I move:
That a sum not exceeding £55,892,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1974, 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.
This sum is £27 million less than the final provision for 1972-73. The reduction is largely due to a substantial decrease in marketing and price supports. The Estimate includes £28 million for agricultural production and development aids, £7 million for livestock improvement and disease eradication, and £9½ million for agricultural education, research and advisory services.
In addition, the budget provided £600,000 as an extra subsidy on butter for home consumption, £500,000 for the sheep industry and £300,000 for adaptations in capital aids for buildings and equipment. These are not in the sum for which I am now seeking approval, but will be included in a Supplementary Estimate to be introduced at a later date.
Taking into account the support provided through other channels, the total Exchequer provision in relation to agriculture in the current financial year will amount to £88 million.
Detailed notes on the main activities of my Department have been circulated to Deputies.
In this first year of membership of the EEC it is appropriate that I should begin by dealing in general terms with the common agricultural policy. Afterwards I propose to speak in more detail of its effect on the different aspects of our agricultural industry.
The introduction and operation of the common agricultural policy is one of the biggest achievements of the Community, and the application of that policy to this country has already brought a beneficial revolution to our farmers, the effects of which are apparent even now in the countryside and will gradually permeate the whole economy.
Thanks to our membership of the Community, Irish farmers can now develop their enterprises with confidence. They have the security of the Community system with its guranteed intervention prices, protection against imports from outside the Community, and measures to bring about equal conditions of competition in trade within the Community. This is a really significant change as compared with the highly unsatisfactory conditions with which we had to contend in the past two decades. During that period international efforts to bring about satisfactory conditions of trade in agricultural products were not successful. Indeed, one might say that no international organisation has had any outstanding success in this particular sector.
In view of the unsatisfactory conditions on export markets, successive Governments here had to resort to commodity subsidies, production aids and other measures to help farm incomes, especially the incomes of small farmers. There was, however, a limit to the amount of money which could be provided from the Exchequer for these purposes, and so, the development of our agricultural potential was seriously handicapped for a number of years. Now as a member of the Community we can expand agricultural production without any risk of the type of market collapse which we always feared in the past.
Over recent months, I have had to study in detail the course of the accession negotiations and the background to the arrangements made in them. Taking into account that we had simultaneously to advance into the European system, disengage from the Anglo-Irish free trade area agreement and cope with an unexpectedly difficult situation arising out of the international monetary disturbances, it is only natural that we should encounter some awkward situations here and there, but I should like to put on record that I do not feel able to criticise in any fundamental way any of the decisions made by my predecessors on this task.
In certain minor ways we find aspects of the common agricultural policy illogical and even irksome at times, and occasionally there are bitter complaints about their effects on our trade. This is natural enough and does no harm provided we do not take it so far as to risk throwing out the baby with the bath water. There are enough critics of the CAP outside the country without our adding too vociferously to the chorus.
Of course, not every single part of the common agricultural policy is exactly as we would wish it to be. But neither is it exactly as any of the eight other member states would wish to have it. The present agricultural arrangements have been developed over the past ten or 12 years, first by the Six, and since the beginning of 1973, by the Nine, after much hard work and in an overall spirit of compromise which sought to take account of the main problems of each country. This is not to say that neither we nor any of the other members should seek to have changes made. Of course, we should, and we will. But it is necessary to ensure that in the process we do not disrupt the basic principles and mechanisms of the whole policy. Also, if we are insisting on a particular change, we must expect that some other member states will insist on changes to suit them. These may not be to our benefit and so the net overall result may be a loss for us.
These are some of the considerations which have to be borne in mind when, as happens occasionally, there are demands here by one group or another that some particular part of the Community agricultural system must be changed because it has suddenly commenced to hurt them. This kind of development will always continue as circumstances, and especially market conditions, change. It is only right and proper that those who are then adversely affected should let us hear from them and I as Minister am quite prepared to listen to them and see what can be done to improve matters. But, I must also bear in mind the broader considerations that arise and, while doing everything I can to solve the immediate problem, ensure as far as possible that nothing will be done to prejudice the overall Community system. What may seem to be a straightforward solution to a simple problem may have very far-reaching repercussions if applied over the Community system as a whole.
Deputies will have heard a lot in recent months about this question of the review of the common agricultural policy. There are many inside and outside the Community who do not like the present agricultural system. Some allege that it has raised food prices, that it has led to persistent and unnecessary surpluses, that it has involved huge expenditure, that it has damaged international trade in agricultural products, that it is far too complicated, and so on. The European Commission has been examining the operations of the CAP and is expected to come up shortly with some proposals for adjustments. There are many reports and rumours about what may eventually be proposed but I do not intend to comment on them on this occasion. To up-date this I might say that these proposals have been made but not in the Council of Ministers. We only got the English version today and it is not possible to deal with it on this occasion. I might say, however, that I myself would like to see some changes in the CAP arrangements. I want to see steps taken to phase out the existing monetary compensatory amounts because, while they enable the common pricing arrangements to operate despite the international currency fluctuations, they impose a serious burden on Ireland as an agricultural exporting country whose currency has depreciated in value. I want to see a common organisation of the market for sheep and lamb, and potatoes. Incidentally these are some of the things that are proposed. I want to see more rapid progress by the Community on structural reform. But some other member states do not want some of these items and some of them would like to see very substantial changes in aspects that benefit us. It can, therefore, be taken that there will be very considerable discussion and negotiation in the Council of Ministers before any results emerge, possibly as part of the usual package deals out of which each member state gets something but usually has to give something as well.
At this stage I would like to refer to the past performance of agriculture and the prospects for the current year. Between 1960 and 1972 the value of gross agricultural output increased from £193 million to £478 million. The increase in volume terms was over 40 per cent. Farming costs also increased greatly, particularly purchased farm materials which more than doubled in volume and trebled in value. Family farm income which stood at £112 million in 1960 had risen by nearly 150 per cent to £277 million in 1972. The continuing decline in labour requirements due to increased modernisation means that this increased income is being shared among fewer people.
The upward trend in farm output and income which was experienced in 1972 is expected to continue in 1973. The volume of agricultural output in 1972 increased by 3.7 per cent—an increase in cattle and milk output being partly offset by decreases in output of corn, root and green crops. The continued build-up in the cattle breeding herd—there was an increase of 209,000 in cow numbers between June, 1972, and June, 1973—has provided substantial increases in both milk and cattle output during 1973. Milk deliveries to creameries are expected to be up by about 7 per cent this year and a 10 per cent increase in cattle output is now projected. These two enterprises account for well over 60 per cent of our total farm output.
