asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will consider paying the subsidy on live cattle direct to the farmers rather than to the meat processors.
32.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Live Cattle Subsidy.
31.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the amount paid in subsidies to meat factories this year under the guarantee scheme; and if he will arrange to have this subsidy paid to producers.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose taking Questions Nos. 31 and 32 together.
The amounts paid in subsidies from 1st January to 23rd September this year on exports of carcase beef, mutton and lamb were: carcase beef, £135,834 and carcase mutton and lamb, £6,646.
When the operation of the subsidy system was being considered in July last in the context of support extended by Britain under the Free Trade Area Agreement to both beef and lamb, I had the system very fully reviewed and I decided to continue it on the basis operated for beef since February 1965. My reasons were—
(i) an elaborate and expensive administrative organisation would have to be provided for making payments direct to producers and this would have to be maintained during periods when no subsidy would be payable as happened in 1965 from early June to the end of November in the case of the guarantee payments on cattle and from late May to mid-July in the case of the guarantee payments on sheep. This costly organisation could also be engaged for lengthy periods in sending out thousands of payments of very small sums to producers, especially to producers of sheep and lambs.
(ii) A high proportion of cattle and lambs, which on export as meat qualify for subsidy, is not sent direct to meat factories by producers. The factories acquire much of their supplies at markets and from dealers and, in such cases, it would not be possible to arrange for payment of subsidy to the original producers.
The subsidy can, of course, be obtained by any producers or groups of producers who themselves export fat cattle to Britain.
The bulk of our cattle exports still consists of stores, which after fattening on British farms qualify for the full British deficiency payment. I am of opinion that the combined operation of the three types of subsidy on our cattle, that is, on store cattle finished in Britain, on carcase beef exported to Britain, and on live fat cattle exported to Britain, works out to the direct advantage of our cattle producers.
Is the Minister not making this suggestion more complicated than it actually is and making it appear more expensive than it would be in fact? The Minister is aware that the Grain Board arranged for the return of the wheat levy to all farmers who produce wheat and this was done in a very short time and very inexpensively.
The farmers produce only one crop of wheat in the year.
What about the £4 headage. What would be the difficulty in returning that?
We have to make sure it is paid on export cattle only and we can only do his at the point of export. I want to assure the Deputy that I would much prefer to have these subsidies paid direct to producers, and if I could devise some simple expedient or administrative machinery for doing so, I would be happy to adopt it, but I have examined the matter as carefully and thoroughly as I can and I cannot see any alternative to the present system for the reasons I have given.
(Interruptions.)
Does the Deputy appreciate that we would need very elaborate administrative machinery to do this and throughout most of 1965, for instance, it would have nothing whatever to do because there would have been no payments to make as there was no subsidy payable? At other times you would have this elaborate machinery paying out infinitesimal sums to individual producers. Unless the present system turns out to be completely unsatisfactory, I think we should stay with it, but I have said to representatives of the producers who discussed the question with me many times that what we should do, I think, is allow the present system to operate for about 12 months and see how it works out in practice and then consider whether we should change. We have in fact set up a working committee representative of all interests concerned to review the working of the subsidy scheme from time to time in this first trial period of 12 months.
Is the Minister satisfied that all this subsidy is finding its way back to the producers here because he will never get the producers to believe it is?
I believe it is; I have no reason to think otherwise. If there is competition between meat factories for the supplies available, then the subsidy must be finding its way back to the producers. The dead meat factories assure me they would much prefer a system of direct payment.
Surely the Minister is not sincere or honest with the House when he tells us he believes that the subsidy is going back to the producers? If he is sincere, can he tell us or explain to the House why it is that, despite the fact that he said cattle would be going at £5 to £7 more after this Agreement——
I did not say that.
The Minister said it even in May. In view of the fact that cattle are now selling at £20 a head less than they were last May when he made that statement, surely he should now realise that this money is not going back to the producers, although it should go to the producers?
(Interruptions.)
What I said at that time was that I believed that the provisions of this Agreement should be worth about £5 to £6 a head for our cattle, and in fact that is what this Agreement is providing us with at the moment, as I have pointed out.
The Minister must be out of his mind to say a thing like that.
The subsidy payment is about 15/- per cwt which is about £5 to £7 per head.
But cattle are down.
They would be down that much more only for the Agreement.
Does the Minister not know and realise——
The Deputy is making a speech.
I am asking does the Minister not know and realise that the Irish farmer is getting 40/- to 45/-per cwt less for his cattle than the British producer is getting and that there should be a difference of only about 20/-?
The Deputy is making statements.
I am asking the Minister if he realises that this money is going into the pockets of the exporters or meat manufacturers and not going to the producers, because if it were going to the producers, they would be getting 20/- more per cwt than they are getting?
(Interruptions.)
I am endeavouring for the benefit of the farmers of this country to explain as clearly as I can what the present situation is unlike Fine Gael Deputies, who are simply trying to exploit the present situation for their own political ends.
(Interruptions.)
The present situation is that cattle are down £20 per head.
The Minister is entitled to speak.
I want to say that were it not for the provision of the Free Trade Agreement, cattle prices would be £5 or £6 or £7 per head worse today than they are.
Do not be talking through your hat.
They might even fall to the catastrophic level they reached in 1956 under Deputy Dillon's administration.
They are worse now than during the Economic War with calves selling at £1 per head.
Can the Minister say if any changes are likely to take place in cattle prices in the next six or seven weeks? Can he, as Minister for Agriculture, offer any advice to farmers who are anxious to sell cattle but who are reluctant to do so in case there may be an increase in prices in the next couple of months? Surely the Minister will agree that this is a most important question? Would he indicate to the House if any changes are likely in cattle prices within the next couple of months?
The only thing I can say in reply to all this is that in spite of the efforts of various vested interests in this matter, there is no need for panic. We have taken every possible step to cushion producers against this fall in export prices.
(Interruptions.)
Playing into the hands of the vested interests.
There is plenty of fodder in the country.
Remember Deputy Childers in 1956 and 1957—ten questions a day for two years.
I am calling the next question: Question No. 33.