to the principle.
I believe our amendment is a better one because it restricts the circumstances in which an inspector may issue a notice of infection which will have the consequences of a price reduction either to the results of tests or other adequate and reasonable veterinary grounds. The Minister's amendment is welcome so far as it goes but it merely refers to "other reasonable grounds". They could be reasonable grounds but unrelated to the veterinary situation. They could be related to something entirely different. As the notice of infection relates to infection with a veterinary disease, it should be issued only on veterinary grounds and it should not be open to an inspector to issue a notice on grounds other than veterinary grounds. We abhor the principle contained in section 8 because it is unrelated to whether disease arose through the fault or not through the fault of the herdowner but we believe our amendment is better than the Minister's amendment because it is more to the point.
I support strongly the arguments put forward by Deputy Bruton. I cannot understand why the Minister will not allow this amendment.
We discussed this on Second Stage. An inspector from the Department may not be qualified to say whether a herd is infected but a veterinary surgeon is so qualified. While we welcome the insertion of the word "reasonably" in the Minister's amendment, it is not sufficient so far as identification of the disease is concerned. Section 8 provides that there will be a significant reduction in milk prices in respect of a diseased herd. The Minister should not accept the situation where an unqualified person is allowed to say that a herd is infected. It should be a veterinary officer from his own Department or an ordinary veterinary surgeon who carries out tests every day. We cannot accept that an unqualified officer should make such decisions.
I have some sympathy with the intention behind the amendment. There is nothing sinister about the phrase "or otherwise". It is used in other legislation relating to disease and it can be seen that in some cases it would be necessary to have authority to act without waiting for a test. An example would be where TB lesions are found in a carcase and it would be necessary to restrict the herd from which the animal came.
Where a veterinary surgeon finds an abortion, in the interests of containing disease he would want to restrict the herd pending the result of a test to confirm whether there was brucellosis in the herd. The word "inspector" in this context means a veterinary inspector of the Department and, therefore, there would be veterinary grounds for any action taken.
The section involved refers to serving a notice requiring the price of milk to be reduced. I accept that there should be reasonable grounds present before the notice is served. The Deputy's amendment would still mean that somebody somewhere would have to decide on what was adequate and reasonable on veterinary grounds. The only person who can decide this is the veterinary inspector and he, in accordance with amendment 12a, would have to act reasonably.
The Minister has not really met the case. The fact that a man is a veterinary surgeon and is acting reasonably does not mean necessarily that he is acting solely on veterinary grounds. He could be acting reasonably on other grounds. The issue of a notice of inspection should be confined to adequate veterinary grounds. It is better to use the words "on veterinary grounds" from the point of view of legal interpretation because the interpretation of "reasonable" in law is loose and vague and can encompass all sorts of circumstances that are unforeseen. Therefore, the Minister's amendment would not provide the kind of protection that is needed. It would lead to interminable argument in court as to whether any notice was reasonable or was issued reasonably.
If the Minister studied the legal interpretation of "reasonableness" he would realise that it is not something that is precise. Our amendment is precise in confining the matter to reasonable veterinary grounds. This would be much more easily tested in court. It is much more definite. I know that it is the intention of the Minister that notices of inspection be issued only on veterinary grounds but our amendment would be more in line with that intention.
I cannot agree because the amendment proposed by me is going far enough. It provides that the veterinary inspector would have to give notice of inspection on veterinary grounds.
In response to Deputy D'Arcy, the Minister adduced an argument that the inspector would always be a veterinary inspector but in the definition section we read that:
"inspector" means an officer of the Minister appointed under section 13 (1) of this Act to be an inspector for the purposes of this Act.
There is nothing either in section 1 or in section 13 to the effect that the inspector must be a veterinary inspector. Therefore, it is possible that the Minister could appoint people under this section who are not veterinary inspectors and these people could issue certificates on any grounds that seemed reasonable to them. By reason of their not being veterinary surgeons what might seem reasonable to them might be unreasonable to veterinary surgeons or to anybody else. Our amendment proposes a better way of achieving what the Minister is trying to provide for.
The case has been cited of lesions being detected in factories, but surely such conditions are detected by veterinary surgeons. That should be sufficient so far as the first case is concerned. The containing of a herd on the grounds of brucellosis would also be on veterinary grounds. I cannot visualise any problem, then, so far as administration is concerned in issuing notices on veterinary grounds.
As I have said, the word "inspector" here means a veterinary inspector. Therefore, there would have to be veterinary grounds to justify any action being taken. However, I agree with the points made by the Deputies and I am undertaking to consider the matter again between now and Report Stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 12a not moved.
Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."
I should like confirmation of my understanding which is that the issuing of these notices of inspection is solely for the purposes of section 8, which is to enable the Minister to introduce reductions in milk price.
Is it possible that they could be used at some future date for another purpose?
Is there not sufficient provision under existing legislation for the issuing of notices to meet the purpose without introducing a whole new set of notices? Presumably a farmer who was experiencing herd disease problems would receive notice anyway, but is it necessary to bring in another category of notices solely for the purpose of section 8?
I understand that the notice here is for the specific purpose of price.
Would it not be better to state clearly that section 6 is for the purpose of section 8.
If sections 6, 7 and 8 are taken together, the situation is clear.
I can see that section 8 is related to section 6 but there is nothing to indicate that section 6 may not be used for purposes other than those in section 8.
Section 6 must be related to section 8 also.
That is not set out. It is not stated anywhere in the Bill that section 6 is only for the purposes of section 8.
The consequences as stated are the only consequences that apply.
That is the position at the moment but it is possible that the Minister, in respect of other powers he has under the Diseases of Animals Act, may say that in a case where a notice of inspection has been issued in accordance with section 6, certain other conditions may apply, and these other conditions are quite unforeseen now. The Minister has immense power to issue orders of all descriptions. I have here a handful of orders issued by the Minister under the disease eradication Acts making farmers do this, that and the other. It is quite possible for him to use some of those powers to make these orders saying that, in the case of any herd where a notice under section 6 of this Bill has been issued, the following other consequences now unforeseen will flow. If the Minister wants to use them only for the purposes of section 8, he should say so in section 6.
