I am sure Deputies expect me to say something about farm prices and incomes. I want at the outset to repudiate any suggestion that the Government have been indifferent to the interest of the farming community or that they have been prepared to let every other sector improve its position and do nothing to help the farmer maintain his position. Nothing could be further from the truth. At the time of the Budget the Minister for Finance and myself indicated that it was the policy of the Government to keep the position of farm income under review and should the position in regard to it deteriorate to consider the situation in the light of all the circumstances prevailing. This was reiterated in the statement issued by the Government on the income guide lines laid down by the Labour Court recently. The acceptance by the Government of these guide lines, and likely developments in regard to nonagricultural incomes, coupled with the effects of the exceptionally adverse weather conditions throughout this spring have combined to make a review of the income position of farmers relative to the other sectors of the community an urgent necessity. It had been my intention to have such a review later in the year in any event but it became obvious some time ago that it would have to be undertaken sooner rather than later and I asked my Department to undertake it as a matter of urgency.
On the basis of that review the Government are satisfied that, because of the exceptionally severe weather we experienced this spring, the projected increase in farm income will not now be realised to the extent that we were counting upon and that, because of developments in other sectors, positive measures to improve farm income must now be taken. This will necessarily involve further increases in taxation and an adjustment in the retail price of certain farm products. I will be in a position to announce the specific measures decided upon to improve farm income shortly.
It was unfortunate that one organisation chose this particular moment to initiate a campaign which makes a calm and objective assessment of the position very difficult and can only delay the implementation of possible remedial action. The day has passed when it is necessary for farmers to engage in this form of agitation. There is a genuine desire on the part of the Government to help the farmer improve his position and income. When cases can be put forward in a sensible, practical way, based on the facts and figures, they will be listened to sympathetically and an effort made to meet the situation.
This Government are not prepared to see the position of the agricultural sector of the community deteriorate in relation to any other sector and have on many occasions taken action in pursuance of this policy. This principle was underlined in the statement on farm income by the Minister for Finance in the Budget to which I have referred. It is entirely unreasonable for any farmers' organisation to take up an attitude that I must not talk with any other farmers' organisation about milk prices. I hold the view that I must be equally available to all sections of the farming community.
The pickets which are now on Government Buildings and Leinster House have apparently been placed in support of the viewpoint that I am not entitled to discuss the present position of the dairy farmer with anybody except the ICMSA. I cannot see how this attitude can be justified and I earnestly suggest that it be reconsidered.
In our situation, where over 30 per cent of our population make their living on the land and where a very high proportion of our agricultural produce must be exported to unremunerative markets, there is, of course, a very real limit to what can be done by way of direct support from the Exchequer. Consequently, in the long term, the real breakthrough must come through helping farmers to increase their own income by increased production and productivity. Anyone who preaches any other gospel is only deceiving our farmers and storing up trouble for the future.
It is easy to go around telling farmers that they are ignored and neglected, that everyone else's claim for better income and conditions can apparently be met but not theirs, and so on. It is not so easy to preach the obvious truth that the only sure and lasting way for the farmer to better his position and that of his family is to get more from his holding, to improve his production and his efficiency and that the Government are providing assistance in almost every conceivable way to help him do this; and that the real job of farmers' organisations should be to get these availed of fully and to see how they can be made to work better, to persuade the unwilling, and encourage the pessimistic to get ahead with progressive farm plans.
It is easy and popular to demand more from the Government but not so popular to point out that no matter what the Government may wish to do, there is a very real limit to what is financially possible but that there is the other way in which really spectacular increases can be achieved and indeed are being achieved by many farmers in different parts of the country. We have a comprehensive structure of schemes and services as the disposal of the farmer to help him to get ahead but there is always room for discussion about them. They can always be improved, adjusted or extended. I am always glad to get the views of practical farmers on how they are working out in practice.
In fact, of course, the Government are now providing record sums of money for price support of various products. The estimated amount of such support in 1966-67 is £15.07 million as against £2.73 million in 1956-57. In addition, the Government are now providing £37.4 million on various schemes and services to help farmers increase productivity and to cut unit costs. I was very disappointed to hear recently some suggestions that we should abandon or drastically curtail this form of expenditure, for example, the fertiliser subsidies, in order to give more money by way of direct price support. In my opinion. this would be a reactionary and retrograde step which would in fact greatly reduce the real prospects of farmers steadily improving their income.
Price support is, of course, necessary but of greater basic importance to agriculture is expenditure which enables farmers to farm better, to use their resources to greater effect, to increase productivity. There is a danger that agitation directed only to getting higher prices may develop a kind of dole mentality which would eventually make agriculture subservient to the State. What I want to achieve is a selfreliant, independent and progressive agriculture, fully backed by, but not utterly dependent on, the State.
I should now like to go on to review agricultural developments during the past year.
