Vol. 295 No. 6
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,639,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1976, 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 main Estimate for Agriculture for 1976, amounting to £114,361,000 net was passed on 17th June. The net amount of this Supplementary Estimate added to the original Estimate for 1976 represents a total net provision of £116,000,000. This figure shows an increase of £25,464,000 on the final total net Estimate for Agriculture, including the Supplementary Estimates, for 1975. The £1.6 million now sought takes into account various savings amounting to £19.8 million to which I shall be referring in the course of my statement.
At the outset I would like to announce, with reference to the sum of £1 million provided under subhead C.5, that the Government have given approval to a proposal for the allocation of this amount to provide special assistance for defined cases of hardship arising from the discovery of tuberculosis and brucellosis reactors. The £1 million will be paid into a special hardship fund from which assistance would be paid and would continue to be paid until the fund is exhausted. It is envisaged that the £1 million would be sufficient to cover all hardship cases during the current round of testing which should be completed later next year. When the £1 million is spent—at whatever time this should occur—there would be no further contribution from the Exchequer to the fund. Continuation of the fund beyond that time would, therefore, be dependent solely on an arrangement under which the fund would be financed by the agricultural industry through some form of levy or other contributions. Unfortunately the farming organisations do not favour farmer contributions and so the fund will terminate when the present injection of Exchequer grant of £1 million is exhausted. I have asked the Advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication to recommend to me the criteria which should be applied in defining hardship cases and the level of assistance to be given.
The next item I should like to refer to is the additional expenditure provided for various capital grant schemes. This reflects the exceptional level of investment by farmers in the development of farms during the past year. The extra provision of £2 million under subhead D.2 relates to land reclamation work completed under the former land project. Grants for this sort of work are now available under the farm modernisation scheme and the old scheme has, therefore, been effectively wound up since 30th September last. The announcement last year of the date for winding up the project prompted a great many farmers to push ahead and complete works on hands or to finish jobs which had been partially completed. This coupled with the general buoyancy in the level of investment by farmers during the year has led to the extra expenditure.
I should say as a general observation that there has recently been a noticeable revival of interest in land drainage. The exceptionally dry winters of the last two years seemed to have lulled many farmers into the false notion that lands would never again become waterlogged. It would be a pity if this notion were to continue. I am quite satisfied that there are still vast areas of lands which can be improved and brought to full productivity by drainage or clearance. It is in the national interest that these improvements should continue and I therefore welcome the revival of interest in this work which has become more evident in recent months.
Subhead D.3 relates to grants for farm buildings and installation of water supplies on farms under the former schemes. Again, consequent on the unexpected upsurge in demand in the context of the winding up of these schemes the expenditure arising in the present year will be in excess of that originally estimated to the extent of £620,000.
The main subhead providing for capital grants to farmers is now, and will be in future, subhead M.1 covering the farm modernisation scheme.
As I have mentioned already, the level of investment by farmers, has been consistently high throughout this year. This clearly reflects the very favourable returns from all sectors of farming. Apart from this, however, it also clearly illustrates that whatever else may be deficient in the farm modernisation scheme it does not in any way inhibit investments by farmers. Indeed, the contrary is the case. There are very generous grants for all types of capital investment but particularly for buildings and land drainage. I am very glad that farmers now recognise this and that they have responded to it. I might add that this expenditure on capital works is clearly beneficial also outside the farming industry in so far as it generates a great deal of employment in the building and other allied industries and, of course, its effect is dispersed throughout the economy.
Having said that, I would like to repeat just one word of caution which I think I have uttered here before. The cost of capital investment on farms can now run into substantial sums. There is a risk that farmers may be lured into overspending or spending unwisely. Careful consideration of investment proposals and careful planning are called for. I hope that both farmers and their advisers are availing of the chance which the farm modernisation scheme gives them to work closely together on the planning of developments on the farm and that between them they weigh all the pros and cons of the expenditure that may be necessary. In this way wasteful investment will be avoided and the greatest possible returns will be gained from the money that is spent. Given this careful and prudent approach by both farmers and advisers, I am confident that the industry will quickly make up for the lean years when the resources were not available to be ploughed back into the development of the industry.
On the horticulture side we require an additional £127,000 to meet capital grant commitments under the old horticultural schemes which have also been wound up and incorporated into the farm modernisation scheme.