I can assure the Deputy there is no danger of that happening.
Would the Minister be prepared to accept an amendment to that effect?
There is no such amendment at the moment.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that the section will not be used for other than that purpose?
I have already given that undertaking.
It will not be used for other purposes?
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 7.
Question proposed: "That section 7 stand part of the Bill."
Section 7 is unobjectionable. We hope these notices will all be cancelled at the earliest possible date.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 8.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 7, paragraph (a), line 3, before "any agreement" to insert "any order under the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) Acts, 1936 to 1967, or in".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 7, after line 16, to add a new paragraph as follows:
"(c) the rate per gallon prescribed in accordance with the terms of paragraph (a) of this section shall not exceed a rate equivalent to one penny per gallon unless the order prescribing the rate per gallon has been laid in draft before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution approving of the terms of the order passed by each such House.".
This amendment places a limit on the amount of the reduction in milk prices which may be brought about by the Minister in the case of a herd which is infected. We made two basic objections to the provision in this Bill for a reduction in milk prices in the case of an infected herd. One is that there is no limit whatever on the amount of the reduction in price which could be brought about by the Minister. It could be an excessive and oppressive amount. This amendment is intended to place a limit of 1p per gallon, which some would argue is too much, on the reduction which the Minister can bring about.
However, this amendment does not meet our major objection to the provision in section 8 which is that a reduction in milk prices can be brought about where infection exists, regardless of whether that infection was in any sense the fault of the farmer who will suffer by it. A farmer whose herd is infected with brucellosis will suffer anyway in that he will lose income if reactors are slaughtered and, if he is a dairy man, he could be out of production for quite some time. To load on top of that man a reduction in his price as well is piling on hardship where it is not really necessary and where there does not seem to be any great purpose being served by so doing.
I want to make it clear that in moving amendment No. 14 we are not in any sense meeting our major objection. We are merely meeting our lesser objection which is that there is no limit whatever to the amount of the reduction. We will be coming back in the discussion on the section to the more general objections to the whole principle of the thing. A limit should be placed on what the Minister can do in terms of a reduction in milk prices. The Minister should avail of this opportunity to state clearly what his intentions are in this regard.
I consider that section 8 is very objectionable, and so do the farmers. I should like to bring to the Minister's attention a paragraph from the speech by the Minister introducing the Bill on Second Stage. He said:
A significant reduction in the price of milk supplied from herds with either TB or brucellosis infection could also prove to be a most effective way of bringing home to the herd owners concerned that we cannot afford to tolerate continuing delay in getting rid of these diseases.
I take strong exception to the words "significant reduction". I also take strong objection to the fact that at no time during the Second Reading debate could we extract from the Minister one word about his actual intentions in section 8 or what he meant by a significant reduction. Neither would he tell us at whose discretion a significant reduction could be brought about. These are very important issues to farmers. No doubt the Minister is aware of the number of innocent victims there could be as a result of section 8. He knows how highly contagious brucellosis is.
The Deputy's submission would be more appropriate to the section itself later on. We will dispose of the amendments and then we can discuss the other matters on the section.
The reduction of 1p is an attempt to confine the Minister and to try to get him to tell us what he has in mind. We failed to get any response from him on this important issue.
I cannot accept the amendment because it would be undesirable to set any limit to the amount of the price differential to be prescribed initially. In the first place, this would suggest that any such amount stated specifically in the Bill would be introduced right away. It must be repeated that the provisions in the Bill are purely of an enabling nature.
In the course of the Second Stage of the Bill, Deputies opposite mentioned alarming possibilities. A differential of 5p per gallon was mentioned, and even more alarming possibilities. I am sure they were not intended to alarm the producers, but they could have that effect. There is no intention on the Minister's part to bring in a price differential without full consultations with all concerned as to the appropriate extent and timing of it. Secondly, if the limit of 1p per gallon were to be written into the Bill, it could create problems for creameries who may be already operating price differentials higher than that under voluntary arrangements of their own.
No, that does not follow.
Conferring a status on the 1p figure would leave them open to pressures to conform and to limit their systems to that amount. Thirdly, it must be asked if a sum of 1p would be a sufficient amount to make the producer who is dilatory about getting rid of disease get down to the job of clearing up his problem. It is very doubtful that it would. Finally, the Bill already provides that any order prescribing the amount of a milk price reduction must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and can be annulled in the usual manner. This is the normal, over-riding authority given to the Houses of the Oireachtas. What is involved here is different from what is involved in relation to the levy. In the latter case provision is being made for payment of moneys to the Exchequer, but this does not apply at all in relation to the milk price differential.
The Minister mentioned alarming statements. I say quite seriously that there is nothing more alarming to the farming community than what he has just said. He has clearly indicated that he is not prepared to accept this limit of 1p. His failure to accept the limit of 1p suggests to me that he intends to impose a reduction in milk prices much larger than 1p. It is wrong of the Minister to try to take the power to reduce the price by more than 1p without saying by how much he intends to reduce it or in what circumstances.
The Minister is taking unreasonable power in not giving us any information on how he intends to use this power. Since the Minister refuses to accept our amendment, which would limit him to one penny, it is clear that he must intend to reduce it by more than one penny. The Minister seemed to imply that this would interfere with the voluntary arrangements between the creameries and the suppliers. It would not interfere with those arrangements because we are talking about statutory reductions in price introduced by the Minister and not by individual creameries. The Minister in introducing that argument introduced no argument at all.
The Minister raised the possibility that one penny would not be sufficient. In what circumstances would one penny not be sufficient and what would be sufficient as a penalty on producers who have been dilatory in dealing with disease eradication? I would remind the Minister that this levy, if introduced, will be indiscriminate. It will apply to all farmers whose herds are infected whether or not they were dilatory or whether or not they made every possible effort to eradicate disease. Once a notice of infection has been issued they will suffer the reduction in price whether they were dilatory or not. There is no discrimination in the section between one category of farmer and another. It is clearly the intention that the same reduction in price will apply to all infected herds. It is possible for disease to spread from one herd to another even if the farmer has made every possible effort to eradicate disease from his herd.