Despite various difficulties in 1965 the value of gross agricultural output, including livestock changes, increased by about £12 million or five per cent over 1964. Agricultural prices were generally above the level of 1964 when we had the first real rise in the index of agricultural prices for many years. However, other expenses of farmers also increased so that the net rise in farm income was of the order of about £2 million—to be exact from £143.5 million in 1964 to £145.4 million in 1965. This represented an increase in average per caput farm income of about five per cent and some slight improvement in the income position of farmers vis-á-vis industrial workers took place.
I am convinced that the prospects for the agricultural industry were never better. Cattle and sheep stocks are at record levels. Cow numbers are well on their way to reaching the target of 1,700,000 which we had set ouselves in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Milk production has been expanding at the rate of 30 million gallons a year—just what is needed to achieve our target.
Beef market prospects are good. The reduction in the waiting period negotiated in the British Trade Agreement, the underpinning of the beef export price and the recent 10/- per cwt. rise in the British guarantee price for cattle are factors which will further strengthen prices. True, the trend in tillage has been a cause of some disquiet. Here, in response to the suggestions of organised farmers I increased the price for wheat of this year's crop by 10/- a barrel, the second increase in two years. The floor price for barley was raised last year. Our wheat price is now well up to the highest European levels, as is also that for sugar beet, and one would have liked to see what the effect on output would have been had the season been normal. As it is, the abnormally late and wet spring has seriously interfered with sowing and acreage is expected to be well down. Livestock are lower in condition than is normal at this time of the year because of shortage of keep and milk production in the first few months of the year, though running above last year's level, is not quite as high as we had anticipated. Those reverses are purely temporary and in the longer term the favourable factors I have mentioned are there and their cumulative effect must certainly be felt.
One of the aims of the Second Programme was to secure improved market outlets for our increased agricultural production and indeed the targets were based on the assumption of improved international marketing arrangements for agricultural products including membership of the EEC. The conclusion in December last of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain was therefore of vital importance to us.
As the Agreement has already been discussed in detail by the House, I do not propose to dwell at any length on its terms now. I should like, however, to stress again its importance from the point of view of the farming community in making firm and secure provision for access to the UK market for our agricultural, horticultural and fishery products and in ensuring advantageous price and marketing arrangements for several important products while, at the same time, enabling us to continue to protect the home market for many of them. A solid foundation has been laid for the development of the agricultural industry, and the Agreement has established the conditions which are essential to the achievement of the agricultural targets in the Second Programme.
The Agreement is essentially one of opportunity. To derive the maximum benefit from it, there must be sound farm planning, good management and husbandry, and the adoption of up-to-date techniques on the part of producers, as well as the observance of the highest standards of efficiency in processing, packaging and transport on the part of processors and exporters. If the necessary effort is forthcoming— and I am sure it will—the Agreement should mark the commencement of a new era both for farmers and for the community as a whole.
Full membership of the European Economic Community is, of course, our long-term objective and the establishment of the Free Trade Area will help to prepare for the conditions that would have to be faced on our entering into that wider grouping. Pending entry into the EEC, my Department is keeping in close touch with developments in connection with the establishment of a common agricultural policy for the Community area. We are also doing whatever is possible to improve the outlets for our agricultural produce in the EEC and in other foreign markets. Unfortunately, most of them protect their agriculture highly by one means or another, and the efforts of international organisations have not been very effective hitherto in liberalising trade in agricultural products.
The Kennedy Round of trade negotiations that is being conducted at present in the GATT held out some hopes of improvement in this respect, but so far they have not been realised. Admittedly, the negotiations were held up for a considerable time within the past year by the EEC internal situation. Now that the latter situation has been resolved, it is to be hoped that some better progress will be made, and that agricultural exporting countries such as Ireland will derive some benefit.
Store cattle exports in 1965 were lower than the very high exports in 1964. A number of factors seem to have contributed to this; resistance of British feeders to the high prices in the earlier part of the year, weather conditions and fodder availability in Britain, the credit squeeze there and the building up of herds here, all had an influence. Certainly, the decline in exports was not caused by any decline in our production. Cattle numbers are continuing to expand; following the increases registered in the June, 1965 census the January, 1966 count shows 421,000 more cattle in the country than in January 1965. With heavy stocks of cattle in the country we can expect, even with the setback of the weather in recent months, heavy exports of store cattle this year.
Our exports of fat cattle in 1965 were slightly lower than in 1964 and our carcase beef exports slightly higher. The decline in our exports of boneless manufacturing-type beef to the US which occurred in 1964 persisted in 1965. This was largely due to the better prices obtainable in Britain and the Continent than in the US for manufacturing-type beef. Conditions which would permit a resumption of the valuable US trade now seem to be emerging. Slaughterings of cull cows are showing an upward trend and in America the peak of the cattle cycle seems to have passed resulting in higher cattle and beef prices there. Already this year, that is, from January to April, we have exported 3,300 tons of beef to the United States as compared with 900 tons in the same period in 1965 and 4,200 tons in the whole of that year. Another welcome development has been the resumption of purchases of beef for the US Forces in Europe from suppliers other than domestic US suppliers. We participated in this valuable trade before and I am glad to state that we are now participating in it again.
