I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £3,035,230 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1953, for the salaries and expenses of the office of the Minister for Agriculture, including certain services administered by that office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.
The total sum estimated to be needed for the year 1952/53 amounts to £5,689,230. Of this sum £2,654,000 has been granted by way of Vote on Account, leaving £3,035,230 to be granted now to complete the Vote.
Deputies have been supplied with a reprint of Parts I and II of the Estimate. The necessity for the reprint arose from the decision of the Government to withdraw the butter subsidy. The original Estimate provided for butter subsidy for the whole year, whereas the revised Estimate, as reprinted, provides only for the period of the financial year ended on the 4th July, 1952.
From the reprint of Part II of the Estimate, Deputies will notice that the total sum required for 1952/53 represents a net decrease of £1,514,997 as compared with the revised Estimate for 1951/52. The principal decrease is, of course, on the sub-head for dairy produce subsidies, for which the amount now required is £1,875,300 less than was voted for 1951/52. The only other substantial decrease is one of almost £100,000 in the sum provided in sub-head O.5.—Agricultural Produce (Cereals) Acts, etc. This is due entirely to a reduction in the estimated expenditure under the fertiliser credits (wheat) scheme which, of course, is now tapering off.
The sub-heads which show substantial increases as compared with 1951/52 are the land reclamation and water supplies scheme, for which an additional sum of approximately £221,000 is provided, the ground limestone subsidy provision which is increased by £100,000, and a new sub-head—G.5: entitled Repayable Advances for Importation of Superphosphate which provides for £400,000.
The foregoing comparison between 1952/53 and 1951/52 is, of course, exclusive of the transfer from my Vote to that for the Department of Industry and Commerce of the provision for flour and wheaten meal subsidies and related matters.
The total net estimate for 1952/53 as shown in the Book of Estimates amounted to £8,012,230, and Deputies will observe from Part I of the reprint that the revised Estimate amounts to £5,689,230. The reduction of £2,323,000 is the difference between the provisions originally made for expenditure and receipts for dairy produce subsidies for the whole year and the provisions now made for these subsidies for the period of the year ended on the 4th July. For the whole year, it was estimated that expenditure on dairy produce subsidies would amount to £3,850,000 while receipts (Appropriations-in-Aid) from the issue of permits to catering establishments and sales of extra butter to milk suppliers were expected to realise £292,000, leaving the net estimated charge on the Exchequer £3,558,000. The revised figures for the period of the year ended on the 4th July, 1952, are £1,315,000 for expenditure and £80,000 for receipts, or a net charge on the Exchequer of £1,235,000. The reduced charge on the Exchequer is, therefore, £2,323,000.
I should mention that, in addition to the expenditure out of voted moneys of £1,315,000 on dairy produce subsidies, it is estimated that the Dairy Produce (Price Stabilisation) Fund will be in a position to contribute £550,000 derived from levies on stocks and sales of butter, so that the total expenditure on butter subsidies, cold storage allowances, and losses on the sale of butter imported between December, 1951, and April, 1952, will amount to £1,865,000.
Before going on to deal with some other individual sub-heads, I should like to make some general remarks on agricultural production and on certain aspects of agricultural policy.
There seems to be a widespread belief not only that our agricultural production is low but that it is well below pre-war. In fact, I understand that the latest calculations of output show that the volume of net output in the year 1951 was greater than in 1938/39 and greater also than in 1950. The volume of gross output in 1951 was very slightly below 1938/39, but I think it will be agreed that as between these particular years the better basis of comparison is that of net outputs.
This is not, of course, to say that there is not great room for improvement in agricultural production in this country. I have repeatedly stressed the importance of increased production in the numerous addresses I have given during the past year at various meetings in different parts of the country. We want, in the first place, more land under wheat and beet, and secondly, greater production of feeding stuffs. This means more tillage, and I do not think that this is an excessive demand, considering that there is a smaller proportion of land under the plough in this country than in any other State in Western Europe. There is, of course, no conflict whatever between this policy and grass production. In fact, there is a crying need for a vast improvement in the quality of our grass, and this improvement, generally speaking, can only be achieved by taking the plough around the farm. In this way, we would not only manage to secure independence from outside sources of grain and sugar, but we would also be able to carry more cattle and to produce more milk.
If we could assume satisfactory export prices, a very rapid increase in agricultural production could be achieved here by pushing up the output of pigs, poultry and eggs. These branches of production lend themselves readily to rapid expansion, and in point of quality we can compete with any country in the world as regards these products. The possibility of a really big expansion hinges mainly on the growing of the necessary feeding stuffs at home—in particular, feeding barley and fodder beet.