The Minister of State said that in the event of the Minister indiscriminately introducing a statutory enforced reduction in price, it can be annulled. If it can be annulled why did the Minister not say that it must in the first place be approved by the Dail? It is possible that a greater reduction in income will be brought about by this power in the case of dairy producers than would have been brought about by the levy. If the increases in the levy have to be approved by this House in the form of a new order introduced and approved here, why is the Minister not prepared to ensure that any reductions in milk prices introduced under the powers of section 8 also go through the same procedure?
I would make it clear to the farming community that the fact that the Minister has refused to accept our amendment, which would limit the reduction in milk prices to one penny per gallon, is evidence, in the absence of his giving any indications as to what he intends to do, that the reduction will be in excess of one penny although we do not know by how much per gallon. The Minister's attitude is highly regrettable.
As a Wexford representative I must resist section 8 to the bitter end. The Minister's line of argument on this issue has no foundation. The only thing this enables the Minister to do is to reduce the price of milk by approximately 2 per cent. What does that amount to in relation to profit? That is what is important to the farmer. This will only enable the Minister to guarantee that he can put the farmers out of business.
The Minister's argument that it would upset the price differential now operated by the creameries is not valid because it will not interfere with that at all. I regret that this power has been given to the Minister, who has not informed us how it will operate and who will have the discretion to operate it. We asked about that on Second Stage and the Minister chose to ignore it. We accept that the Minister of State has not the full authority on this issue but I would ask the Minister what 1p per gallon represents in relation to the profit on milk production today?
I do not agree with the arguments put forward by Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy. If we were to accept their arguments we would go ahead with the imposition of this stated price reduction without any consultation with the interests involved. There is no intention on the Minister's part to bring in a price differential without full consultation with all those concerned as to its appropriate extent and timing. If the powers are availed of at all, any price reduction will have to take account of the views of the industry. We know that milk is already coming under question in the EEC and milk from diseased herds may eventually be excluded from the market altogether. A price reduction might do something that will save some farmers from a worse fate. It is not correct to say that all farmers will suffer, because those who achieve eradication and stay clear could eventually get price increases under this section. I cannot accept what Deputies Bruton and D'Arcy are trying to imply.
There is no foundation for what the Minister has said and his suggestion that this amendment in some way prevents the Minister from consulting with the farming community. It does no such thing. It merely says that in the event of the Minister introducing a reduction, to which we strongly object in the light of the lack of information from the Minister as to how it might be used, it should only be up to 1p and no more. That is not to say that the Minister should not consult with the farming community before he does it. The Minister should not introduce that dishonest argument which has no relation to the case we are making. The Minister has not given us any indication as to how he intends using this or how much of a levy he intends. He is taking power to do something without giving the House—it is the House which ultimately suffers in these matters—information as to how he intends to use the powers he is seeking. That is objectionable.
Our amendment does not go far enough, and it is my view that the section must be thrown out in its entirety because the Minister is looking for powers to reduce farmers' milk prices without any indication of the circumstances in which he intends to do that and without any regard as to whether a disease has arisen in a herd through the fault of a farmer or not. There is no suggestion that, if a farmer makes every effort to prevent disease breaking out in his herd and, through no fault of his, disease breaks out, he will suffer any less than the farmer who allows disease to arise in his herd entirely through his negligence. It is clear from the section that the farmer in whose herd a disease breaks out through no fault of his will pay just as much of a levy as the other farmer.
The Minister is sidetracking the main issue and I am disappointed that he has chosen to do so. It was wrong to say that Deputy Bruton or I are suggesting interfering in any way with consultations with the farming organisations.
If the reduction is imposed how is it proposed to consult them?
We are not imposing any reduction; that is being suggested by the Minister.
We asked for a limit to be put on the amount which amounts to 2 per cent of the actual price. That would represent something in the region of 6 per cent of the profit. Is that not a sufficient penalty? Where did the Minister get the idea that we are suggesting that consultations should not go on with farming organisations?
He did not get it from anywhere; it is a red herring.
In the event of strong objections being raised to the principle of introducing this measure during the consultations what will the Minister do? I have no doubt what the reaction of farming organisations will be to a further penalty being put on milk.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 7, after line 16, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(2) This section shall not come into effect until such time as an order to bring it into effect has been approved by resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas.".
The purpose of this amendment is to prevent the powers contained in section 8 being used until such time as the Oireachtas had approved an order designed to bring them into effect. The Minister has said that he is not prepared to disclose how he intends to use the powers he is taking under the section and that he must undertake consultations with the farming community first. If that is so he should accept our amendment, because it proposes that the powers will not take effect until such time as they are approved by the Houses of the Oireachtas. We want to delay the taking of such powers until a later date, by which time the Minister will have undertaken the consultations he has mentioned. Presumably, after those consultations the Minister will have agreed or disagreed with the farming organisations, but it will not be until that happens that he will be able to come before the Houses of the Oireachtas seeking the introduction of the powers contained in the section. Our amendment is reasonable. If the Minister is sincere in what he said about consulting with the farming community before he does anything under the section he will not be anxious to take such powers on until he has completed those consultations. On those grounds I trust the Minister will accept our amendment.
The intention inherent in this amendment is a rather extraordinary one. This Bill, having gone through the due legislative process, will be enacted in due course whether in its present form or amended. It will then be law, but the amendment would have it that even when it is enacted parts of it cannot be implemented until the Oireachtas approves an order bringing them into effect. In other words, certain sections would have to go through the legislative process twice. Such a procedure would be entirely unacceptable. If that procedure was accepted, even once, it would be a most unfortunate precedent. The amendment can only be designed to retard and frustrate the normal legislative process and I cannot accept that.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to section 25 which states:
(2) This Act, other than sections 17, 21, 22, 23, 24 and this section shall come into operation on such day or days as may be fixed therefore by order or orders of the Minister, either generally or with reference to any particular such provision.
