asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will request fertiliser manufacturers to make a significant financial contribution to a fertiliser fund; if the Government will contribute £3 million for fertiliser subsidy to this fund which could be distributed in a manner similar to the fodder voucher scheme for the purchase of straight phosphate and potash; and if he will arrange to have the maximum value of one voucher granted to any one rated occupier fixed at £50 in view of the fact that demand for these manures this year is reckoned to be 40 per cent down.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fertiliser Fund.
5.
I do not consider that a scheme of the type suggested would be either appropriate or effective. A Government subsidy is already payable on phosphatic fertilisers.
Farmers would be well advised to apply the optimum levels of fertilisers to their land so as to derive the maximum benefit from the resulting favourable returns.
Surely the Minister is aware that recently 10.10.20 went from £95 to £105 per ton; 4.10.20 from £75 to £85 per ton and 8.8.16 from £75 to £80 a ton. Is he aware that the type of farmer who can least afford these prices is the man whose ground badly needs fertiliser and is he also aware that there is a 40 per cent reduction in the use of artificial manures?
The Deputy seems to be imparting information rather than seeking it.
With respect, I do not take up much of the time of the House unless it is something very important.
I do not know exactly what the supplementary question is but I am aware of all the things the Deputy has said. I am aware that prices have increased. It depends to some extent on where one is buying.
These are very competitive prices. The Minister could introduce a good scheme like the fodder voucher scheme and could he not now introduce a scheme on the same lines to give an incentive to these people—a maximum of £50, the Government contributing some and asking the fertiliser manufacturers to make some contribution in their own interest so as to sell the manures? Something like this is absolutely essential.
I share the Deputy's concern about the reduction in the application of artificial fertilisers. I know it is no help to say that this is occurring all over Europe because of the cost of these fertilisers. I do not agree with the Deputy's suggestion that we should look for a contribution from the people in the business because they will immediately shove that contribution on to the price. If the Government had the money available to do what the Deputy asks they simply are not free to use it in this way. We are, in fact, the only country in Europe subsidising fertilisers and we are doing that to the tune of £5 million.
Last year we heard a great deal of talk about monitoring stocks. Some of the manufacturers had very large stocks of fertilisers prior to this latest increase and is the Minister not aware that they must have made an exorbitant profit on these stocks?
There is no law to prevent people accumulating stocks of any commodity. It is not possible to move in on a trade and say that they must not stock in that trade or that they must sell whatever it is today or tomorrow. We cannot do this without having a complete dictatorship.
Would the Minister not agree that it was foolish to take the controls off fertilisers because of the evidence we have since had of increases in price?
I do not accept that because the same argument has been used by the Opposition about feeding-stuff prices. These have controlled themselves by competition and I believe the same happens in the fertiliser industry as well. Remember, it was a farmers' decision as well as mine because the organisations agreed that this was the best way.
Will you allow me——
I am calling the next question. I think this question has been dealt with sufficiently.
I certainly do not get very much time.
The Deputy gets the same latitude as every other Member.