To encourage the increased production of wheat the standard price for the 1952 crop was fixed at 75/- a barrel. A bonus of 2/6 a barrel will be payable for top grade wheat bushelling 60 lb. or over. During the past season half the wheat sold to the flour millers qualified for the quality bonus. It may be expected therefore that at least half the wheat to be sold this year will be paid for at the rate of 77/6 per barrel. As in previous years farmers have a guaranteed market for all millable wheat produced by them so that in this respect they are in a very advantageous position so far as this particular crop is concerned.
It is unfortunate that the wheat midge has appeared again in several counties this year, but this time we have been better able to cope with it. Farmers have adopted our advice to spray their crops with DDT preparations just before the wheat ears out. I know that the staffs of the county committees of agriculture have been particularly active in their efforts to see that these precautions are taken. It is expected that where farmers have taken the measures advised the damage likely to be caused by the midge will be slight. While spraying the crop with DDT preparations appears to have given good results in combating the wheat midge the possibility of devising other effective control measures has not been overlooked and experiments have been carried out to test the efficiency of other methods of dealing with the pest.
As the dairying industry occupies such a pivotal position, I have given considerable attention to it since I assumed office. I am satisfied that we cannot see the problems of the dairying industry in their true perspective unless we have some idea of the actual cost of producing milk. For that purpose, I have made arrangements for a representative committee to take in hands an investigation of the costs of production. The technical direction of the investigation will be in charge of Professor Murphy of University College, Cork, a recognised authority on this subject. The preliminary arrangements for the investigation are in process of being made, and it is hoped that it will be possible to start the field work in the autumn. The milk cost investigation will be valuable not only for the information it will make available on costs of milk production but also for the light it will throw on the finances of farming generally in the creamery and liquid milk areas. I feel the findings of the investigation should prove of great value in the development of Government policy in the future.
I have already explained how the withdrawal of the butter subsidy affects the provisions in the Estimate. After the end of rationing the Government will continue to pay out of State funds the cost of the cold storage of surplus summer production of creamery butter held for use during the winter months of low production. The creamery industry is being consulted about the nature of the organisation necessary to give effect to these arrangements. In the meantime the existing machinery is being continued. It is hoped that production of creamery butter will reach a level sufficiently high to obviate the necessity for further imports of butter. Production of creamery butter so far this season is appreciably better than for the corresponding period of 1951. We cannot predict how consumption is going to be affected by the removal of controls and the ending of rationing. The situation will, therefore, require close and continuous attention for some time.
While there is undoubtedly considerable scope for an improvement in milk yields, there seems to be a mistaken impression that total milk production in this country has declined very considerably compared with pre-war. This is not the case. Average total production of milk for all purposes is estimated to have been about 489,000,000 gallons in 1938/39 and about 485,000,000 gallons in 1951. What has happened is that home consumption of milk products, particularly butter, has increased and our exports of milk products have consisted almost entirely of products other than butter. Home consumption of creamery butter increased by 73 per cent since 1938. Exports of non-butter milk products in 1938 accounted for roughly 10,000,000 gallons of whole milk and by 1951 this figure had increased to 28,000,000 gallons. In general these are healthy developments. While the price of creamery butter was heavily subsidised, however, the whole pattern of the butter trade was distorted.
Two increases in creamery milk prices and in the price of milk sold for liquid consumption in the Dublin and Cork Milk Board areas were granted during the financial year 1951/52—in May and July, 1951. Over a period of 12 months, these increases together represented a rise in the price paid to the producer of 2d. per gallon compared with 1950/51. As has already been announced, the Government, after careful consideration, have decided that the prices announced last July would continue. It will, of course, be appreciated that the price for the year beginning 1st May, 1952, is higher than the average price for the year beginning 1st May, 1951, because the second price increase granted in the financial year 1951/52 did not come into operation until 1st July, 1951. I cannot too strongly emphasise my view that the financial returns for the dairy farmer could be greatly increased if milk yields per cow were raised if only by a modest percentage.
In the field of live-stock production, the dependence for progress on increased home production of essential feed supplies is, as I have already emphasised, a first consideration. This is so particularly, perhaps, in the case of pig production. There is no doubt but that it will pay farmers well to grow themselves as much as possible of the feeding stuffs they require for increased pig production.
For the first five months of 1952, the number of pigs delivered to bacon factories was 223,000 as compared with 196,000 in the corresponding period of 1951. Some exports to Great Britain under the long-term agreement made last year with the British Ministry of Food have already taken place and pig producers are assured under the arrangements embodied in the agreement of prices, already announced, which will change only according as prices to British producers change. There is every reason, therefore, to hope for continued improvement and growing confidence in pig production, based on increased supplies of home-grown feed such as barley, potatoes and fodder beet. The export prices are weighted against over-fat pigs and farmers should therefore ensure that their pigs are marketed at the right stage of finishing for bacon purposes and are not too heavy.
