Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill, 1979: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Hussey)

The Bill has a number of separate provisions, each of which is related to the programme for the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis from the national cattle herd.

The eradication of these diseases is possibly the most urgent problem facing the Irish livestock industry today. We have for some time now been operating on the basis of derogations from the EEC's rules on animal disease, especially as they apply to intra-Community trade in bovine animals. These derogations have afforded us some borrowed time—but this is rapidly running out. Currently the derogations are valid only to the end of the present year and the position after that is uncertain. As well as that, the Community has drawn up rules relating to trade in liquid milk and these are likely to foreshadow similar rules relating to trade in manufactured dairy products.

If all these measures are applied in full before we have our disease levels down to acceptable EEC standards the effect on this country's export trade in cattle, beef and dairy products could well be disastrous. When we talk about the urgency of eradicating disease, therefore, what we mean is that the future of the farming industry is at stake.

That is one part of the background against which this Bill must be looked at. The other part is the time and expenditure which have already gone into disease eradication. We are 25 years endeavouring to eradicate bovine TB and no one can be satisfied with the progress we have made—bearing in mind that in the 1979 round of testing one herd in 25 was found to be infected with bovine TB. The campaign to eradicate bovine TB and brucellosis from our herds has already cost the State about £130 million. Even in historical terms that is a huge sum. Translated into present-day values it represents an enormous amount of money.

The first of the main provisions in the Bill is for payment of a levy on all milk supplied for processing and on all cattle slaughtered in the country or exported live. This is designed to implement the Government's decision announced in the Programme for National Development last January that farmers should in future make a direct contribution to the costs of disease eradication. The rates of levy, 0.5p per gallon of milk and £3 per animal slaughtered or exported, will amount to a farmer contribution of £10 million in a full year. This compares with an estimated expenditure of £22 million on disease eradication this year—but the level of expenditure must increase over the next few years as full compulsory brucellosis eradication measures are extended to the whole country.

The Bill next contains enabling provisions on the operation of a price differential between milk from disease-free herds and that from infected herds. I have already mentioned EEC proposals to regulate intra-Community trade in liquid milk. These could effectively exclude from trade all milk derived from herds which are infected with disease. Our trading partners are concerned especially with the public health aspects of bovine TB and brucellosis and are therefore strongly suspicious of imported products from countries like ours where the levels of disease are still high.

I would stress again that the provisions relating to the milk price differential are only of an enabling nature. It seems to me that a reduction in the price of milk coming from diseased herds could be an effective way of getting the owners of these herds to make a final determined effort to get rid of disease once and for all. Price reduction in the short term would certainly be a better alternative than the total exclusion from the market, which might in the longer term be in store for suspect milk.

I have no fixed views as to what the amount of any price differential might be or when it should be introduced. I intend to consult the various interests concerned before deciding to avail of the enabling provisions in the Bill.

A third provision in the Bill allows information to be obtained about the ownership or control of lands where cattle are held. It is often impossible to say who is the real owner or user of lands let or rented or to ascertain the ownership and health status of cattle on the lands. This can frustrate the operation of disease control measures and it is necessary therefore to be able to get the relevant information in these cases.

The Bill also proposes to extend to two years, instead of six months, the time limit for taking proceedings for offences under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966. Many of the offences under the disease regulations do not come to light for some time after they occur. For example, the illegal movement of animals might be disclosed only several months later in the course of a routine herd test. Other apparent breaches of the regulations require detailed and painstaking investigations over a period of time. There have been many cases where the six month time limit has prevented prosecutions being taken.

The Bill also provides for substantially higher penalties for offences under the Diseases of Animals Act. There has been widespread criticism of the present maximum penalty of £100 for summary conviction as being entirely too low by today's standards. This is being increased to £500 and in the case of conviction on indictment there will be a maximum fine of £2,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years for offences such as tag-switching or falsifying certificates. Abuse of the disease control regulations has been all too common in the past. Although the abuses may have been perpetrated only by an unscrupulous minority of those involved with cattle, that minority can do untold damage. They have no concern for the damage they might do to the majority or for the future security of the industry from which they make a living.