Agricultural prices, too, will be higher than in 1972 when an increase of over 21 per cent was recorded. Farm income in 1972 increased by more than a third as compared with 1971 and it is projected that, after allowing for the continued increase in operating costs, a further substantial increase in income will be achieved in 1973. This rise in farm incomes will augment the farmer's own resources available for further investment in agriculture as well as improve the standard of living of the rural community as a whole. The fact that much of the increased income is being re-invested in the farm reflects the confidence of the farmer in the future of the industry, and indicates the great need that existed for investment in farming. There is, however, every reason for examining critically any sizeable investments farmers propose to make in their farming businesses. High prices can be too readily absorbed by high production costs.
The value of agricultural exports in 1972 increased by almost £36 million despite a fall in the volume of exports of live cattle and, particularly, carcase beef. A further large increase in the value of exports is envisaged this year.
Deputies will be aware that for many years now investment aids to our farmers have taken the form of capital grants under a variety of individual schemes. These schemes have served Irish farmers well and indeed have helped our agricultural industry to maintain a reasonable level of investment even during those years when the international market situation provided little incentive for investment. If these traditional schemes have had any drawback it is probably that they were largely operated in isolation one from the other. The global or comprehensive farm development approach based on deliberate and careful planning of overall investment was the exception rather than the rule. The Small Farm (Incentive Bonus) Scheme initiated in 1968 introduced the concept of planned development for smaller farmers and offered special incentive grants to encourage acceptance of that concept by farmers. This scheme proved singularly successful even though the number of farmers who participated in it was never as high as I would have liked to see it. Those who did participate, however, demonstrated beyond doubt that farm planning pays off and that the advisory services can play and are willing to play a vital role in planned farm development.
I look forward therefore with confidence to a major change in the method of providing investment aids to farmers which will come into operation from the beginning of 1974. This change will come about through the implementation of the EEC Directive 159/72 on the modernisation of farms. It would perhaps be useful if I stated briefly the background to this Directive.
While the prices and marketing arrangements of the common agricultural policy are important instruments of that policy the Community recognised at quite an early stage that there are structural problems in agriculture, which inevitably make it difficult and indeed very often impossible for a great many farmers to achieve a fair income through the price mechanism alone—for example, small farm size, poor soils, high age level of so many farmers, and so on.
It was against this background that the Community came up with the programme for the reform of agricultural structures. The programme was embodied in three directives, the first of which relates to farm modernisation. The three directives are to be implemented as from the beginning of 1974. There may be some doubt about this in relation to one of the schemes which seems to be delayed. The Minister for Lands is responsible for the second directive which relates to retirement benefits for farmers and he has referred, during the debate on the Estimate for his Department, to his proposals for implementing it. I shall be referring later to the third directive which deals with socio-economic information and vocational training of persons engaged in agriculture and which also comes within my responsibility.
The farm modernisation directive sets out to achieve two major objectives. First it provides for a selective system of aids to "development" farms. These will be farms capable of development through planning so as to yield a labour income as good as that earned by non-farm workers. To put it simply, the directive obliges member countries to concentrate aids in favour of this category of farmers. Secondly, the directive sets out to regulate the type and level of investment aid which may be given to farmers outside the "development" category. Thus not only does it seek to assist selectively the creation of viable units in the shape of "development farms" but it seeks also to harmonise aids to farmers throughout the Community so as to rule out the distortion of competition that can clearly arise where some countries which can afford it may give very high levels of aid to the disadvantage of others. I regard this latter feature of the directive as a very important one indeed which must operate to our advantage.
We have recently submitted to Brussels our draft proposals for implementation of this directive and these will be the subject of detailed discussion and examination during the next few weeks. I cannot, of course, entirely anticipate the outcome of these discussions but I feel I ought to outline broadly the kind of aids which the scheme envisages.
The development farmer would have the option of a grant or interest subsidy in respect of investments on the farm which he undertakes in accordance with a farm plan designed to provide an income, on its completion, at least as good as that of non-farm workers. This is the major change which will ensure from the directive— the insistence on a proper and detailed comprehensive farm plan as the basis for granting aid as compared with the individual and rather piecemeal pattern of grant schemes hitherto operated. The level of aid to which development farmers will be entitled will be broadly in line with the levels at present available to farmers and in some ways will be better as aid will apply to a wider range of investments than do existing schemes—for example, there will be assistance for purchase of extra breeding stock and equipment. Moreover, the development farmer who concentrates on beef or sheep production will be eligible for special guidance premiums payable over three years on an acreage basis. A condition for receiving aid is that the farmer must keep farm accounts and for this he will also receive a special payment over at least four years. Finally, and, perhaps, most important of all, the development farmer will be entitled to priority access to land which may become available as a result of farmers retiring under the retirement scheme which the Minister for Lands will be operating. Clearly, this should prove a very attractive package of aids for the development category of farmers.
Because the terms of the directive make it obligatory to give the most favourable treatment to development farmers, it follows that aids for those farmers already enjoying a fair income —what might be called the commercial sector of farming—will be somewhat lower. If our proposals to Brussels prove acceptable, however, the aids to this sector will not be ungenerous and we will at least know that in future other countries in the Community will not be allowed to be more generous. Farmers not able to come into the development category immediately or not wishing to avail of a retirement scheme will be eligible for aids at the same level as development farmers but only for a transitional period of up to the end of 1977.
I should like to refer to two further aspects of the directive—the extent to which the Community will participate in the financing of it and the phasing out of our existing schemes. Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the extent of Community financing of the farm modernisation measure is quite limited. The main burden will continue to fall on the National Exchequer. FEOGA, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, will contribute a quarter of the aids given by the Irish Exchequer to development farmers only. It does not pay any part of the cost of aid to the other categories of farmers except for the keeping of farm accounts.
Our various existing grant schemes will be incorporated in the new comprehensive scheme. It will be my aim to encourage farmers to recognise the advantages of the new system and I am confident that many of them will do so. Nevertheless, I recognise, too, that many more may wish to finish or carry out works planned under existing schemes before making up their minds about the new scheme. I intend, therefore, to allow a reasonable time for the discharge of commitments under the existing schemes.
I hope this outline has given Deputies a general picture of what the farm modernisation directive is all about. When our proposals are agreed with, the EEC Commission details will be announced.
I believe that the comprehensive planned approach to farm development inherent in the farm modernisation scheme is the proper one and will bring many advantages to those farmers who avail of it. Another advantage I see is that it must necessarily involve a closer working relationship between the field services of my Department—land project and farm buildings officers for example— and the local advisory services. This is obviously as it should be. I know already from the small farm scheme what the advisory people can do, and I am certain that they and the field officers of my Department will fully accept the challenge which the new scheme will present to them.