The Ministry of Food prices for cattle and sheep show a further appreciable increase in 1952/53 and it is to be hoped that the peak prices offered for cattle in the late spring months will lead to some increase in stall feeding. The spread between the price of cattle at this period and in the late autumn is such that the producer whose economy enables him to market well finished cattle in the late spring will benefit materially by doing so.
An important development in cattle breeding has been the progress of artificial insemination, now being carried on from six main stations with 18 sub-stations. In 1951 a new main station was established by the Dairy Disposal Company in County Kerry with sub-stations at Cahirciveen, Castlemaine, Rathmore and Listowel. A new main station was also established by my Department at Clonakilty Agricultural School, as well as two sub-stations, at Killeshandra and Lough Egish creameries, to the Department's existing main station at Grange, County Meath. This year arrangements have been going ahead for the establishing of a new main station by the Dairy Disposal Company, Limited, near Ennis, County Clare, with sub-stations at Ennistymon, Kilrush and Scariff creameries. In the Tipperary-Kilkenny area, a group of co-operative societies has established a main station in the area with four sub-stations. Two sub-stations to Clonakilty main station are also being established this year at creameries in the Macroom and Skibbereen district, and it is hoped that the Cork and Dublin Milk Boards will before long, under the Milk (Regulation of Supply and Price) (Amendment) Act, 1952, recently passed by the Oireachtas, participate in the establishment of sub-stations in their areas to the Clonakilty and Grange main stations respectively. The foregoing facilities, together with those provided by Mallow and Mitchelstown Creameries, will cover for the most part the dairying and milk production districts of the country. Precautions have been taken to ensure that an appropriate level of inseminations with dairy shorthorn bulls is maintained in the interests of the basic live-stock economy of the country.
The increase in exports of beef, mutton and lamb slaughtered in this country has been a welcome feature in the marketing of live stock. During the year ended 31st March, 1952, exports of carcase meat and canned meat totalled almost 36,000 tons as compared with 18,000 tons in the year ended 31st March, 1951, and 10,000 tons in the year ended 31st March, 1950. I am hopeful that good progress will continue to be achieved in this direction, but I would like to advise intending new entrants to the trade that the slaughtering capacity at existing premises is considerably in excess of present exports, and the volume of refrigeration facilities for meat exports is also growing rapidly. Hence, newcomers to this trade will be entering a very competitive field, and one in which particular competence will be required for its successful development in the future.
This country has mercifully been spared the ravages of foot-and-mouth disease which since last autumn has done so much damage in other European countries, including Great Britain. Control of the disease in the latter country especially is of great importance to us here and we have been happy to co-operate with the British authorities by making available to them the services of some veterinary officers to assist in the task of eradicating the infection. There has also been close co-operation with the Six-County authorities in the execution of measures designed to eliminate the risk of infection being introduced into Ireland. It behoves all concerned at this juncture to take adequate safeguards to minimise the degree of risk involved. My Department has adopted all practicable measures for this purpose. Earlier this year an entry card system was introduced under which sea and air passengers arriving in the country are required to enter on a special card certain particulars which enable the Department's staff at the ports to carry out a thorough disinfection in appropriate cases. This system is working very satisfactorily. As to the future, constant vigilance both on the part of the public and of the State will be essential.
I would like to mention here also certain statements in the Press recently about the value of immunisation of cattle against foot-and-mouth disease as compared with adoption of the policy of slaughtering affected animals. Abandonment of the slaughter policy by a country is simply a confession that complete eradication of the disease has become impracticable in that country because of its wide diffusion amongst stock, and I hope that such a position will never obtain here. Immunisation does not get rid of the disease, and this should be clearly understood by everyone. It merely mitigates its general effect as a permanent feature of the live-stock situation, but does not prevent recurring losses of substantial magnitude —losses certainly immeasurable greater than the slaughter of affected animals while the disease can be completely eradicated by this means.
As regards those live-stock diseases from which, unfortunately, this country is not free, I would refer, in particular, to bovine tuberculosis and contagious abortion. The Government has been giving close attention to the question of securing the use of part of the American Grant Counterpart moneys to make a start with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, which is a problem of considerable complexity and financial magnitude. Examination of the matter will be pushed ahead with a view to the earliest possible action being taken. The existing scheme of especially low fees for the vaccination of cattle against contagious abortion does not appear to be meeting with the popularity it deserves. Vaccination is the best preventive against the disease, and is eminently satisfactory for that purpose. It cannot be expected, however, to cure the disease where already existing, and farmers should appreciate this fact. I would urge, therefore, that the scheme be much more widely availed of for protecting young stock against the disease and thus building up in a relatively short period herds which will be completely free of affected animals.