As regard the provision for an additional £15,800 for the Farm Apprenticeship Board, Deputies will recall that, earlier in the year there was considerable publicity surrounding the financial difficulties of the board. In response to the board's representations, an additional grant of £15,800 over and above the £27,500 provided in the original Estimate was made available by my Department to the board to enable them to meet their commitments to the end of the current year.
Incidental expenses of market intervention in beef and skim milk powder are now estimated to amount to £24.4 million of which £17.5 million will be eligible for recoupment from FEOGA. This leaves a net cost of £6.9 million to be met from the Vote as compared with the £2.6 originally provided, an increase of £4.3 million. In the main this increase is due to higher interest charges on the capital tied up in the stocks of beef and powder held in intervention. I should explain here that the capital funds for intervention purchases of beef and skim milk powder have to be provided by us and that the rate allowed by FEOGA to member states generally in respect of interest is appreciably less than what the Exchequer has to pay on borrowings.
Although the slaughter premium arrangement terminated at the end of February, 1976, delayed claims for payment have continued to come to hand. It has been found necessary to provide a sum of £38,000 as the Exchequer contribution towards meeting those claims.
The special premium on exports of beef to the UK is a self-balancing arrangement whereby such sums as are received from the UK Government are passed on to our beef exporters. The proposed increase from £1.5 million to £1.7 million does not involve the Irish exchequer in any additional outlay, being matched by a corresponding increase in appropriations-in-aid.
The shortfall of £340,000 in receipts from slaughter fees arises from the fact that it has not yet been possible to make statutory provision for monthly, instead of half-yearly, collection of these fees. Accordingly, fees in respect of animals slaughtered in the second half of 1976, which it had been hoped would largely be collected before the end of the year, will not now fall due until next year.
I would now like to refer to certain items where savings accrued, beginning with the disease eradication schemes. There will be a substantial saving on the sum provided for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication. This saving arose from the veterinary dispute during which the normal round of testing was not in operation. When the dispute was resolved testing recommenced in October. Most of the expenditure incurred under these subheads this year related to the retesting of reactor herds identified in previous rounds and the removal of reactors for slaughter.
The estimate shows a saving of £800,000 on the fertiliser subsidies. This reflects the trend in fertiliser sales and usage in the early months of the year. I was most concerned at the reduced usage, and I have repeatedly called on farmers not to indulge in the false economy of reducing ultimate yields and profit for a short-term apparent saving of a few pounds. I am glad to say that recently sales of fertiliser have increased greatly and farmers are again increasing fertiliser usage.
While on this subject I would like to stress once again the desirability of expanding the tillage acreage. This is essential if we are to provide more winter feed for cattle, and also from the point of view of reducing our dependence on imported feed which is costing the country over £30 million a year. Furthermore, a tillage break, apart from being profitable in itself, is the most effective means of improving old unproductive grasslands.
The saving of £1.1 million on subhead D.4, beef cattle incentive scheme, derives from the fact that this scheme was withdrawn in the less disadvantaged areas on the introduction of the EEC beef cow scheme for which provision is made under subhead M.3— aids to farmers in certain lessfavoured areas. Similarly, the saving of £460,000 on sheep headage grants results mainly from the substitution of an EEC sponsored scheme in the less disadvantaged areas for our own sheep headage grants scheme. Total expenditure this year under subhead M.3 on the EEC cattle and sheep schemes will amount to £13.5 million —the sum provided—of which 35 per cent will fall to be recouped from EEC funds.
Finally, the saving under subhead E.2 is mainly accounted for by an increase in the level of FEOGA contribution to our consumer subsidy on butter. I have now dealt with the main items in the Supplementary Estimate and I look forward to any comments Deputies may wish to make.
The Minister would have liked very much to be present at the debate today but he is unavoidably absent.
It is a pity we have not more time to deal with this important Supplementary Estimate. The Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with a number of items on which many Deputies from this side would like to speak.
The provision of £1 million for hardship cases with regard to the sale of brucellosis and TB reactors is totally inadequate. In my opinion at least £2 million should have been provided. We have told the Minister repeatedly that the scheme is a bad one, and it is the farmer with the small cattle who will suffer particularly. If a small beast fails the TB or brucellosis test the farmer could lose up to £80. The indications regarding the number of cattle who will fail the tests in my area are not very good. The Animal Health Advisory Council have said also that the provision made will not be adequate, and perhaps the Minister would reconsider the matter even if it means introducing another Supplementary Estimate.