Deputies will be aware, too, that the EEC has a measure under consideration to provide a special system of aids to farmers in handicapped agricultural areas. This measure is closely related to the farm modernisation directive. The final details of the measure are not yet settled but on the basis of the discussions so far we have estimated that a substantial part of the surface area of the country might come under the "handicapped" definition. Farmers in these areas would then become eligible for the livestock headage payment which is the main feature of the proposal.
All-in-all, the EEC structural package ought to have many attractions for our farmers. I would like particularly to stress the entirely voluntary nature of the choices offered to farmers and the balanced nature of the various incentives offered to induce the farmer to make his choice. The basic philosophy is to ensure that the farmer who stays in farming will enjoy working conditions and living standards at least as good as those in non-farming occupations.
When the full reform programme is in operation farmers will have a variety of options but some—particularly older farmers—may have difficulty in coming to a decision. This is where the socio-economic directive comes into the picture.
This directive is designed to complement the modernisation and retirement schemes in two ways—firstly, by providing that the farming population will receive information and guidance on the prospects for improving their socio-economic situation in the context of the new structural programme and, secondly, by requiring that all those over 18 engaged in agriculture will be afforded facilities for training to equip them with the skills required for successful modern farming.
The term "socio-economic" in relation to agricultural advisory work is not, as might appear, an entirely novel concept. Many of our agricultural advisers have over the years been guide, philosopher and friend to farm families in their areas—not merely within the strict confines of purely technical agricultural matters but also on those wider issues, human, economic and social, which affected the well-being of the members of the farm family in the broadest sense. The directive requires us to set up a corps of advisers with agricultural experience who will be given special training and whose job will be to explain to farming people the options open to them under the various structural improvement schemes, opportunities for training within agriculture or outside it, the prospects for their children and so on. Farming people would thus be in a position to take decisions on their future course with full knowledge of all relevant facts.
Turning to the agricultural training aspect of the directive, we are required to operate a programme of courses, both basic and advanced, with a special emphasis on technical and economic training. In our existing agricultural education facilities available through the county advisory services and agricultural colleges, we are I think fortunate to have at hand a base on which a comprehensive scheme to meet the directive can be built. I hope shortly to have such a scheme ready for consultation with the interested bodies.
Before leaving the subject of structural reform, I would like to refer also to the availability of grants from the guidance section of FEOGA towards the cost of certain types of investment projects to improve the structural efficiency of agricultural production and marketing. Decisions as to whether or not to provide aid from the fund are taken by the EEC Commission which considers each project on its merits. Only projects which have the approval of the member state and to the financing of which the state is prepared to contribute are eligible for consideration.
My Department has submitted applications involving £12.1 million grant aid from the 1973 FEOGA allocation and these are currently being considered in Brussels. The applications related mainly to pig, beef, fish, poultry and mushroom production, to rural water supplies, to potato, cereal, onion and tomato storage and to dairy, meat, cereal, fish and poultry processing. Those having suitable projects in mind for grant aid from the 1974 allocation should submit details of them as soon as possible to the appropriate Department or state agency. My Department will be glad to advise interested parties about the procedure for submission of applications. Here I should add that projects relating to the modernisation or development of individual farms are not eligible for consideration under the scheme: the farm modernisation directive will now apply to these.
The importance of manpower training in agriculture need not be stressed. It is highly desirable that farmers should have a good basic knowledge of agricultural methods and how to apply them in their farming practice. Progress primarily depends on the education, skill and enterprise of those working in agriculture. Opportunities for a better education have improved with the expansion of general education facilities. The facilities for training in agriculture in colleges are being improved continually. The number of people in farming who can avail of full-time formal training in agriculture is limited. However, several specialised short courses are already being provided. These will be added to. Facilities for training in the operation, care and maintenance of farm machinery have been greatly improved in recent years. Even with the expansion of facilities for such training, those in farming will have to rely, for the most part, on advice provided on the farm by advisers and on classes which they can attend for short periods. Hence the vital role of county committees of agriculture.
The primary function of the committees has been to provide, in co-operation with my Department, an agricultural advisory and education service to people in farming. That they have provided a service which is in demand is evidenced by the 50 per cent increase over the past ten years in the number of advisory staff employed. There is considerable need for the entry into farming of a greater number of young people with agricultural college type education. To help our younger farmers, committees have been generous in awarding scholarships for the provision of training at agricultural colleges and rural domestic economy schools.
Special grant aid is available to assist committees in the provision of agricultural education centres. Proposals for the provision of over 55 such centres have already been made by committees and approved by my Department. These centres are intended to accommodate winter classes and the more intensive winter farm schools, as well as courses in horticulture, poultry keeping and farm home management. They will also serve as places where farmers can consult the committees' advisers.
I have had under consideration recently the question of the expansion and development of the agricultural education and training programme operated by the committees. The development envisaged will require much careful planning, organisation and co-ordination of the work of the advisory staff in each county and in this connection I have approved the creation of one extra post of deputy chief agricultural officer in each county with responsibility for this development. The programme of development will involve identifying the agricultural education and training needs of farmers in present-day circumstances, especially those of young people going into farming and planning how those needs can best be satisfied.
Committees of agriculture and their advisers have been concerned with getting the latest developments in farming practice adopted generally. One of the most successful means at their disposal is the extension demonstration farm programme where selected farmers under the guidance of the advisory service operate up to date farming systems. Other farmers can visit these to see the systems in operation and assess their value.
The farm apprenticeship scheme forms an important part of our agricultural training system. In addition to the main scheme, the Farm Apprenticeship Board recently introduced with the approval of my Department a new trainee farmer scheme to cater for young men who will inherit farms but who cannot be spared from home for the full period of the apprenticeship training.
The reorganisation of the advisory service has been under consideration for a long time. I have been giving a lot of thought to the position and have considered the various views put forward and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement in the matter in the not too distant future.
With the expansion and intensification of agriculture, the demand for graduates, not only in general agriculture but also in dairy science and veterinary medicine, will rise. The grants paid annually to University College, Dublin for its faculty in general agriculture and to University College, Cork for its faculty of dairy science comprise statutory grants supplemented by additional grants, which include provision for the capital development of each of the faculties to meet the growing needs of higher education in agriculture. The additional grants which I am providing this year for University College, Dublin and University College, Cork are up by £500,000. Proposals for the development of the faculties include the provision of a new faculty of agriculture building at Belfield and new dairy and food science buildings at University College, Cork.