The penalties now provided for in this Bill are aimed at tag-switchers and other miscreants who continue to flout the regulations and who must realise that time is about to catch up with them. The majority of farmers, together with the genuine cattle traders and the meat processing interests, already realise that the operations of these criminal elements are detrimental to the best interests of the livestock industry. I expect, therefore, that the usual silent majority who want to get on with the job of rooting out disease will become more and more intolerant of those who put their livelihoods at risk. The increased penalties envisaged in this Bill must be seen as an added warning that trafficking in diseased animals will no longer be profitable.

The saver provision in section 24 of the Bill arises from a particular court case. In that case the action at issue was dismissed, so that the court in fact did not decide that any particular orders or actions were invalid or otherwise. However, in the course of the hearing a doubt was raised as to whether a declaration in the Bovine Tuberculosis (Attestation of the State) Order, 1965, to the effect that the State was an area where bovine TB was virtually nonexistent had been properly made. The 1965 order has since been replaced by a comprehensive new order made last September so that any doubt in the matter has been cleared up. The purpose of the saver provision is solely to remove any doubt about the situation that obtained prior to the new order. There are, to my knowledge, no court proceedings in train at present that might be affected or prejudiced by the saver clause.

I have given a brief outline of the main provisions in the Bill. The other sections of the Bill which I have not mentioned relate to keeping and examination of records, the making of returns, the prosecution of offences and so on and they are consequential to those main provisions.

The Bill is a necessary step in the drive to eradicate bovine TB and brucellosis from this country as quickly as possible. The accelerated programme to hasten the achievement of that goal which I launched last September has been well received and is already proving effective but we still have a long way to go before we will be rid of these two diseases. The process of getting rid of them may well be painful for some, but it is a process we must face up to for the benefit of farming in general.

I have no hesitation, therefore, in recommending the Bill to the Seanad.

Mr. Connaughton

First of all, from a party and personal point of view, I want to voice my complete and absolute opposition to this Bill. I do so for a number of reasons. It is a crippling levy. It should not be placed on farmers at a time when the industry is contracting. It is being imposed in a way which allows no escape for anybody, irrespective of whether he is big or small. The Government, from what I can see happening in relation to farming in the last 12 months, are making a dartboard out of farmers and every so often they give them a dart.

This is one of about ten darts that farmers have got so far as taxation is concerned in the last 12 months. There has been a litany of levies. There was the infamous 2 per cent farm commodity tax which was changed several times but finally imposed indiscriminately across the board. Farmers have to pay the co-responsibility levy. Now we have a halfpenny per gallon on all milk sold at farm level irrespective of where it goes and for every animal that is slaughtered there must be paid a levy of £3 whether it is to the butcher, at the factory or for that matter at the point of export but I will be coming back to that in a moment. We will have another Bill before us tomorrow providing that a tenth of a penny goes towards the cost of milk inspection.

Not too long ago before this House we had a Bill to increase vet charges at the factory by nothing less than 200 or 300 per cent. Not too long ago we had the introduction of the 30-day test, not that there was anything particularly wrong with the 30-day test, but farmers had to pay for that test, too. That was nothing to what happened farmers on budget day, particularly in the western areas, The threshold for dole was reduced This resulted in 6,000 farmers becoming ineligible for unemployment assistance. The agricultural grant was removed from farmers with £40 valuation and over. I am asking the Minister at this stage how many more darts will the agricultural industry be able to take?

Most farmers who are genuine in their efforts to develop are asking the question, "Who am I doing it for?" Nobody will deny the importance of the eradication of TB and brucellosis so far as the nation is concerned. The health of the people must come first. But for another reason, too, we must have a disease status second to none so far as our cattle exports to markets around the world are concerned. However, to impose a levy in respect of testing which is inequitable and which certainly militates drastically against small farmers and store cattle producers is certainly not the answer to the problem. I agree totally with the Minister's efforts to nail tag switchers and dodgers in the cattle trade who for their own selfish ends would break all the rules relating to animal health eradication schemes. But why were we not told at the last general election and even in more recent times that such levies would be imposed on the farming community? I certainly did not hear anything about them in the 1977 campaign and every time the Minister comes before either House, it is for the purpose of introducing legislation aimed at getting more money from farmers, regardless of their ability to pay.