It is already contained in the Bill that large parts of the Bill will not come into operation until the Minister makes an order bringing them into effect. This amendment requires that in the case of section 8 the powers contained in it should be approved by the House. There is nothing unusual about that, and our amendment is justified in view of the fact that the Minister has not given us an indication as to how the powers will be used. He has not told us of the circumstances under which he will introduce the reduction in milk price or whether it will be introduced for all producers. He has not given us any indication of the amount of the reduction. It is unreasonable of the Minister to expect the House to give him powers to reduce milk prices to an unlimited extent without the House getting the information it requires. The amendment asks that the section shall not be operable until such time as another order is made here, by which time the Minister will know a little more about his intentions than he does now. It is an eminently reasonable amendment which should be accepted.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Am I in order in moving the deletion of this section?
The Deputy is entitled to oppose the section but there is no question of moving its deletion or anything else at this stage. A division will decide that. Deputy D'Arcy on the section.
I object strongly to section 8. Our worst fears were realised here this morning—fair dues to the Minister; at least he stood up and gave us some indication of what was actually in the mind of the Minister for Agriculture when he spoke about a significant reduction in the price of milk supplied from herds with either tuberculosis or brucellosis and which could also prove to be the most effective way of bringing home to the herdowners concerned that we cannot afford to tolerate continued delay in the eradication of these diseases.
We are all prepared to accept that it is vitally important to the nation that we get rid of both those diseases, but it is the manner in which the Minister has gone about their elimination to which we object. The powers sought in this section must be described as beyond the thinking of any ordinary human being, particularly cow herdowners, in view of the fact that in this year the Minister has introduced already a string of levies. The Minister also went to Brussels but brought back no increase in price while overheads are up approximately 14 per cent.
The Minister seeks powers in this Bill to have a significant reduction put into force, to be used as a penalty in a certain number of cases, if not in 99 per cent of them. As far as brucellosis is concerned the people to whom this penalty may apply could be described as innocent victims. The highly contagious disease of brucellosis can spread through an area like wildfire. There may be one negligent farmer in a district whose herd can contaminate another ten or 20 herds. The Minister and the Department know this. Yet he seeks powers under this Bill to penalise these people. It is now quite clear since he will not accept our limit of 1p per gallon, that he intends penalising them severely. One penny per gallon represents approximately 2 per cent of the gross price or 6 to 7 per cent of the actual profit on milk production. Does the Minister realise that these types of penalties could put people out of business overnight? Does he realise that a huge percentage of our cow herds already have brucellosis and that there is no problem identifying the disease? Does he realise further that brucellosis can hang around an area for up to three years before it can be eliminated under good, hygienic conditions? These are all facts well known to the Minister. If the Minister is thinking of anything over 1p a gallon, he should realise that he is then cutting into perhaps 10 per cent of the profit. These penalties are unbelievable. It is incredible that some morning, if a farmer realises he has brucellosis in his herd which is identified by the Department of Agriculture, he must now pay these penalties. There is one thing only for him to do: let the first loss be his worst and get out of his herd. There is nothing else left to him to do because his profit has been so reduced in the past year.
The Minister's attitude in ignoring the Second Reading speeches and warnings of the Opposition must be described as objectionable. We could get no reaction from him on anything. I am glad the Minister of State came in here this morning and gave us some indication——
——of what is in the Minister's mind. We and the farmers now have a rough idea of where we stand. I have said that disease eradication must be a three-way process. There are three sets of people involved—firstly, the farmers; secondly, the veterinary surgeons; and thirdly the Department. It appears now that the people to be blamed for the spread of these diseases are the farmers. I maintain that all three parties are equally to blame for failure to eradicate these diseases. I could cite cases here, and some have been mentioned, in which the Department were at fault, others where the veterinary surgeons were at fault, and I am prepared to accept that the farmers can be at fault. It appears now that the farmers are those who will be blamed and who will be made pay through the nose.
What we have been unable to extract here this morning is at whose discretion these penalties will apply or at what level. It appears that people with clear herds may have an advantage here, as was implied in the Minister's remarks earlier this morning. It is unbelievable that such statements can be made. I could be an innocent victim yet I will be penalised. Let us suppose that Deputy Bruton is luckier, that there is no disease in his area; he will be paid at my expense. The Minister of State made that statement. I presume the same is in the mind of the Minister, Deputy Gibbons. They are going to tackle the situation by turning on those unfortunate people —and anybody with disease in their herd is unfortunate and will have a massive loss as a result—penalising them, taking money from them, not to clear up the disease but to give it to the other fellow who is lucky enough to be free of it. If the Minister had stated that he would utilise that money to compensate a farmer who had the disease in his herd if he did certain things, or perhaps even to increase the efforts being made in the Department to eradicate the disease, I would understand. But he did not; he is going to give the advantage to the other fellow lucky enough not to have the disease. These statements are unbelievable to people with large herds trying to maintain them in good condition. They are unbelievable even to people who have the disease in their herds—that the thinking of the Department should be so warped in a direction that can do only maximum damage to the people who have the disease.
Goodwill is a very important thing. What goodwill can the Department expect from people when they discover an official of the Department coming into their yard one morning saying: "I have identified brucellosis in your herd. You are paying for the eradication of the disease itself. Under this Bill you are paying 50 per cent of the actual costs, but I must penalise you further. We shall have to take X pence per gallon off your milk." As everybody knows, brucellosis is not an easy disease to get rid of. It is possible that such a farmer may have to face those penalties for up to three years no matter what precautions are taken. If a farmer finds that, on the one hand, he must face penalties for three years and, on the other, pay for the eradication of the disease, he might as well opt for the first loss and get out of his herd altogether.
I oppose this section as being indiscriminate in the first place, as was mentioned by Deputy Bruton, and as being very damaging. It will certainly damage any remaining goodwill and will do very little to reduce the incidence of disease throughout the country.
I should add that we on this side of the House totally oppose this section in the absence of any indication from the Minister how he intends to use this power, in view of the fact that it is indiscriminate and that it will be applied to all farmers whether or not through their fault disease has broken out in their herds and in view of the fact that the reduction in price could be quite unreasonable in extent as evidenced by the fact that the Minister refused to accept an amendment which would have limited him to a reduction of 1p per gallon. Has the Minister anything to say?