A sum of £75,000 is included in the Estimate for financing the temporary beef export payments scheme. This amount is intended to cover the cost of the scheme up to 30th June. As and from 1st July, the arrangement under the Free Trade Area Agreement whereby guarantee payments under the British Fatstock Guarantee Scheme will be extended to 25,000 tons per annum of eligible Irish beef comes into operation. As already announced, the Government have decided that the Exchequer should meet the cost of support on quantities of eligible beef exported to Britain over and above this quantity.
As and from 1st July also, the British guarantee payments will be applied to 5,500 tons of Irish carcase lamb and, as in the case of beef, exports of eligible lamb to Britain in excess of this quantity will be covered by payments from the Exchequer.
As the technical arrangements for the transfer to us from Britain of moneys falling due are still being settled, I am not yet in a position to inform the House as to the payments likely to be required from the Irish Exchequer for the support of beef and lamb exports in the current financial year. It is my intention, however, to come later to the House with a Supplementary Estimate in respect of the expenditure that will be involved.
These measures of support for our carcase beef and carcase lamb export trades, together with the unrestricted access to the British market which has been secured under the Free Trade Area Agreement for our store cattle, sheep and lambs, the reduction from three months to two months in the waiting period for these store animals, and the abolition of the differential of 3/4d per lb. in the guarantee payments on store sheep and lambs exported from here to the United Kingdom, provide a solid foundation on which the profitable expansion of cattle and sheep production can be based, and livestock producers can expand output in the confident knowledge that adequate export outlets and satisfactory market prices will be available.
As Deputies are aware, I recently set up a small study group comprising representatives of producers, exporters, An Foras Talúntais, UCD and my Department, to examine all aspects of the store cattle trade and to make any recommendation that might be considered desirable for the future development of the trade. I considered that the coming into operation of the Free Trade Area Agreement was an opportune time to make this examination of a trade which is so vital to the national economy and the country's external trade and I am sure that all concerned with the store cattle trade will await with the greatest interest the report of the group.
The Calved Heifer Subsidy Scheme came into operation on 1st January, 1964 and in the period to 31st March, 1966, nearly 385,000 grants, totalling over £5¾ million had been paid to over 120,000 herd-owners—an average of just over three grants per applicant. We have at long last broken through the hitherto seemingly impenetrable ceiling of around 1,200,000 cows which had persisted for nearly a century. In January, 1966, the number of cows was 1,535,000 as against 1,274,100 in January 1963. There is no doubt that the heifer scheme has been markedly successful in bringing about a rapid increase in the national herd. Such criticisms as I have seen of the cost and efficiency of the scheme do not stand up to rational analysis—indeed some of these criticisms seem to me to be based on the mistaken idea that this country is incapable of maintaining a cow population substantially in excess of 1¼ million head which was for so long a feature of our cattle industry. This attitude is psychologically bad and cannot be justified on any sound assessment of the potential of and prospects for our livestock industry. Our land and buildings and methods of husbandry have all been steadily improving over the years and the international outlook for beef points to an assured outlet for all the cattle we can produce.
As our herds approach the optimum carrying capacity of our farms and with the increasing numbers of calved heifers going towards normal herd replacements, it is to be expected that the volume of participation in the scheme will abate somewhat, although it should be still quite considerable. A slackening in the inflow of new applications is already noticeable, and the estimate of £2,500,000 shows a substantial decrease on the £3,400,000 provided in 1965-66.
On the cattle breeding side one of the main developments during the year was the further substantial increases in artificial insemination. Animals inseminated numbered 920,000, representing 60 per cent of total cow numbers, as compared with 825,000 in 1964 and 700,000 in 1963. A notable feature was the striking advance in the number of insemination from Friesian bulls. Friesian bulls accounted for 55 per cent of the total insemination as compared with 42 per cent in 1964.
During the year further imports of continental stock were made. One bull and four heifers of the Danish Red Breed which were imported from Denmark will be used for trials in consultation with the Irish Short-horn Breeders Association. Forty-six Charolais were obtained from France which include one bull and 38 heifers imported by private breeders who propose to establish pedigree herds. My Department, in conjunction with An Foras Talúntais, is continuing the evaluation of the Charolais as a crossing sire for beef production. Proposals are under consideration by the Jersey Cattle Society to import stock from Denmark but no definite decision can be made because of the foot and mouth position on the continent. Consultations have been taking place with interested parties with a view to integrating the existing milk recording schemes for AI dairy-bull progeny, for pedigree dairy herds and for herds in cow testing associations. An integrated scheme acceptable to all has not so far been evolved but I am hoping for early progress. Meanwhile, arrangements to improve butter fat testing and milk recording in the pedigree dairy herds have been made.
