I move amendment No. 1:
In page 3, lines 1 to 9, to delete subsections (2) and (3).
Milk (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, 1979: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
It must be assumed that the aim of the amendment is to prevent any increase in the rate of fee but as the Bill does not provide for an increase in the fee and if an increase became essential, an amending Act would have to be prepared. It is sensible to provide for a variation in fee, either upwards or downwards as the circumstances warrant. Any fear that the fee may be increased without good reason can best be considered against the background that the fee proposed is to replace one that has been left unchanged since 1941. That was the butter fee as provided for in the Dairy Produce Act, 1941. In the circumstances I must reject the amendment.
If the provision as proposed in the Bill is not amended the Minister will be empowered to increase the fee by regulation at any time and without having to seek the approval of the House. That is not correct procedure. My amendment would ensure that a regulation to increase the fee would not come into effect until such time as the increase has been approved by way of regulation in this House. That is the procedure being adopted in relation to any increase in the bovine diseases levy and it should be adopted in this instance also.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 3 stand part of the Bill."
This is yet another levy being imposed on the farming community and it contains all the objectionable features that are inherent in any of the other levies being imposed. The levy is payable regardless of ability to pay and regardless of whether one is a taxable person. It will act as a disincentive so far as increased production is concerned.
In addition the levy can be increased at any time to whatever amount the Government may wish without having regard to the expenses in respect of which the levy is being imposed. The Minister has just now refused to accept an amendment whereby the approval of this House would be sought in respect of any increase in these fees. Consequently, there will not be the means whereby any abuse of powers in regard to increasing the fees could be checked here. The Minister has chosen to change the fee at any time by way of regulation or, as one might say, to change it behind closed doors. This is yet another objectionable feature of this section and of this Bill.
I will be very brief. I said that the fee already in operation was fixed under the Dairy Produce (Amendment) Act, 1941. It has never been changed since then, although the services provided have been significantly increased in the meantime. The current fee brings in approximately £14,000 per annum, whereas it is estimated that the cost of the inspection service in 1979 will amount to about £900,000. It can be seen from that, that there is a need for an increase in this fee for the services being provided. As I said, it has never been changed since 1941, and there cannot be any real grouse at the increase sought at this stage.
Question put and declared carried.
Section 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, subsection (2), lines 38 to 42, to delete paragraph (b).
This section gives power to the Minister to have one of his authorised officers enter premises to search those premises for records of milk supplied and so on. In order to make it quite clear that these powers, which are extensive, will be used only for the purposes of this Bill, I am proposing an amendment to the effect that the powers conferred by the section shall be used for no other purpose than the collection of fees prescribed in section 3. This is an amendment to section 6.
It is shown here as an amendment to section 5.
I am sorry.
The purpose of this section is to facilitate court proceedings for the recovery of unpaid fees by obviating the necessity for authorised officers to attend in person. The production of the certificate itself will suffice as evidence that the fees were unpaid. This type of provision is not unusual in legislation of this kind. I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 4, after line 16, to add a new subsection as follows:
"(5) The powers conferred by this section shall be used for no other purpose than that of securing the collection of the fees prescribed in section 3 of this Act.".
This amendment provides that the extensive powers for inspection of premises given under this Bill shall be used for no other purpose than the purposes of this Bill in relation to the levy. I do not want to see these powers being used to obtain information in relation to income tax liability of farmers, which is one possible way in which they could be used. I should like an assurance from the Minister that the powers will be used for that purpose only, and that he will accept the amendment.
This subsection is not necessary because the powers conferred by section 6 (1) on authorised officers relate only to inspection of records under section 4 (1) for the purpose of the collection of fees under the Bill.
Section 4 provides that certain records must be kept. Those records could be inspected for any number of different purposes. They might be inspected for the purposes of the Act and they might also be inspected for the purpose of determining income tax liability. Is it possible to have them inspected for that purpose? The Minister will realise that there is some discussion on this.
No; it would not be possible for them to be used for any other purpose.
Information obtained by officers for this purpose would not be passed on to other officers for other purposes?
No. This is the information I got from the legal people.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 4, before section 8, to insert a new section as follows:
"8.—Moneys paid to the Minister in pursuance of any provision of this Act shall be paid into a fund which shall be used solely for the purpose of promoting hygiene and efficiency in production for sale of milk and milk products. A report of the use of this fund shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas each year.".
The purpose of this levy which is being charged is, broadly speaking, the purpose in my amendment. In order to prevent the Minister raising more money than is necessary under this levy to fulfil those purposes, and using the surplus for other general revenue purposes, in other words, turning this levy into a means of collecting general taxation, we are proposing that the fees should be paid into a separate fund which could be used only to promote hygiene and efficiency in the production for sale of milk and milk products. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment on those grounds.
The amendment misinterprets the purpose of the fee. That purpose is to recover the cost of an existing inspection service. To make the validity of the demand for the fee dependent on an imprecise statement like "promoting hygiene and efficiency" would serve no purpose and would make collection impracticable. As it is intended to keep the cost of inspection under review in the context of the amount collected by way of fees each year, the need for the setting up of a special fund as proposed in the amendment does not arise. As drafted, the Bill enables the State to collect the cost of inspection. This is a straight-forward matter which I believe should not be complicated in the way recommended by Deputy Bruton.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 8 to 14, inclusive, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Next Stage?
Next Tuesday.
Why not take it now? The Seanad are short of work.
It will not take too long. Next Tuesday.
Report Stage ordered for Tuesday, 17 July 1979.