I would ask the Minister to give serious consideration to changing the scheme. The present procedure will not help in the eradication of disease. Under the old scheme the buyer from the Department came out to the land and bought the beast. The beast was brought to a collection point and collected in a lorry engaged by the Department. After the beast was brought to the factory the lorry was disinfected. Under the present scheme the farmer must deliver the beast to the factory and get his grant. The scheme has not been worked out completely as yet. It is a question of what these hardship cases will get out of this £1 million.
Apart from the loss to the farmer the greatest drawback is the danger that the eradication of disease will be affected. Every farmer will not disinfect the lorry or trailer in which he brings his beast to the factory and that is bound to spread disease. It is all very well for the Minister to say that efforts are being made by certain co-operatives to organise collection centres but farmers living in isolated areas will not benefit and they cannot afford to hire a lorry. Of course, there may not be a full lorry load available. I am surprised no effort is made to have these vehicles disinfected. I believe the old scheme was superior. Some will lose a great deal of money. If a farmer has a heavy beast he will be all right but if he has a light beast or a very good milking cow he will lose money.
The Minister is the first Minister to state that the Department would not accept responsibility for the eradication of diseases, diseases which are harmful not only to livestock but to human beings. The whole community should be involved in the eradication of these two very dangerous diseases in particular. Now, according to the Minister, he will accept only partial responsibility for eradication. It was always accepted that the State had a responsibility and I am sorry the Minister is not now prepared to accept that responsibility. It was suggested that, if funds were not available, there could be a levy put on farmers to pay the cost of eradication. This would be grossly unfair.
Having said that, I cannot emphasise strongly enough how totally I disagree with the present system of buying cattle under the eradication scheme and I wonder how bad things will become. Let us hope they will not be too bad. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to a saving as a result of the dispute with the vets. To me the cost of disease eradication, whoever will pay it, is the cost of that dispute which went on for two years. Had that dispute not continued good work would have been done and the cost of eradication would have been nothing like what it will be now. It is nonsense to talk of a saving because of a dispute which should have been settled six months after it started. No money has been saved because the price of cattle has gone up.
Reference was made to land drainage and to people not being aware of the need to do land drainage. Of course they are aware but the great problem is that farmers cannot carry out drainage while the rivers which act as outlets remain undone. I understand drainage is not a priority in the EEC. In my area the Duncannon and the Suck have not been drained and so the farmers are unable to do any drainage work themselves. Every farmer in the west knows he must drain his land. It is no use putting fertilisers on waterlogged land. We have a very serious drainage problem. The Minister should impress on the EEC that drainage here should be a top priority to enable us to reclaim land capable of producing good crops.
The farm modernisation scheme was mentioned. That scheme is irrelevant so far as this country is concerned, as everybody knows, because of the small number of farmers who come within its ambit. That was pointed out long ago and we were then accused of throwing cold water on this scheme. I understand the Minister has made certain submissions now in regard to the directive. I know county committees of agriculture have submitted a scheme. So have the IDA and the agricultural advisers. Some of these schemes contradict each other. I was astonished to hear the Minister say yesterday that these schemes had been forwarded to Brussels. The schemes should have been processed in the Department and the result of that processing should have been forwarded to Brussels. My complaint with the present regime is that too many are inclined to pass the buck. The Minister has responsibility and it was he who should have made a decision and forwarded the most appropriate scheme for this country. Sending two or three different schemes to Brussels is not the right way to proceed. I am very critical of this.
Mention was made of the further payments that had been made towards the Farm Apprenticeship Board. I am one of the people who brought that board into existence. I was chairman of the committee which obtained the grants from the Department and set up the board. I am delighted the Minister came to the assistance of the board. Some suggested the board may not be run as economically as it should be. That can be examined. This was one of the best schemes ever introduced. I have known young people who have come through it and gone back to their farms or got reasonably good jobs. It is a hard course and it would be a retrograde step if the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries refused to subsidise this excellent scheme and keep it going. I have criticised many directives from the EEC, but one for which I have the utmost praise is No. 161, the educational directive. We are making the most of it in my county and the short and reasonably long courses which are being run are of great benefit to both big and small farmers. The farm apprenticeship scheme is another scheme giving excellent value.
