I move:
That a sum not exceeding £40,037,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1968, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain Subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.
The total net Estimate for 1967-68 of £40,037,000 shows an increase of £4,728,000 on the original Estimate for 1966-67 which was £35,309,000. The final total Estimate for 1966-67, including the Supplementary Estimate, amounted to £38,476,000.
As compared with the amounts voted in 1966-67, the extra money which I am now asking the House to vote this year is accounted for mainly by increases in the following subheads: N.1—Marketing of Dairy Produce; K.14—Brucellosis Eradication Scheme; K.9—Lime and Fertiliser Subsidies; K.7—Farm Buildings Scheme and Water Supplies; K.8—Land Project; K.24—Grants for the Glasshouse Industry and I.5—Grant-in-Aid to An Foras Talúntais. Reduced expenditure is foreseen this year on the Calved Heifer Scheme and on the support of pigmeat exports and this is reflected in the provisions shown for subheads K.15 and K.19 respectively.
Notes on the main activities of my Department have been circulated to Deputies; I trust these will be of help to them in the debate on the Estimate.
Before dealing in detail with the main provisions of the Estimate, I would like to comment generally on the state of agriculture and on recent developments in the industry.
Gross agricultural output in 1966, including the value of livestock changes, was slightly below the level of the preceding year in volume and £5 million lower in value. This decrease was due mainly to two factors. First, the very unfavourable weather throughout the Spring hampered the sowing of crops, affected milk production temporarily and resulted in cattle not reaching marketable condition as early as usual—a position aggravated not only by the bank strike and the credit squeeze but also by the shipping strike. Secondly, during the second half of the year, difficulties in export markets, arising from circumstances over which we had no control, led to a fall in the price of cattle and since cattle are the major item in agricultural output, this resulted in the value of gross output being substantially lower than had been expected. Crops, however, benefited from the favourable weather during the growing and harvesting period and yields were higher. With the upward trend in farming expenses continuing, the net result was that total family farm income fell by about £6 million or by about 4½ per cent. The figures take account of the value of changes in livestock on farms as between the two years; actual cash income received by farmers during 1966 was considerably higher than in 1965.
The outturn would have been more serious had it not been for the special measures introduced by the Government during the year, namely, an increase of 2d a gallon in the price of milk from the end of May, 1966, the extension of guarantee payments to exports of beef and lamb to the UK in excess of the quantities covered by the Free Trade Area Agreement, the scheme of temporary headage payments for fat cattle exported to Britain last autumn, the introduction of the farrowed sow scheme and the mountain sheep subsidy schemes as well as special credit schemes.
During the year there has been a lot of misleading talk about agriculture and particularly agricultural prices being in a depressed state. I freely acknowledge that agriculture did not make the progress which we all would like but the facts belie the suggestion that agricultural prices generally were depressed. In fact, increased prices operated for milk, wheat, sugar beet and pigs and the general level of agricultural prices, as shown by the agricultural price index, was only slightly below that of 1965. When it is remembered that the agricultural price index which had hardly moved at all between 1953 and 1963, rose by 11 per cent in 1964 and by a further four per cent in 1965, it will be realised that it is an exaggeration to talk of agricultural prices being depressed. Indeed, had it not been for the drop in cattle prices in 1966 from the high level of 1965 the index would have been above the 1965 level. Despite the fall in cattle prices on export markets, it is gratifying to note that the total value of agricultural exports continued to increase reaching the record level of £123 million or seven per cent more than in 1965.
In agriculture, it is always hazardous to attempt to predict what the future will bring—even in the short-term—but the present indications are that 1967 should be a considerably better year for farming. The weather so far has been relatively good and so has the market situation for cattle. While the January 1967 livestock returns suggest that the growth in cattle stocks which was such a marked feature of recent years has lost some of its momentum, I am confident that, with the substantial and indeed, increased inducements available to farmers, cattle output will continue its upward trend.
The prospects for milk production are very good and while we, like some other countries, have not yet recovered from the cyclical decline in pig numbers, I am hopeful that, with the extension of the period of operation of the farrowed sow scheme and the recent increase in the guaranteed price for pigs, it will not be long before our pig numbers show an increase. The January 1967 livestock enumeration showed gilts in pig to be about 20 per cent higher than in January, 1966. The indications are that the decline in tillage which has been a feature of recent years has been arrested and that we will have increased acreages particularly of wheat and beet this year. If, therefore, we get reasonable weather during the rest of the year the prospects are that farmers will have a good year financially and they should more than recover the ground lost in 1966.
The extra provisions made in this year's Budget to assist farmers clearly demonstrate the Government's concern to increase agricultural output and income and to supplement the earnings of low-income farmers. The increase in the price of milk will benefit a large proportion of farmers and will contribute to expansion of the cattle industry. The new scheme of grants for milk coolers is designed to enable many smaller farmers to qualify for the creamery milk quality bonus. The increase in the guaranteed price for pigs will encourage producers to plan with more confidence for increased production and should again be of special benefit to the smaller farmer. The complete derating of agricultural holdings of £20 land valuation or less will benefit a vast number of farmers in the category most in need of State help and puts the question of rates on smaller holdings outside the realm of controversy. The decision to introduce an incentive bonus scheme for small farmers arising out of the recommendations of the Two-Tier Milk Price Committee also breaks new ground inasmuch as it will be designed to provide special direct assistance to farmers who increase their scale of production on a planned efficient basis.