The low prices paid by the British Ministry of Food for our egg exports last year had a depressing effect on our poultry stocks and on our exports of eggs which were much below those for similar periods in 1949 and 1950. This year we have done somewhat better, and I have been able to arrange that poultry keepers will be given 2/9 per dozen for eggs from the 1st February to the end of July, and 3/6 a dozen from August to January next. The improved prices have reflected themselves in the stepping up of the exports of eggs, but I do not think the prices are yet sufficient, as they are out of line with costs. We are normally one of Great Britain's principal suppliers of eggs, and I think it is in the mutual interests of both countries that this trade should be maintained at the highest level, particularly in view of the present position of the sterling area reserves. We cannot, however, hope to increase our exports unless we get satisfactory prices. For our part, we are endeavouring to bring down costs of production by improving the standard of the fowl kept on our farms and by the elimination of disease. We are also encouraging in every possible way the increased production of home-grown feeding stuffs for poultry.
At the same time, we do not neglect any opportunity of developing alternative markets for our eggs, and we have this year been able to make a satisfactory arrangement for the export of a substantial quantity to Spain under last year's trade agreement with that country.
The trade in dead poultry with Great Britain is also of considerable importance. So far I have been able to arrange to maintain the price of table chickens at last year's figures and I have announced my intention to continue this until the 15th August. The prices for poultry have however declined on the British Market and in recent months it has only been possible to pay the announced prices to our producers by drawing on reserves. Poultry is now sold in Great Britain on a free and highly competitive market and the indications are that the present rather low prices are not going to improve in the near future.
I drew attention in my opening remarks to a new sub-head, G.5, providing for a sum of £400,000 as a repayable advance in respect of the importation of superphosphate. A special word of explanation is called for as to the circumstances which have made this provision necessary. The Irish Sugar Co. Ltd., acting as the authorised agent of the Minister for Agriculture, imported superphosphate under contract from Holland. The cargoes had to be paid for on arrival and as some time must elapse before the imports are sold to farmers the importations have been financed by means of a bank overdraft on the company's banking account. The banking arrangement contemplated that the company should repay 40 per cent. of its overdraft by the 30th June and the remaining 60 per cent. by the 31st December. As the sales of superphosphate were very slow the company was not in possession of its normal liquid funds and it was necessary for me to fulfil the undertaking I gave in connection with the importation of the fertilisers to enable the company to clear its overdraft. This advance will be repayable to my Department according as the imported superphosphate is sold by the company.
I think it is disappointing that there was such a slow sale for fertilisers generally during the past season. There is no doubt that our agriculture requires the use of very considerably increased quantities of fertilisers, and this applies not only to crops but to pastures. We are among the countries who use the lowest quantities of fertiliser per acre in Western Europe. Although I fully realise the effect of the rather sharp increase in prices which took place this year, I still think that taking one year with another it would pay farmers to use fertilisers far more liberally as a matter of normal farming practice. If there is any farmer who has any doubts as to the beneficial effects of the use of fertilisers, he should look at the trials conducted in his own county by the county committee of agriculture, or if he can spare the time he should try to pay a visit to Johnstown Castle, County Wex-ford, and see some of the trials in progress there.
I was very much struck by the remarkable results which emerged from one trial in particular. In this test an area comprising 24 acres of unproductive pasture was ploughed, limed, manured and reseeded in the autumn of 1949, and notwithstanding the heavy outlay of over £20 an acre for cultivation, liming, manuring and seeding, this land showed a profit from grazing in the first year (1950) of £15 an acre, and in the second year (1951) the profit was even higher. A remarkable feature of the trial is the early growth of grass which was observed this year (1952). The treated land was fit for grazing in the first few days of April, a month earlier than any similar land in the locality. I am firmly convinced that of the many factors influencing agricultural production adequate fertilising coupled with liming is of the greatest importance.
The use of ground limestone is now recognised as the only practical way of correcting soil acidity which is so prevalent. It would be quite impossible to meet the situation by the former practice of using burned lime. At present there are 18 permanent plants producing ground limestone and for the last year there has been a subsidy on the transport of the limestone so that it can be delivered anywhere at a price not exceeding 16/- a ton. While the production and use of ground limestone has been increasing, we are very far from reaching the point at which adequate quantities are being spread. Among the factors that handicap development is the disinclination of farmers to place orders for delivery during the summer and autumn. The whole subject is at present being inquired into in my Department with a view to seeing what further steps can be taken to promote the production and use of ground limestone.