The provision in the Estimate for the support of the milk price through the medium of the grant to An Bord Bainne and the direct payments to creameries in respect of the milk price allowances shows a substantial increase over last year. These items, together with other minor expenses, amount to £12.6 million, an increase of £2.85 million over last year's original estimate and of £1.9 million over last year's final provision: £12.6 million represents about 7d per gallon of creamery milk.
The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association have been urging that a two-tier price for creamery milk be introduced. They came to see me on Wednesday, 4th May, and I indicated to them that I was prepared to review the income position of the dairy farmer in the light of recent developments and consider what steps could be taken to improve his position. They gave me to understand clearly that they were only interested in and would accept nothing less than their original proposal for a two-tier price system with 4d per gallon extra for the first 7,000 gallons for all suppliers and 2d per gallon extra for all milk over 7,000 gallons. As the average delivery per creamery milk supplier is only about 3,600 gallons per year the suggested level of 7,000 gallons would cover the bulk of the milk supplied to creameries and would cost about £6 million per annum.
Apart from cost, there are other objections to a two-tier system. Firstly, it would involve a disincentive to increased production as a reduced price would take effect as soon as a producer's annual deliveries exceeded 7,000 gallons. Indeed, it would be bad economics to discourage more efficient and more large-scale production, especially when so many of our farms could carry more cows. Secondly, it would be impossible to prevent abuse of the system, that is by producers putting part of their supplies in the names of members of their families so as to evade the limit of 7,000 gallons. Thirdly, and I think this is a very important objection, two-tier price systems for agricultural products in other countries are aimed at restricting or reducing production. I have no wish to stand in the way of increased milk production on an efficient basis, and I do not think the ICMSA has either. These are cogent reasons against the adoption of a two-tier price system and I feel therefore that the advocates of this proposal should have another look at it in the light of these objections. Of course, I should make it clear that there is nothing to prevent any creamery paying its own suppliers on a two-tier or indeed on any other basis it wishes.
It seems to me that a great deal of heat has been generated in this situation which is not really related to the merits of the claims of the dairy farmer for improved conditions. This is unfortunate and doubly so from my point of view. It is not easy to carry out a rational agricultural policy at any time; it is doubly difficult in an emotional atmosphere, with threats of violence and accusations of bad faith. I think everybody concerned should now stand back and take a long hard look at the situation and see exactly where the present course of events is leading us.
Unfortunately, whether we like it or not milk is not an easy product; it is not a seller's market or likely to become one for a long time to come. It will take us all our time to look after the long-term interests of the industry, to plan its development along the right lines, to see that by its carefully planned organisation it can provide the primary producer with the maximum possible return. A reasonable approach on all sides is a first pre-requisite and it is only in a constructive atmosphere that any worthwhile progress in planning and development can take place. Massive State assistance, for instance, for the erection of diversification plants in many areas will be necessary if the maximum return is to be procured for our milk output as a whole and this cannot be undertaken in an atmosphere of strife and agitation.
Let me make another point in this regard. I have mentioned that the average supplier is sending 3,600 gallons of milk to the creamery per year. Another penny per gallon on that amount would bring in an extra £15, whereas, if we could enable him to carry one extra cow it would give him an extra £50 a year. Is it not the duty of all of us to try to get this message across as widely and as clearly as possible?
While on the subject of milk prices, I feel I should make special reference to the Creamery Milk Quality Grading Scheme which has now been just a year in operation. Results to date show that about 42 per cent of all milk delivered to creameries has reached the requisite standard and has earned the special allowance. This performance has exceeded the expectations we had when the scheme was introduced and I am confident that this year a substantially higher percentage of milk will qualify for the allowance, thereby contributing to the further improvement of the quality of our dairy produce exports and at the same time providing a useful financial benefit for milk producers.
As regards the question of reorganisation of the dairying industry, proposals illustrating a possible form of reorganisation were circulated in February last by the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. The Society has since had some discussions on the subject with industry representatives and when further progress has been made and the preliminary reactions have been studied, I shall be going into the matter more fully with the Society.
The provision in the Estimate for payments to the Pigs and Bacon Commission for the support of bacon exports is £2,350,000; the original provision for 1965-66 was £1.8 million but this was subsequently increased by Supplementary Estimate to £3.1 million. Pig production in this country was at a record level last year, a total of nearly 1,800,000 pigs having been received at bacon factories compared with 1,567,000 in 1964 and 1,554,000 in 1963. So far this year, pig production has been higher than in 1965 but a decrease in the breeding herd shown in the January census suggests that some fall in production may be expected in the summer and autumn months. This is in line with the trend in most pig producing countries in Western Europe where all the indications for some time past have been of a downward turn in the pig cycle. The lower supplies generally should lead to firmer prices on the British bacon market. Bacon prices in Britain have indeed been at a relatively high level since early this year and the general expectation is that a reasonably satisfactory price level will be maintained for some time to come.