The Parliamentary Secretary also mentioned the headage payments in disadvantaged areas. The old scheme was dropped and a new scheme was adopted for the disadvantaged areas. I cannot understand why the 12 western counties that are recognised in Brussels as disadvantaged areas are not designated as severely disadvantaged for the headage payments. Recently, under pressure, the Minister brought in—and probably rightly so—two other areas. Knowing one of them, I think he was justified in doing so. However, we approached him in respect even of pockets of areas in my county. Although the 12 western counties are recognised by the EEC as disadvantaged, they are only disadvantaged theoretically as far as the people there are concerned. The people do not get any benefit from this designation unless they are development farmers, and the percentage of development farmers is so small that it is irrelevant. Therefore, I cannot understand why they are not designated areas for the headage payments. People will say there are portions of these counties where there is good land that are not in. We all know the Lagan valley which has about the best land in the county. I could point out other areas which are completely designated as disadvantaged although they have pockets of good land. As I say, while the 12 counties were always recognised as being worthy of special treatment, there is no advantage for them in the designation. I cannot understand why the Minister would not look into that matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to tillage. Tillage brings to my mind the idea I have been pressing over the years, particularly since we joined the EEC, that of a balancing fund. I was a small farmer and happened to be in tillage fairly extensively, and I remember a time not so many years ago when we could not sell our potatoes. We were selling them for £8 to the sugar factory in Tuam. This was the time when the man in tillage was being laughed at by anybody engaged in any other system of farming. A farmer will go into whatever system of farming pays him best and therefore practically every farmer who was in tillage got out of it. The result is that now they have not got the necessary machinery. It is not so hard to switch from milk to beef; from beef to milk costs money, but from livestock to tillage costs a huge amount of money because the machinery required is so expensive.
I would like this balancing fund to be considered so that what happened a few years ago in regard to pigs will not occur. I would like to warn the Parliamentary Secretary, incidentally, that there is a danger in regard to pigs at present, but there is nothing there to subsidise them. We do not want the same thing to happen as happened in 1974 when the farmers had to sell the sow and the cow, instead of selling the bonham and the calf, because they could get nothing for them.
I am not suggesting there should be a fund provided by the taxpayer but a fund that could be created from the produce that is going well in Europe. In this way when a commodity would fall below the price at which it is profitable for the farmer to produce it he would get assistance from this European fund. I have been pressing this for a long time but it is falling on deaf ears. The Minister sticks out his chest and tells us we are all right for two years with the cattle trade. That is a very short term. I am not saying that things are not reasonably good at the moment, but we have to consider the years ahead. However, because a farmer might get £80 on cattle going out people will say the farmer should not get it. Is the beast not the farmer's? If the farmers are not paying the right amount of tax by all means tax them. I am not objecting to that. However, if an industrialist exports goods and, because levies were imposed on him, a certain sum of money is returned, it is not to the revenue it would come but back to the industrialist. The same thing goes for the farmers. They should get back their money. This sort of thing causes lack of confidence among farmers. This balancing fund I am suggesting would cushion them over a period when they would be producing a commodity which would be completely uneconomic to produce at that time. It happened in relation to tillage and, in 1974, in relation to pigs. There is a danger of us getting another pig cycle which would mean that it would be uneconomic to produce pigs. What happens in that case is that producers who are in the pig business in a small way go out of production. That occurred after the last flop in that industry. The same thing happened with small cattle. For those reasons it is essential to have a fund on the lines I have suggested established.
It is not my intention to delay the House any longer on this matter. In my view it is a shame the way business is allocated here. This Estimate is for the most important Department which caters for the country's biggest industry and yet we must wait until the end of a session before we can discuss it in a limited way. Only once since I became a Member have we had a full debate on agriculture. If we did not have the huge agricultural exports we had over the last three years what would we have done? We depend on agricultural exports to get in the money. It is a shame that only a few hours is allocated for debate on this Estimate. It is wrong that important Estimates are bundled together at the end of a session and that they must be passed after a limited debate.