I have already replied to most of the points raised by the Deputies and there is no point in dragging it out further. No matter what reply I give, the Deputies opposite will oppose it. The best way to decide this is through the lobbies. It is because we realise the dangers to our national herds and the economy that we are introducing these measures. Unpalatable though they may be, I am sure both Deputies will agree that it is better for the farming community and the industry that these measures be introduced rather than that they should have to face something worse in the future. Time is running out on us and we have to take action to reduce the incidence of disease. I am sure the Deputies understand the implications involved in this for all of us. Nobody understands that better than the farming community, even though I accept they possible do not want to pay additional levies for it. In my opinion this is very necessary. Nothing I can say will convince Opposition Deputies that these measures are the right ones. I have nothing further to add.
I hope the Minister will be able to answer these three questions. Does he envisage that the reduction in price would be in excess of 1p per gallon? Will he confirm that the reductions will apply to all infected herds, regardless of whether the infection arose through the herdowners fault? Will he indicate when he expects the reductions possible under section 8 to be introduced, this year or next year?
I cannot give any undertaking as regards the limitation to 1p because I have already said this will be a subject of consultations between the Minister and the interested parties. They will decide on the differential and the timing of its introduction. As far as I am aware, this reduction in price will apply to all infected herds.
There is no way a dilatory farmer will suffer more than an innocent farmer?
It will be very hard to select herds if they are all infected with this disease——
The man who is to blame will suffer no more than the innocent man——
If his herd is infected that would be the criteria used.
When does the Minister expect the scheme to be introduced?
When does the Minister expect to initiate the consultations with the farming community?
I imagine they would be initiated as soon as this Bill goes through both Houses.
Would the Minister use more than his imagination and say if he intends to initiate consultations with the farming community immediately the Bill is enacted?
If the negotiations with the farming community take place immediately the Bill is enacted, the discussions would start in about two or three weeks?
Presumably the Minister will have proposals to put to them. If so, he should have some clear idea in his mind at this stage as to what he intends to do. He should do the House the courtesy of telling us what he intends. Otherwise we must assume he is deliberately keeping the House in the dark.
I have no intention of keeping the House in the dark. I am sure Deputy Bruton will accept that it would not be possible for me to show my hand at this time. This differential will be nothing new to many creameries because they are already operating it on a voluntary basis. Perhaps the amount of differential operating there will be even greater that what the Minister is contemplating. I cannot go further than that.
As I said, it would not be right for me to show my hand at this time. Discussions will take place immediately this Bill is put into effect, and I am sure the Minister will have certain proposals to put before the interested parties.
Can I take it that the Minister will have certain proposals to put to the interested groups? Is it possible they will have the discretion to decide how much the reduction will be? Is the Minister reserving the right to himself? This is one thing he never told us. Who will make that decision? The consultations with interested groups seem to be occupying the Minister of State's mind, but how far will they be consultative? Does the Minister accept that disease eradication is a three-way process—farmers, veterinary surgeons and the Department?
It seems that all the blame is being laid at the farmers' door. I am prepared to accept that 10 or 12 per cent of our farmers are not prepared to carry our the regulations laid down by the Department, but I do not accept that all the blame lies with the farmers.
The differential operated by the creameries is based on bacteria count, nothing else. It is up to every farmer to eliminate this, but it should not be confused with something over which the farmer has very little control.
I do not accept that the farmers are to blame for this situation, and I do not think anybody said that. We all accept that there are farmers who are genuinely concerned about the eradication of these two dreadful diseases and who have been working very hard to ensure that their herds remain free from these diseases. We all know some farmers and cattle dealers can be careless and because of their carelessness are a threat not alone to their own herds but to their neighbour's herds. It is to those people that we want to bring home the seriousness of the situation.
We are all talking about a differential, but it must be accepted that no decision has been taken to introduce a price differential at this stage, and we have no proposals to do that. If discussions are to take place with the farming organisations, the co-operatives, or whoever is interested, they would have to be of a general nature. Arising out of those discussions, the proper thing would be for the Minister to fix the differential, if there is a need for a differential at that stage.
Is the Minister to fix the differential?
I would imagine so, as a result of his consultations with the interested parties.
He has the powers and he has no idea how to use them.
I have an idea of how to use them.
I have just told Deputies.
Do we take it at this stage that these powers will be operated by the Minister? Why is such severe action being taken against the farmers if the Minister's view is that everybody is at fault as far as disease eradication is concerned?
If there is need for the differential, the differential will be operated.
Will the Minister write that into the Bill?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 61; Níl, 34.
Tá.
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Burke, Raphael P.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Collins, Gerard.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Dublin South-Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- Lynch, Jack.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Molloy, Robert.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- Noonan, Michael.
- O'Connor, Timothy C.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Leary, John.
- O'Malley, Desmond.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Níl.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Begley, Michael.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Joan.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlan, John F.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Creed, Donal.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Brien, Fergus.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- D'Arcy, Michael J.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- FitzGerald, Garret.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Cavan-Monaghan).
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Horgan, John.
- Keating, Michael.
- Kenny, Enda.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Tully, James.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Woods and Briscoe; Níl, Deputies W. O'Brien and B. Desmond.
Question declared carried.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That section 9 stand part of the Bill."
Would the Minister explain the purposes of this section and the circumstances in which it would be used?
This section obliges a herdowner to disclose the name and address of any person who is receiving or has received a supply of milk from his herd. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that all buyers of milk from an infected herd can be served with a notice of infection which requires them to make a price reduction for milk bought from the infected herd. A herdowner who refuses to give information will be liable to penalties.
How would this apply in the case of a farmer who sells his own milk directly to consumers? Who would reduce the price then?
Is this purely for the purpose of the levy?
Is there a public health purpose?
It would be far more appropriate to require that where milk is being produced from an infected herd a notice should be served on all people who are consuming that milk in an unpasteurised condition. There are serious problems involved in the possible spread of disease to human beings through the consumption of unpasteurised milk from infected herds or in situations where the pasteurisation is not as effective as it should be. I understand the process is not always fully efficient and nominally pasteurised milk will still retain traces of disease which could lead to humans being infected. This section should require that this information be given not just to dairy produce manufacturers but to all consumers of unpasteurised milk from infected herds.