It is most important that if the agricultural industry is to grow and prosper there should be a proper tax structure, whereby at the beginning of the year, or indeed for a period of years, farmers would know exactly what they are expected to pay. I have no doubt in the world that any farmer when taxed on the basis of his ability to pay will gladly pay but at the end of 1979 farmers will not forget what this administration have done to them in terms of taxation.

The policy would now seem to be that instead of the overall taxation structure some Government Ministers are always talking about, there is a policy now of snatching finance whenever it seems to be wanted, and in this administration it seems to be wanted every day. The economy has overspent itself.

I should like to point out, too, on a more global note that while farmers will certainly have to carry a fair responsibility and a fair share of the costs for the eradication of animal disease the problem is a national problem. When the Industrial Development Authority are given millions of pounds a year to ensure that our industrial welfare is looked after, nobody asks who actually will pay that. It all comes from the taxpayer in one way or another. We all realise that for the economy to prosper generally, it is absolutely necessary to have a thriving and prosperous agricultural industry.

I am sorry to say today that because of the taxation proposals and policies being pursued by the Government there is no doubt that we are reaching a stage where many farmers are becoming totally disillusioned. As I suggested on the occasion of the implementation of the 30-day test, the day is not far off when every farmer in Ireland will be paying totally for disease eradication. What we are legislating for here is merely the thin end of the wedge and within the next 12 months or two years at most, farmers will be paying the full cost of disease eradication.

It is peculiar also that in the very year that the Minister came back from the price-fixing meeting in Brussels— without almost a single increase— where he had been arguing that the co-responsibility levy should be reduced, he should produce proposals that are much harder on farmers than is the co-responsibility levy. Surely his colleagues in Europe must have now come to the stage where they would say that there is not much point in debating this subject with the Irish Minister for Agriculture because every time he goes home he has a new levy for farmers. The outcome of price-fixing meetings in Brussels in respect of agricultural products was never as bad as it was this year.

Regarding the pricing structure in the Bill, the imposition of a levy of £3 per animal in respect of animals worth £600 or £700 is not particularly crippling but I come from an area where one does not find too many £600 animals. We have a fair share of £250, £300 and £350 store cattle and we have a very good live export trade to Northern Ireland. The situation now will be that at a mart in Galway, Mayo or Roscommon where an animal first of all has to be tested for the 30-day test, the farmer will have to foot the bill which could be anything from £4 to £8, depending on the number of animals and the veterinary surgeon concerned. The farmer pays the mart fee. Then the purchaser of the animal, the exporter, will be required to pay £3 at the Border. The farmer will pay that £3 indirectly. Most animals, at the point of sale, will be costing western farmers between £15 and £20. That is a large fee by any standards. It is most unfair to the small farming population. The ½P per gallon of milk does not take into account the ability of the farmer to pay. A number of fairly big milk producers have committed themselves deeply by borrowing from the banks and they are finding the profit margins quite tight. These are farmers with young families and huge overdrafts. This is another fierce blow to them. There are no limits on this, which I find difficult to understand also.

Another part of the Bill which is very difficult to accept is the section which says that farmers who are identified as having milk from reactor herds will be fined a certain amount of money. This could well be a hammer blow to the people who are unfortunate enough to have disease in their herds. Over the years I have never come across a farmer worth his salt who wanted to have disease in his herd. Farmers do not think that way. There might be a careless farmer in a area. Brucellosis can be brought into a man's land by wandering dogs or even birds, and he will be fined an unspecified amount. I understand an amendment was tabled in the Dáil to the effect that that penalty should not be any more than 1p a gallon, but it was not accepted by the Minister. Reading between the lines it may be that the Minister is thinking about a sum far in excess of 1p. If that is the case, it is even a greater hammer blow.

