Before Question Time I went through a number of sections and asked a number of questions about the Bill but there is another point I want clarified. It relates to the question mark over the legality in EC terms of a statutorily imposed levy in order to encourage and assist in the production and marketing of horticultural products. I wonder about the overall position with regard to EC law. It is another aspect of the proposal that has not been thought out and which was not dealt with in the Minister's address to the House.
The Minister envisages the transfer of property to the board. What property has he in mind? Is it intended that the agricultural colleges owned by the Department of Agriculture and Food will be transferred to the board, or are other properties involved? The House is entitled to know the proposals on this.
I had grave reservations about the setting up of ACOT. The ratepayers provided fine offices for the staff of ACOT and Teagasc and within a short space of time, with the introduction of a Bill here, all of those offices were taken over free gratis and for nothing by the new board.
I have referred already to my fear that the functions of this new board will overlap those of existing agencies such as CTT and Teagasc. The functions of the new board are covered in some detail in sections 5 and 6 of the Bill. Bearing in mind that we are talking about a party and Government who over the past two and a half years have been impressing on us the importance of rationalisation, thereby effecting savings, and the enormous amounts of money involved in redundancy and early retirement payments to public servants, I find it hard to believe that they are now setting up another puppet, another agency, whose functions will overlap or duplicate those already in existence.
I should like to know from the Minister whether the provisions of section 8 (2) remove all responsibility from Teagasc for the horticultural industry. In the course of talks and negotiations at one point the Minister inferred that Teagasc would be foremost in organising and developing the horticultural industry. Yet a decision was taken at Government level — whether by the Taoiseach or somebody else — to establish this new Bord Glas so that Teagasc will no longer be actively involved in this area. I should like the Minister to state what is the exact position in that regard.
The provisions of section 9 provide that the board may consult other persons but, of course, there is no obligation on such persons to pay any attention to the wishes of the board. What other people has the Minister in mind with a view to such consultations? What consultation will take place? If there is no such consultation will the board go ahead and do their own thing since it would appear that is what will happen anyway? I should like to ascertain the exact position in this regard also. For example, will Bord Glas have any role to play in the disbursement of EC moneys? Furthermore, is it intended that the board will be responsible for the interests of growers they represent with regard to their aspirations to develop and/or seek grants? I predict that will lead to somebody in the Department of Agriculture and Food telephoning a counterpart in the EC daily—as happens now — with somebody else in Bord Glas performing the same task. I have already referred to the soft sell. Certainly Bord Glas personnel who have been operating in the field over the past year or so have been contending that there are extra grants, of 66.5 per cent or whatever, available to get growers' proposals up and running. They have been contending that they will be in touch with growers in an endeavour to help them to the maximum extent. It would appear that this is a soft sell to a small percentage of growers with whom Bord Glas have been in contact. I have no doubt but that there will be abundant overlapping here. I do hope the Minister will answer my queries when replying.
With regard to section 11 would the Minister say what are the services for which charges are to be imposed, what will be the rates of such charges and on whom is it envisaged they will be levied? There was no reference in the course of the Minister's introductory remarks to the amounts of such charges. Indeed he contended that it would be wrong to speculate on their amount. Surely the industry should be informed of what charges will be imposed on them henceforth. We are all aware of many producers having gone out of business on account of having made little profits or whatever over the years. I hope the House will be given some additional information in this respect.
Neither is it clear from a reading of the provisions of section 7 whether it is proposed to give the new board power to impose charges for services on people who do not use those services. If one relates this to another area in which there are charges for services rendered recently we find there was a court case when somebody in the Minister's own constituency brought a local authority to court. The particular appellant had not used the relevant service. The court ruled that he did not have to pay for the service even though he had been compelled to do so for the same service over several years. Is it maintained, with regard to the provisions of this section, that somebody who does not use the services, such as, say, a producer, will have to pay? This is such a grey area these matters will have to be thrashed out thoroughly. The Minister has not given the House any idea of what will happen in such circumstances.
With regard to section 12 (1) who will be empowered to collect the levies to be imposed? Will those levies be compulsory on all sections of the industry, including those people who sell produce in, say, Moore Street, to whom I referred earlier? Is the Minister satisfied that the provisions of this and other sections are in accordance with the Treaty of Rome? Are we within our rights in that regard? Will there be similar levies imposed on imported goods? Can anybody tell us? Will the importer have to pay? Will there be a levy imposed on Irish goods for export? If that were to be the case it would render us less competitive vis-à-vis our produce on foreign markets. There is an enormous number of questions needing to be answered. Therefore, we must ask if Members of this House, other than the relevant spokespersons, are aware of the seriousness of the proposals involved here.
In regard to the provisions of section 12 (2) one may well ask whether producers, importers and wholesalers will be liable equally for such levies. Indeed will retailers be liable for levies? Also will street or roadside traders or hawkers be liable for such payments? Will levies be imposed at the point of entry? If we are to have a coherent policy with regard to such levies, are we talking about every pound of every vegetable sold in this State being liable to the same type of levy? Or indeed is it proposed that there will be levies imposed at the point of production? For example, how does the Minister envisage that a second or subsequent seller will not be responsible for the type of levies incurred by the first seller? Does the Minister agree that ultimately it is the consumer who bears the brunt of such levies? At the end of the day we must remember that, no matter which area one talks about, whenever a levy is imposed on any produce or commodity, it leads to an increased price to be paid by the consumer. It can have no other outcome than lead to increased inflation. If we are realistic about the imposition of levies on products equally we realise that is the inevitable result.
In regard to section 12 (4), we have not been informed of the rates involved. Will all the people I have mentioned who are involved in the horticultural industry be charged different rates? If a particular levy is imposed will it refer only to Irish products or will it refer to all products? The large supermarket chains and shops selling a majority of imported products can increase their prices to the same level as those of the Irish products thereby making extra money out of this proposal. There are many grey areas in these proposals and I am sorry to say that none of them has been dealt with in the Minister's address today. Will any person be exempt from the obligation of paying levies? At present no one knows but within three, five or six months after the setting up of this board, we will all know. There will probably be a 2 per cent increase in the rate of inflation because of these proposals.
I would like to refer to the authorised officers. What powers will they have? Will they be akin to the sheriff or the customs and excise personnel? That is another very important aspect of the proposal that I believe Members should be aware of before we vote on this Bill. The Minister did not refer in his speech to the actual position and I regret having to say that what we are proposing here will result in new types of criminals — horticultural criminals.
Section 15 relates to the employment of a chief executive officer. If this proposal is accepted I would like to think the chief executive officer would be employed on a contract basis outside the scope of public service pay regulations. If we are in earnest about developing a board to run, improve and develop the horticultural industry, is the Minister seriously suggesting that someone on a salary of £24,000 per annum should run such an important enterprise as the Government have proposed? In the last two and a half years some of our best civil servants have been paid twice that amount to leave the system. Are we in earnest when we propose somebody of this grade for such a worthwhile job, somebody who should be dynamic and should lead the field?