I spoke last evening about our opposition to this Bill, the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill, 1979, and I would like to assure not alone the House but the general public that this Bill has not been passed by the Seanad yet. One of the main agricultural correspondents in the Irish Independent stated that this and the other agricultural Bill have passed both Houses of the Oireachtas.
Bovine Diseases (Levies) Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time".
They do not always get it right.
I want to assure them now that they have got it wrong this time. We have opposed this Bill strenuously because of the levy system. We do not like the levy because it is an imposition on all farmers irrespective of whether they made the effort or not. It is wrong for legislation to impose a levy on people and especially farmers who made the effort to get rid of bovine TB and brucellosis in their herds. This is wrong. It will not encourage in the future other bodies who may be asked to do things that would better them if they feel that when they have carried out the instructions given to them by the State or by industry they will have to pay the cost of those who disregarded the advice. That is what happened here.
There will be .5p on every gallon of milk supplied for processing, that is going into bottled milk, cheese, butter and whole milk powder; £3 on every head of cattle slaughtered; and £3 on every head of cattle exported live, whether the cattle come from infected herds or not—that is my main argument. If that levy was imposed on cattle coming from infected herds, then I would have no objection. Although I object to levies as such if those people who did not get involved in the eradication schemes up to now had to pay for the eradication of the diseases, then I would have very little objection to that. But I object to those who put in the effort being now asked to pay for those who did not make the effort. That is not fair on those who made the effort and it will discourage them in the future to make the effort required of them.
This is taxation in another form. It is now being foisted on the agricultural community after taxes imposed upon them all down the line. During the last week in another forum much opposition was voiced against this Bill. I congratulate those who did oppose the Bill, because farmers are now being taxed in every way possible at a time when the profits from agriculture are at a low level.
We have the 2 per cent co-responsibility levy. It is another levy being imposed on farmers and being opposed by the farming organisations, and rightly so. Farmers' costs have increased substantially over the past 12 months. Profits from agriculture are declining fast. To impose a levy at a time like this does not give the farming community encouragement to develop. There is much room for development in agriculture. If farmers were encouraged and advised, they could increase the volume of output by 50 per cent or more across the board. Some farmers could increase their output by 100 per cent or even more, given the proper advice and encouragement. This Bill does not give any encouragement to any type of farmer. It probably encourages the farmer who did not get involved in the disease eradication scheme to say to himself, "I was right and, unless I am forced to get involved in schemes such as this, I will do what I have done in the past and gain from it". But he has not gained from it and neither has the State gained from it. We oppose that and we oppose the Bill for the reason I gave last night—the powers being given to the Revenue Commissioners by this Bill. They now have access to examine records kept by the meat factories and the milk processing plants of each supplier without the supplier being present. I made this quite clear last night also. It opens the door to the Revenue Commissioners to examine farm accounts.
The Revenue Commissioners have the right to knock at the door of a creamery, processing plant or meat factory and demand to see the books for examination. Nobody, not even the manager, can object to that because of this Bill. The Revenue Commissioners have the right to examine all the accounts that the farmers have, a right that was objected to when we were on the other side of the House by Senators who are now on that side of the House. They objected to that in a Bill introduced by Deputy Clinton when he was Minister for Agriculture and which I opposed. Now those people will stand up and vote for the right of the Revenue Commissioners to enter those places to examine farmers' accounts. The 2 per cent co-responsibility levy also gives them that right. The secrecy of accounts has gone.
It is estimated that the 0.5p on every gallon of milk supplied to the processing plants will give £5 million per annum to the State in revenue. It is estimated that one billion gallons of milk will be supplied to the processing plants or to the bottled milk plants in 1979. That is a reduction of £5 million that could be given to farmers to invest further. As I have said, there is room for investment in agriculture. If we prevent that development in any way then we are not doing this House or the State any good because the backbone of this country is agriculture. It has been and always will be because of the state of our soil and the climate that we have. It is a great country to grow grass in without any great investment being made in the production of that grass. What we should be doing is encouraging farmers and the State to invest more in agriculture. We have always recognised the value of agriculture. I hope we will recognise that value in the future. Levies are no help in that regard.
The farmer is willing to pay his fair share of tax under the accounts system. I know that because I meet them regularly. What system is fairer than the accounts system as far as paying tax is concerned? If one makes a profit one should pay tax on that profit. If one incurs a loss how is one expected to pay tax on that? Levies such as this will reduce what profit may have been made by farmers over the years. It is money taken from farmers who made an effort to develop agriculture. It discourages them and legislation that discourages farmers from developing must be bad legislation not alone for the farming community but for the whole country because from the produce of agriculture come many jobs. Tens of thousands of jobs in rural Ireland are created by the produce of agriculture and the more we produce the more jobs will be available.
In the milk sector, where I work, farmers had to work for a pittance in the years before we joined the European Economic Community. They struggled for a livelihood and they formed the cooperative movement to help one another in the processes of agriculture and in the developing of jobs in rural Ireland. Those farmers, by their co-operation with one another and by the help given to them by the State, developed the dairy industry to such an extent that it is accepted by all, whether they are rural or city people, that it must be encouraged to develop still further. They are now being asked to pay 0.5p on every gallon of milk supplied to the processing plants in a year where there is no monetary increase for the production of milk. Is it right to penalise people who invested millions of pounds to create a livelihood for themselves and for those who live in the areas where that investment took place?
It is right to penalise the farmers and the people who did not become involved in the eradication of the diseases now mentioned, but it is not right, and it cannot be just, to penalise the farmers who became involved in the eradication schemes and who got rid of brucellosis and TB from their herds. They also, because of their membership of farming organisations, advised those farming organisations to get the members who were not involved in the eradication schemes to become involved in them. Farming organisations must be complimented for the efforts they put into this. Now the farming organisations are apparently opposed to the introduction of those levies.