The future arrangements for veterinary education are at present under review in the context of the general re-organisation proposals involving the two universities in Dublin. As regards the facilities for veterinary education, it appears inevitable that in the years ahead the complete vacation of the existing Veterinary College premises at Ballsbridge will have to be faced up to because of real shortcomings now associated with that site. New premises, facilities, etc., for the purpose will have to be provided on a site or sites away from the Ballsbridge area. In the meantime there is an urgent need to relieve the ever-growing pressures on space and facilities at the existing Ballsbridge premises and to provide for some new facilities there in so far as this can be done. Arrangements to this end are at present being worked out by my Department in conjunction with the Office of Public Works.
The provision in the Estimate for An Foras Talúntais is over £3 million. This may seem a sizeable sum but now that I have had an opportunity of coming into close touch with the work of the institute I am in a position to appreciate the wide scope of the research programme in operation. I understand that the new council is reviewing the whole programme and I am confident that whatever changes they introduce will make the institute an even more effective research agency than it has been in the past.
I would now like to refer to some of the more important commodity developments beginning with cattle and beef. It is generally accepted that the increased world demand for beef which manifested itself so clearly last year will continue. The normal seasonal easing of prices has been evident in recent weeks. This should be of only temporary duration and the future prospects for the cattle and beef industry in this country are very good indeed.
The outstanding feature of our cattle and beef export trade during the past 12 months was the sharp increase in exports to the Continent at considerably enhanced prices. This resulted in a reduction in exports to the United Kingdom. Total exports of cattle and beef in 1972 were valued at £134 million compared with £120 million in 1971.
Another welcome feature has been the recovery of slaughterings at export factories during the current year to the point where during the past few months they have been running at figures well in excess of 1972 and even of the high figures reached in 1971. The frozen boneless beef trade to the USA has also improved.
I now come to a problem which has received some publicity of late. This relates to certain charges levied on our exports of cattle and beef. These charges fall under two heads—one charge is related to the progressive raising over the transitional period to full EEC membership of the starting cattle guide and support prices for Ireland and the UK to the full guide and support prices level of the original six EEC member countries. The second charge is a monetary one to offset the fall in the value of the £ relative to the official exchange rate on which the Community's common prices are based. The first charge, or accession compensatory amount as it is called, is being phased out in five annual stages and will then disappear. The customs duty element is also being phased out.
Last year when beef supplies became very short and prices rose very rapidly, the Community introduced a beef scarcity regulation which continued until September this year. Under the regulation, the customs duties were substantially reduced and the accession and monetary compensatory amounts were also entirely suspended. The EEC beef scarcity regulation was terminated with effect from 10th September last. As from that date higher customs duties applied and accession compensatory amounts were charged—but, of course, our trade with the United Kingdom remained unaffected. The position now is that up to 31st March, 1974, the customs duty will be 12.8 per cent on live cattle and 16 per cent on beef. On 1st April, 1974, these rates will be reduced to 9.6 per cent and 12 per cent. Each year thereafter they will be reduced further until they disappear. The accession compensatory amounts are charged when the market price in the Community falls below 106 per cent of the guide price. To safeguard the new member states the accession compensatory amount when added to the customs duty must not exceed the current community charge against third countries.
The charge against third countries comprises the full community customs duty of 16 per cent on live cattle and 20 per cent on carcase beef and import levy is also chargeable on exports from third countries when the import price, that is, the world price, plus duty is below the full EEC guide price. Because of the high world price for beef, there is at present no levy on imports from third countries. On account of this I have asked the EEC Council of Ministers to limit the charge on Irish cattle and beef exports to the original Community to the modified customs duty properly chargeable on our exports and not to charge any accession compensatory amount on our exports when customs duty only and no levy is being charged on imports from third countries. This request is still under examination by the Community.
I also requested relief from the monetary charge on our exports of beef to third countries notably the United States but the Community have been reluctant to entertain this on the ground that a derogation from the monetary charge would endanger the functioning of the common price system. However, some adjustments which have now been made in the monetary charges on beef cuts, including frozen boneless beef, have the effect of reducing by over 27 per cent as from 29th October the monetary charge on our normal exports of beef to the United States.
Earlier this year the Community introduced an additional intervention system for certain good quality cattle and beef. As announced some time ago, this intervention would give us a price support in the region of £16 per cwt liveweight for these good quality cattle. With the seasonal reduction that has now occurred, the average market prices have recently come down towards that level and quantities of beef have been offered for intervention by a few factories. Special arrangements are being made to deal with this. There is no lack of holding capacity for the beef when frozen but, with current large slaughterings at the meat factories, there is a heavy demand on the preliminary blast-freezing facilities required. The situation is a short-term one and the question of arranging supplementary facilities has been receiving attention.
The question of exporting cattle live or as meat is the subject of frequent debate and one which gives rise to some misconceptions. Some people seem to suggest that it is for the Government to decide whether cattle should be exported live or dead. This, of course, is not a matter for Government decision. It is one for decision by buyers and sellers of cattle in the light of price and market conditions. The Government cannot deprive the buyers and sellers of cattle of the right to make their own decisions. It is very important that this should be clearly understood.
When the Government are asked whether they prefer to see cattle exported live or dead, the obvious answer is that the Government would naturally prefer to see as many animals as possible processed at home. But the Government want to see a healthy meat industry standing on its own feet and able to compete with live exporters because it is able to secure a good price for its product on export markets. This is the key to the problem. If meat factories get a good price for their product, they can pay a good price to the farmer. Export promotion plays an important part in successful trading and the fact that the new CBF board will be placing more emphasis on meat export promotion should help the meat trade to secure top prices for its products.
CBF has been doing useful promotion work but it depends totally on the Exchequer for its finances. I think the time has now come when the interests which benefit immediately from promotion activities should make some contribution to the cost of the operation. I am referring now not only to market promotion but also to market research and I believe the farmers' organisations would accept the concept of some direct contribution from producers provided it were reasonable and seen to be employed directly to advance producers' interests. The study group which was set up to consider the proposal to introduce a beef classification scheme has made its final report. I am at present considering, in consultation with the different interests concerned, how the scheme should be operated.
The number of herdowners participating in the beef cattle incentive scheme continues to increase, as also does the average herd size. In 1969-70, just over £1.8 million was paid in grants to over 33,000 herdowners, with an average herd size of 6.6 cows. This year the Government are providing no less than £8.4 million for this scheme in which over 70,000 herdowners are participating with the average number of cows at over ten per herd. This average, I am pleased to say, has gone up each year since the inception of the scheme.