One of the most disastrous things that can happen to a farmer is to be told by his vet that he has either TB or brucellosis in his herd. As the reactor payments stand at the moment, and having regard to the price of clean cattle, there is no doubt that that man's hardships are only beginning. I shudder to think what would happen to a small dairy farmer with, say, ten, 15 or 20 cows, who is solely dependent on their milk and calves for his income. The normal procedure is to get his animals tagged, killed in the factory and paid for, and then he gets the Government grant. He could be told he will be penalised to the tune of anything up to 3p a gallon on milk sent to the creamery. If that is not bureaucracy gone mad, I do not know what is. I want to put it on record here this evening that if the Government, or any other Government, are interested in clearing the dreaded disease, there are a number of fundamental steps to be taken, and I have yet to see them being taken. The 1979 round of TB and brucellosis testing in County Galway was due to start not later than February-March at the latest. It was into the first week in May before the vets were told they could begin. What type of disease eradication scheme is that? To make matters worse, we had the postal strike—something farmers had nothing to do with either. I am afraid the disease figures will be anything but good in many areas in 1979. There is another problem, and I am surprised nothing has been done about it. It is a well-known fact that many thousands of calves are ferried in lorries from the southern counties to the west every year. They are allowed access to the west. Animals of that type should be tested on their way to the west.

Even now when the factories are working under capacity there is the question of getting reactors to the factory on time. I know about the 30 days provision, but it has often happened that the officials have not come to punch the animals, to identify them among the herd, and get them away from the place to avoid the risk of re-infection. Things which could be done are not being done in the fight against TB and brucellosis. While we are winning to a certain degree, there is still a certain percentage of the dreadful disease around. Let no Minister or Government tell me that the proper way to eradicate TB and brucellosis is to nail the farmer to a cross. Any farmer who ever had these diseases in his herd will know what happens and we should not add to his problems by the provision of a levy, the amount of which is unspecified at the moment.

The moneys collected from this levy do not necessarily have to be earmarked for disease eradication. They will go to the Department of Finance and no guarantee will be given that they will be used for disease eradication. Perhaps the Minister for Finance did not like the idea of another 2 per cent — he is not likely to forget the last one. With the acceleration in the disease eradication programme, in four or five years' time one would expect to have these diseases at a reasonable level. We will never be able to eliminate them altogether. What will happen to the levy at that stage? Will it be discontinued? Could we get an assurance from the Minister that it will operate for three, four or five years only? Could we get an assurance from the Minister that the levy will not be raised substantially in the next four or five years? It will be possible to increase it by ministerial regulation.

Is this the thin end of the wedge? Will it be £3 this year, £5 next year, and £10 the year after? Most farmers are asking those questions at the moment.

Another point worth mentioning is that between 30 and 35 per cent of the milk consumed in this country is unpasteurised. Surely that cannot be good from a human health point of view. The Minister should comment on that situation. Why is the sale of unpasteurised milk allowed when there is no doubt that it affects the health of the people? This tax is the eighth or ninth such one and I believe that we are not finished with taxation. In the next 12 months farmers can look forward to increased taxation in several ways. Whatever else the Minister or the Government might try to tell farmers, let no one tell me that the proper way to eradicate disease is to penalise further ordinary farmers who have the misfortune of having brucellosis in their herds by a lesser price at the creamery for their milk.

The Minister should reconsider this Bill. He should consider the amount of tax already piled on farmers and consider the farmers who are unable to pay. Taxation creates problems for the store cattle producers of the west. He should consider the overall implication for the growth of the agricultural industry, and ensure that we do not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. There is no doubt that, in the best times and in the worst times, if anything goes wrong with agriculture everybody feels the pinch. It is unacceptable to levy the cost of disease eradication programmes on farmers. We must remember that three out of every five persons in this state are employed either in agriculture or industries related to agriculture. If we continue to impose these levies we will become a much poorer nation.

