Vol. 241 No. 3
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why, if as is stated in par. 66 of chapter 5 of the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development there has been excess capacity in the bacon curing industry for many years past, almost all the factories have been given grants costing over £600,000 to the end of 1968 as is stated in par. 65 of that chapter; and whether these grants have aggravated the problem of excess capacity.
14.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries who are the members of the group, whose establishment was announced in par. 61 of chapter 5 of the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development, to consider the lines on which it would be practicable to operate a system of centralised purchasing arrangements for pigs; whether he has yet received a report from this group; if not, when he expects to receive the report; whether he will publish this report before taking decisions on it; and whether he will consult with interested parties including the National Farmers' Association before taking such decisions.
15.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will state, in view of the references in the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development, chapter 5 par. 23, to the aim of moderating the rate of growth in commercial milk production, in par. 43 to the necessity to encourage farmers in a position to do so to apply increased resources to other lines of production for which market prospects are better, in par. 45 to the aim of providing a reasonable counter-attraction to commercial milk production, thereby restraining the rate of increase in the quantities of milk becoming available for processing and in par. 47 to moderating the rate of increase of State support for milk, to what level the Government propose to hold down milk production during the Third Programme.
16.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries on what grounds sectoral targets for agriculture were suppressed in the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development; and whether with a view to making possible effective contributions by the farming community to the attainment of those targets he will now indicate the sectoral breakdown of the two per cent growth rate projected for agriculture in this programme.
17.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what progress has been made with the preparation of draft legislative proposals on agricultural co-operation societies announced in chapter 5 par. 101 of the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development; and whether these proposals have yet been discussed with the interests concerned.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what progress has been made in providing the additional 300 student places in agricultural colleges announced in chapter 5 par. 94 of the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development; and what proportion of the estimated annual number of entrants to agriculture will be catered for by agricultural colleges and the agricultural faculties of the universities when these 300 extra places have been provided.
19.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what progress has been made with the studies referred to in chapter 5 par. 17 of the Third Programme: Economic and Social Development and stated to be designed to find out whether the maximum benefit is being derived from the very considerable Exchequer expenditure on State aid to agriculture; whether, bearing in mind the need to maintain and strengthen the traditional family farm, he is satisfied that the optimum balance is being maintained between social and economic objectives in the Government's agricultural policy; and by whom these studies are being carried out.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 together. These questions relate to matters arising under the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development and I will deal with them in the order in which they have been put down.
The scheme of grants for the modernisation of bacon factories, which was introduced under the Programme for Economic Expansion in 1958, was for the execution of muchneeded improvement works in a longestablished industry, the plant and equipment in much of which badly required modernisation. Grants were confined to replacement and improvement of existing plant and equipment and to such necessary additional facilities as refrigeration, without involving an increase—other than incidental—to a factory's existing capacity to handle pigs, but it was, of course, inevitable that the modernised layout and facilities achieved under the scheme should have led to some measure of increased throughput capacity. The problem of excess capacity has not, however, been aggravated as the level of pig supplies has increased substantially in the meantime and further increased production is being aimed at.
The members of the group which has been examining the practical aspects of centralised purchasing of pigs are two representatives each of the Pigs and Bacon Commission and the Irish Bacon Curers' Society, both of which bodies had submitted outline proposals in the matter, and officers of my Department. I am not in a position to say when the examination will be concluded or what action I will take in the matter. I would, however, refer the Deputy to the comments I made on the question of centralised purchasing when introducing the Estimate for my Department on 10th December last.
The Deputy misrepresents the Government's milk production policy in the Third Programme by suggesting that they propose to hold down production to a particular level. What the relevant paragraphs of chapter 5 of the Third Programme said were—
Paragraph 23:—"The aim in beef/milk production policy will be to place increasing emphasis on beef production, especially by larger farmers with suitable holdings, thereby moderating the rate of growth in commercial milk production".
Paragraph 45:—"In addition to increasing the supply of beef, one of the aims of the Beef Cattle Incentive Scheme referred to in the section on Cattle and Beef, is to provide a reasonable counter-attraction to commercial milk production thereby restraining the rate of increase in the quantities of milk becoming available for processing".
Paragraph 47:—"In examining the scope for moderating the rate of increase in State support for milk, consideration will be given to the possibility of extending the phased system of price support so as to channel a larger share of State support to the traditional supplier who is less well able to meet increasing costs than the large scale commercial producer".
The approach to the question of setting out detailed statistical targets for agriculture was governed by that adopted for all sectors of the economy as set out in paragraph 23 of the introductory chapter of the programme. The Deputy, of course, is aware that in chapter 5 of the programme the trends envisaged for individual commodities are outlined. I do not accept that the achievement of the agricultural objectives of the programme will be adversely affected by the omission of statistical targets for individual products. Farmers are obviously responding whole-heartedly to the Government's efforts to stimulate agricultural development as was strikingly illustrated by performance in 1968 when the agricultural growth rate reached the substantial figure of six per cent.