The cattle advisory committee which was set up last year has recommended the licensing of cross-bred Charolais and Fleckvieh bulls for use in suckler herds, the importation of Canadian and New Zealand Friesian semen, Australian Shorthorn semen and Canadian Hereford bulls for trials. These recommendations are being implemented.
The progeny testing of A1 bulls continues to be a priority and at present there are 70 approved progeny tested bulls in the A1 service. In addition to the financial assistance currently provided to the A1 stations towards the employment of progeny test recorders, my Department will in this financial year pay grants to the stations to offset the high cost involved in progeny testing A1 bulls of both dairy and beef breeds for beef qualities.
A further significant development in the assessment of breeding stock has been the introduction of performance testing of beef bulls. My Department's new performance testing station at Tully, Kildare, is now in operation where bulls are being assessed for growth rate, food conversion and some body measurements. The object of the testing service is to provide a pool of tested sires for the AI service and for pedigree breeders. At the end of the test we expect that the breed societies will organise a sale of performance tested bulls. At this point I must pay tribute to the breed societies for their ready co-operation in the test arrangements.
Progress under the new milk recording scheme is satisfactory. There are about 650 herd owners with 22,500 cows participating and the numbers are expected to increase. The service is of considerable benefit to farmers both as a management tool and in grading-up animals to full herd book status. Further improvement in the service has been achieved by the establishment of an additional laboratory with up-to-date automatic milk testing equipment at the Munster Institute, Cork. Plans are also well advanced for the computer processing of milk records as from next year. This innovation will, I am sure, be appreciated by herd owners for whom the issue of speedy results is all important.
I now turn to the dairying industry. Under the common agricultural policy of the EEC the system of creamery milk price support from Exchequer funds in operation up to 1st February was replaced by the EEC system. This changeover involved the termination of the arrangement whereby the Exchequer had been meeting the major share of the export losses incurred by An Bord Bainne. Dairy products exported from 1st February onwards were entitled to EEC financial support in the form of export refunds for sales to countries outside the enlarged Community and, in the case of intra-Community trade, in the form of compensatory amounts which offset any difference between the milk price level here and in the importing member states.
The overall effect of accession to the EEC and the increase in the Community target price for milk for 1973-74 is an increase of about 4½p per gallon in the price paid to the farmer, compared with that which he obtained during 1972. The process of bringing our milk price level into line with that of the original six EEC countries will mean further improvement apart altogether from any increase that may take place in the level of the milk price in the Community as a whole. I should emphasise, however, that the gap remaining between our price level and the present Community level is now relatively small—only about 1.4p per gallon.
The changeover meant also that economic restrictions on imports and exports of dairy products had to be terminated. As a consequence, the monopoly export position which An Bord Bainne had enjoyed in relation to almost all exports of dairy products had to be abandoned. To meet the new situation the Irish dairy interests formed on a voluntary basis a new co-operative society, An Bord Bainne Co-operative Ltd, to take over the central export marketing of dairy products. Since it is essential in the interests of selling our dairy products abroad—a trade worth £52 million in 1972 and considerably more this year —that export effort should not be divided I am glad to see that almost all our co-operative dairy societies are lending their weight to the new co-operative.
You will recall that just prior to the summer recess legislation was enacted which enables the assets of An Bord Bainne to be transferred to the new co-operative society and which also enables me, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to guarantee borrowings by the society. It is very gratifying to note that to date the society has found it possible to sell successfully abroad the dairy products acquired by it without having to sell any butter or skim milk powder to the intervention agency. Indeed, apart from a small quantity of skim milk powder purchased earlier in the season the intervention purchase arrangements have not, I am glad to say, been resorted to at all by the industry. A fairly buoyant market for butter and the general scarcity of protein material for animal feeding have been effectively exploited by An Bord Bainne. Present indications are that there is little likelihood of any serious recession in the market in the immediate future. In any event, milk producers and processors would, of course, be cushioned against any serious recession by the intervention arrangements.
The application of the common agricultural policy here obliged us to discontinue earlier this year the subsidy which had been payable on dairy products other than butter consumed on the home market. By a special provision in the Treaty of Accession we are, however, permitted to continue to pay the Exchequer subsidy on home consumed butter, but it must be phased out during the transitional period. The consumer has, however, been saved the full effect of the first stage of the phasing out of the subsidy by the Government's decision to remove VAT from foodstuffs, including butter, and to apply here an EEC regulation which permits member states to introduce a special consumer subsidy, which is financed as to 50 per cent from FEOGA. The Government have also applied here another EEC regulation which enables certain classes of social assistance beneficiaries and their dependants to obtain butter at a substantially reduced price.
The changeover to the EEC system has, of course, relieved the Irish Exchequer of the heavy outlay on support for the price of creamery milk. It has also provided the milk supplier with unprecedented price increases and has given him, through the intervention purchase arrangements, the security against world market price fluctuations that should enable him to plan ahead and develop his business with confidence.
The reorganisation and rationalisation of the creamery industry will secure for that industry the benefits to be derived from economies of scale and will enable the industry to enjoy the full benefits of EEC membership. Steady progress has been made in rationalising the industry, especially in southern areas. I hope that other societies will realise that it is in their own interests to be a member of a large viable creamery concern which will ensure for the milk suppliers access to suitable processing outlets and the best possible price for their milk supply.
On a number of occasions I have made it clear that I am prepared to approve of proposals for the purchase of the Dairy Disposal Company's properties by co-operative interests in the context of approved schemes or re-organisation, subject to a reasonable price for the properties concerned. Four of the company's 17 creamery groups have already been disposed of to co-operative interests. Arrangements for the sale of eight further groups in Kerry have been agreed upon, and the transfer will take place fairly soon. It is my policy to continue to facilitate the transfer of the remainder of the company's enterprises until all are in co-operative ownership.
There is as yet in the EEC no common organisation of the market for sheep and lamb but I have been pressing for this at meetings of the Council of Ministers. I have obtained a promise that the Commission's preliminary thinking on this problem will be made known to us in the near future.
This has been a good year for sheep producers. In the early part of the year prices for hoggets were particularly good. Prices for fat lamb continued steady throughout the summer and autumn months at higher levels than in 1972 and there was a very healthy trade for store lambs for fattening. The French market has remained open all this year and this has been useful. On the other hand, we had the unwelcome increases this year in the French levy charges, a matter which I took up earlier with the French authorities and am still pursuing.
