Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 3 Mar 1981

Vol. 327 No. 4

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1981: Motion.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. MacSharry)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Regulations in draft:

Bovine Diseases (Levies) Regulations, 1981,

a copy of which was laid before the Dáil on the 20th day of February, 1981.

In implementation of the announcement made by the Minister for Finance in his Budget Statement on 28 January 1981 these regulations suspend in full as from 1 February 1981 the bovine disease levies payable in respect of milk and bovine animals. These levies amount to ½p per gallon of milk and £3 per bovine animal slaughtered or exported live and in a full year total about £10 million. The suspension increases the prices payable to farmers for milk and cattle by these amounts and so affords relief to them in the income difficulties being experienced at present.

State expenditure on the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis in the current year is estimated to come close to £26 million. This is a very sizeable amount and can only be justified if it results in a substantial reduction in the level of disease as compared with 1980. I am hoping that the present suspension of the levies will be an added stimulus to full farmer co-operation in our eradication programme. Such continued co-operation is vital if we are to achieve in the shortest possible time our goal of total eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis and so ensure continuance of our exports of livestock and livestock products in the future.

Mr. Bruton

In the absence of Deputy D'Arcy, our spokesman, who has left for Brussels, I am dealing with this motion on behalf of the Fine Gael Party.

This motion temporarily suspends the collection of the bovine diseases levy. Only two months ago we introduced a motion, supported by Deputy Bermingham, spokesman for the Labour Party, calling on the Minister to abolish among other things the diseases levy. Led by the present Minister, the Fianna Fáil Party voted those proposals down. They voted against a motion which would have allowed fuller discussion on this in the form of a Bill. The bovine diseases levy was introduced in 1979 when it was patently obvious to anyone studying agricultural trends that agriculture was already heading into a recession. The Government persisted in introducing this levy against strong opposition from this side of the House. The Government now see how wrong they were and are trying, before the general election, to backtrack on what they did. It is clear from the announcement about this in the budget that this suspension is temporary. The Government said that this question in common with the other concessions made in relation to rates would be reviewed at the end of this year. This suggests that the Government intend to hold these items in suspension until after the general election in the hope that they might be elected, and then they would reimpose the levy. If this is not their intention they would have suspended the levy for a longer period. Anyone in the industry can see that the conditions existing in agriculture will not disappear in the next nine months but will continue for quite some time. The Government statement that this measure is for one year suggests that their motives are insincere.

When this was originally introduced I said that it was a wrong type of tax, a tax on production which discouraged further production. Even if we are only getting rid of something which is highly objectionable in the first place, for one year, I must welcome the motion but I doubt the Government's sincerity in the matter. It is designed to overcome an immediate electoral prospect for the Government who have no intention of radically changing their ways on a permanent basis.

Mr. Bermingham

We opposed these levies when they were first introduced. The then Minister, Deputy Gibbons, said all the things that were necessary for him to say in imposing this levy. It was imposed as recently as 1979 and it must have been evident if any detailed examination had been done on the position of the agricultural community that it was the wrong thing to do. I welcome the withdrawal of the imposition but I find it hard to reconcile all the arguments that Fianna Fáil produced at that time with their present position. That original levy was debated at length in the House and I debated it with the former Minister who said things that I do not want to repeat which led me to believe that he brought it in against his own better judgment. It was a measure imposed on him by members of Fianna Fáil who did not see the agricultural position as clearly as he did. I am glad there has now been a conversion.

It was unjust because it was not related to income. The small farmer had to contribute to the levy the same as those farmers who had a lot of cattle. It is necessary to help those in the agricultural industry now because it gives employment to about 45 per cent of the population. It is important to have a viable industry. I do not believe that the Government are any different now from what they were in Deputy Gibbons' time. The fact that after two years they come along and backtrack on this shows the level of examination and research that was done when the levy was first imposed. This is the way the Government have been carrying on in general — covering up mistakes and doing the opposite to what they said they would do two years ago. If I were a Minister on those benches I would be ashamed to come back and placidly contradict everything that was said on this issue. I would be ashamed to do such an about turn and say there is now no justification for it. The problems facing the industry were evident at that time and should have been more so to a Minister with the back-up of the Department and An Foras Talúntais.

At that time we stated the problems and the prospects for agriculture and repeatedly asked the Government not to impose this levy. Now the Government are saying they will do away with the levy on account of the bad state of agriculture. I am glad they now see the futility of imposing the levy and have been brought to that realisation by the stark facts of the state of agriculture. It was wrong to introduce the levy in the first instance. It was not related to income and hit small farmers harder than big farmers. I opposed it at the time. Despite Fianna Fáil's late conversion to our point of view, I welcome it.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The motion which we are discussing, taken in conjunction with the Minister's budget speech, indicates that the Government propose rescinding the levies in respect of disease eradication for one year. That is what the resolution means. I know that the machinery adopted in the amendment of the regulations is to reduce the levy in respect of slaughtered animals to nil and reduce the levy on milk to nil. However, one must bear in mind the budget speech when it was clearly stated that it was proposed to do this for one year. The Minister's amendment of the regulations is wide enough to continue it indefinitely and I should like an assurance that this or a similar levy will not be re-imposed. To the extent that it removes these levies for one year and indicates that the Government have had their sanity restored it is welcome.