The progressive expansion of Government assistance for agriculture is evidenced by the growing amount coming under the heading "State expenditure in relation to agriculture". The figure as published in the Budget tables this year was £60 million. Including the extra assistance provided in the Budget, the actual figure for 1967-68 is now estimated to be more than £64 million. Even if we go back no further than 1960-61, we can see how sharply this expenditure has risen. In that year, the figure was £26 million which in turn was far above the figure for 1956-57 at £17 million. In view of the rapid rise in State expenditure connected with agriculture I thought it well to have an examination made of the various forms which State assistance to agriculture takes, especially our price support and productivity schemes, with the object of ensuring that we are getting the best value for money and that in particular an equitable proportion goes to the smaller farmers. This examination is proceeding.
In mentioning these figures for State aids, it is not my wish to suggest that the amount now being provided is not fully justified on economic as well as social grounds but, as efforts are made from time to time to belittle the Government's assistance to agriculture, I feel it is necessary to put things in their proper perspective. Total State expenditure on agriculture now accounts for nearly 20 per cent of total Exchequer spending. In considering this figure, however, one must constantly bear in mind the importance of agriculture in the Irish economy. It accounts for one-fifth of the national income, provides employment for some 30 per cent of the total labour force and contributes some 55 per cent of our total exports.
But the real significance of agriculture in our economy cannot be judged solely by looking at it in the narrow sense of what is directly produced from the soil by way of crops and livestock. One must also have regard to the vast complex of industries and services which are so dependent on agriculture; for example, the food processing industries, the agricultural machinery industry, the fertiliser industry and the transport of agricultural products. One would need to add the output of these industries to that of agriculture to see the real significance of agriculture in the whole economy. The food processing industries alone which comprise mainly those industries engaged in the processing of meat, dairy products, fruit and vegetables, grain milling, bread and flour confectionery, are estimated to have accounted for over one-third of the gross output of all manufacturing industries and for nearly one quarter of the total employment in these industries.
On the trade side if one included exports of certain goods whose raw materials are derived from agriculture, such as chocolate crumb, beer, and food confectionery to mention but a few, the percentage of the country's total exports attributable to agriculture would be up to 70 per cent. I thought it necessary to make these few comments at the outset because one frequently hears quite a lot of misinformed comment about agricultural output.
The reactivation of Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community is an event of some significance for our agricultural industry. At this juncture it is not possible, of course, to say what will be the outcome of the applications by us and the other applicant countries but any prospect of participation in the Community's agricultural arrangements must be welcomed by us. Pending Ireland's entry into the EEC we must so plan the organisation and future development of the agricultural industry that, when we do enter, Irish agriculture will be as well prepared as is possible to meet the conditions that will be encountered within the Community.
While membership of the EEC would benefit the more important branches of Irish agriculture, it will not of itself provide an automatic remedy for all the problems with which our agriculture has been faced in the past. The EEC market is highly competitive and only the progressive farmer who is geared to the highest level of efficiency and ready to satisfy the exacting standards of that market will reap the full benefits of membership. I am confident, however, that, given the opportunity, our farmers generally will be able to measure up to what is required and to adjust themselves to the changes in farming patterns which will inevitably follow on our entry.
Membership of the EEC will likewise call for the highest levels of efficiency in our processing and marketing arrangements. Full use must be made of the time available before entry into the Community to carry out any necessary re-organisation or improvements in order to raise efficiency, increase our competitiveness and generally strengthen our export trading. In this connection the establishment of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area last year has served a dual purpose by providing us with guaranteed and improved access to our main market for agricultural, horticultural and fishery products, while at the same time strengthening our main export industry and thereby putting us in a better position to meet EEC conditions.
As already announced, the National Agricultural Council recently decided that a detailed study should be undertaken of the implications for Irish agriculture of membership of the EEC. A special study group has been set up for this purpose in my Department and it is the intention to associate recognised outside experts with the group's work.
The Kennedy Round of Trade negotiations in the GATT is now drawing to a conclusion. It had been hoped that these negotiations, in which Ireland is participating as an applicant for accession to GATT, would have had some positive effects in a general liberalising of world trade in agricultural products. Unfortunately, this has not been the case. The Kennedy Round has produced no significant results in regard to international trade in meat and dairy products, which are our main agricultural interests and indeed it is doubtful if the final outcome of the negotiations will involve any appreciable benefit for Ireland in the agricultural sector. Therefore, until such time as we secure access to the agricultural arrangements of the EEC, it looks as if our agricultural exports will continue to be faced with the numerous and varied restrictions which the main importing countries for one reason or another maintain against imports of temperate agricultural products.