When we are passing legislation here, let us not pass legislation that will deter the development of this country. We are passing legislation that will slow down the development of agriculture. There are some farmers who are not interested in the development of the country, those who are in the game for the fast buck—there is a small percentage of people involved in this—who have removed the tags and so forth. The people who will do that must pay for it. The people who keep the laws must not be penalised for doing that. They must be encouraged to keep the laws of the land and to develop the country. The back bone of the country is agriculture, has always been and will always be.
This side of the House oppose this Bill for the reasons I have given. When the levies are passed by the House even though this side of the House will oppose them, I ask that the amount collected by them be kept separate from the other finances collected by the Revenue Commissioners. It should be shown clearly that those moneys collected in this way are invested in the development of agriculture, whether or not it is in the eradication scheme.
Every Member of the Oireachtas should get an annual account showing clearly the amounts that are collected under each item here, through .5p on every gallon of milk, £3 on every head of cattle slaughtered and £3 on every head of cattle exported live. We would also like to know the stock of cattle in the country annually. I fear that we will have an unaccountable traffic across the Border because of this scheme. The people who are not interested in investing in clearing animal disease are the very people who will now open the door for this traffic. If that is the case they will not be obliged to pay the levy because there will be a way out. Unless we have an annual census of cattle I do not think this scheme will work.
This side of the House oppose this Bill. The farmers of Ireland, represented by the farming associations, the IFA and the ICMSA oppose this Bill. Surely some recognition must be given to that fact. Something must be wrong with the Bill, even if the Minister does not accept my argument. He should hold up the Bill, consult with the people involved, the farming organisations, who have now asked that they be consulted. It is good advice, not only politically but agriculturally, because they are the people who will be carrying out the scheme. They will have influence with their members in the carrying out of the scheme and unless we consult with the people who have the influence then we are not on the right track at the beginning. Influence is a very valuable weapon, and in Ireland we should know that co-operation is also a very valuable weapon, Let us use both before we pass this Bill today. I ask the Minister to listen to what I have said, to go back to the organisations I have mentioned and discuss with them their objections to this Bill.
In principle, I support this Bill in the hope that it will at long last help to bring to an end what I can only describe as the biggest financial scandal in the history of this State. There has been an appalling waste of public moneys on an enormous scale in efforts, which so far have proved to be in vain, to eradicate the bovine diseases of tuberculosis and brucellosis. Undoubtedly, as Senator Butler has just said, many farmers, possibly the majority, have cooperated with the programme of eradication. Undoubtedly, also, many have not. Vast sums of money have gone out in fees to veterinary surgeons and in compensation to farmers for reactor cattle—all to no national advantage whatsoever.
It is time this scandal was brought to an end. Last Autumn, in their comments on the Government's Green Paper, the National Economic and Social Council, on which the farming bodies referred to by Senator Butler are represented, had this to say under the heading of disease eradication:
No reference is made in the Green Paper to bovine disease eradication. This is a surprising omission for a number of reasons. Up to 1977, State expenditure on the schemes for the eradication of the two main diseases, brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis, totalled more than £250 million at 1977 prices.
I may say in parentheses that the Minister in his opening speech mentioned, I think, £130 million. He also went on to admit that that was lumping good money with not so good money down the years and that in terms of present day values the amounts are enormous. They are undoubtedly of the order of more than £250 million. To continue the quotation from the NESC report:
The scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis began in 1955. Yet, according to figures published by the Department of Agriculture, the incidence of this disease was worse in 1977 than it was in 1965.
The Minister also mentioned that one herd in 25 was still infected. The NESC report went on:
The scheme for the eradication of brucellosis began in 1964 but a start has yet to be made on the eradication of the disease in the 10 southern counties where, on average, 28 per cent of all herds are infected. The enormous expenditure on these schemes combined with slow progress in the elimination of the disease must raise serious questions about the effectiveness of the measures taken.
They regretted the absence of any discussion of policy options in this area while noting that changes in the main disease eradication schemes had recently been announced by the Minister for Agriculture.
No doubt, in answer to this, in the White Paper published in January last the Government had a couple of paragraphs about disease eradication. These paragraphs admitted the enormous nugatory cost of the programme to date. They said, in rather muted terms:
It has been evident for some time that the results achieved have not been commensurate with this expenditure.
The Government went on to make the point, which is of great concern to us all, that failure to eradicate these diseases within a reasonable time could threaten the country's substantial export trade in cattle, meat and dairy produce. The White Paper said that the primary beneficiary from the elimination of these diseases would be the farming industry itself and for that reason the Government had decided that it was equitable the farming community should make a direct contribution to the cost of the disease eradication programme, thus heralding the present legislation.
It seems to me that it could be described as an investment by the farming community to make now a belated and concerted effort to remove the weaknesses in the productive capacity of farming which these diseases represent and to strengthen the productive capacity of agriculture for the future. I have no particular comment to make on whether the contribution should take the form of levies or some other form but I do think a contribution is right in principle and reasonable and will pay off in terms of direct benefit to the farming community. From what the Minister has said I recognise that the contribution proposed in this Bill represents less than half the expected annual cost from now on of the programme. That is not unreasonable. I would hope that the need to make a contribution will act as an incentive to the individual farmer to make sure that he gets value for his contribution by observing the rules himself, and that he will keep a watchful eye on his neighbours to ensure that they do the same, so that not only the farming community but the national community will at last get some value for what is an enormously expensive programme but, equally, an urgent and necessary one.
We realise on this side of the House that the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis from our cattle herds is of vital importance to the future of this country. No responsible person would deny that. We accept that statement made by the Minister and support it in every way. We believe it to be of vital importance that as soon as possible we reach the stage at which our herds are free of these diseases.