Proposals for a scheme of centralised marketing of pigs prepared by the Pigs and Bacon Commission have been under examination in my Department. The scheme, which represents a radical departure from our present arrangements, has the objectives of eliminating the traditional cyclical pattern of high and low levels of production and of bringing about a situation in which all pigs will be marketed on a deadweight basis and will, therefore, be paid for on quality. Any such scheme will affect many persons and interests, including producers themselves and it is necessary to study in detail the full implications of the proposals and to consult with the various interests concerned.
The achievement of higher standards in the quality of bacon exports is a constant preoccupation of my Department and the Pigs and Bacon Commission. Recently, we made a change in grading standards by reducing the upper weight limit of the quality grades and modifying grading measurements; the object is to have a more marketable side of bacon and a higher proportion of the total exports in our best selection.
Factory hygiene and transport arrangements for our bacon are also under constant review and in recent months consultations have been taking place, on my direction, between officers of the Pigs and Bacon Commission and officers of my Department with the object of fully co-ordinating the activities of the two bodies in the field of quality control. One of the problems in the bacon industry has been the age and obsolescence of buildings, plant and equipment in a number of our factories. We have been seeking to rectify this over the last five years by our scheme of grants for the modernisation of bacon factories under which grants of 50 per cent are provided for a wide range of improvement works. A great deal of good work has been done and most of our factories have either completed improvement programmes, some of them on a very large scale, or are in the course of doing so. The few factories which have not participated in the scheme are those in respect of which the proprietors are actively considering, under pressure from my Department, building new factories to replace their existing premises.
As regards the poultry industry the expansion in broiler production continued during 1965, although not as rapidly as in the two previous years. The numbers produced were in the region of 7½ million broilers, being an increase of 1,000,000 broilers over 1964. Top class strains of broiler stock have been imported by commercial interests over the last few years and some of the best strains in the world are now available to producers here. Exports of day-old chicks had to be suspended for the first five months of 1965 because of the fowl pest situation.
One of the problems which we are trying to overcome at present is the tendency for the acreage devoted to certain tillage crops to fall. Despite the increase of 3/- per barrel for wheat in 1965, and the improved marketing conditions which I then introduced, involving the use of the Hagberg falling number test, the acreage under wheat in 1965 fell by 32,000 acres to 182,000 acres. This decline was a matter of concern and in an effort to improve the position the Government decided to increase the price for millable wheat of the 1966 crop by 10/- per barrel over the 1965 price. Unfortunately, owing to the exceptionally high rainfall in recent months, the hope that the increased price would arrest the declining trend in acreage is unlikely to be realised and it now appears that the acreage this year will be lower than in 1965.
Our efforts are directed towards growing not only more but better wheat. As a result of my Department's seed breeding work, there is now available an ample supply of high-class home-grown Irish seed wheat of suitable varieties. By using these and by good husbandry, I have no doubt that, given normal weather conditions, we can produce the greater part of our requirements of millable wheat.
The floor price for feeding barley was increased last year by 5/- per barrel to 45/- or £22 10s. per ton delivered. This price is being maintained for 1966. We did not achieve in 1965 the increases in acreage which I was hoping for but we did succeed in maintaining the 1964 acreage which was the largest on record. Moreover, there was a useful improvement in yield. Barley sowing also has been hampered by the weather but no substantial change in acreage is expected. I think that at the price of 45/- a barrel the crop should show a good profit. In fixing the price, obviously we must keep in mind the implications for the pig feeder who uses a high proportion of the crop.
For Subhead K.12—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme—we will need a provision of £1,882,000. With estimated receipts of £400,000 this means a net expenditure of £1,482,000, a big reduction on the net provision voted last year. I would expect that, at present cost levels and with the present negligible incidence of the disease, the expenditure should stabilise itself at about this figure for a few years. On the other hand, if we can reduce the incidence still further, the cost will show a reduction.
The whole country has been attested since October, 1965 at a net cost to the State of over £39¾ million up to 31st March, 1966. A total of £35½ million was spent on the purchase of reactors, which produced a salvage value of £17½ million leaving the net expenditure on reactors at £18 million or an average loss to the Exchequer of £21. 10. 0. per animal. The average loss in 1965-66 has risen to about £29 per animal. From now on there is very little excuse for an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis in a herd. In most cases it can be prevented by observance of elementary hygiene and by care in the purchase of animals.