The virtual closing of the EEC markets to imports of cattle and beef, which had such serious effects on the cattle trade in the second half of 1966, is still a matter of serious concern to us. A full levy of about £30 per beast at present applies to imports into our main EEC market, Germany, and this with the import duty of 16 per cent makes trade completely uneconomic. So far as the EEC is concerned, therefore, it is not possible to be optimistic about the prospects for exports of cattle and beef this year. The guide prices for home-produced cattle in the Member States was raised last month and this means that import levies come into operation at higher levels of domestic prices than was the case previously. Because of these high protective levies we cannot hope to have a steady and remunerative cattle and beef trade with the EEC until we ourselves enter the Community. At present steps are being taken by the Community in the context of the Kennedy Round to facilitate imports of cows for processing and frozen beef but these are not likely to help us in this country and we have made our views on this known to the EEC Commission and to each of the Member States.
The sluggish demand from Britain for Irish stores was another major factor in the difficult cattle situation last year. I am glad to say that the store demand has improved considerably and that store exports so far this year are well above those in the early part of last year. Indeed, the increase in store exports has more than compensated for the decline in exports of fat cattle to the Continent. Exports of carcase beef, too, are substantially higher than in the early part of 1966. Up to 30th April a total of 104,000 fat bullocks and heifers had been slaughtered at meat factories this year as compared with 40,000 in the corresponding period in 1966.
A very welcome development during 1966 was the revival in our exports of manufacturing-type beef to the United States which provides such a valuable outlet for the cull cows from the dairy herd. Exports to the US during 1964 and 1965 had declined largely because of a temporary falling-off in the availability of cows for slaughter here and to some extent because of the existence at that time of more remunerative markets in Europe. The quantity exported in 1965 was only 4,000 tons but in 1966 exports reached 18,000 tons and it is confidently expected that the trade will develop still further during 1967. We estimate that exports this year will reach 30,000 tons which would approach the level of the previous record high exports in the 1961-1963 period. From January to May, 1967, we have already exported almost 14,000 tons as compared with 3,700 tons in the same five months of 1966.
During the past year, considerable efforts have been made to develop new markets for cattle. About 10,000 young feeder cattle were sent to Egypt but this trade has been dormant for some time now. About 4,000 young feeder cattle were exported to Italy from December onwards and my Department is at present actively exploring with exporters here and with Italian importers the prospects for continuing this trade.
I have already taken the opportunity of suggesting to producers and traders that they should take advantage, so far as this is practicable, of the seasonally better prices obtaining in the first part of the year and should try to distribute marketings more evenly through the year. The over-loading of the market in the months of September to November when price conditions both here and in Britain tend to be weakest is in nobody's interest.
I have been keeping in close contact with the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the cattle and beef market situation. In view of the importance to both countries of the Irish exports of cattle and beef it is essential that such contact should be maintained and that any possibilities of fostering and developing agricultural trade in the interests of the two countries should be fully explored. Arising out of my recent discussions with Mr. Peart, Irish and British officials met in Dublin last week to examine the possibilities for further measures to introduce more stability into the trade. A further meeting of officials is taking place in London this week. At this juncture, I do not wish to speculate as to the eventual outcome of my discussions with Mr. Peart.
I have been considering various aspects of the marketing of agricultural produce and, as already announced, I propose to introduce at an early date a marketing bill which will provide for the licensing of livestock marts. I believe the time has come when such legislation is necessary.
On the whole, our cattle industry is in a very healthy state with more stock on farms than ever before. Cow numbers, after spectacular increases in 1964, 1965 and 1966, now show some evidence of levelling off. Against this background I have discussed the operation of the Calved Heifer Scheme with the National Agricultural Council. The council recommended that it should be continued, but that, if possible, the administration of the scheme should be tightened up to discourage the "in and out" people. The council also recommended that the Department should consider how best the scheme might be operated to maintain livestock quality. The scheme will be revised to take account of these recommendations. Despite the various criticisms made against it, there is no doubt that the scheme was largely responsible for the remarkable increase in the country's cow numbers and can be regarded as a very considerable success.
During 1966, the number of cows artificially inseminated was 930,000, representing about 60 per cent of the cows of the country as compared with 700,000 in 1963. While Friesian inseminations accounted for 55 per cent of all inseminations in 1965 they only accounted for 42.5 per cent of all inseminations in 1966 although the Friesian remained the most popular individual breed. This swing from Friesians went almost entirely to Herefords, which increased from 196,000 inseminations in 1965, 21.4 per cent of total, to 309,000 in 1966, 33.2 per cent of total. The position of the other breeds was largely unchanged but it is worthy of note that interest in the Charolais breed is increasing.
Reference to cattle breeding policy raises the question of progeny testing. I am convinced of the necessity of expanding the system of progeny testing to enable our breeding stocks to be quickly and accurately evaluated on a national scale. I am having this whole question examined and will have it discussed in the National Agricultural Council following which I hope to be in a position to put forward a scheme, which will be to the benefit of the industry and acceptable to all the interests concerned.
