DEAR EDITOR

Many of your readers may be aware of the EIF levy whereby IFA, ICMSA and indirectly Macra benefit from a sales percentage deduction levied on farm commodities such as cattle, sheep, milk and grain.

Other farm organisations such as ICSA and the Irish Natura and Hill Farmers Association (INHFA) do not benefit from this levy.

The money is collected by some marts, meat factories, grain merchants and creameries on an opt-out basis. In other words, it is automatically taken from farmers’ cheques on the assumption of approval.

Apologists for the system as presently operated maintain that it is consensual on the basis that a farmer can opt-out prior to the business being transacted, I beg to differ.

The reason I raise this issue now is that I recently witnessed the difficulty a young relative had in cancelling the levy.

The mart in question was Wexford Farmers Co-Op (WFC) which deducted a levy exclusively for the benefit of IFA on an opt-out basis.

From what I observed, I discovered that cancelling the IFA levy can be an extremely intimidating process.

Like all co-ops, WFC is governed by an elected board, drawn from its shareholders. To be fair to the present board of WFC, its policy on levy deduction predates the birth of some of them. It is a legacy issue.

However, what may have seemed perfectly reasonable in 1966 or 1976 would at best be considered seriously underhanded today.

At the recent WFC AGM, I requested that the incoming board consider a modest reform, ie that going forward all new customers of WFC would be afforded the courtesy of consenting to the levy, or an opt-in as opposed to an opt-out policy.

This, I believe, is the minimum required for WFC to be seen to embrace the concept of consent.

It would also be good for business as it signals a policy of parity of esteem on behalf of WFC to all its suppliers going forward.

It would come as a surprise to very few if this proposed reform is met with considerable resistance from the IFA hierarchy.

However, all concerned should consider the implications of a successful block. In my view, a block would lead to an inevitable legal challenge which in turn would lead to a more radical reform than is presently proposed.

The ensuing publicity could cause a rapid domino effect.

By way of disclosure, it is important that I mention my 25-year connection with ICSA, although not active in many years. I have not discussed this issue with any of my former colleagues in ICSA.