In addition to saying that we are 25 years endeavouring to eradicate bovine TB and that we have spent £130 million on it I should have thought the Minister would have made more specific comment on the reasons the scheme has been a failure to such a degree. The case could be presented more forcefully were there specific examples given of the reasons for the comparative failure of the scheme in the opinion both of the Department's inspectors and the farming organisations. I agree with Senator Butler that if we are to succeed it is essential we have the goodwill and co-operation of the farming community as a whole and that every effort be made to secure their co-operation. The imposition of levies felt by a large percentage of the people to be unjust is the wrong way to go about achieving such co-operation. It is most unwise to introduce measures at this stage that will add further to the discontent of the farming organisations. The 2 per cent levy on agricultural produce introduced in the budget was so ill-considered that it resulted in farmers having a very strong case for opposing it and in some instances led to the withdrawal by the Minister for Finance of some of the measures introduced originally in the budget. Therefore, the farming community were given to understand that, without protest and pressure from them, they could not hope for what could be described a 100 per cent square deal.
There is the belief in the farming community that this Government are pressing unduly heavily on them. The removal of the rates relief from farmers of £60 valuation and over, on the understanding that that £60 limit will be reduced to £50 in the near future, means that big numbers of farmers are now paying full rates. There is the withdrawal of the lime subsidy from a vast area of the country and the introduction of the £8 fee on the 30-day test of cattle. All these measures coming in the short period of a few months against one section of the community have led that section to believe that they are not getting a fair deal.
This Bill intends to impose levies on people who have striven to keep their herds free from disease and have succeeded at great cost. These people are now to be subject to a levy of £3 a head on cattle sold for slaughter or for export and a halfpenny a gallon on milk. The figures issued by the farming organisations, the IFA and the ICMSA have shown clearly that a very large number of farmers are not living in a state of prosperity but are finding it very hard to make ends meet. The imposition of the halfpenny a gallon levy on milk with the consequent reduction in the returns from the creamery and the imposition of the levy of £3 per head on cattle sold for export or slaughter will reduce the income of these people to a degree where farming will no longer be viable for them. That is bound to add to the discontent that prevails in the farming community and will result in opposition to this measure.
If the measure introduced had been agreed on as a result of consultations between representatives of the Minister's Department and the farming organisations as to how best to combat this problem of disease, then we could expect co-operation. It is not unreasonable to think that the farmers would co-operate in a scheme since they are the people who will suffer most from failure to stamp out bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. This is a matter of concern to everybody in the country, but it is of greater concern to the farming community than it is to others because their livelihood depends on its success. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that we would have co-operation on a high scale with the Department in the eradication of these diseases if the measures introduced were agreed on after consultations.
This Bill is going the wrong way about solving a very serious problem. Part of the reason why farmers did not co-operate in the past as fully as they should have done in some instances was the failure to obtain a market value price for reactors. A farmer existing in difficult circumstances found that when his herd was stricken with brucellosis or tuberculosis the price he could get for a stricken animal came nowhere near the replacement price. That left such people unable to face up to the fact that they would be in a position of being unable to replace stocks because of the inadequate price available for reactor cattle. That left that sort of farmer less than enthusiastic about co-operating with the scheme.
The provision in the Bill which allows information to be obtained about the ownership or control of lands where cattle are held has the support of every responsible person in the country. Any measure taken by the Minister to enable his officials to track down people who are not co-operating or who are flouting the regulations and circumventing them in every way possible, has whole-hearted support from this side of the House. The objectionable part of the Bill is that which insists on collecting a levy from people who will not be in a position to pay it, because they already have difficulty in surviving. Farming prices are now levelling off and the return in real terms for the farming community this year shows a decrease. It is unfortunate that this measure should be introduced, along with a number of others that I have referred to already, in a year when, as a result of a very severe winter, farmers are still paying off creameries for feeding stuffs that had to be bought to tide their stocks over the winter. From that aspect this measure is ill-considered and shows the same lack of consideration as was displayed in the introduction of the original 2 per cent levy in the budget. People affected by this halfpenny a gallon levy on milk and the £3 levy on cattle will be excused for asking themselves if it is just or right that they should be penalised to this degree by a Government who have already abolished wealth tax and relaxed considerably the provisions of the capital gains tax. All this will arouse antagonism on the part of the people from whom co-operation is necessary if it is to be a success.
Some years ago there was a very popular recitation which concerned a gentleman by the name of Hanrahan, who in all circumstances took the most pessimistic view possible of life and the happenings all round him. As I listened to most of the speeches from the other side of the House, that recitation came back to mind. It is my opinion that whatever ruination comes as a result of the levies, it will be nothing comparable with the ruination that will come if bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis are not eradicated soon.
The greatest danger facing agriculture here now is the incidence of those two dreadful diseases, not alone for the losses they are causing to agriculture and the further losses they will cause but also because those diseases, particularly brucellosis, have now spread to human beings. It is causing untold anxiety to the community at large. I know of a number of cases in my district of fathers of families, hard working farmers, who were stricken down with this disease. They had the best medical opinion and the best they can hope for is to live with it. It is one of the new diseases and no cure, to my knowledge, has been found for it.
The greatest priority for the farming community should be to set their minds once and for all towards co-operating with the Department in eradicating those diseases. I commend the Minister for the way he stated the case as follows:
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.
Everybody in the House should ponder on that: time is rapidly running out. The Minister went on:
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.
I know many farmers who agree with that statement and are perfectly happy to pay levies or anything else if they get a reasonable assurance that it will be possible at this stage to eradicate those diseases. It is only fair and right if a job is being undertaken for the special benefit of the agricultural community that the beneficiaries of such work will pay a reasonable amount to have it brought to a successful conclusion. They are not being asked to pay the whole amount, not even three-quarters of it. They are being asked to pay something less than half of the amount of money involved. This is like a recurring decimal. Senator Whitaker has referred to the length of time that this has been in progress, scheme after scheme ending in failure because there was not complete dedication and resolve to eradicate the diseases on the part of all concerned. There has been a lot of double-thinking about the efforts to eradicate those two terrible diseases. A certain amount of sympathy was expressed here and there for the tag-switchers and those disseminators of disease. There should not be any sympathy whatever for those people. It is a question of the survival of the cattle industry or its failure. As was stated in the Gospel, "the axe is laid to the root of the tree" and now is the time for action and complete dedication. The cost involved will be nothing compared with the losses that will result if those diseases are not eradicated soon.