The greatest trouble with the agricultural industry for the last two or three years has been that farmers have lost confidence in the future of the industry. They are not prepared to spend money or to invest. It is this kind of stop-go Government policy that has been the direct cause of this. This is only one of many levies introduced by the Government since they came to office. They introduced the 2 per cent levy, which was by far the most iniquitous, undesirable and foolish tax ever imposed. It was only introduced when the Government started to wobble about it and in a few weeks they undertook to remove it. The same thing can be said of the resource tax.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is getting away from the motion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I am talking about agriculture.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will deal with the suspension of the particular levies in the motion.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I will. I am dealing with Government policy regarding this levy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy can only do so in regard to the motion before the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): Surely I am entitled to adduce arguments by referring to other things. If I am not, it means that all people coming into the House gets a pair of blinkers and looks straight ahead of them. It would reduce intelligent argument to a farce. I agree that if I were to spend half an hour talking about the resource tax the Chair would be right to say I was going far off the mark.

Like this tax, the resource tax was a foolish and crazy tax that had no regard to the capacity of the farmer to pay. It was introduced and is now being run away from, but not before farmers will be asked to pay £6 million in arrears. We have the bovine levy for the eradication of disease. Bovine disease is being eradicated, and rightly so in the national interest. The cost of doing so should be borne by the Exchequer and not by any one sector of the community. That is why this levy should never have been introduced.

Agriculture plays a very big part in our economy. It would be crazy and very wrong not to take steps not to eradicate disease in the national herd. Bovine disease is also being eradicated in the interests of human beings. I always thought that it should be eradicated at the cost of the nation and not at the cost of any section of the nation. The Government adopt this stop-go attitude in regard to farmer taxation and farming levies, and the agricultural sector do not know where they stand. That crazy Government spent 1978, 1979 and 1980 in removing the agricultural relief grant and they drove the rates on agricultural land sky high. Now when they see the folly of their way, they scrap that.

How can any industry have any confidence in a Government who do not appear to know where they are going from month to month in regard to agricultural policy, agricultural taxation and the financing of agricultural schemes? In so far as this resolution removes these levies for 11 months, or whatever it is, I welcome it. I should like an assurance from the Minister that that is the end of it, and that we will hear no more about this levy or this type of levy. It is bad for agriculture. It is bad for confidence in agriculture, and it is not good for the country.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. MacSharry)

I want to thank Deputies opposite who welcomed this regulation. There were not many specific comments which need a reply. When these levies were introduced or imposed, farmers' incomes were in a much healthier state than they are at present. Because of the difficulties in relation to farmers' incomes the Government have taken certain measures, this being one of them, to assist them. There have been arguments as to whether this is for one year only. The Minister for Finance said and the Government mean that the matter will be reviewed at the end of the year in the light of the prevailing conditions. I want to inform the House that, in the event of the Government deciding to reimpose such levies in future, it will be necessary to introduce legislation and have it approved here and in the Seanad.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister can amend the regulation and he knows that.

Mr. MacSharry

I am telling the Deputy what the position is. I want to be quite clear and frank about it. Legislation will be required. We felt it necessary to do certain things and this is one in a package of measures which the Government have undertaken since last September to assist the agricultural community. This will give added confidence to the agricultural sector. In the period when the levy was in operation, the progress made in disease eradication was phenomenal. The incidence is almost three times less than it was in 1977. That is tremendous progress. All Deputies would like to see a continuation of that. We must get these disease levels down.

I replied to a question today about various impositions and 30-day tests. It is important that we should recognise that some hardships are involved. Not only is this in the national interest, but it is also in the interest of individual farmers to rid the country of these two terrible diseases. Notwithstanding the fact that the Exchequer will now bear the full cost of these measures, I hope the farmers — and I am sure they will — will continue to co-operate in the way they have done over the years, and continue to make progress in the eradication of these diseases.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): What exactly does the Minister mean when he says legislation will be necessary? Presumably the Act contains machinery for amending the regulations. The Minister has amended them by a reduction of the levies to zero. Surely under the same machinery he could amend them again by substituting some other figure for zero.

Mr. MacSharry

An order has to be approved by the House.

Mr. T.J. Fitzpatrick

(Cavan-Monaghan): I thank the Minister. I am glad I asked that question. An order like this is very far from legislation.

Question put and agreed to.