It has for many years been the policy of my Department to improve our native herds by the importation of selected breeding stocks and strains. In recent years, the popularity of the Aberdeen Angus breed, which enjoyed an important place in the cattle economy of the country particularly in the west and north-west, has waned on grounds of size, scope and growth. Last year, officers of my Department went to the USA where they saw strains of Angus which they considered could substantially improve our native stocks. Following this visit, arrangements have been made, in conjunction with private breeders and AI stations, to import a number of Angus animals including four or five bulls from the USA. These animals will arrive next month and will be placed in quarantine in Spike Island where exhaustive veterinary tests will be carried out before they are released. They have, of course, already been subjected to stringent veterinary tests in the US. This import has also raised questions of Herd Book registration and an Irish Angus Herd Book has been opened.
I am particularly concerned about the problem of scrub bulls and I have initiated moves for an intensive combout of such bulls. I am sure that all who are genuinely interested in the welfare of our cattle industry agree with me in this matter and I would ask for their fullest co-operation in helping to deal with this problem.
The provision in Subhead N1 for price support for milk through the medium of the grant to An Bord Bainne for export support and direct payments to creameries in respect of the milk price and quality milk allowances shows a substantial increase over last year. The total provision, including some minor items, amounts to £15,400,000, an increase of £2¾ million on last year's original estimate and of £1½ million on last year's final provision.
The expenditure on the milk price allowance has been calculated at the rate of 6d per gallon but, as Deputies are aware, this allowance was increased by 1d per gallon from 1st May, 1967. This increase will represent a further £1.6 million for the part of the financial year from 1st May and provision for this will have to be made in a Supplementary Estimate in due course.
The total cost of the Exchequer assistance to milk this year will accordingly be about £17 million, or about 9d per gallon. This very large sum shows in the clearest possible fashion the importance which the Government attach to the dairying industry.
Total milk deliveries to creameries in 1966 amounted to 411 million gallons as compared with 392 million gallons in 1965. So far this year deliveries have shown an increase of over 14 per cent on the level in the corresponding part of 1966. It is expected that overall production in 1967 will be well above the 1966 level and will establish a further all-time record.
The results of the Creamery Milk Quality Grading Scheme indicate that 48 per cent of the milk qualified for the special allowance during the past year as against 42 per cent for the previous year. The results are very encouraging and it is expected that about 55 per cent of the milk delivered to creameries will reach the requisite standard in the current year. The increase in the quality allowance from 1d to 2d per gallon which took place on 1st April makes it well worth while for every milk producer to make a special effort to qualify for the allowance. In order to assist the small producers, I have introduced a scheme of grants for the provision of milk coolers on small farms for which a sum of £100,000 was set aside in the Budget.
In July last, my Department introduced a Cheese Grading Scheme and I am very happy to say that the scheme has proved eminently successful. The improved quality of Irish cheese has attracted considerable trade interest in Britain and has resulted in improved prices, thereby reducing the cost of the export subsidy on the product.
As Deputies are aware, the study group appointed to consider all aspects of a two-tier system of payment for milk delivered to creameries has submitted a summary report. The group concluded that a two-tier milk price system was not the way to improve the income of the small-scale dairy farmer but rather that a bonus incentive scheme should be introduced for all small farmers who are potentially viable to enable them to secure the optimum returns from the resources of land and labour available to them. The proposal is that a grant of £50 would be paid in each of any four years in a six-year period to those who, with the assistance of their advisory officers, aim at increasing output levels to be decided in the case of each type of farming system. For instance, 7,000 gallons of quality milk would be the aim in the case of dairy farmers and comparable production criteria would be used in the case of other farming systems including mixed systems. My Department is making a detailed study of the group's proposals including the question of comparable production criteria for application to the various farming systems and the matter is also to be examined by the National Agricultural Council. It will be recalled that an initial sum of £250,000 was provided for this scheme in the recent Budget.
In connection with the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, the Government decided that the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society should be given the task of encouraging re-organisation of the dairying industry. A plan illustrative of a possible form of re-organisation of the industry was prepared by the society and circulated in February, 1966, for consideration by the creamery societies. The IAOS plan greatly stimulated interest in the subject of re-organisation and there now seems to be a growing acceptance of the desirability of rationalisation of the creamery industry. At its recent meeting the National Agricultural Council considered this matter and decided that it would be desirable to have a special study undertaken of the present position and recommendations made on the type of reorganisation best calculated to meet the needs of the future. Preparations for a study on the lines suggested by the Council are now being made.
The Mountain Sheep Subsidy Schemes, which were introduced last autumn and which for the first time gave direct financial assistance to mountain sheep farmers, evoked wide interest. My Department received many suggestions on ways in which the schemes could be made even more effective. The schemes were discussed by the National Agricultural Council in the light of the experience gained last year, and an amended scheme is now being drawn up, details of which will be announced as soon as possible.
During the year the reports of the Committee on Wool Marketing and of the Survey Team on Horse Breeding were published and the recommendations made have been considered by my Department. Arising out of the recommendations of the Wool Committee my Department is preparing legislative proposals on the marketing of wool. The recommendations in the Horse Breeding Report have necessitated consultations with the various interests concerned. These consultations are in progress but it will take some further time before final decisions can be taken.