Land reclamation continues to represent one of the biggest items of expenditure on my Vote. By the time the Estimate was prepared the picture was becoming more clear of the progress which could be made in a year. The staff has now become better versed in the problems of the work and schemes of drainage and reclamation are being prepared and approved more speedily than formerly. The farmers who are electing to do the work themselves are tackling the schemes successfully and are qualifying for grants in larger numbers. The direct action work which has been carried out by my Department is also expanding rapidly. The number of skilled and unskilled men employed for this work has almost trebled within the past year. Contractors have also become more experienced in the use of machinery and are carrying out the drainage and reclamation work more efficiently and expeditiously. Additional contractors are gradually acquiring machinery units and entering into the land reclamation operations either for farmers or under direct contract with the Department. The ratio of administrative expenses to the total expenditure, which in the first few years was rather high, has now fallen to about 16.9 per cent.
I am satisfied that the project is making good progress. I estimate that, in the year 1952/53—the year covered by the Estimate—at least 20,000 farmers will complete drainage and reclamation schemes on their holdings and will qualify for grants. This would represent an area of increased production of about 100,000 acres. It is also estimated that extensive drainage work, involving the complete rehabilitation of hitherto unproductive land, will be carried out by the Department on an area of about 20,000 acres. It is expected that the grants to be earned by farmers who carry out the work themselves will amount to about £550,000.
One difficulty which the scheme encountered was the supply of suitable drainage pipes. In the early stages the concrete pipes being used were found not to be suitable in acid soil conditions, and it was necessary to turn to the use of clay drainage pipes. Unfortunately, the home production of clay pipes is limited, and is unable to meet the demand. It has been necessary, therefore, to import considerable quantities of clay drainage pipes. Certain home concerns are interesting themselves in expanding the production of these pipes, but there is still a very considerable demand in excess of what the home production can meet.
Under the farm buildings scheme, which is provided for in sub-head M (8), the total number of applications received from the start of the scheme about four years ago is 80,800. A number of these were subsequently withdrawn for various reasons. The number of authorisations issued to commence work under the scheme is nearly 60,000, and the amount of money paid in grants, including poultry-house grants, is £525,000 approximately.
I am glad to be able to announce that as from 1st August the grants payable under this scheme for new buildings will be increased by amounts varying from 25 per cent. to 66? per cent. with an increase in one case of 100 per cent. Full details of these increased grants will be published in an official advertisement which my Department will issue soon. There is no doubt that the farm buildings scheme serves a very useful purpose as a great many of the farm buildings of the country require to be replaced or extensively repaired.
The increase of nearly £18,000 in the normal grant to county committees of agriculture shown under sub-head H indicates the extent to which the committees have succeeded in obtaining increased agricultural rates from their county councils. The amount of the normal grant is approximately equivalent to the total proceeds of the agricultural rate made available for the purposes of the county committees. The increased funds available to the committees are being utilised in expanding their existing schemes and particularly in providing for the employment of additional instructors in agriculture, horticulture and poultry-keeping.
My predecessor was in favour of transferring the agricultural advisory services from the county committees to the Department. At the time he left office certain preliminary steps had been taken in that direction. I fully agree with the need for increasing the staff of advisory officers, but I differ with my predecessor as to how this should be done. My idea is that the advisory services should continue to be administered through the county committees of agriculture. I think that it is of great importance not to break the links that have been forged over the years between the advisory officers and the representatives of the local community in matters which are peculiarly suitable for local organisation. For these reasons I decided not to go ahead with my predecessor's scheme, but instead to ask the committees to strengthen their existing services, and I promised them to give them all the facilities I could to do that. A year ago there were 88 instructors in agriculture in the employment of the county committees; to-day there are 107. I have no doubt that a very considerable advantage would accrue from having an adequate number of instructors available throughout the country, and I am hoping that the county committees will continue to expand this service to the utmost.
I have touched on some of the sub-heads involving items of considerable expenditure and on certain aspects of the policy which I have been expounding for the last year. The Vote is such an extensive one and covers such a variety of services and items that it would be impossible, without detaining the House for a very long time, to go into them all individually. In order to assist Deputies I have continued the practice, which has grown up in the last few years, of circulating a White Paper containing a good deal of information relating to the work of my Department. Deputies will no doubt find in this a good many answers to the questions which may have occurred to them in the course of my statement. If it is felt there are any points not dealt with in my present statement or in the White Paper, I will address myself to them when concluding the debate.
