Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 19 Feb 1942

Vol. 85 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 30—Agriculture.

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim breise ná raghaidh thar £10 chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfaidh chun bheith iníoctha i ríth na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1942, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí Oifig an Aire Talmhaidheachta agus Seirbhísí áirithe atá fé riaradh na hOifige sin, maraon le hIldeontaisí-i-gCabhair.

That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1942, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, and of certain Services administered by that Office, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

A sum of £48,000 is required under sub-head M (7) which provides for allowances in respect of the storage of butter for winter requirements and the production and acquisition of butter and other dairy products. It is estimated that the production of creamery butter for the year ending 31st March next will be 662,000 cwts. or about 4,000 more cwts. than the previous year. The guaranteed return from milk used in the manufacture of dairy products was 6d. per gallon which is the equivalent of 158/- net per cwt. for butter. The retail prices for the year remained unchanged at the equivalent of 152/- net per cwt. and payment of a production allowance of 6/- per cwt. is accordingly being made to bring butter to the guaranteed value of 158/- per cwt. The production allowance on 662,000 cwts. of butter amounts to £199,000.

Then there is a corresponding allowance made on cheese costing about £9,000 while the cost of cold-storing butter for winter requirements amounts to £82,000. There are certain arrears from the previous year which amount to £15,000, making a total of £305,000. There is a saving in respect of claims not maturing for payment this year amounting to £7,000 so that the net total for this year in respect of the cost of production of creamery butter, as far as the State is concerned, and the cost of storing it, is £298,000. A sum of £250,000 was already provided in the original Estimate and the supplementary sum required now is £48,000. On the other hand there will be a saving on another Estimate, that is in respect of export bounties, of about an equivalent amount, so that the total expenditure on butter, for export or home production, will remain at about the same figure estimated in the beginning of the financial year. The reduction in the export subsidy is due to the reduction in the export of butter. Since margarine went off the market, there has been an increase of about 25 per cent. in the consumption of creamery butter.

The second item with which we have to deal is £6,000 in respect of the expenses of veterinary surgeons. This arises under the Fresh Meat Acts. As Deputies know, during the foot-and-mouth disease there was a very big export of fresh meat, of both dressed meats and cooked meats, and a number of factories came into existence. There were 27 new premises in all requiring veterinary supervision. The cost of this extra supervision is estimated at about £6,000, so that under these two sub-heads the amount required is £54,000. There are, however, savings on other sub-heads amounting to £53,990, so that the net sum required is £10.

Could the Minister say what the total expended on export bounties is?

£200,000.

The Minister did not say anything about the levy. I suppose there is no levy?

There is no levy.

Could the Minister give us some information as to what was the price to the creameries for the winter period? The Minister said that the price would be 152/- for the whole year?

Was any special price given for the winter period?

There will be an extra 8/-, I think, for winter production.

The price from 1st December to 31st March last year was 170/- and there will have to be a considerable increase if we are going to raise it from 152/- to 170/-.

The Deputy did not get the figure quite correctly. The retail price the creamery gets is 152/- and we give 6/- as well, making 158/-.

Is it likely that the difference between that and last year's price of 170/- will be given?

It will be brought up by another 8/-, I think, making 166/- for winter production.

Were these veterinary surgeons acting when the pressed beef was sent out of the country some time ago? The Minister will remember that some of this pressed beef was found to be bad in England.

They were. The pressed beef itself was not inspected, but the animals slaughtered to make it were inspected.

Is there any hope of that business starting again?

Negotiations are still in progress.

And there is still hope?

There is still hope, but it is a slender hope.

The Minister realises that it was a great boon to the cattle trade and that many people have sunk a lot of money in that business. Would I be in order at this point in asking if the price of this fresh meat will be fixed at a higher level next year?

I could not say that.

The price of live cattle is fixed at a farthing a lb. less for next June than last June, and will the Department keep the matter in view, having regard to the rising costs of production?

I did not expect that we would be led so far in this debate.

It is not in the Vote.

Could the Minister say if any portion, and, if so, what portion, of this £6,000 is applicable to the Pigs and Bacon Board?

It would be very hard to say that. I suppose I could find out the figure, but most of our regular staff were working on foot-and-mouth disease for part of that period, and were replaced by temporary staff. To that extent, some of this money may have been spent on the inspection of pigs and bacon, but most of it is applicable to the other part of the business.

Because one does not assume that any extra veterinary supervision was entailed by an increase in the production of pigs.

Would the Department consider any scheme for popularising the use of butter? I know that all the butter which could be produced in this country could be consumed with benefit in this country, and I consider it outrageous that, in the middle of a period of emergency, we have to export a foodstuff like butter to a foreign country. I think it hard that £200,000 should be expended in that respect.

It does not arise on the Estimate.

The Minister is making a saving on it.

Savings may not be discussed. Money is asked for in the Vote, and only the items for which the money is required may be discussed, but not the savings or Appropriations-in-Aid.

It is very hard for people on small salaries with large families, and with Emergency Powers (No. 83) Order in operation, to eat much butter.

That is not in the Estimate.

I am putting forward the suggestion that it should be dealt with to a greater extent in the food vouchers which are being issued to the people.

The Deputy is going far afield.

I may, but——

The Deputy may not.

If they would not limit the food vouchers to six children.

Is there any reason why a subsidy should not be given for milk rather than for butter?

That alternative scheme is not relevant.

The Minister is asking for money for a bounty on butter. Why not give the bounty on milk instead of butter?

The question of policy will arise on the main Estimate.

Deputy Corry put forward a suggestion——

Deputy Corry did not get away with it.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share