A sum of £1.4 million is being provided under subhead K. 19 for pigmeat export support in the current year. This compares with an expenditure of £1.2 million in 1966-67. Pig deliveries to bacon factories in 1966 amounted to 1.65 million head, which was second only to the record level of 1.8 million in 1965. The decline which set in during 1966 has not yet ended but the expectation is that the upturn will take place later in the year. Cycles in production are a feature of the pig industry in every country and over the past year production in Britain and some Western European countries has been passing through the same low point of the cycle as has our industry here.
With a view to encouraging increased production, I have increased the guaranteed minimum prices for all the better grades of pigs by 6/- per cwt. liveweight as from 1st May. This will ensure that when pig supplies increase, prices will continue to be maintained at improved minimum levels and so producers can now expand output with still greater confidence. Also, with a view to helping pig producers, I have extended to June, 1968 the period of operation of the Sow Headage Payments Scheme, which was due to end next September. This scheme is being well availed of and in the eight months since its inception we have paid subsidy on a total of 75,000 sows.
The measures which my Department and the Pigs and Bacon Commission have been taking to improve the quality, presentation and marketing of our bacon have been meeting with success and have been reflected in the price of Irish bacon on the British market which has improved in comparison with the prices for bacon supplied by our competitors there. Twelve months ago the price of our top-quality bacon in Britain was 15/-per cwt. lower than Danish, 10/- per cwt. lower than British home bacon and the same as that of the Six Counties. In contrast last week the price for our bacon in Britain was only 5/- per cwt. below the Danish but 5/-and 7/- per cwt. respectively above British and Six County bacon.
I have been coming to the view in recent months that some basic changes may be necessary to ensure the future prosperity of the pigs and bacon industry, particularly in the context of the competitive conditions that will exist for both our producers and processors on Ireland's entry into the EEC. Already, I have had a study made of the pig price/feed price relationship, and the question of changes in the marketing arrangements for pigs is being considered by my Department and the Pigs and Bacon Commission. This whole question will also be examined by the NAC following which I hope to be in a position to reach conclusions as to the changes in the organisation of the industry which might be desirable.
Before leaving the subject of pigs, I would like to stress that increased pig production is desirable not only as a means of increasing farmers' income but also in view of the fact that the present level of production is substantially below the capacity of our processing plants. Moreover, it is important for us to fill our bacon quota in the British market to which we also have unrestricted access for our surplus pigmeat in the form of pork. I would, accordingly, urge farmers to plan increased production secure in the knowledge that good prices are available to them for quality pigs.
The most notable feature of the poultry industry has been the rapid expansion in broiler production in recent years. This expansion continued in 1966 when production just passed the ten-million mark. This represents an increase of 34 per cent over the 1965 figure which was 7,500,000, and a ten-fold increase over the last eight years. The indications are that there will probably be a further rise in broiler consumption in 1967. Some of the world's best strains of broiler stock which have been imported by commercial interests over the last few years are now available to growers here. Last year arrangements were made for a survey of the position and prospects of our poultry and egg industry by two outside experts. The recommendations made by these experts are currently being examined.
Under subhead K.12 I am providing a sum of £2,363,000 to meet the cost of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. Against this expenditure there is an appropriation-in-aid of £463,000 under subhead P.18, leaving a net estimated expenditure of £1,900,000. The greater part of this is in respect of veterinary surgeons' fees and the disposal of reactors discovered in check testing the country's herds. This check testing will, of course, continue to be necessary if the tuberculosis free status of our cattle is to be maintained.
The campaign for the eradication of brucellosis is forging ahead. I hope soon to be able to declare County Donegal a brucellosis-free area. Four other counties are under test and testing will commence in another five counties this year. The gross provision for the scheme this year is £948,000 but estimated receipts of £198,000 from the disposal of reactors leaves the net expenditure at £750,000. My Department is examining the possibility of speeding up the timetable of the eradication programme for the remainder of the country.
While the campaign for the eradication of sheep scab has advanced considerably, I am not quite satisfied with the rate of progress in some areas. With a view to facilitating flock owners in having their sheep dipped, the prescribed dipping periods have been extended this year to include the month of June in the first period and the last two weeks of September in the second period. The subsidies of 50 per cent of the cost of new public dipping facilities are being continued and a significant development in this respect is that a number of county councils are providing themselves with mobile baths which are efficient and cheap and which qualify for the 50 per cent subsidy. Subsidies also continue to be available for the provision by farmers of sheep dipping and handling facilities on their own farms and for groups of farmers who come together to provide such facilities for use by members of the group.
The activities of the veterinary side of my Department in connection with efforts to reduce the economic losses in livestock caused by mastitis, liver fluke and scours in calves and young pigs are continuing. Since liver fluke is causing substantial losses to farmers, I have formed a small expert committee to examine all aspects of the disease and make recommendations as to the further action needed to control it. The committee; which held its first meeting recently, is composed of specialists from my Department's staff, the Veterinary Faculties of the Universities, the Agricultural Institute and the Irish Veterinary Association.