Sheep production has, of course, had the added benefit of the higher wool price. It has also been helped by the sheep subsidy schemes for which an extra half million pounds was provided in the budget. This made it possible to raise the rate of subsidy on hogget ewes from £2 a head to £3 a head. It also enabled the rate under the mountain lamb scheme extension to be improved to £1 a head from September to December and £1.50 a head from January to April. The main outlets for our carcase lamb exports are France, the UK and Belgium. As I have said, the French market continues to stay open and even if it should close down for a few weeks before the end of the year we would expect that, as heretofore, it would be open in the new year for the lambs now being fattened for sale to our export factories at that time. The UK market for lamb is particularly firm at the moment and looks likely to continue that way. Exports of carcase lamb to Belgium are now a regular and useful feature of our trade and the relatively small shipments of live sheep to the Continent have helped to keep prices steady. What we now want is a common EEC policy for sheep which will give stability and a justifiable level of profitability to producers. Here I might mention that I have set up a committee representative of all the interests concerned to advise me on policy in relation to sheep breeding. I am confident that their work will be valuable and I wish to thank those people who have kindly agreed to serve on the committee.
Membership of the EEC offers us in the pigmeat sector access to the larger markets of the Community on equal terms with out fellow members as the compensatory amounts system operates to offset differences in grain prices pending full harmonisation of grain prices throughout the Community. We also have the protective mechanisms of the common agricultural policy, that is, levies and minimum import prices in respect of third country imports and intervention buying in depressed market situations.
Essentially, however, the situation is one in which market conditions determine the prices for our pigmeat and in which efficiency of production and processing determines the profit margins for our pigmeat enterprises.
The first half of this year was a very satisfactory period for pig producers. Pig prices increased throughout the period and, by the beginning of June, prices were about £6 per cwt deadweight higher than at the beginning of February. This situation derived from the high prices for pigmeat that prevailed on export markets, and particularly the steep rise in prices for bacon on the British market.
From early June the situation deteriorated. Bacon prices fell in Britain as a result of over-supply and at the same time producers had to face steep increases in prices for feedingstuffs due to the development of a world shortage of grain and protein foods. There is little doubt that during this period pig fatteners who had paid high prices for weaners earlier passed through a period of minimal profit on their throughput of pigs. This situation also obtained in Britain and Northern Ireland. In recent weeks prices on export markets, particularly bacon and pork prices in Britain, have improved and pig prices have been increasing here. Such marketing information as is available to us suggests that export markets should remain firm.
In the free market situation in which we find ourselves we are bound to have fluctuations in pig prices and in production costs but we would not expect a repetition of the steep increases in prices for feedingstuffs experienced this year. Producers here as in the other countries in the EEC will experience periods of greater and lesser profitability but over a period the total returns to our producers should continue to make pig production in this country a worthwhile enterprise. Certainly, neither in the field of production nor processing do I see us operating under any serious disadvantage as compared with our EEC partners.
Our producers and processors have, wisely in my opinion, decided to continue the system of centralised marketing of pigmeat through the Pigs and Bacon Commission on a voluntary basis. The Commission have gained valuable marketing expertise over the years. They can and do concentrate our small share of the total market supply in Britain into areas where effective sales promotion can be carried out. They can exploit markets in Europe for particular qualities and particular cuts and can, as they did this year in the case of Japan, develop, when occasion offers, valuable overseas outlets for our pigmeat exports.
The estimated output of poultry and eggs in 1972 was more than £20 million of which eggs accounted for about £10 million, broilers £8 million, turkeys £1.8 million and ducks and geese £0.4 million.
Egg production at nearly 700 million, of which about 60 per cent is now produced in intensive commercial units, is disposed of entirely on the home market. There has been a gradual decrease in production in recent years and there have been some imports from Northern Ireland this year. Broiler production, which is operated on a contract basis between growers and processing plants, increased to about three million birds to 21 million in 1972 and a further increase to 23 million is expected in 1973. Exports in 1972 accounted for about 10 per cent of output.
Turkey production, of which about 60 per cent is disposed of on the Christmas market, is expected to continue at the level of 800,000 birds as in recent years. About 24,000 turkeys were exported oven ready in 1972.
Duckling production is expanding steadily. In 1972 production was about 400,000 birds of which more than one-third were exported oven ready.
A new course in poultry management to train young men to work in the poultry industry has been introduced at the Munster Institute. This course includes practical experience on commercial poultry farms.
In order to assist egg packers to meet EEC egg grading requirements, grants of 25 per cent of the cost of adaptation or replacement of existing equipment are available from my Department.
As regards the horse industry, I welcome the significant increase in the volume and the value of our exports in recent years. In 1972 they were worth almost £10 million comprising 3,650 thoroughbreds valued at more than £7½ million and about 13,000 non-thoroughbreds valued at more than £2 million. Our non-thoroughbred exports have shown a particularly marked increase and for these horses, which can be described as the "leisure" horses, the hunter, the show jumper and the three-day event horse, there is every indication of scope for expansion of exports. We are well geared to meet this increased demand because of our horse-breeding tradition and the breeding skills of our farmers. Bord na gCapall which was established in 1971 has a particularly useful role to play in this field as one of its main functions is to advise me on horse breeding. The board has also the task of setting up and running a national training centre in equitation. Its plans for this are not yet complete but it has already run training courses and employed instructors. A pool of horses has also been provided by the board for use in competitions at home and abroad. In the field of sales and exports, which is in effect the main purpose of the board, some useful steps have been taken in setting up a sales directory and in providing a sales service for foreign buyers.
Bord na gCon report that 1972 was a most successful year for the greyhound industry with records in attendances at race meetings, betting turnover and prize money. This is due to the board's policy of financing the development of race tracks and the provision of amenities for the public. Exports of greyhounds increased both in numbers and value with significant numbers going to the USA, Spain and Italy. Australian owners are also showing an interest in obtaining Irish greyhounds.
I now come to the subject of livestock disease. The two cattle diseases of major concern to us are bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis. It is disappointing to note that despite the expenditure of large sums of money and effort over the past 20 years the incidence of bovine tuberculosis has not yet been reduced to an acceptable level. Eradication measures have been intensified this year by the extension of area testing to Counties Carlow, Clare, South Galway and Wexford and by the recruitment of additional veterinary surgeons to supplement the Department's veterinary staff. The net provision is higher by £300,000 than the corresponding amount originally provided for in the estimates for 1972-73.