The Department should consider a general effort to get the public interested in this, an educational scheme. Many people outside the farming community, and those on the periphery, do not seem to understand the problem. Those diseases, particularly brucellosis, have spread to human beings and will pose tremendous medical problems for the future. Everybody should be involved in this, particularly the farming community. The inconvenience of paying levies, small and all as they may be, may be a factor militating against their co-operation but that co-operation will have to be forthcoming if we are to win the battle against the diseases. The tag-switcher and the disseminator of disease will have to be put out of action. As in the case of the wastage of petrol and energy, which must stop, the spread of all bovine diseases must stop also and their eradication must be completed.
I should like to add to a number of points already made in this debate. The biggest objection I have to this measure is that it is coming after an election campaign in which, to say the least, the public were given to understand that the farmers' tax burdens, if Fianna Fáil were returned to office, would be eased. Not only is that not so, but a number of other levies have already been introduced. This is a fairly comprehensive Bill and every producer, whether of milk, beef or veal will have to pay the levy. My main objection to levies of this sort is that they fail to take into account the profit margin, if any, there may be in any line of agricultural husbandry. Looking back over difficult years, it has happened on a number of occasions, especially where farmers finish beef cattle, that farmers who fattened cattle did not return a profit. In those cases, this type of levy is unfair. On section 3, I should like to ask the Minister whether in the future he will want to use this legislation to prohibit the total export of calves. It is unfair that the same levy applies to a suck calf of two weeks' old as that which applies to an animal which is being exported and which is worth several hundred pounds. In this way this measure will be inequitably applied to different producers. From that point of view it is unfortunate.
Senator Cranitch very rightly drew attention to the fact that everybody wants to see diseases eradicated. Despite what people say great strides have been made and the Department have done a reasonably good job in the past. They have got tremendous co-operation not only from the farming community but also from the veterinary surgeons and from the civil servants who work in the various counties and in district veterinary offices on this problem. There is a tremendous team working in this area. No matter what line of endeavour one is involved in, one invariably meets the occasional bad egg or somebody who wants to make a fast buck. Regrettably there is a minority of not only farmers but veterinary surgeons and civil servants who will take short cuts and who are not perhaps as diligent as they should be. No matter what one does one will always have that minority.
This does not get away from the underlying unfairness in these kinds of levies. So far as the farmers are concerned this is the year of the levies. It must be pressing the ingenuity of the civil service to keep thinking up new levies. Farmers will get quite a shock when they tot up their accounts at the end of the year—and most of them will be new at this—and find the total amount of levies, taxes and rates and the loss of remission they will suffer. For that reason I am against this measure and I hope the majority of the House will also be against it.
Of course, I am not against the efforts of the Government to eradicate bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. We need to have herds of disease-free status but this is not achieved very easily. It is a matter of commonsense and sound agricultural husbandry. I have had a disease-free herd for a number of years. The vast majority of farmers do not want to have their herds lapse into a disease situation. It is a matter though, where one must always be vigilant especially when one is buying in cattle. You see cases where people deliberately either switch tags or offer for sale cattle that have not been cleared. For such offences the penalties cannot be strong enough. The minority of people who behave in this way are motivated by greed but there may be also an element of ignorance involved. The Minister and his Department must accept that.
However, we have an excellent agricultural industry where the vast majority of farmers treat their enterprises as business enterprises but they have had to cope in the last few years with new situations. The older farmers especially find the imposition of income tax on them very frightening. Most of those people recall the experience of the thirties, in particular, when they could not meet their overheads and when they could expect a visit from the sheriff. Farmers, who are traditionally conservative, have a fear of not being able to meet their overheads. The imposition of all this taxation has caused tremendous apprehension in the agricultural industry. The Government are pressing too hard with the various taxes and levies which they have introduced so rapidly.
It is a valid argument to say that the farmers should contribute towards the eradication of diseases. The value of the export of cattle to the economy is enormous. There are a lot of people engaged in agriculture-associated businesses, whether they are supplying inputs to the farms or processing the produce of farms and who share the general prosperity that is so often described as agricultural, to an extent greatly in excess of what actually goes to the landowners themselves.
I am very often amazed at the people who think up these levies whether they are Ministers or senior civil servants. These people in the main have a very high IQ and they know the traditions of agriculture very well. The Government are going to put too much stress and strain on the goose that lays the golden egg. We got off to a bad start this year agriculturally and the incomes of farmers will not be able to meet the levies that are being demanded of them. This is going to set the industry back considerably. It puts us in a position of not being able to compete with the strong and well-financed competitors in the other eight European countries.
Though we accept that we must conform to the various directives emanating from the Commission, we should have been looking more closely at the situation obtaining in Europe vis-á-vis the rules and regulations so that our farmers would be more on a par with the kind of systems which our competitors operate. The taxation system of farmers in the other European countries is very straightforward, a profit-on-income system.
The Government are endeavouring by using so many different kinds of levies and types of operations to fool the rural community into thinking that they are paying very little. When all the various levies are taken in toto the amount of money that the Government stand to gain this year on the five or six levies they have introduced will amount to a staggering figure. My only hope is that the farming community will be able to finish the task and that permanent damage will not have been done as a result.
I welcome this measure. It has been patently obvious here today, as it was yesterday, that everybody wishes to have brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis eradication schemes, but nobody wishes to pay for them. While you have financial participation by the farming community in any scheme, you have their sincere support and co-operation in pursuit of the objective. While you have that financial participation you will get their dedicated support for the complete eradication of these two diseases. We have a precedent for this in the warble fly eradication scheme which is the complete financial responsibility of the farming community. We have the isolated case of the Ballycroy warble which the Department are unable to eradicate down in my own county. That is a veterinary problem. The farmers took complete financial responsibility for the eradication of that disease. That scheme has been successful and with the financial participation by farmers in this eradication scheme, results will be forthcoming.