It is no excuse at the moment for the Minister for Finance and the Government to say that the only reason they are doing this is that they have no money. The reason they have not money is that they misused the spending of it in the 1977 and 1978 budgets. There is little use in telling a small farmer in the west that he is only being penalised because the Government of the day have run out of money. At this late stage I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the Bill. Some aspects of the Bill could not be good for agriculture and will create hardship for the unfortunate farmers whose herds are diseased.

Mr. Kitt

I agree with Senator Connaughton in regard to the importance of the elimination of TB and brucellosis from cattle. I should like to know who will pay for the elimination of these dreadful diseases. We know how much money has been spent in eradicating disease and we know of the efforts of the present Minister for Agriculture to deal with these problems. The Minister will have to continue to try to solve these problems because more work has to be done and we only hope that he can do more. I would remind the House that former Ministers have tried to solve this problem and we had not much success under the last Government either. The vets strike delayed the eradication of disease and many farmers, particularly in the west, were very unhappy at the way in which the situation was handled.

Senator Connaughton raised so many political points on this Bill that one would think only one Government were dealing with the eradication of these diseases. One thing we are happy about is that prices for cattle are still good. In 1974 calves were being given away. The industry was very depressed. The then Minister for Agriculture did not introduce a subsidy for farmers, who were expecting him to do so. Senator Connaughton said that farmers will never forget this Fianna Fáil Government. They are more likely to think about the depression in the cattle industry in 1974. As we have a better market structure, I think that the silent majority of farmers the Minister referred to are determined to play their part in eradicating disease in herds, particularly bovine TB and brucellosis. They know that the scheme has to be paid for, that a great deal of taxpayers' money has already been spent on the eradication of disease. These diseases affect humans as well as our national herd.

I am glad that there will be a tightening-up in regard to information on ownership of cattle and in regard to land where cattle are held. It is disappointing that non-farmers are not taking the same interest as farmers in eliminating disease. It is very difficult to find out who owns cattle on land let by the Land Commission. The switching of cards means that diseased cattle have been allowed onto these lands.

The Minister has introduced a provision in the Bill that will allow information to be available in regard to the ownership and control of land. The Land Commission, to their credit, have been more strict since the Minister asked them to allow only male animals onto the land. When there is not sufficient numbers of male animals, I understand that the female animals have to be certified free from disease.

I want to comment on some points raised by Senator Connaughton. He talked about the Government using the farmers as a dart board and referred specifically to the fact that farmers had lost their unemployment assistance. The Government, he said, had run out of money. I would like to point out that in relation to the changes in unemployment assistance for farmers—farmers' dole as it is called — the Government did not save money because there was an overall increase of £250,000 in payments to small farmers. It was the less well-off farmers who got the increases. Some farmers did lose, and I would be the first to admit that, but farmers who are in poor circumstances can have a factual assessment of their means to see if they would be entitled to unemployment assistance.

I do not want to dwell on matters outside the Bill before us. Other speakers may refer to other levies but, as far as I am concerned, this Bill deals with payment for disease eradication. While we all agree that the elimination of TB and brucellosis is imperative, we have to ask where the money will come from. There has been a big investment by the State in disease eradication and genuine farmers will not mind paying a levy of one-halfpenny on a gallon of milk and £3 per animal slaughtered when they know that there is a determined effort by the Minister to get rid of disease once and for all. I support the Minister in his programme. He needs the support of everybody concerned to get rid of these dreadful diseases.

Mr. Butler

I should like to make it quite clear that I, with all Senators in this House, am in favour of the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis. There is no doubt that all Senators and Deputies, irrespective of the side of the House on which they sit, are in favour of the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis. We know it is essential for the state of the nation, as well as for the export of cattle, that we get rid of those two diseases. All over Europe it is known that we have a high rate of brucellosis and bovine TB infection and the laws are now being made very stringent to ensure that we would look into those problems and do something about them. There is do doubt that past Governments, when it was made quite clear the problems those diseases were creating, were concerned to eradicate them.

We, on this side of the House, oppose the levies that are now being introduced to supplement the cost of disease eradication. We also oppose the powers being given to the Revenue Commissioners of access to records kept by the meat factories and meat processing plants. The commissioners will have power to examine each supplier's financial account without the presence of the supplier himself. Those are the two main provisions of this Bill.