Brucellosis results in severe financial losses to herdowners through reduction in milk yields and the loss of calves. For this reason alone it is essential that we eradicate the disease. Half the country is now under compulsory eradication measures. Six counties— Cavan, Donegal, Leitrim, Mayo, Monaghan and Sligo—have been declared brucellosis free while seven further counties are being dealt with as a clearance area. Outside the compulsory eradication area, herdowners have available to them a free breeding heifer vaccination scheme, a brucellosis certified herds scheme under which individual herds cleared of the disease are registered as brucellosis free and a new voluntary pre-intensive brucellosis scheme which aims to reduce the incidence of the disease in all the counties outside the brucellosis free and clearance areas. The new voluntary scheme is based on milk ring testing. It will permit herdowners to phase out their reactors gradually and with a minimum of disturbance to the economy of their holdings. Herdowners are required to dispose of reactors for slaughter at whatever time best suits them. A headage grant is payable on slaughter of each reactor plus a further grant when all reactors in the herd are disposed of.
In regard to both of these diseases I must say that progress is just not good enough. We are really living on borrowed time because in four years' time we will be subject to compliance with the full veterinary requirements of the EEC in regard to both our domestic and our export trade in live cattle. In the negotiated terms under which Ireland entered the Community, we secured derogations which entitle us up to 31st December, 1977, to retain our existing methods of declaring herds free of the two diseases and to export store cattle to the United Kingdom with the minimum of disease restrictions. The effect of the full application of the present EEC requirements is that unless there is rapid progress in the eradication of brucellosis and a substantial reduction in our present incidence of bovine tuberculosis, more frequent testing of animals for both diseases will be required, internal inter-herd movement of cattle will be severely restricted and our capacity to export will be seriously hampered. The urgency of putting our house in order does not seem to be appreciated sufficiently, and I would, therefore, impress on all concerned the necessity to comply strictly with the existing disease eradicaton measures, to dispose of reactor cattle as quickly as possible and to adopt a high standard of hygiene in animal husbandry. In particular, I would appeal to farmers in the southern counties to participate to the fullest extent in the voluntary pre-intensive brucellosis scheme so that the burden will be eased for them by the time compulsory eradication measures are introduced in their area.
The very successful dressing programmes against warbles in 1971 and 1972 have brought infestation in the national cattle herd to a low level. Surveys carried out by my Department in the past three years have shown a progressive drop in the proportion of cattle affected with warbles from about 22 per cent in 1971 to 2.6 per cent in 1973. We can expect the 1973 dressing campaign to bring warble infestation to a very low level indeed. The position will be assessed next spring and summer, at which stage I propose to have full consultations with the farming and other organisations concerned with a view to determining what further measures are necessary to deal with possible sources of reinfestation and achieve final eradication of this expensive pest.
I am rather concerned that, although the dipping of sheep has been compulsory for many years, an appreciable number of outbreaks of sheep scab continue to occur. I think that there is a combination of factors contributing to this unsatisfactory state of affairs. The situation is at present being studied by a special committee in my Department and it is my hope that this committee will be able to identify the impediments to a successful eradication programme and recommend practical measures to overcome them.
Our national system of guaranteed producer prices for cereals has now been replaced by the EEC intervention price system which provides a floor price at the wholesale stage. In August, 1973, the intervention prices at Irish port marketing centres were about £46 per metric ton for wheat and £38 for barley. While there is no intervention price for oats, imports are subject to the EEC levy arrangements which ensure prices for our oat producers in line with barley prices. The prices received by our cereals producers for the 1973 crops were very much above intervention levels and constituted a record due to the strong world-wide demand for cereals. Our overall acreage under cereals declined in 1973. This year's high producer prices should, however, give growers confidence to increase their cereals acreage for 1974.
The new EEC arrangements in effect left no scope for continuing An Bord Gráin which is now in process of being wound up and I should like to take this opportunity to thank the directors and staff over the years for their very successful efforts in bringing order out of what were at times difficult and controversial circumstances.
There has been some disquiet about the increases in the price of feeding stuffs which have taken place in the past year. I am afraid that we will have to accept that feeding stuff prices must inevitably increase in line with our cereals prices. The restrictions placed by the United States on the export of soya and other protein feeds in June last completely disturbed the world market and caused the price of soya to increase four-fold. These restrictions have now been lifted and the price of soya, whilst still high, is approaching more normal proportions. This situation and the rise in world grain prices was mainly responsible for the recent increases in prices for compound animal feeding stuffs.
I am glad to be able to say that the temporary cut in the protein content of feeding stuffs imposed by compounders as a conservation measure has now been restored. The important thing is to ensure that our feeding stuff prices will be no higher than those of other members of the Community who are in competition with us in the market for livestock products such as pigs and poultry. Owing to the EEC levy system, grain can only be imported at a price far above intervention level. It is obvious that the more self-sufficient we are in feed grain production, the lower will be our feed costs and the more competitive we will be in grain-based livestock production. Our yields of feeding barley are the highest in the Community and there is now every reason, therefore, for us to aim at self-sufficiency and even a surplus in feeding barley.
In the past sugar-beet has given better returns to the farmer than many other farm enterprises. While some other products have now become more attractive than before because of price increases, it would be a great pity if the acreage under beet were not kept at a high level. I would urge farmers to grow beet up to the full amount offered for contract by Cómhlucht Siúicre Éireann. Beet has a number of advantages, including its suitability as a rotation crop. Our minimum beet price, which is below the Community level, will be progressively increased each year up to 1978. There is also likely to be a steadily increasing world demand for sugar in the coming decade, which could mean greater production opportunities and more remunerative returns to beet growers. As Deputies will be aware, the future sugar policy of the Community is the subject of proposals by the EEC Commission. No decision has yet been taken by the Council of Ministers on these proposals. In any event, they do not affect our sugar beet quota for 1974.
The acute scarcity and marketing problems of last year's potato crop have been followed by a welcome increase in the acreage planted in 1973. Yields this year should also improve. I confidently hope that the scheme approved by the Government for a guaranteed minimum price to potato growers coupled with advantageous marketing will succeed in bringing a degree of stability to potato production to the benefit of grower and home consumer alike.
As regards horticulture, the EEC regulations which provide for a common organisation of the market in fresh fruit and vegetables are designed to stabilise the market for these products. Produce is allowed to move freely within the Community subject to its conforming to standards of quality, grading and packing as laid down in the regulations. There is provision for an intervention system under which certain fruit and vegetables may be taken off the market when prices drop to a very low level. Financial assistance is available to encourage the setting-up of producer organisations to regulate supplies and operate withdrawal measures when prices fall below a certain level. Measures are also taken to avoid serious market disturbance by imports from third countries, including in some cases the fixing of reference or minimum import prices. This country is applying the EEC system gradually over the transition years. Already we have removed our quantitative import controls on apples, tomatoes and onions. In the case of apples and tomatoes a system of compensatory amounts, i.e. levies on imports and payments on exports, is operating and will apply on a declining scale in the transition years for the periods in which the quantitative restrictions formerly operated. Statutory grading in accordance with the EEC standards has been introduced.