It has been stated—and I do not want to be parrot-like—that over the past 25 years £130 million of the nation's money has been poured into disease eradication schemes introduced by a previous Minister, Mr. Paddy Smith. I remember when the three northern counties were declared a cleared area, we had a very low incidence of disease in the west but sadly after 25 years of Government programmes for disease eradication, the incidence has not decreased. Rather it has increased.
Senator Butler said that people who have endured 25 years of harassment for the provision of catching facilities and lairages for the eradication of these diseases are now to be included in this scheme and will have to pay the same levy as the people in Leinster and in the south who have not participated over the past 25 years. I blame the administration section of the Department for this. The positive boundary we had in the west, the Shannon, was ideal for a complete eradication scheme in all the counties west of the Shannon, including Connacht, Clare and Donegal. It was an ideal barrier. In the selection of additional counties, Roscommon and Galway and such counties should have been included rather than going east of the Shannon while there was no control of input and traffic into the western region. We had that barrier. There were very few bridges to cross and control measures could have been introduced whereby no cattle could cross those bridges into a cleared region. If that had been done we would not have to pay for a national scheme now.
Disease eradication was treated by the Department as an annual chore, something that they had to do, something they had to administer. They had no positive goal in trying to tackle the problem. As most of us know, we are now living on borrowed time as regards the eradication of these two diseases. Fine Gael Senators are here today to contribute to this debate but I do not see any of the Labour or Independent Senators who were very much to the fore over the past two or three weeks in this House. Whatever we may say about the Opposition, Fine Gael still have an interest in our farming community. I compliment them on their contributions to this debate and their participation in it.
Thank you.
Senator Cranitch mentioned the human element, the human risk. In a neighbouring county of mine loose milk was delivered to a boarding school and on one occasion some children had to be taken from the school. When I investigated the matter I found that the herd of the person supplying milk to that school was highly infected with brucellosis. Corrective measures were taken and the school now provides pasteurised milk but it was too late for one child who will be retarded for life. There is no cure for this disease in humans and it is very common because of the intensity of the dairy industry particularly in the dairying areas, and much more so in the south than in the west. It is a dreadful disease and there is an educational problem which needs to be tackled. Brucellosis is a dreadful disease and we would need to educate people through programmes on radio or television. People removed from the farming section do not realise the danger of contracting brucellosis from unpasteurised milk.
Mention was made yesterday of the importation of calves from the south to the west. I have investigated this matter through the animal health advisory committee and the veterinary information I got is that such calves from the south are not regarded as carriers of the disease. It is possible for weanlings to carry the disease. As they are not carriers of the disease, suck calves are not debarred from the west. That trade from the south was criticised here yesterday.
The success of the eradication programme depends on the co-operation of all involved in the business. I am sorry that Senator Connaughton, who is a progressive manager of a livestock mart, is not here today.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must remind the Senator that the presence or absence of Senators is not usually referred to.
It has been mentioned that the element of tax and the levy on the farmer were the only things on the mind of Opposition speakers. The scheme cannot be successful without the co-operation of the farmers; the Senators, the press and the mart managers, even though they are not here. They are in close contact with the farming community. The scheme is a national scheme. There is a measure of patriotism about the success. If we have a disease-free herd here in 1982 we will be able to export live cattle, fresh meat and serum from our AI stations to European countries. The farming community will not object to paying a contribution to the scheme. However, I hope the levy is a temporary measure. The Bill does not provide for the termination of the levy at any particular time. I would welcome the termination of the levy when the two diseases have been eradicated.
In regard to the 30-day movement test from islands off the Mayo coast, it is not feasible to have veterinary tests carried out prior to the movement. Mayo County Council provided transit lairage facilities at Roonagh Point to facilitate Inishturk and Clare Islands. Facilities for at least a four-day holding lairage should be provided to cover the testing period. I would welcome an input of capital to provide feeding lairages and covered-in sheds where cattle from these islands could be held until testing is carried out by the nearest veterinary station in Westport, which is roughly 18 miles away. Mayo County Council have provided enclosed facilities and cattle crushes. The Minister for Agriculture has told the veterinarians that they will be given the money to eradicate the two diseases. It behoves the technicians and the veterinarians in the Department to ensure that funds are provided for these facilities.
There is some difficulty in operating the scheme on commonages. It is impossible at present to get an inspector of the Land Commission out to apportion commonages. In a county like Mayo at least two officials should be given the job of apportioning and dividing commonages. It takes years to get a Land Commission inspector on site in my county to apportion commonages. We get great co-operation from the liaison officer of the advisory staff but the actual apportionment for mapping purposes must be done by the Land Commission. We feel there is a breakdown in this area. There is communal grazing on commonages at the moment all over this country. One reactor grazing on a commonage leads to high risk of contamination. The quicker commonages are divided and apportioned the quicker these diseases will be eradicated. Farmers welcome the apportionment of commonages because nowadays people are more conscious of manuring and having their own stock within their own fences. I welcome the Bill. The financial participation of the farmers will ensure the success of the scheme.
There is one point I want to make in relation to the Bill. The objective, the eradication of disease, has been accepted on all sides and the relevant points have been made by Senators who are more capable than I of making them.
I should like to discuss one point in relation to criticisms which have been made from the other side of the House. The whole problem of revenue and taxation generally is concerned with the redistribution of income, providing fair and equitable financial structures in our society. It is a complicated matter and a very complex issue. There is an immense amount of revenue to be raised nationally and it is raised through a maze of legislation which makes it extremely difficult for the ordinary taxpayer to identify where the money is going or to accept in any precise way how he is benefiting from the revenue which is raised either through PAYE or VAT or whatever system is applicable.
This adds a great deal to the problems of obtaining acceptance of our revenue raising laws and it contributes to the problem of achieving equity and an understanding and acceptance of the wide-ranging way in which revenue is raised. Where it is possible to have a flexible element in revenue raising, that is a very good principle. Most of the time it is not possible because the sums involved are so great that they necessarily give rise to legislation which is difficult for the individual to understand. But there are occasions when it is possible. Where a particular cost can be identified and a particular fund created, it is a move in the right direction to help to identify for those who are paying the charge, whatever form it takes, why the money is being raised and where it is going. While it is difficult to achieve that close identification of cost with benefit and charge, this Bill in terms of the levy proposed manages to achieve that, but it is not the first time it has been achieved, difficult though it is.