This would be a matter principally for the Minister for Health and I am sure the matter can usefully be taken up with him. It would not come within the area of our control.
The Minister for Health will not be able to take action unless he has the information. The only people who at present have this information are the herdowners and the inspectors of the Department of Agriculture who have issued notices of infection. Clearly there should be a legal requirement on these people to inform any human being consuming milk from a diseased herd that they are at risk unless the milk has been pasteurised. There is no better vehicle for ensuring this than this section.
The Department of Health have been seriously inactive in the matter of the spread of bovine disease to human beings. The Department of Agriculture have been active, but their brief is confined to dealing with disease in animals and officially they are not concerned with the consequences for humans. There has not been adequate liaison between the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Health and the health boards. The section should be amended to require, at least, that this information be furnished to health boards as a matter of course. It should also be required that information of the issue of a notice of infection be communicated to the health boards.
There are ongoing consultations between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health on various aspects of animal disease and these consultations will continue. The points made by Deputy Bruton will be noted. It is important that information should be made available.
Would the Minister be prepared to consider before Report Stage the possibility of requiring that where a notice of infection has been issued——
It would not be appropriate to the Bill.
The Minister says there are on going discussions. As far back as 1972 reports were made to the Minister for Health on matters requiring action in this area and little or nothing has happened during the intervening period, during which two Governments have held office. It is not a party matter. I have not much confidence in the ongoing discussions to which the Minister referred.
There is no doubt that brucellosis in humans is an increasingly prevalent problem and tuberculosis is again on the increase, having been almost eliminated some years ago. I am not a medical man but I have reason to believe that the increase in the incidence of tuberculosis in humans is not unrelated to the continued prevalence of the disease among animals and the fact that there are not adequate safeguards in relation to the possible spread of the disease from animals to humans. I can see the Minister is not perhaps the man most concerned with this and that the Minister for Health is more concerned than he is.
I hoped the Minister would be a little bit stronger than saying that my observations would be conveyed to the responsible people when this discussion takes place. I raised this matter on Second Stage and I hoped that as a result of doing so something more definite than what the Minister has referred to would by now have happened. This is not a party matter. It is a very serious matter and I would like to see some definite action taken within a definite time to prevent the spread of brucellosis and TB from animals—this is endemic in many parts of the country—to human beings. I hope the Minister will take an interest in this matter with a view to having something done about it. If he does he will be doing a very good day's work. Can the Minister add anything to what he has said?
I do not think there is anything I can add.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed: "That section 10 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give us a little more information about this section? It is designed to eliminate the situation where land is being used in common and infected herds have been mixed with unaffected ones on common land.
This section empowers the Minister to obtain information with regard to land used for or in connection with the grazing or retention of animals. This is a general provision to enable information to be obtained about land used for grazing or retention of cattle. Where lands are let or rented it is often difficult to establish the identity of either the owner or the user of the lands not to speak of the ownership and health status of the cattle kept on the lands. Difficulties in tracing the origin and ownership of animals can impede the operation of disease control measures. Existing legislation does not enable the relevant information to be got quickly. This provision is merely designed to fill that gap.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 8, line 5, to delete "six" and substitute "three".
The reason why six years is stipulated in the Bill for the keeping of records is that that is the period provided for in the Companies Act 1963. Section 147 of that Act relates to the retention of records. It is obviously better to have a consistent approach to these matters and, in the circumstances, I feel it desirable to let the six years stand. Obviously, even if it should be reduced below six years, this would not help those who have to comply with the Companies Act. It is generally better that all concerned should be subject to the same regime.
I am worried about the requirement that every butcher, even a small butcher slaughtering perhaps one animal a week, will be required to keep records of every transaction he has entered into for six years afterwards so that the Department of Agriculture can be satisfied that he paid the full amount of the levy that was due by him on those animals. I feel, for all reasonable purposes, that it is enough to require him to keep them for three years. If the Department have not discovered something wrong in three years they will not discover it at all. It is not reasonable to require him to keep a mass of records for six years. The Minister referred to the Companies Act but most of those people that I am worried about having to keep records for six years will not be incorporated under the Companies Act. It is all right to say that that applies to a big concern like a co-op but it does not apply to those people. I consider that the three years is more reasonable.
I share the views expressed by Deputy Bruton because I realise how difficult it can be for farmers and others to keep records for this length of time. If he feels strongly enough about it I have no objection to it provided it does not come into conflict with the Companies Act to reduce it to three years.
Amendment agreed to.
Section 11, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 12.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 8, line 29, to delete "he reasonably considers to be" and substitue "is".
This concerns the powers that inspectors are to have under the Bill to enter premises and search for documents at any time they like to see if the person concerned is charged the right amount of levy. I believe that the powers of search being given here are far too wide. It says in the section that an inspector, for the purpose of making an inquiry which he reasonably considers to be necessary either in relation to liability to levy or an obligation to make reductions under section 8 of this Act, may enter premises at any reasonable time and so forth. I believe it should not be up to the inspector to decide whether or not he can enter premises. There should be an objective test as to whether or not it is reasonable for him to have entered a premises at a particular time. I do not think it is enough that he should just think it is a good idea that he should be able to enter the premises. We propose to delete the words "he reasonably considers to be" and leave it that any inspector may for the purpose of making an inquiry enter at any reasonable time any premises and so forth and not leave it up to him to decide whether or not it is reasonable for him to enter the premises. We want it to be that it must be reasonably necessary and not just a matter that he thinks it reasonable.
The section says that an inspector must have reasonable grounds for believing it to be necessary before he can enter premises. He is precluded from acting unreasonably and any person who deems him to have acted in an unreasonable manner can have recourse to redress. The amendment says that it must be established that it is necessary for the purposes of making an inquiry and so forth before the inspector may enter premises.