I am happy to say that the Brucellosis Eradication Programme has now begun in County Donegal and will be extended to a number of other counties during the year. As the House is aware, the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966 gave me the necessary powers for this most important task. We do not expect that the proportion of reactors to the brucellosis test will be anything as high as in the Bovine Tuberculosis Scheme. We also have the experience gained in the latter scheme to help us and have now an efficient nation-wide organisation of the district veterinary offices.
The market value of reactors taken up under this scheme will be paid. In addition to the eradication programme now starting in the north-west, a Calf-hood Vaccination Scheme has been operated since 1st June, 1965 in eleven counties of the south and east. These counties were selected for the scheme because an intensive survey in 1964 had shown that they contain a higher proportion of reactor milk herds than any other area.
However, much of this high rate of reaction is due most probably to the vaccination of adult animals with Strain 19 anti-abortion vaccine. An animal vaccinated with this after a certain age will give the same reaction to the brucellosis test as if it had the disease. This unfortunate result does not happen when the animal is vaccinated when very young. I am advised that the safe limit is six months. Furthermore, a heifer calf when vaccinated at this early age will develop a high resistance to the disease which will last throughout most of her life. The vaccination programmes will, we expect, have reduced very considerably the number of reactors in the eleven high incidence counties by the time we come to initiate the full eradication programme there.
For the eradication programme in the north-west and the vaccination scheme in the south and east, we require a provision this year of £394,000 gross, less an expected salvage revenue of £66,000. The estimated net expenditure is, therefore, £328,000.
There was a most gratifying response to the 1965 Warble Fly Eradication Scheme, almost 4½ million cattle being treated. Checks on the incidence of warbles in animals passing through marts and export points confirm that the dressings have been highly effective. There is every reason to believe that an all-out drive this year in which every herd-owner participated would lead to the virtual extinction of the pest. The scheme will, of course, be continued this year with such modifications as may be found to be necessary in the light of the experience gained last year. One of the main changes proposed is that it should be compulsory on herd-owners to have all their cattle dressed. Consultations are at present proceeding with the interests concerned and the arrangements for 1966 will be announced shortly.
Regarding sheep scab we have made some progress towards the achievement of a 100 per cent dipping programme which, if carried out over a period of two or three years, will completely eradicate the disease from the country's sheep flocks. All the county councils are now operating sheep dipping regulations and the problem of providing public sheep dipping baths in areas where they are needed is being vigorously tackled. My Department now provides a subsidy of 50 per cent of the cost of the provision by county councils of public dipping facilities. Grants are also provided under the Farm Buildings Scheme for sheep owners who wish to provide dipping and handling facilities on their own lands.
The statutory provisions in regard to the dipping of sheep were amended during 1965 to meet the needs of an eradication campaign. The main change effected was to prescribe two compulsory dippings each year instead of one. The prescribed dipping periods, namely, 1st July to 7th August and 1st October to 30th November, were settled in consultation with the various interests concerned. There have been representations that these periods are not suitable for one reason or another and the question of altering or extending them is at present being examined by my Department. The main consideration in fixing prescribed periods is, of course, to ensure that sheep are dipped at the time which is most advantageous from the point of view of dealing effectively with the scab mite. I appreciate that whatever periods are fixed will be bound to prove inconvenient for some sheep owners but I am confident that if all owners cooperate, any such inconvenience will last for only a season or two, and will be rewarded by the removal of a very real threat to our sheep industry.
An important feature of the plans for the reduction of the economic losses caused by animal disease is the provision of regional veterinary laboratories to supplement the service at present being given from the Veterinary Research Laboratory at Abbotstown. I am pleased to say that the construction of the new regional laboratory at Sligo is well advanced and the laboratory will become fully operative within the next few months. Sites have been obtained for similar facilities at Cork, Limerick and Athlone and plans for the provision of laboratories at those centres are being pushed ahead as quickly as possible.
The Veterinary Division of my Department is also pursuing plans aimed at the reduction of the economic losses in livestock caused by such conditions as scours in calves and young pigs, fluke and mastitis.
In August last I announced a very important improvement in the terms for Land Project grants. Up to then, the maximum grant allowable had been £30 per acre. As from 18th August, 1965, the maximum grant was raised to £50 per acre in the western and north-western counties of Donegal, Cavan, Monaghan, Longford, Leitrim, Sligo, Mayo, Roscommon, Galway, Clare, Kerry and part of West Cork and to £45 per acre in the remainder of the country for schemes which had been approved on or after 1st April, 1965, and on which final payment of the grant had not been made by 18th August, 1965. Following the 1966 annual review with the NFA, it was decided to extend the application of these increases to schemes approved prior to 1st April, 1965, on which final payment of grant had not been made by 18th August, 1965.