Workers in industry or agriculture have for years been contributing through the NHI stamp and now through PRSI to a fund for their benefit, either through health services or through pension or redundancy funds. There is an identifiable fund to which they contribute on a weekly basis and to which their employers also contribute. That has operated for many years and is totally accepted and it applies in the agricultural area just as much as it applies in the industrial area.
AnCO for many years have levied industrial firms to provide money for training or retraining in industry and this is a most essential service. It is one that has produced great benefits to industry and to individual workers who have been trained or retrained and has provided this country with skills which have maintained employment, maintained production and growth and have redounded to the benefit of the whole community. The charge falls on people in industry in relation to the wages they have paid the previous year. Very often those making that contribution cannot identify members of their own firm who have directly benefited, but nevertheless they make that contribution within their group for the benefit initially of their group and ultimately for the whole country. It is a charge which arises on the wages paid by the firm, whether or not the company made a profit or incurred a loss that year or the previous year. There are circumstances when appeals can be made, but generally that is the principle. That is another example of where an identifiable fund exists to which people in a certain category contribute and have been doing so for many years and it has been generally accepted by all involved that it is necessary and highly beneficial. Although nobody likes paying the charge, it is paid for the benefit of the industry, for the workers and ultimately for the community.
The financial aspects of this Bill are concerned with a similar situation, the eradication of disease in a vital area in our most basic and fundamental industry. That is accepted by everybody throughout the country regardless of his point of view. The importance of agriculture to our economy cannot be over-emphasised. It is absolutely fundamental. The cattle trade within that industry has the same ratio of importance to agriculture as agriculture has to the whole community. It has been accepted throughout the whole debate that success in this area is absolutely essential. It is also right to point out that where the success of this will stand to the whole country it will initially and more immediately stand to the benefit of the farming community, in the same way that the other levies discussed stand to the benefit of those who directly contribute to them. This is an attempt to identify a particular cost with the particular benefit. That is difficult to achieve in the overall context of revenue raising but it is something which it is possible to achieve now. It will have the additional benefit of helping in this case to produce a clear understanding of why the charge exists, why the revenue is being raised and for what purpose. This is a situation that does not normally exist in the broad mass of revenue raising.
Equity in the raising of revenue and taxation generally is of fundamental importance and the matter of the greatest concern throughout the country in urban and rural areas, regardless of what sectional interest may exist in any particular case, because the success of the country, economically and socially, in the whole area of industrial relations to a great extent depends on a general belief that there is fairness and equity in the raising of revenue. The difficulty in having even a fair system of taxation understood arises because of the complexity of the problem. It would be unreasonable to expect the average citizen to equip himself with the knowledge and understanding of all our taxation laws. If we add to that a belief that the tax burden has not always been shared on a fair and equitable basis by all our income earners, then I think we get a clear understanding of how discontent and protests have arisen.
Over-criticising this measure which identifies a cost with a benefit is insensitive to the whole community in the context of the worry that exist about revenue-raising and taxation generally. If the Opposition over-criticise the financial aspects of this Bill and misrepresent the effects of it financially, that would be counter-productive for the farming community. We are all in this together. We must get broad acceptance of our revenue-raising laws and if it is possible for those who benefit directly to see where their money is going to their own benefit then that is a step in the right direction. To overreact against that is insensitive in the present context and will be counter-productive.
What I am saying is also summed up in a comment which Senator O'Toole made, that there is a measure of patriotism in this. The criticism of the financial proposals in this Bill were quite predictable. Because of that the Minister and the Government are acting courageously in facing up to this as they have done. They are acting in a very honest and direct way, in a way which will be accepted by the farming community as reasonable and responsible.
There is not much that can be said on this situation after 25 years of debate. Over the past 25 years, and this is a disturbing feature, we have not been successful in eliminating the diseases. That is an appalling situation. It is important that we express our appreciation to the farmers who have cooperated effectively during the years in every effort to better their industry and who have endeavoured to meet the problems as they arose. It is important that we express our appreciation to those people.
There is another section of the farming community, the people who not alone put their own jobs at risk but who are prepared to put the jobs of the entire farming community at risk. These saboteurs must be singled out. The Minister has indicated here some of the problems of herd movement, tag switching, falsification of certificates and other aspects that put not alone the jobs of the farmers at risk but also put at risk employment in the associated industries, which Senator McDonald spoke about. Agriculture is our basic industry and it is important that every effort be made to eliminate the type of problems that not alone affect the farmers, the people in the associated industries but also the community as a whole.
We are weakening our own situation abroad when we must move into competition with people who have more acceptable standards. It is important that after 25 years of failure we face up to the problems of today. Senator McDonald said this Bill was introduced soon after the elections. This shows the concern of the Minister in relation to a problem that affects the nation in such a drastic way. I hope that the people who are responsible for having this situation at the emergency level it is today and who are putting the nation at risk will be sorted out and will get no sympathy from their neighbours or the farming community. People from the cities and the country should be united in ensuring that those who are defrauding the nation and putting it at risk are not allowed to continue to do so.
A feature that has come to light in the course of the discussion is the question of doubtful co-operation because of the imposition of the levy. If there is doubtful co-operation at this stage, then the grave problems we have will continue possibly for half a century. After 25 years we should realise that positive and deliberate action must be taken by each and every one. There can be no doubt that the neighbours of the people who are defrauding the nation know what is happening. It is the duty of everyone to expose those people so that the full force of the law can be applied to them. They are a menace to the farming industry because they are putting it at risk, just the same as the saboteurs in industry about whom I spoke yesterday are putting the other industries at risk.