The numbers of applications for participation in our existing glasshouse, mushroom and horticultural grants schemes continue at a satisfactory level. As regards production I am happy to say that, while final figures are not yet available, it can be taken at this stage that yields and quality of fruit and vegetables in 1973 generally are as good as and in some cases superior to those crops harvested in 1972. Production and exports of tomatoes and mushrooms are expected to show increases over the 1972 figures. Apple production is also expected to record an increase. The total acreage of commercial horticultural crops and the acreage of contract growing of fruit and vegetables for processing, both of which had shown a decrease in 1971 and 1972, are expected to show an upward swing this year.
While all these factors are encouraging and while it is gratifying to be able to report such progress, I feel it must be stressed once again that the effect of EEC membership will undoubtedly pose a real challenge to the horticulture industry. However, given a firm resolve on the part of our producers to aim at achievement of the highest standards of product, quality and marketing, the challenge can be effectively met.
This country's quantitative import control on seeds has been removed. At the same time, however, our grass seed producers were able to benefit from the Community scheme of aid for the production of certain seeds including grass seed.
There are a number of Community directives relating to the marketing of seeds of beet, forage crops, cereals, potatoes, oil-bearing and fibrous plants and also vegetable seeds. The general objective of the directives is to ensure that only good quality seed is sold on the Community market. Specifications are laid down in regard to the quality of seed which may be offered for sale as well as marking and labelling requirements. Varieties are confined to those which are included in the national catalogue of varieties of a member country or in the common catalogue of varieties proposed by the Commission. The provisions of these directives will be applied in this country on a gradual basis over the next few years in the case of agricultural seeds and for vegetable seeds they are already in operation.
I should now like to say a word about agricultural credit. I expect that the demand for credit will continue to grow over the next few years since farmers will need more capital to expand their output and to adapt their enterprises so as to benefit from the higher prices and improved market conditions in the EEC. Additional capital will also be needed for the agricultural processing industries, particularly the milk and pigmeat industries.
The main sources of credit for both farmers and the agricultural processing industries are the commercial banks and the Agricultural Credit Corporation. There has been a steep increase in the last few years in the volume of lending to agriculture, particularly by the ACC. To cater for this demand, the Agricultural Credit Corporation Act, 1972 increased the corporation's borrowing power from £25 million to £70 million.
Further funds are being provided through a loan of £10 million by the World Bank. These funds are being channelled through the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Associated Banks for a livestock development project. The project will provide long-term finance on favourable terms for beef breeding, rearing and fattening, combined beef and dairy farms and pig production enterprises. It covers the provision of finance for stock, buildings development and incremental working capital. In addition to the provisions of long-term finance repayable over 12 years, the project also offers the advantages of a favourable rate of interest and a four year moratorium on repayments.
Deputies will be aware that a scheme was introduced in June, 1972, which I have extended to 31st December, 1973, under which loans at a reduced rate of interest are available to assist small and medium-sized farmers to expand their breeding herds. Farmers with gross margins of £1,500 or less are eligible for loans. The maximum loan is £1,000, the interest subsidy is 4 per cent per annum and the repayment period is three years. My Department pays the subsidy to the lending agencies —the Agricultural Credit Corporation Ltd. and the Commercial Banks. Up to the end of August loans totalling £3.7 million had been made to about 4,800 applicants.
Demand for the facilities of the land project and of the farm building scheme continues at a high level.
There were increases in applications for land drainage and reclamation grants, for mountain fencing scheme grants and for the facilities of the land project fertiliser credit scheme. These increases reflect the growing interest of farmers in having their lands improved to reap the benefits of EEC membership.
I might mention here that a number of people have come to me and expressed the fear and expectation that the land project work was going to cease. I want to assure them that that is not so.
The heavy demand for the facilities of the land project has given rise to a rather large backlog of applications on hands awaiting investigation. Steps recently taken to cope with the situation include the transfer of some existing field staff to areas where the demand is heaviest and the recruitment of a number of temporary field staff to help out in some western counties. Extra clerical staff have been allocated to districts where the need was greatest. Everything possible is being done to deal with the backlog within the limits of available staff resources.
As provided for in the Budget, a number of adaptations to the farm buildings scheme have been carried out. These relate to pig-breeding and farrowing accommodation, sheep wintering facilities, tower silos for moist grains and farm conditioning and drying equipment for grass seed.
With a view to the prevention of pollution from farm activities, I have introduced a scheme under which committees of agriculture may make payment of grants towards the purchase of slurry disposal equipment. These grants will be payable to bona fide contractors who undertake to collect and spread farm slurry in accordance with the terms of the scheme.
Ground limestone usage for the year ended March, 1973 at almost two million tons was the highest on record. The usage of nitrogen, phosphorous and potash has also continued to increase substantially. The total provision for lime and fertiliser subsidies in the current year's Estimates is £6.65 million or £1.2 million less than last year. The decrease is attributable mainly to the discontinuance of the potash subsidy.
Before concluding, I would like to mention the helpful discussions which I have had with farming organisations since assuming office. Prior to the budget, I had exhaustive discussions with the Irish Farmers' Association and the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association. Since then I have had further discussions with these organisations as well as with numerous other agricultural bodies. I was glad of the opportunity to discuss our current agricultural problems with these bodies and to receive the benefit of their views. My aim is to work closely with them and to have their co-operation and support.
At the same time, I feel I must say that too frequent discussions with a whole host of organisations can be very time-consuming and can constitute a serious encroachment on the time available to a Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—or, indeed, any Minister of State—for dealing with the multifarious activities of his office. I am sure the various organisations concerned will readily appreciate this.
Deputies will appreciate that, given our membership of the EEC and given the existence and importance of the common agricultural policy, the best service I personally can render our farmers is to do all I can in Brussels to ensure that the CAP will evolve in a way that benefits the farmers of this country. Here at home my job, as I see it, is to guide and encourage the development and, where necessary, the re-organisation of the operations of the Department and other agricultural agencies in such a way that the best possible service is available to Irish farmers. This will be my motivation whether I am concerned with a section of activities within the Department, the re-organisation of advisory or other technical services, or the rationalisation of a group of co-operatives. The objective is the same—the fashioning of the tools that are capable of doing the job most effectively in the 1970s and 1980s.
I think I have now dealt with the more important aspects of our agricultural industry and I look forward to a constructive debate on this Estimate.