Draft heads of legislation on agricultural co-operative societies, prepared in my Department, have been furnished to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, Ltd. for preliminary examination.
The additional accommodation referred to in paragraph 94 of chapter 5 of the programme is planned to be provided over the three years up to 1972. Already, the authorities of one secondary college have undertaken to inaugurate next September a residential one-year course in agriculture similar to the course being followed at the existing agricultural colleges. Statistics are not available in respect of the number of students from agricultural colleges and university graduates in agriculture who return to farming in a permanent capacity. I would point out that, in addition to the residential colleges, farm training for young men entering agriculture will be provided at the farm training centres referred to in paragraph 95 of chapter 5 of the programme.
The group which carried out the studies referred to in paragraph 17 of chapter 5 of the programme has completed its task and its recommendations are now under consideration by the Government. As well as officials of the Departments of Agriculture and Fisheries and Finance, among them a senior agricultural economist, the group included an economist from the Economic and Social Research Institute. In addition, the group had the advice of an economic consultant from one of the universities.
Firstly, I should like to question the Minister's procedure in answering a number of questions each of which related to quite a different topic and each of which involved a quite different answer and combining them all together. This, as a procedure, renders difficult the task of asking supplementary questions.
That is part of the exercise.
However, I shall endeavour to meet that problem when I ask supplementary questions relating to several things——
Where is the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries himself? He is upstairs and not down here answering his questions as he should be.
Assuming that the Minister who is answering the questions knows something about agriculture—which I must admit is a rather broad assumption—I should like to ask him——
Less of the facetiousness. The Deputy is a comparative newcomer to this House. We would appreciate less of the facetiousness.
I have been an assiduous reader of the Official Report of the Dáil Debates for many years and I have frequently noted the injection of humour into the debate.
If the Deputy has a question to put he may put it.
I do not think I am precluded from injecting humour into the debate.
Less facetiousness, please.
I should like to have explained the purpose of the Minister in repeating quotations I made from the programme, because the purpose appears to be, on the face of it, to suggest that I had in some way misquoted it. The fact is that what the programme contains is a series of statements——
This is a question?
Speech.
——about moderating the growth of milk production and providing a reasonable counter-attraction. I should like to ask the Minister, in the light of the proposals to moderate the growth of production and restrain an increase in the quantity of milk, what is in fact the target for milk, and by how much the growth of milk production is to be restrained and moderated under Government policy? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question.
Secondly, with regard to the question of the agricultural target referred to in Question No. 16 I should like to know why the targets have been suppressed. They were contained in the Second Programme. Why have they been dropped, and can we be given any indication as to how in fact the Government propose to reach these targets, and can the farmers interested in particular policies be given any indication as to what the Government's plans are, if the Government have any plans?
Finally, in relation to Question No. 18, am I to understand from the Minister that he does not know the proportion of people entering agriculture with appropriate training and, if not, can he take any steps to find out? This is something one would expect any government to want to know and want to find out.
The whole object of the Government's policy in regard to cattle and beef production and milk production is obviously to achieve a balance between beef and milk production. That is the objective here. In regard to individual targets, I do not think we should tie ourselves down in this respect to specifics, that the right thing to do is to provide the incentives and stimulants. Obviously the incentives and stimulants provided by the Government in the agricultural sphere have been highly successful over the past two years in particular. I will take up the question of getting more accurate figures with my colleague in regard to the people who qualify with agricultural degrees and the proportion going into farming. At the moment I have not got the figure. I will take the matter up with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
Can I ask the Minister if the reason for the suppression of the targets was not perhaps that every target except the milk target was missed in the Second Programme, and that that target has now been modified so as to reduce the growth in milk output to ensure that there is not an increase in milk output in the period ahead?
No. The attitude in this matter, as has been borne out by events in the EEC and indeed throughout the world, has been to moderate milk production and achieve a reasonable balance between beef and milk production. Our policies in the past few months have been geared towards achieving this.
It is not my purpose to question the validity of the policy. I want to know what the policy is. What is the target for milk, and by how much is the growth of milk production to be reduced? These are questions to which we are entitled to an answer.
By incentives to stimulate beef production we are achieving a greater balance in favour of beef production as against milk production, having regard to the excess of milk production which has now become a feature of farm production in the EEC.
Is it the case that the Minister does not know by how much the milk target is to be reduced or is he not prepared to say?
I have answered the question fully.
Question No. 20.
There is one question which has not been touched on. When a body was set up to consider the question of centralised buying of pigs, how is it that the producers were not represented on that body?
The producers' interests will always be dear to the heart of the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.
Can the Minister explain how it is——
I understand that negotiations——
No answer.
I am answering the Ceann Comhairle.
I have called Question No. 20.