I want to congratulate the Minister. The cost that has to be borne is small when we consider the contributions that were made in the past by every section of society. That the prosperity of this country should continue should be the aim of every citizen. We are not going to stand by and allow a small section of the community to interfere with the engineering industry and other industries, apart altogether from the agriculture industry. The cost factor has been mentioned by many speakers. I think Senator McDonald took a swipe at the civil servants when he said that they are guilty of shortcuts at times and that their ingenuity is exhausted in thinking up levies. Perhaps the solution that his leader had in applying the 12 per cent levy is the correct solution. Perhaps that is the solution that Senator McDonald feels is more appropriate than measures that are applied to particular aspects of agriculture. Many people might agree with him but there are many more who would not agree that a 12 per cent levy is the solution to the problem.
We know that there has to be an input into industry by indultrialists. If you invest in your industry you are going to get a reward from it in the future. That is the situation as I see it. When these diseases are eliminated the farming community stand to gain; this can only be regarded as an investment in their own industry, but the co-operation of the industry is necessary. I applaud all the speakers from the Opposition benches who showed their real concern for the problems of this very important industry. I hope that, when this Bill becomes an Act, this co-operation will continue and that we can expose the people who are endeavouring to sabotage the national effort.
Another important aspect of the Bill —I speak as a city Deputy—is the question of acceptable limits within the wider EEC market. Senator McDonald mentioned, rightly, that we are in competition with the other European countries. This makes the final solution all the more important and urgent. Many things can be and will be said about levies. We heard all the talk in the past about everyone wanting to pay his fair share of tax, but nobody wants to pay tax. How you can pay your fair share of tax without paying tax is another wonder of the world. The eradication of disease has to be paid for and it can only be regarded as an investment in the farming industry. Co-operation is the keynote and I hope that when the time comes we shall have the same concern as has been displayed here on all sides of the House. I do not know what part I can play, or what part Deputies from the city can play, but we are really concerned—as, indeed, is the housewife—with the problems of all our industries, whether it is the agricultural industry or any other industry. If we read in depth and in detail into the problems and suffering that have been caused by a small group of exploiters, we would realise how serious the situation is. Having glanced briefly at the document before us, we see that there is a serious situation which must be eliminated. The Minister is to be congratulated on his prompt action in tackling this problem at the moment so as to ensure that no further damage will be done, either to the people earning their living in the industry or, indeed, to the community as a whole.
I would like to say one or two words about this Bill, which I support, and to give every encouragement to the Minister to proceed with the policy for the eradication of bovine diseases. It is great to see a young and enthusiastic Minister behind this policy, which is what is required. Given the obvious bad record over a quarter of a century, it is all the more important now that we have some kind of messiah who will take this on as a real, national job. The condition of the cattle in this country is as important to us as the condition of our land. There are certain natural attributes, natural advantages which were given to this country by the good Lord; one of them is the fact that the land is capable of supporting healthy cattle and producing them in good numbers. Other countries have other natural advantages—they have a greater stock of mineral wealth, or oil wealth, or whatever else it is. We cannot afford to take half measures about one of the most important product lines available for our economic development, naturally given to us, so that it can support the increasing population of the country. The question, in talking on Second Stage of this Bill is, where are the weaknesses? From listening to the debate I gather that the blame is being put on the group of people who have been abusing the system. Senator Dowling has hammered that home, loud and clear to us. If there are people doing this they are in the category of felons of the land; they are digging holes for future generations. The second question is, is the process being tackled properly? Is it being managed properly? Is the right technology being used? This is not my field—my field is managing things—but I wonder whether or not this process has been managed properly over the last 25 years. The Minister must take a good, strong look at the Department and see has everything been done right. They have done very good work, but was it always right?
I just returned from abroad last night and have not got with me figures I published last year. I did a few sums comparing the numbers of veterinary surgeons here with those in other countries. I was trying to find a base figure and the base figure I went for was the number of cattle in each country. It is simple logic that if you want eradication you must have a mass attack on the disease, as we had, for instance, against tuberculosis in humans, over the years. Most of us remember those terrible years, when relatives of ours died because the cure for the disease had not yet been found. There was a mass attack on the disease; sanatoria were built; more and more doctors were specialising in it and one knew that something was happening. I looked at the figures for the number of vets in Ireland per thousand head of cattle and I found that Ireland was the lowest in a league that included most of the European countries. Subsequent to publishing those figures I had a letter— I cannot now remember from whom— which pointed out that things were not as bad as I was painting them and that when you categorise vets in the proper way it showed that we were higher up on the list. That is just playing with words, playing with figures, playing with categories. The facts are that, in terms of the quantity of cattle we have here compared with the quantity of cattle in other countries, we have less vets.
If one of our greatest problems is bovine disease and we have a big problem of tackling it, it would seem eminently reasonable that we should put more manpower behind the job, even if it means putting in more manpower for a few years until we have won. When you take into account that the qualifying conditions for entry to veterinary colleges is such that only a very small number can get in every year, it raises questions. There is a question there to be answered and I put it to the Minister that it is just one of the examples that make me a little dubious as to whether we are marshalling our resources fully. Obviously, the Minister is well aware of this; this Bill is an indication of that. I would suggest to him that the effort be multiplied, that the quality and condition of our cattle is as important as the quality of our land. It is not just another product line and therefore the attack on it must be on a massive national level.
I thank the Senators for their very useful contributions to this debate.
Senator Whitaker stated that the levy was an investment by the farmers and it certainly is an investment. If we do not rid ourselves now of the twin scourges of bovine TB and brucellosis, the future for Irish agriculture is very bleak indeed. I am glad that the Senators who spoke here today are in full agreement with our efforts to get rid of this disease.
Senator Connaughton, leading off the debate for the Opposition yesterday evening, asked why the people were not told in 1977 that a levy would be imposed. I would ask Senator Connaughton and his colleagues why the Coalition parties did not tell the electorate in 1973 that they were going to impose income tax on farmers, or why the Fine Gael Party did not tell the electorate in 1977 that their present leader, Deputy Garrett FitzGerald, had proposed to impose a 12 per cent levy on farmers. When one examines that proposal one will appreciate that the levy which we are imposing in this Bill today is only chicken feed in comparison to what the present leader of Fine Gael proposed at that time.