I should like to advise the House that what is before us is a supplementary estimate and debate should, strictly speaking, be confined to the items contained in that supplementary estimate. It is not an appropriate occasion for a wide-ranging debate over agricultural matters generally. Matters of detail should be left to the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries proper which will come before the House in due course.
It appears that we are always restricted when we rise to speak on agriculture. That is most unfair because this Estimate requires in-depth study. We must have a farm plan because since we entered the EEC agriculture has taken on a new role. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that the Government intended to provide £1 million for hardship cases in brucellosis testing but he hoped no further contribution would have to be made. I do not think the Department should state that no further contributions would be made, because it is vitally important that we tackle the problem of eradicating disease. We all complained bitterly about the handling of the vets' dispute, and the damage caused by that dispute could have serious repercussions on the agricultural industry over the next two years.
There is an extra provision of £2 million relating to land reclamation work completed under the former land project. I hope the grants will be paid and the scheme completed as soon as possible, because it is holding up examination of FMS applications. I appreciate the difficulty involved in processing applications, but something should be done to improve the situation. The Parliamentary Secretary also told us about the fall-off in fertiliser usage, and I should like to remind him that we pressed the Government to take action in this regard on many occasions. In relation to the farm modernisation scheme additional staff should be employed to deal with applications. There is a big hold-up between the time applications are received and the time they are approved. It should be remembered that that scheme could make a great contribution to the building and construction industry, because the farming community realise that they will have to provide many more buildings. Any employment created in the building and construction industry, where there is serious unemployment at present, would be welcome. An improvement in the processing of applications under this scheme would also mean that farmers could develop their holdings faster.
In relation to buildings I should also like to mention that an application has been lodged for an increase of 20 per cent in the price of cement. This will have a serious effect on farm development programmes. The Parliamentary Secretary also told us that careful consideration of investment proposals and careful planning were called for. Those interested in farming will agree that this is a top priority. It is important that farmers avail of the advisory service, that they would draw up farm plans and that there would be careful consideration of this investment proposal. This is really important at present because most farmers are curtailed by insufficient acreage and non-availability of land. Formerly, land was available on conacre but because of spiralling prices and the purchase of farms by people not entirely dependent on farming a really serious problem has been created for the farming community. Previously, even though conacre was costly they were able to get land but they now have to compete with investors in the purchase of farms. It is most important that very careful consideration be given to the purchase of a farm, and future investment in it and programmes for such farms should be designed to produce the maximum return.
It is stated that on the horticultural side we need an additional £127,000 to meet capital grant commitments under old horticultural schemes. This scheme should be rapidly developed by the Department because, from replies to Parliamentary Questions we have learned that a colossal amount of money—last year it was £26 million —was spent on fruit and vegetables which could have been produced here where we had massive unemployment. This type of production would involve labour-intensive projects in a climate and a country very well suited for the purpose.
I should like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to one applicant in my area who went into horticulture fairly extensively. He applied in 1975 under the Farm Organisation Scheme in respect of erection of mushroom houses. He received approval from the Department and an estimate of the cost, but due to increases in building materials and other materials generally he found by the end of the year that the percentage of the estimate cost which he was getting was completely unrealistic in relation to the actual cost of the project. I asked the Department to re-examine the matter because I felt that when a time limit was not imposed within which he had to complete the scheme, the Department officials should have been able to re-examine the scheme. He had a very well documented case which would bear the strictest examination as regards prices and costs of the items involved. The Department should re-examine cases such as that and applicants should be allowed the percentage to which they are entitled under the scheme.
I welcome the provision of the additional money we sought during the year for the farm apprenticeship scheme, which is an important project and is being availed of, largely due to so many farm apprentices being unable to secure jobs or places in colleges. I have seen a number of boys who served their apprenticeships with farmers and they are now in a position to make a worthwhile contribution to farming in the future. Therefore, I think this scheme is very important.