It was decided also, as an exceptional measure, that in the case of schemes which had been approved prior to 1st April, 1964, and on which work had not been undertaken, the costings on which the grants offered had been based would be revised on completion of the work, in line with costs obtaining in March, 1966. The grant payable would be two-thirds of the new estimated cost subject to the maximum of £50 per acre in the western area and £45 in the remainder of the country. These increases must be a great help to farmers who have undertaken difficult and costly improvement works and I expect that the demand for the grant facilities will continue at a high level. The number of applications received during the year was 21,800, the second highest figure of the past five years.
I mentioned last year that the improved facilities introduced in July, 1964 under the Fertiliser Credit Scheme had already resulted in a welcome increase in the demand from farmers for these credit facilities. This upward swing continued in the past year during which the number of applications received was 2,216 compared with 1,584 in 1964-65.
The scheme of grant aid for the fencing of mountain grazings and the scheme aimed at increased "keep" at critical periods from mountain grazings afford a worthwhile stimulus towards improved production and stocking rates on mountain lands.
As Deputies will be aware, a special effort was made during 1965 to secure increased usage of ground limestone, which for some years had been running at a level of slightly over one million tons per annum. The various publicity and promotional measures undertaken met with a reasonable measure of success. Deliveries in the year ended 31st March, 1966 are estimated to be approximately 1,250,000 tons, a record figure. An even better result would undoubtedly have been secured were it not for the prolonged wet weather which set in from November, 1965. Efforts to secure increased use of lime will be continued during the summer of 1966 and I am glad to say that the producers of ground limestone are also taking steps to encourage summer liming.
The indications are that fertiliser consumption in the current fertiliser year is not likely to be above that of last year. Fertiliser consumption has been adversely affected by a number of factors, including the prolonged wet weather from November onwards, and the reduction in the acreage under certain crops which are normally well fertilised. Nevertheless, the conclusion is inescapable that many of our farmers are not yet fully alive to the fact that it pays to fertilise adequately. Since January 1966 special efforts have been made by way of publicity and through the advisory services to encourage greater use of fertilisers, particularly on grassland where the scope for increasing carrying capacity is immense. These efforts will be continued. The rates of subsidy on phosphatic and potassic fertilisers are being maintained despite the many and increasing calls on State funds. I should like to say at this point that no farmer need leave his land under-fertilised for lack of credit. There are ample facilities available to him. For one thing he can use the Department's Fertiliser Credit Scheme under which the needed lime and fertilisers as indicated by soil test, can be supplied and spread, the cost being charged as to 90 per cent by way of addition to his annuity. Alternatively, he may avail himself of the facilities offered by the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
The Farm Buildings Scheme is being availed of to an ever increasing extent. Grant expenditure in 1965-66 amounted to about £1.8 million compared with £1.7 million in 1964-65 and £1.2 million in 1963-64. I am providing for £2.02 million in 1966-67 to keep pace with this desirable growth. As I announced during the Budget debate, further improvements in the scheme are being introduced. Extended facilities will be available to the small farmer who wishes to engage in new or expanded pig production. The qualifying conditions in respect of grants for loose houses for cows have been eased, and, as I have already announced, the special rate of grants for sheep dipping and handling facilities under the scheme is being continued for a further two years.
With regard to education, I mentioned when presenting the Supplementary Estimate for Agriculture for the year 1965-66 that the Faculty of General Agriculture of University College, Dublin, has been expanding in the past few years and that additional State aid is needed to bring the income of the Faculty into line with its higher level of expenditure due to the additional costs involved in catering for greater numbers of students and in improving the facilities for specialisation of studies in particular branches of agricultural science. In the circumstances, provision is made in Subhead D.9 of the Estimate for a grant of £200,000 to University College, Dublin, in respect of the Faculty of General Agriculture. That amount is approximately £21,000 greater than the corresponding provision made in the revised Estimate for 1965-66. Subhead D.9 also makes provision for an increase in the amount of the additional grant to University College, Cork, in respect of its Faculty of Dairy Science. The College authorities are arranging to expand the scope and range of the dairy science courses so as to provide specialised tuition in the scientific principles and processing techniques involved in the manufacture of dairy products of all kinds. As a first step, the College buildings occupied by the Dairy Science Faculty are to be reconstructed and enlarged. A provision of £70,000 is made in the subhead towards meeting the building and other costs likely to arise in the current year.
Expenditure on grants to county committees of agriculture has increased from £239,577 in 1955-56 to an estimated £649,500 for 1966-67. In the same period, the number of agricultural advisers has increased from 152 to 302. Since the introduction in October, 1963, of special State aid to committees in the western areas, under which we contribute 75 per cent of the salaries of advisory officers, the number of agricultural advisers in these areas has increased from 100 in October, 1963, to 156 at present. We hope that the target figure of one agricultural adviser for every 800 holdings over ten acres will be achieved before the end of the year, and that the farmers in the area will take every advantage of these services.