I am not a farmer but I work in the dairy industry and I know that this industry is already deeply involved in advising the farmers what to do and in advising them that quality milk and meat are required to get the highest price for our products. We must take seriously the advice we are getting, not alone from the Department of Agriculture, the agricultural advisers and from the veterinary inspectors, but also from the main farming organisations. Help must be given to farmers in some way or other to assist them to get rid of those diseases. The help being proposed by this Bill is a levy of 0.5p on every gallon of milk supplied for processing. That is the encouragement being given to farmers to get rid of cattle infected with brucellosis and bovine TB. The Bill also proposes a levy of £3 on every head of cattle slaughtered and on every head of cattle exported live.

One thing that is so unfair about this legislation is that so many farmers have already made the effort to make their herds free from brucellosis and TB. It has cost those farmers much money; but now, even though they have got rid of disease, there is a levy on them of 0.5p on every gallon of milk supplied to the creamery. Anybody here who will tell me that is fair legislation in my opinion is not being true to himself. Why should we levy farmers who have made the effort to get rid of the diseases? Nobody would stand for that type of legislation.

Why should we ask farmers to pay £3 on every head of disease-free cattle slaughtered, the same as the levy that will be put on diseased cattle slaughtered? That is the purpose of this Bill. Senator Connaughton and others have said it is a form of taxation. It must be a form of taxation on farmers who have made the effort. For what other reason do we tax those people to the limit that is now being proposed? I cannot see any reason other than a tax on the farmers to bring in revenue even though that revenue may not be spent on the proposed scheme for the eradication of disease. The major part of the money will come from the farmers who made the effort to clear themselves of the disease. Is that fair? If it is, I should not be here. I do not believe it is fair and as a Member of the Seanad, I will oppose it because of its unfairness.

Much has been said about the farmer taxation that has been imposed by the Government over the past two years. The farming organisations were right to resist this taxation because everybody, whether he is a farmer, a professional person or a trade unionist, will oppose extra taxation. We cannot say now that the farmers are wrong for opposing extra taxation. The organisations have a duty to safeguard their members and to get the best possible price and value for their products out of any scheme that has been introduced.

We must get rid of bovine diseases. The best way of getting rid of those diseases is to give back confidence to the farming organisations and to the farmers themselves, to show that there will be a future for them. Presently there is an erosion of that confidence. This can be seen from the newspapers and announcements by the presidents of the farming organisations to that effect. I do business with farmers and know them very well; many of them tell me that they are going to get out of milk altogether. These farmers are some of the largest suppliers to the creameries but they are seriously considering getting out of the business. We have an obligation as people who work in the industry and who have the interests of the industry at heart to try to convince them that they should remain in the dairy industry. I am sure the Minister of State will agree that that is the right advice to give them and if the Minister for Agriculture were here he would also say that that is the right advice to give those farmers.

Unless we have the farmers deeply involved in the dairy industry and producing the milk we will not have the value of the exports that come from the industry. If the substantial value that is accruing from those exports does not come back into the country we will be in a poor state. It will not only affect the farmers but also those who work directly or indirectly for the farmers. Now is the time to encourage farmers to invest, to get them more interested in the dairy industry and to create a better environment. There is still plenty of room for farmers to increase their dairy herds and to take up that extra supply. The advice being given to the farmers by the managers of the industry is not to lose confidence, to develop and produce more. Now is the time to encourage the farmers, not to discourage them as this Bill is about to do.

I am in favour, as is every Senator and Deputy, of eradicating bovine TB and brucellosis but the way we are going about this is discouraging. The farmers have been taxed so much up to now that they see this levy as a tax also. Whether it is a tax or not, it has to be paid by the farmers to the Exchequer and in anyone's thinking that is taxation. I accept it is taxation for a purpose that is necessary because we must get rid of bovine TB and brucellosis, but the timing of the introduction of this Bill is all wrong because of the mood the farmers are in and also because of other taxation measures that have been introduced.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 18 Jul 1979