The Warble Fly Eradication Scheme has been highly successful. Checks on the incidence of warbles in cattle on farms and passing through marts and export points indicate that the level of infestation, which a few years back was in the region of 60 to 70 per cent, has now been reduced to less than two per cent. This gratifying result reflects great credit on all concerned. The campaign was recently reviewed by the National Agricultural Council, which recommended that, in view of the low level of infestation reached, it was not necessary to undertake a further national campaign next autumn. Instead the Council recommended that action be directed towards securing the treatment next spring of all animals showing visible evidence of infestation, and requiring farmers and shippers to produce certificates of treatment of such animals.
A new regional veterinary laboratory has been constructed at Sligo and will be in operation very shortly. The intention is to provide similar laboratories at three or four other centres in the country.
Turning now to tillage, I am glad to say that this year there will be an overall increase in the area under cereal crops, particularly in the case of wheat where the increase seems likely to be as much as 50 per cent. The decline in the wheat acreage in recent years was disturbing. There have been many reasons for this. Apart from unsatisfactory results arising from bad weather conditions, there were marketing problems. In 1965 improved marketing arrangements were introduced which have reduced considerably the marketing hazards. The guaranteed price for the 1966 crop was increased by 10/- per barrel and the crop was very good in all respects. These factors no doubt gave growers the confidence to sow a larger area to wheat this year.
The acreage under feeding barley has levelled off over the past few years and it is not likely that there will be any great change this year. There seems no reason why the objective of increased economic production and greater utilisation of feeding barley cannot be more fully achieved. It is a reasonably profitable crop; the risks in sowing and harvesting are few and as well there is a guaranteed market. This year's price of 45/- per barrel is the same as last years. In determining the support price, the implications to the pig feeder, who uses the major portion of the crop, must, of course, be borne in mind and, as I have already mentioned, this question of the relationship between the pig and feed prices is to be examined by the NAC.
The position in regard to oats production has been a source of some concern to me. I note that there have been fairly substantial imports of milling, feeding and seed oats over the past years. I feel we may not be doing all we can to secure our requirements for all these purposes at home. I believe that growers for their part could do more to produce and market oats to the standards required by both millers and bloodstock breeders, while in turn these interests could do more to secure their requirements at home rather than look for imported oats. Certainly in regard to seed, I am satisfied that we could produce our full requirements of high quality seed and thereby ensure the production of enough oats to meet all commercial requirements.
My Department continues its highly successful research work in cereal seed breeding, as a result of which there is an ample supply of high class home grown wheat and barley seed of suitable varieties. By using these and by good husbandry, there is no doubt that this country can produce the greater part of our cereal requirements.
This spring I introduced an important horticultural scheme which should have a considerable impact on the future of the glasshouse industry. This provides for substantial grants for the erection of new glasshouse nurseries and the modernisation of existing ones. The scheme is already being widely availed of and should enable the industry to reach a higher degree of competitive efficiency. The scheme will operate for five years and a sum of £100,000 is being provided for it under Subhead K. 24.
The publicity campaign introduced in 1965 to promote increased use of ground limestone has had spectacular success. Consumption, which in 1965-66 had reached a high level at 1,257,000 tons increased by a further 25 per cent in 1966-67 to 1,565,000 tons. This is very satisfactory and indicates that farmers are becoming more aware of the importance of ground limestone in securing increased production. This is the first time since the scheme began that consumption has topped the 1½ million tons mark. It is, of course, desirable that the usage of limestone should continue to increase and to this end, I would strongly urge farmers to concentrate more on summer liming when the supply position is easier and lower prices generally prevail.
Fertiliser consumption which had not been so satisfactory in recent years showed a welcome improvement in 1966-67. In addition to the substantial subsidies on phosphates and potash and the various credit facilities for the purchase of fertilisers a special campaign was launched in the latter part of 1966 to promote increased use of fertilisers. Because of the importance of stimulating increased use of fertilisers, 1967 has been designated "Fertiliser Year" and my Department, the fertiliser industry and the local advisory services are co-operating to secure greater and more efficient use of fertilisers. I am happy to say that already the indications are that consumption in 1967-68 will be on a much higher level than in recent years.
There is one point, in particular, in regard to fertilisers which I would like to stress and that is the desirability of farmers applying fertilisers to grasslands for the purpose of increasing their stock carrying capacity and producing more winter fodder. It is most desirable that greater attention be given to producing increased supplies of winter feed. The amount of hay and silage produced in recent years has not increased in step with the increase in livestock numbers and this adversely affects the condition of animals and increases mortality risks. Moreover, the lack of adequate winter feed often forces farmers to dispose of stock at a time of the year when supplies are flush and prices low instead of carrying them over the winter in good condition for sale in the spring when prices are good. I would, therefore, exhort farmers who were short of feed last winter to take the necessary steps this year to ensure adequate feed supplies through the fuller manuring of their grasslands and greater use of silage.
The total amount being provided under Subhead K9 in the Estimate for lime and fertiliser subsidies is £5; 174,000 which represents an increase of £314,000 on last year.
Demand for the facilities of the Land Project continues at a high level and expenditure during last year was the highest so far. The amount paid by way of grants to farmers was £1,777,000 or £196,000 higher than in the preceding year. Expenditure under the Land Project Fertiliser Credit Scheme rose from £220,000 in 1965-66 to £353,000 in 1966-67, which was also the highest figure yet reached. It is expected that this upward trend in both schemes will continue during the present year and hence the increased provision being made in the Estimate.