There are two points about this. The first is that the amendment would remove the constraint imposed by the word "reasonably" in the text of the Bill. Secondly, if that were to be removed who then would decide that something is necessary? The most likely person to do it in the normal course is the inspector on the spot anyway and he will always have to stand over his actions in the event of complaint. The inspectors and authorised officers involved here, are, of course, officers of the Minister for Agriculture. They have constant and, invariably, an extremely co-operative relationship with factories, creameries and other firms that they deal with regularly. There has never been a suggestion that they act unreasonably. For that reason, I must reject the amendment.
I can see some reason for what the Minister says.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 9, line 39, to delete "or".
This is to remove an anomaly which exists in the Bill whereby the search powers of inspectors seem to be capable of being used for almost any purpose. The section states that he may remove 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". It seems to me that it is possible to interpret this section as enabling an inspector to remove documents from a registered premises for any purpose, indeed for a purpose quite unrelated to the levy. Will the Minister state if my understanding of the section is incorrect?
This amendment would limit the facility to remove records for examination to cases where proceedings are being taken for recovery of levy. This does not make good sense. It suggests that one will know beforehand that a decision to take proceedings will already be taken before the records are examined and this is not a practical proposition. It is necessary to have the facility to examine records so that the statutory obligation to collect the full and proper amount can be discharged. It is only as a result of routine examination that some question of non-payment or underpayment will arise. Even in the majority of those cases it is most unlikely that any question of proceedings would ever arise, but clearly it can only be after the records are examined in detail that the question of proceedings can be even considered never mind actually decided upon.
My objection is to the possibility that they could be removed, at least in theory, for purposes quite unrelated even to liability for levy. I can see the Minister's point that the records would have to be first examined before proceedings were undertaken. If the Minister were to insert after "examination" in line 39 the following words, "for their examination in relation to liability to levy or for the purpose of any proceedings for the recovery of levy" it might make it clearer that the records are not to be removed for examination just for any purpose.
I understand that is covered in line 30.
Line 30 seems to relate to power to enter the premises. Does it also confine his exercise of the power to remove documents?
It governs the whole section.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 9, after line 2, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(5) No inspector may enter any premises unless he has been issued with a search warrant specifying the premises to be inspected and the purpose of the inspection by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. Such warrant shall be introducted by the inspector to any person affected by it on request.".
This requires that where an inspector is going to exercise these search powers he must have a search warrant specifying where he will inspect and it must be signed by the chairman of the Revenue Commissioners. The search warrant must be produced. At present, once a man is appointed an inspector, it seems under this Bill he will be entitled to go into any premises at any time without getting any specific warrant in relation to the premises he is entering. If the Garda Siochana want to search in relation to a criminal offence they must get a specific warrant in relation to a premises, and they are pursuing potential criminals whereas in this case the people concerned are not criminals—in fact, they may have paid too much levy or not enough levy. The Revenue Commissioners are being given powers to enter premises that the Garda Siochána do not have. I should like to see the amendment accepted in order to restrain inspectors from going anywhere they like without getting specific clearance from the Revenue Commissioners that entering a particular premises is necessary.
The amendment merely introduces the Revenue Commissioners into a section of the Bill where they have no function at all. It seems to me the amendment is ill-conceived. The section relates to officers of the Minister for Agriculture. They are exercising similar functions on a day-to-day basis under other statutes and are doing so without abusing their functions or responsibilities. I consider the amendment unnecessary and I am afraid I cannot accept it.
Would it be accepted if I substituted that the search warrant would be signed by the Minister for Agriculture?
Is it not the case that once an inspector is appointed he can walk into any premises without getting any clearance? In the best of organisations there will be bad eggs. There will be officers who will try to bully people, who will have likes and dislikes.
He must act in a reasonable manner.
He can victimise one person. He can keep entering his premises every week and ignore other premises, whereas if he had to get clearance from the Minister before he entered any premises it would prevent him from victimising one person while ignoring others. At the moment he has carte blanche to go into any premises. The Minister says he has to act reasonably, but the question of reasonableness will only be tested in the event of a court case subsequently arising. Unless the people took a civil action against him there would be no way of preventing an inspector from abusing his powers.
I do not think there is any danger here. It would be a very isolated incident if someone were to hound a factory owner or somebody like that. Even in such circumstances the person involved would have the right to appeal to the Minister, as I am sure he would do in most cases.
I still think that the issue of a search warrant would be a valuable safeguard.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 12 agreed to.
Sections 13 to 16, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 17.
Question proposed: "That section 17 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister say something about this section?
This provides for the prosecution of an offence under the Disease of Animals Act, 1966, or under this Bill within a period of up to two years after the offence was committed. The time for prosecution would otherwise be limited to six months. In effect, it is extending the time from six months to two years.
Is it common to have two years rather than six months? Would it not be better to amend the Petty Sessions Act generally rather than seeking certain derogations from it in respect of individual offences?
I understand that the time has been extended in other areas also.
This is more a matter for the Minister for Justice but it seems odd to leave section 10 (4) of the Petty Sessions Act on the Statute book and then begin taking from it individual offences. It would be better to amend the Petty Sessions Act.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 18.
Question proposed: "That section 18 stand part of the Bill."
I am not happy with this section. I take it that regulations under section 8 in relation to reductions in price would be made under section 18.
I contend that regulations being made under section 8 should have to be approved by this House in line with the same procedure as will apply under section 2 in relation to increases in levies. Regulations made under section 18 and in so far as section 8 is concerned should be laid first before the House for approval and not merely laid before the House and capable of being annulled within 21 days.
There is not much that I can add to the section. The purpose of the section is to enable the Minister to make regulations on any matter to be prescribed under the Bill. This is the usual provision in any Act.
In view of the controversy about section 8 perhaps the Minister would be wise in his own interest as well as in the interest of all others concerned, to reconsider, between now and Report Stage, the possibility of exempting orders made under section 8 from this section and to require that such orders be laid before the House. Much of the fear that farmers have in this regard would be allayed if they could be assured that there would be provision for a debate in the House before any regime of price reduction would take effect.
We have discussed that already.
That is so but the Minister might be wise to consider it again.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Amendment No. 20 not moved.
Section agreed to.
Section 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
Question proposed: "That section 22 stand part of the Bill."
The proposed increase in the penalties here is welcome. It is necessary to bring these penalties up to date.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Question proposed: "That section 23 stand part of the Bill."