The estimate shows a saving of £800,000 on fertiliser subsidies. Further on the Minister stated: "I am glad to say that recently sales of fertilisers have increased greatly and farmers are again increasing fertiliser usage". I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that at this time of year fertiliser sales increase because of manufacturers' and merchants' sales promotion schemes. They offer special terms at such times, and more so this year because there is very muddled thinking in regard to the future price of fertilisers. This is a pity. One day you see in the papers that there will be high increases and another day you see it stated that this is not expected to happen. The farmers are left between two minds. It is very important that at the end of a year, in November or December, farm organisations should be notified in advance of the expected price structure in the coming spring. If farmers avail of these price reductions in most instances they must obtain credit and pay a high rate of interest. They must consider whether it will pay them to seek this credit. The fertiliser industry should at present be able to forecast fairly accurately the price trend for the coming year, and they should be pressed to do so. We realise there are imports, but this does not seem to have much effect on the actual fertiliser price.
We must realise that when the fertiliser subsidy was introduced we had 8 per cent phosphate at about £8 to £10 per ton and slag at probably £6 or £7. In many instances the increase now is five-fold or six-fold. It is a pity to see a reduction in the use of fertilisers at a time when we need an increase. Farmers who have studied this matter realise that the future for increased production lies in increased fertiliser usage and the use of the farm advisory service, getting soil tests done and ensuring proper application of fertilisers.
Later the Parliamentary Secretary said:
This is essential if we are to provide more winter feed for cattle and also from the point of view of reducing our dependence on imported feed which is costing the country over £30 million a year. Furthermore, a tillage break, apart from being profitable in itself, is the most effective means of improving old unproductive grasslands.
We all agree that this is the most effective way but with the restrictions on mixed small farmers it is just not on. They have not the acreage, the equipment or the storage facilities. Year after year people feeding their livestock and users of feed, be it compound, barley, oats or maize, are the victims of colossal price increases. At present most merchants are charging in the region of £107 a ton for barley without additives. Most of that barley was purchased at prices around £65 to £75 a ton last year. Because of the exceptionally good weather grain growers and merchants did not need to have the barley dried, although in some cases the moisture content was high because cuttings were done early in the day or at night. This caused a problem for the grain merchants and compounders and that eventually filtered down to the users and the product was not as good as it could have been.
It is a real tragedy that in areas similar to those I represent, small farmers, whether for dairy cattle or pigs, have to pay £107 a ton for barley. This means somebody is making a profit of £25 to £30 a ton. Also, grain merchants from the north come here and inflate the price of barley. The people who suffer as a result of this are the small stock producers.
I mentioned the pig industry briefly. We spent a good deal of time discussing that industry here. It is a pity remedial action was not taken and that the pig industry passed from the hands of the traditional small producer whose main income was the family farm and who needed the pigs to supplement his income. That industry is now declining and it is a pity more attention was not given to it before this.
If the farm modernisation scheme is to be effective a farmer working to a plan in conjunction with the agricultural adviser, and whose income is only from the farm, should qualify for maximum grants. Once again I ask the Department to have another look at fertiliser usage and barley prices.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss our most important industry, agriculture. Like previous speakers I think it is a pity we did not have a full discussion on the main Agriculture Estimate. This is something the Government should look into when making time available for discussions. I want to pass a few remarks now on the Parliamentary Secretary's speech.
He made reference in the first part of his speech to a sum of £1 million provided under subhead C.5 for special assistance for defined cases of hardship arising from the discovery of tuberculosis and brucellosis reactors. This £1 million is inadequate to meet the hardships that will be encountered by the farming community in the eradication of these diseases. I do not agree with the suggestion that the farming organisations and the farmers themselves should make contributions, because the eradication of these diseases will benefit the country and the economy as a whole. When we consider that our total agricultural exports are in the region of 65 per cent of our total exports, we can readily see the importance of the cattle industry to our economy and, most important, the importance of the agricultural industry to our economy.
We must not look at this from a narrow point of view but from the benefits of the agricultural industry to the economy. In that respect this fund must be provided fully by the Exchequer.
The Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister have omitted to mention time and time again the vast cost to the agricultural industry of the eradication of these diseases. The Parliamentary Secretary never refers to the cost of replacing a brucellosis or tuberculosis reactor animal. He says that the Department are now providing £80 or £60 as the case may be, plus the amount that the farmer will get when this animal is sent to the factory. Even adding these two prices together it falls far behind the cost of replacement of this animal, particularly if it is a young breeding heifer. That is my argument as to why the Exchequer should meet the total cost of this special assistance. Will the Parliamentary Secretary indicate in his reply how this fund will be allocated? Will it be confined to certain areas? What criteria will be used in the allocation of this fund? The farming community should know about this. Disease eradication has been suspended because of the silly dispute which the Minister had with the veterinary profession over the past 18 months. I will not go any further into it, because enough has been said. In relation to the estimate provided for the eradication of disease for 1976, there must have been a vast saving in that estimate due to the fact that eradication of disease did not go ahead. Instead of paying £1 million to this special hardship fund, it should be doubled for the reasons I have outlined. The Parliamentary Secretary has also stated that it is his intention to ask the advisory council on animal health and disease eradication to recommend some criteria to meet the situation and perhaps that is the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, but the farming community want to know at this stage how the special limited fund will be allocated with regard to hardship cases.
The Farm Apprenticeship Board has been mentioned in the supplementary estimate. That board got a great amount of publicity in a campaign promoted by the Department of Agriculture, when a mere £15,000 was provided for the board in order, as the Minister said, to take them out of difficulty. The Minister also said at that time that there was no guarantee that this amount would be provided in the following year or years. In other words they should have better housekeeping, a better idea of saving, and a better approach to their expenses. The Farm Apprenticeship Board got a very short paragraph in the Parliamentary Secretary's brief. Since this board was inaugurated way back in the mid-1960s it has done a tremendous amount of work under great financial difficulties. It provided young farmers and farm managers trained in all aspects of agriculture and farm management. I commend very highly the board, its previous chairman, and the chairman before him. I hope that the present chairman will carry on the good work of his predecessors. The training of young farmers to take their places in agriculture is of the utmost importance. Vast amounts of money have been spent by the Department of Labour and AnCO in industrial training. That should be compared with the measly small amount provided by the Department of Agriculture towards the Farm Apprenticeship Board. You can readily see the lack of interest by the Department of Agriculture and by the Minister in the training of agricultural apprentices. The Parliamentary Secretary and the Department should consider very carefully their future approach to this board, which is providing a worthwhile service for our greatest industry. A greater injection of finance must be provided for this board so that it can provide the services that are required for the development of agriculture and farming at present. The potential of Irish agriculture is vast, but unless people, particularly young farmers, are sufficiently trained in the rudiments of agriculture I am afraid we cannot reach that potential which is so necessary for the economy of this nation. The Department should put this board on a sound financial footing in order that it can achieve its targets. I also suggest to the board and indeed to the Department that means must be provided whereby land would be available for these young farmers when their apprenticeship is completed. I am not saying that land should be provided by simply handing over farms to them. I suggest a system similar to that operating in Holland and in the Scandinavian countries whereby farms are rented or leased to the young farmers when their apprenticeship is completed. Something on that line would be worthwhile here. The greatest frustration of our young farmers and trained apprentices is the lack of employment opportunities and the absence of a land bank so that their training may be put into operation. I commend this to the Minister and to the Department. The country would benefit enormously if all the training of these young people were put into use and I would ask the Minister to consider the prospect of providing land on the basis I have outlined.
The farm modernisation scheme has been in operation for some years, and it has been of assistance to the agricultural community. Nevertheless there are some shortcomings in the scheme, the major one being the lack of incentive for farmers to attain the targets set out in the scheme. In the scheme relating to small farms which was in operation some years ago there was a payment each year provided the farmer attained the target set for that year. In this scheme the plan is drawn up initially by the agricultural adviser and the farmer but the payment of grants is not dependent on the farmer attaining the target set. I should like to see in the farm modernisation scheme the attainment of a particular plan which would be drawn up at the commencement of the scheme.
When the farm modernisation scheme is examined again by the Department, by the Commissioner for Agriculture and by the Council of Ministers, I hope a scheme more suited to the interests of Irish farmers will be drawn up. The present scheme has many shortcomings, but nevertheless it is one that can be recommended highly to our farmers.
The objective of the scheme is to give preferential aid to farmers who are willing to follow a certain development plan, thereby increasing their income. In that way Irish farmers and agriculture generally will benefit. Unfortunately the scheme is confined to a small group. The vast majority of our farmers in what is termed "the other category" are not included on economic grounds. This a major loss to Irish agriculture. The national interest can best be served by increasing agricultural output, and we must give as many incentives as possible to farmers to attain the targets set. The category of farmers who are not included have enormous potential, and they should be included as development farmers.