As Deputies are aware, my Department, a few years ago, introduced a scheme of grants towards the purchase of forage harvesters with a view to enabling farmers to conserve as silage increased quantities of grass for winter feed. I am glad to say that this scheme has proved very successful. A recent survey on silage making has shown that there has been a marked increase—approximately 50 per cent —in the amount of silage made in the past two years. Approximately £60,000 was paid out in these grants in each of the last two years and it is expected that there will still be a greater demand for them in the coming year.
The provision in the Estimate for An Foras Talúntais is £1,386,000. This is made up of a grant of £1,286,000 towards the non-capital expenses of the Institute, representing an increase of 12½ per cent on the basic grant of £1,143,000 voted for 1965-66—which was itself 12½ per cent more than the 1964-65 grant—and a grant of £100,000 for capital purposes. The payment of these very substantial sums to the institute from public moneys is evidence of the importance which the Government attach to the Institute's work especially in providing solutions for those practical problems of agriculture which inhibit efficiency and productivity.
My Department is continuing to give special attention to the problems to be faced in promoting agricultural development in the 12 western counties.
An intensive educational and advisory programme has been in operation in the 12 pilot areas since they were set up just over a year ago. The farmers in these areas are being given every possible encouragement to make full use of the wide variety of aids, incentives, and facilities provided for them in order to increase their output. I am very glad to say that even in the short time since this programme was launched the results have been most encouraging, particularly in such matters as land drainage, the erection of new farm buildings, increase in cow numbers and improved stocking rates generally. Probably the most significant development of all, however, has been the widespread organisation in all areas of local neighbourhood groups who have shown a commendable readiness to come together to undertake joint activities like drainage works, bulk purchase of supplies, group water schemes and so on. This willingness to tackle problems through community action is indeed the most striking feature of the Pilot Area Scheme and certainly gives me every confidence that the people of the West can, given the proper encouragement, and with the help available from the various branches of the State and local advisory services, do a great deal to improve their incomes through their own efforts.
As Deputies know, the Pilot Area Scheme is not an end in itself. Its purpose is to study the problems as they exist, to find the best solutions for them and ultimately to serve as a guide in the preparation of plans for the West as a whole which will be based on the lessons learned in the pilot areas and on the methods and techniques found most effective in those areas. Whilst, therefore, I am encouraged by the progress already made, I do not wish to disguise the fact that there are many serious problems facing us in the West for which there are no easy solutions. For example, the high proportion of farmers in the West to be found in the older age groups increases the difficulty of advisers in bringing about the adoption of up-to-date techniques and practices. Similarly, fragmentation of holdings, and other land structural conditions are limiting factors in increasing output. These and all other relevant problems are receiving intensive study under the direction of my Department's western regional officer.
The pilot areas are intended to be typical as far as possible of conditions in the various counties. In Glencolumb-kille, we have gone a stage further in selecting a region where the physical and geographical conditions are rather more extreme, and the special assistance being provided in this area is designed to show how far it is possible to develop agricultural viability under conditions of this kind. In selecting Glencolumbkille for this experiment I was very conscious of the vigorous community leadership in the area and of the existence of an active co-operative society. Indeed, the society has been made the focal point of the whole project and I am satisfied that by channelling all the aids and facilities through the society the experiment can be conducted with maximum benefit all round.
The Western Agricultural Consultative Council has met on a number of occasions during the past eight months. I am very glad to have this opportunity to thank the members of the council for their constructive contributions at the meetings. All these have been noted and will be carefully examined by me in the context of new measures to assist agricultural development in the West. In the meantime, various proposals for utilisation of the £100,000 provided in the Budget are being studied and our expenditure plans will be announced in due course.
Before concluding, I would like to refer briefly to the provision in the Estimate for the World Food Programme. In 1962 the Government pledged a sum of £300,000 to the World Food Programme for the period 1963-65. This sum was voted as a grant-in-aid, contributions being made over the three year period as the occasion arose. The Programme is now being continued and expanded for a further three years from 1st January, 1966. The Government have decided to pledge £450,000 to the expanded Programme for this period to be paid in three equal annual instalments and I am asking the Dáil to vote the first instalment of £150,000 in this financial year. Of this amount, approximately two-thirds will be donated in the form of commodities and the balance in cash. This Programme is intended to utilise surplus food for the economic development of the poorer countries, and there is no need to urge on Deputies how important it is for this country to play its due part in international endeavours of this kind. While on this subject of assistance to poorer countries, perhaps I should remind Deputies that we have recently established in this country a Freedom from Hunger Council known as Gorta which is representative of all sections of the community and which is undertaking the task of channelling voluntary aid from the people of this country to those less fortunate countries where hunger and malnutrition are still grave problems. The political Parties are associated with Gorta and I know that Deputies will help to forward its work in any way they can.
The large sum of money which I am asking the House to vote in the face of a tight budgetary situation is proof of the Government's determination to encourage increased and efficient agricultural production and to ensure for farmers a reasonable return for their labours.