The Senators and the farmers generally realise what a serious threat TB and brucellosis are to the farming industry generally because it is not just the cattle and beef industry which would be destroyed if we found ourselves excluded from traditional markets because of TB and brucellosis. Senator Butler spoke from his personal knowledge of the dairying industry and knows that TB and brucellosis could threaten the future of that industry also. Due to the close links between the beef and dairying industry, if one sneezes the other catches a cold.
Milk is regarded by many European countries as a disease risk, particularly from the human health point of view, and some of our EEC partners make no secret of their concern about products derived from milk from diseased herds. I am sure that Senator Butler is aware of that. While Senator Butler and other Senators are all for disease eradication they want to eradicate it painlessly for the farmer and without money having to be spent.
The main benefits from disease eradication will go to the farming industry, just as farmers will be the main losers if we do not eradicate disease. Senator Connaughton agreed that farmers ought to in their own interests carry some of the cost and he acknowledged that £3 per animal was not a very significant sum. That at least was honest. Senator Connaughton was concerned about what will happen when we are rid of disease and the cost of eradication is greatly reduced. We want to reach that stage as soon as possible, but I am afraid it is some distance away yet. Even when the incidence of disease is down to what the EEC would regard as acceptable levels, regular testing of the national herd will have to be continued just as it is in Britain where TB has been eradicated.
Senator Butler was worried about farmers who had made every effort to clear out disease and queried why they should have to pay the levy. For them, total eradication is the only security. As long as disease is prevalent as it is now, no herd can feel free from re-infestation or re-infection and, far from being an unwelcome cost farmers could well regard the levy as a very good investment in the future security of the farming industry.
I emphasised in my introductory statement that the provisions in the Bill about the milk price differential are of an enabling nature only and I explained that there was no fixed intention as to how and when these would be used. I need not say any more about that except that most creameries are already operating their own system of price differentials for one reason or another. The provisions in the Bill are not new.
Senator Butler was obviously misled about press reports regarding the powers given in the Bill to the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners become involved only with live cattle exports, and nowhere in the Bill are there any powers for the Revenue Commissioners to enter meat factories, creameries or other premises.
They are already there in a previous Bill.
They are not in this Bill.
The 2 per cent coresponsibility levy allows them in.
We are dealing at the moment with the Bovine Diseases Bill.
The same people will be involved.
They are not involved in this Bill in any way except with live exports. They have no authority to go into any meat factory or anything else under this Bill. Whatever powers they had before do not derive from this Bill.
The human health aspect of disease was also mentioned. This is certainly of the utmost importance and this point was made very forcibly in the other House. The ultimate answer is to get rid of TB and brucellosis. But until we can get to that stage, it is right to be concerned about the effects on people.
Senator O'Brien wants full market value for reactors and also wants no farmer contribution to the cost of disease eradication. The Senator wants to make the cost to the State still higher and wants all of it to be carried by the PAYE taxpayer. That is not a realistic proposal and even the farming community would not put forward that kind of a proposal.
Senator O'Toole raised the question of the special species of warble fly they have in the Ballycroy area of County Mayo. We are diligently pursuing that warble fly and hope we will be able to catch up with him in the near future.
Senators Cranitch and O'Toole mentioned the importance of an educational programme. This is a good idea and we can certainly have a look to see what is possible or appropriate. The Minister for Health said in the Dáil that he has asked the Health Education Bureau to consider implementing a campaign on the dangers of brucellosis and this would certainly be well worthwhile considering. We have to do a lot of work in this area in educating people about the dangers of this disease. They have been highlighted here today by some of the Senators who have personal knowledge of disease, particularly brucellosis and its effect on humans. I am sure the Department of Health will co-operate in every way possible in any programme that we might initiate to educate the people about the dangers.
The important factor we are concerned with here today is from the agricultural point of view. If we consider the seriousness of this disease to our national herd, to our agricultural industry in general, no effort should be spared to get rid of it. We are depending to a large extent on exports of cattle, meat and dairy products. I said in my opening remarks that time is running out on us. We have spent 25 years trying to eradicate the disease, trying to bring home to farmers, to marts, to cattle dealers and to everybody concerned with the industry the need to come to grips with those two diseases. Unfortunately, our efforts have not borne a lot of fruit. Let us hope that now in the new situation, where we are forced by our EEC partners to take immediate action, farmers and everybody else concerned will play their part in trying to eradicate those two diseases.
It is not a very popular job for any Government to have to impose levies to provide the money to deal with those things. It is absolutely essential in the national interest, in the interest of the farmers and the people involved in the agro-industry, that we eradicate, once and for all, those two diseases and that we can go before our counterparts in Europe with a clear sheet and say that our efforts have borne fruit, our farmers, vets and farming organisations have cooperated, that we have got rid, once and for all, of those two diseases. We would then be entitled to export our cattle to any place where we could get suitable markets for them. Our aim and ambition are to try to get rid of those two diseases. I am sure the inconvenience of a levy of this kind will be borne by the farmers, because in the long run it is in their best interests that those two diseases are eradicated.
Question put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 11.
Tá
- Brennan, Séamus.
- Brugha, Ruairí.
- Cassidy, Eileen.
- Cranitch, Mícheál.
- Donnelly, Michael Patrick.
- Dowling, Joseph.
- Goulding, Lady.
- Harney, Mary.
- Herbert, Anthony.
- Hyland, Liam.
- Jago, R. Valentine.
- Mulcahy, Noel William.
- O'Toole, Martin J.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, William.
Níl
- Blennerhassett, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Butler, Pierce.
- Cooney, Patrick Mark.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, John.
- Lynch, Gerard.
- McDonald, Charles.
- Markey, Bernard.
- O'Brien, Andy.
- Reynolds, Patrick Joseph.
Tellers: Tá, Senators W. Ryan and Brennan; Níl, Senators Burke and Harte.
Question declared carried.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 25 July 1979.