In order to keep pace with increasing participation in the Farm Buildings Scheme and Water Supplies Scheme, I am providing under Subhead K7 £2.2 million and £400,000 respectively for grant expenditure on those schemes. Grants paid under the Farm Buildings Scheme in 1966-67 amounted to almost £2 million compared with £1.8 million in 1965-66 and £1.7 million in 1964-65. The amount expended on grants under the Water Supplies Scheme in 1966-67 was £310,000. In August, 1966, the Farm Buildings Scheme was extended so as to provide higher grants to smallholders for piggeries, grants for the construction on farms of fixed cattle crushes or holding chutes and grants for new sheep-dipping and handling facilities erected by co-operative groups of farmers.
This year I am making provision under Subhead F for £755,500 for grants to county committees of agriculture. In the past ten years the total numbers of advisers employed by committees has increased from 301 to 482. While an adequate advisory service is essential to provide the most up-to-date technical advice for all our farmers it is equally important to ensure that the advisory service itself is organised on the most efficient and effective lines. Accordingly, last autumn we secured the services of two experts from abroad to make an independent appraisal of our agricultural advisory services. Their report was received very recently and as I have already indicated it is my intention to print and publish it. The scheme of grants towards the purchase of forage harvesters for which I am providing £70,000 has been very successful and is being widely availed of. Since its introduction the tonnage of silage has increased more than threefold from about 430,000 in 1963 to an estimated 1,400,000 in 1966.
Under Subhead I.5 a sum of £1,486,000 is being provided for An Foras Talúntais. This is made up of a grant of £1,386,000 towards non-capital expenses of the Institute and a grant of £100,000 for capital purposes. These sums bring the State's contribution to date towards the cost of the Institute's work to almost £8 million. As the Institute's work has expanded so has the amount of the State grant to the Institute increased and at present it represents over 80 per cent of the Institute's total income.
One of the subheads which shows a sizeable increase this year is Subhead D.2 under which funds are provided for private State-aided agricultural schools and schools of rural domestic economy. The increased provision is, in the main, intended to meet payment of grants for the expansion of these schools to enable them to accommodate more students and to modernise their equipment and teaching facilities, all of which is very important, having regard to the key role which education must play in raising the general standard of agricultural efficiency.
With regard to the provisions in the Estimate for grants to the Faculty of Agriculture at University College, Dublin, and the Faculty of Dairy Science at University College, Cork, the only change of substance in the amounts sought as compared with last year's Estimate is in the amount of the additional grant for University College, Cork, provided under Subhead D.9. This includes a sum of £100,000 for the much needed expansion of the Dairy Science Faculty, the building work on which is expected to commence during the year.
The problems of small farms and of agricultural development generally in the western areas are among the most challenging of all those facing us at the present time. These questions continue, therefore, to have my own and the Government's closest attention.
The list of special measures to aid agriculture in the western areas has been growing constantly in recent years. The very generous State aid towards the cost of the advisory service in the West has brought about a rapid increase in the number of advisers in these counties. The pilot area development programme has been of great value in identifying and measuring the scale of the main problems associated with agriculture in the West, and, more particularly, in demonstrating that considerable improvement is possible even under existing conditions, when the intensive advice and encouragement and the wide variety of facilities and incentives provided for farmers are properly and prudently availed of. As announced in the Budget, the pilot areas are now to be extended. Arrangements for this extension are already in hand and the enlarged pilot areas should all be operational before very long. As I have already mentioned, many of the other measures provided in the Budget are also designed to benefit the small farmer, not only in the West but in all other areas of the country as well.
No matter what measures are adopted to help small farms or western agriculture, and, however we may set about intensifying agricultural development, the whole problem of the small farm areas is not by any means one to be solved in the realm of agriculture alone. These problems demand a concerted approach by all Government Departments, all other State agencies, local authorities and voluntary bodies, to devise ways and means of realising the stated objective of maintaining the maximum number of people in rural areas consistent with social and economic progress, while continuing at the same time to create viable family farms in all our small farm areas. All facets of development in the West—agriculture, land structure improvement, housing, the provision of amenities, industrialisation, education, tourism and so on—must, therefore, be co-ordinated to constitute in effect a full-scale regional development plan for the area and the Government are now giving special attention to this form of approach. A special Cabinet committee has already been appointed to examine and report to the Government on the preparation of a suitable regional development plan for the western area.
I have endeavoured to give the House a comprehensive view of what we are doing for agriculture and I am sure Deputies will agree that our aim should continue to be to help farmers earn higher incomes by producing more and by doing so more efficiently. This objective can only be attained through the combined efforts of the Government and the farmers working together. In this partnership, farming organisations have the vital function of making known the views of farmers to the Government, putting forward suggestions and recommendations and in their turn promoting a better understanding of Government policy amongst their members and ensuring more widespread collaboration and participation in schemes benefiting farmers. As has been stated many times already, this Government attach great importance to consultations with farming organisations.