What we have here is retrospective legislation. Subsection (1) reads that:
Anything done pursuant to an order made by the Minister in exercise of the powers conferred on him ... shall not be questioned in any legal proceedings on the grounds that there was not made by the Minister in relation to an area to which the order applies a declaration by him either declaring the area to be an attested area or declaring the area to be an attested or disease-free area.
In a court case not very long ago there were challenged certain penalties sought to be imposed by the Minister on a herd owner. The penalties were challenged on the grounds that the Minister had not made, in relation to a particular area, a declaration that he was required by law to make. What the Minister is saying now in effect is, "It does not matter. I need not have made the order and any prosecution that I might like to bring about something that happened, though I had not made the order at the time and though legally at the time those offences were not capable of being prosecuted because the order had not been made, shall be capable of being prosecuted." now after the event I am saying that they shall be capable of being prosecuted." This is retroactive legislation. It is rendering criminal after the event something which technically at least at the time was not a criminal offence because the order had not been made.
On Second Stage the Minister referred to the section by saying that some vague doubts had been expressed about the validity of certain actions taken and that section 23 was designed to clear up those doubts. However, the Minister did not specify what those doubts were and neither did he specify them when he was replying to the Bill though I had asked him specifically to state the grounds for introducing the section. It is most unusual that retrospective legislation is introduced to render criminal something which at the time of the act was not technically criminal. I trust that the Minister of State will be more frank than was his superior, that he will tell us why the section is necessary. This is not the sort of legislation that should be brought before the House. It indicates that there was bungling somewhere by somebody and that should not happen.
The 1965 Order which was challenged was revoked in toto and replaced on 18 September 1978 by the Bovine Tuberculosis Attestation of State and General Provisions Order, 1978. The situation had been rectified with effect from that date. The purpose of the saver in section 23 of this Bill is to eliminate the possibility of any further legal questioning of any action taken by or on behalf of the Minister pursuant to the 1965 Order.
Is it not unfair to be rendering criminal now by way of a later enactment a situation that was not criminal at the time?
I do not think that applies.
As the order was not made then, there was not a criminal offence but we are proposing here that it would be a criminal offence.
The courts did not decide that the order was invalid.
They found in favour of the Minister.
What is the need for the section then?
Apparently during the proceedings there were some doubts cast on the order.
Were those doubts not sustained? What had the judge to say?
He did not pronounce on them at all.
Surely the Minister should have specified what the doubts were in order to justify retrospective legislation of this kind.
I do not think it would be in order to go into the particulars of the court case or cases.
We have done it before. The Minister should have been able to give us more information than he has given us.
It is not agreed because of lack of information.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 24.
Question proposed: "That section 24 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister explain why he is repealing section 48 (3) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966?
This section repeals section 48 (3) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, which prescribes penalties for repeating an offence under section 48 (1) of the Act within 12 months of being convicted of a similar offence. These penalties were more severe than those prescribed for a first offence. The penalties now provided for in section 22 of the Bill will apply in such cases. As these are still heavier than any of the penalties in the 1966 Act, there is no need to retain section 48 (3).
There will still be no extra penalty for a second offence?
Would the Minister not think it is a sound principle that for a second offence there should be a higher penalty? Notwithstanding the fact that the general level of penalties has been raised, there should still be the possibility of a higher penalty for a second offence.
In my opinion the new penalties are severe enough.
I do not agree. There should always be a higher penalty for a second offence. A man who goes on repeatedly breaking the law should suffer more than a man who is caught once.
He would probably eventually finish up in jail.
He might save money by going to jail.
Question put and declared carried.
SECTION 25.
I move amendment No. 21:
In page 11, after line 39, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(4) Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 16 of this Act shall cease to have effect on such day as the Minister declares under section 19 (b) of the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, that the entire area of the state is a disease free area in respect of the diseases of bovine brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis."
The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the levy shall no longer be collected or be capable of being collected once the two bovine diseases, TB and brucellosis have been eradicated and the Minister has made an order to that effect under section 19 (b) of the Diseases of Animals Act. It would be completely unreasonable if it were possible, as it is now legally under the Bill, for the Minister to continue to collect this levy which is for the purpose of financing the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis if those two diseases had been eradicated. I should like the Minister to accept this amendment. He seemed to imply that it is not intended to continue collecting it after the diseases have been eradicated. If so, he should have no objection to accepting amendment No. 21.
The amendment is based on a misleading assumption, namely, that State expenditure will cease whenever a declaration is made under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, that the country is a disease free area in respect of bovine TB and brucellosis. This would not be the case at all. In fact, the country is already declared to be an attested or disease-free area. That is the precise wording in the 1978 TB Order so far as bovine TB is concerned. This does not mean we are absolutely and totally clear of bovine TB. Far from it. It means only that a particular stage has been reached in the progress towards its total eradication. Of course, even long after it is possible to declare the country free of both diseases, which is still some time away, there will still have to be regular testing of the national herd and removal of reactors. Care must be taken to ensure that any residue of disease does not get out of control and flare up again. We know from past experience how easily that can happen.
In Britain, for example, where the incidence of bovine TB is only a tiny fraction of ours, routine testing still goes on. Another aspect to be borne in mind is that in future we are almost certain to have to meet EEC standards of official freedom from disease, so that a purely domestic declaration will not carry a lot of weight. I am afraid, therefore, the amendment is unrealistic and I must reject it.
The Minister said that even after the country has become officially disease-free expenditure will be necessary. Will he give a guarantee that, in the event of the incidence falling significantly, and expenditure falling significantly and in real terms below its present level, the rate of the levy will be reduced in line with that reduced expenditure?
I cannot give a specific guarantee, but I am sure that if the incidence of the disease were reduced to that extent the question of reducing or abolishing the levy would be taken into consideration. We are a long way from that.
I should like to see a statutory guarantee written into the Bill that, in the event of expenditure falling and the incidence of the disease falling, automatically the Minister would be required by law to reduce the levy. I press that strongly on the Minister and I intend to introduce an amendment to that effect on Report Stage.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 25 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 17 July 1979.