It is regrettable that one farming organisation—I refer of course to the NFA—should have elected to depart from the normal procedure of consultation and collaboration with the Government and to embark instead on a course of action designed as a challenge to orderly democratic Government. The facts prove conclusively that responsibility for the present situation rests solely with the NFA. Deputies will recall that, although the Minister for Agriculture met the NFA about 64 times between the beginning of 1964 and mid-August 1966 and had agreed to a further meeting on 26th August, the President of the NFA on 25th August launched his militancy campaign with an unexpected and unwarranted personal attack on my predecessor. The association followed this up with their so-called "farmers rights" march on Dublin on 19th October and with a "secret plan" which they were going to put into operation whether they were met or not. Next came the sit-down on the steps of the Government Buildings. Following an indication from the NFA that such tactics would cease, the outgoing Taoiseach and Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries met them on 8th November.
One of the first things the present Taoiseach and I did, after assuming our present offices, was to meet the association on 21st November for a session which lasted four hours. Within a few days, the association were seeking yet another and immediate meeting with the Taoiseach and myself. Although I wrote promptly to the President of the NFA agreeing to a further meeting with them, I found that, on the very morning they got this letter, they were again squatting on the steps of Government Buildings. On the same day, the NFA President announced the association's intention to stage farm machinery demonstrations along main roads in selected areas on December 9th: this they did. Their second farm machinery demonstration took place on January 9th. We all know what happened on that day. In the following weeks, the association intensified their no-rates campaign and announced a policy of non-cooperation with Government Departments and committees of agriculture. In the week commencing 5th March they staged their so-called commodity strike.
On 14th March the association announced that they had decided not to engage in any further activities outside the law and this was followed by a meeting between the association and the Taoiseach and myself on 21st March which lasted for some eight hours. It was the understanding of this meeting that the association would make it clear that the abandonment of their illegal activities included the calling-off of the no-rates campaign which was then continuing. When subsequently it emerged that the association were not honouring this understanding, the Government were left with no alternative but to take action to ensure the collection of rates which were legally due. It had become perfectly obvious that the only objective of these people was to put themselves into a position where they could, by one means or another, dictate to the Government and to undermine the authority of Government if they did not get their way. No Government worth the name could tolerate this kind of thing, which could only lead in the end to anarchy.
The association's campaign, which has discredited the organisation and does not represent the true feeling of more than a handful of farmers—most of them very large farmers indeed— has created a great deal of bitterness and unrest. A new and disturbing feature of this campaign has been the apparent attempt of late to coerce farmers to join the association or to punish those who refused to be associated with their unlawful activities. To mention only a few examples, there was the case of the man who, because of his opposition to the methods used by the NFA in their campaign, has been threatened with expulsion from the committee of his creamery society; there was the County Kilkenny farmer whose catering contract with certain marts has been cancelled simply because he provided a meal for gardaí who happened to be on duty in connection with seizures for non-payment of rates; or there was the County Westmeath farmer who is not permitted the use of a neighbour's corn drill apparently because of his refusal to join the NFA.
It is the first duty of any Government to ensure that the laws of the land are upheld, and this is a duty that the present Government are determined to fulfil, however unpleasant and unpopular that may be in the eyes of a certain small minority. The Government have shown that they wish to exercise that duty with the utmost restraint, great though the provocation has been. It would be a great relief to all if, even at this late stage, the NFA abandoned their current tactics and decided to work constructively with other organisations and with the Government. There is no need for me to tell the NFA how they may do that. If they abandon their present attitude and tactics they will be welcome to take up the two seats reserved for them on the National Agricultural Council—a Council through which decisions are influenced not by the number of heads present but by the value and soundness of the views expressed.
On the subject of the National Agricultural Council, there is little I need say, since Deputies are already well aware of the facts. The two meetings already held leave me in no doubt that it will prove a most useful body to me and to the Government in our efforts to adapt agricultural policy to changing conditions. The Council will prevail despite the efforts to undermine it. One very red herring raised for this purpose concerned the chairmanship. I set the Council up to advise me on agricultural policy matters and the place for me to get that advice is in the Council. If I had wanted a separate agricultural body representative of the various and often conflicting interests which go to make up the agricultural sector of the economy, I would have set up such a body and studied with interest any recommendations they might have been able to agree upon amongst themselves. What I wanted was to draw on the advice and experience of the typical farmer and to establish a two-way channel of communication—direct communication. This the Council does.
The fact that it has been agreed that the Minister should be in the Council will not detract one iota from the independence of the members or their freedom and determination to express their views fully and frankly—these in fact are the only kind of views which a Minister with problems on his hands would want to hear. Farmers are businessmen or entrepreneurs and they are not employed by the Government in the same way as a trade union member might be employed in industry. It is right that their representatives should speak up for them and speak up strongly if need be. However they cannot be allowed to make demands under threat of illegal or violent action if the demands are not met—even if some people think this constitutes "negotiation". As Deputies will have noted from my remarks, I have already placed on the agenda of the NAC a number of subjects which are of great importance to our future agricultural development, and I expect to have very fruitful and constructive deliberations with the Council on these matters. It is my intention to make available to the Council any additional expertise, whether from within the country or abroad, which they may need to help study these problems.