There is also the matter of off-farm employment. Small farmers who have another income or another mode of livelihood are debarred from participating in the scheme. Off-farm employment should be encouraged and farmers engaged in this work should be helped to participate in the farm modernisation scheme. The opportunities are there for them to develop their farms, and in the future they may be able to take up farming on a full-time basis. The aim of the reformed modernisation scheme should be to increase agricultural production and assist as many farmers as possible to obtain a reasonable income from agriculture.
I do not want to go into details of how the scheme could be improved to bring into operation the suggestions I have made but it is important that "the other category" I have mentioned should be included in as full a development as possible for the reasons I have outlined. It is vitally important that farm accounts are kept because they can be the yardstick whereby development and improvement can be assured. They will also measure the capacity of the farmer. I have suggested that a grant or portion of a grant should be paid each year depending on the development that has taken place. That would provide an incentive towards future development. I trust these suggestions will be carefully considered when the time comes to make further rules and regulations in relation to the farm modernisation scheme.
Mention has been made of many other EEC schemes. Mention was made of Directive 161 with regard to agricultural training in its widest sense. This is something which should be encouraged. Farmers who did not have an opportunity of a proper training in agriculture and who may wish to be brought abreast of modern developments in agriculture should participate in this scheme. It is being operated very well by the county committees. There are courses for both men and women. I hope the Minister will provide all the necessary personnel to ensure these courses are continued while, at the same time, bearing in mind that the other duties of the advisers are not neglected. Adequate personnel is vital to the full utilisation of resources and the full organisation of these courses.
There is provision to meet certain expenses with regard to agricultural colleges and agricultural training. I would commend very highly indeed the personnel of these colleges, both those operated by the State and those privately owned, because of the very fine work they are doing in training and educating our young farmers. The demand far outstrips the number of places available. Perhaps it may be possible to make more facilities available by extending these colleges so that the demand for places will be met.
This debate is limited and there are many things one would like to say which one cannot say because of restrictions. I hope, as the Ceann Comhairle said earlier, that a further opportunity will be provided for a full debate on agriculture. It is unfortunate that each year so many Estimates have to be passed without discussion.
That has been said before in this debate and that statement is incorrect.
I would remind the Parliamentary Secretary that it is three years since we had a full discussion on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries.
For the Deputy's information, the main Estimate was debated here on 2nd, 3rd and 17th June, 1976. It was an open-ended debate and lasted as long as there were contributors to it. That is the position. The main Estimate lasted for three days.
I accept what the Parliamentary Secretary says but he should realise that was a most inopportune time to introduce the Estimate because it denied many Members on this side of the House contributing to it.
That is not so. The established procedure down through the years was followed.
The position is that facilities are not provided for a full debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. In regard to agricultural training, very shortly a new Bill on the advisory services and on the agricultural and educational needs of the farming community will be introduced. I hope the Minister will consider very carefully the role that the county committees of agriculture have played in the development of agriculture down through the years, and that their powers will not be diminished but rather increased, because we want the powers and decisions at local level.
I welcome this Supplementary Estimate. It is very encouraging to see from this document that so much is being done for agriculture. There is a total net provision for 1976 of £116 million, which is a staggering sum being poured into agriculture. That is the place to put the money. In 1974 we ran into two difficulties. Our export trade was not good at the time. We had an exceptionally poor harvest and under the beef incentive scheme several years previously, which we thought was a good scheme, our cattle population increased considerably. Many farmers, particularly in the west, allowed their stock to get too large so that when something unexpected happened they were not able to maintain them. The result was panic and we had to go round to the factories begging them to take the cattle at any price.
Agriculture at that time proved to the people what it was worth. Because our agricultural industry was in trouble the whole population was in trouble. People in cities, towns and villages were adversely affected. People were brought to realise that agriculture was the one industry that had to be protected. Agriculture and industry are interdependent but agriculture leads the way.
I note from this document that there has been a substantial increase in the amount of drainage work being carried out by our farmers. That is due not only to the prices we are getting for our livestock but also to the fact that modern machinery is moving into the most backward areas where people are prepared to hire out plant. Heretofore, this had been done by manpower and was badly done. I welcome this development because up until now a very large amount of land was neglected. It was good for nothing, growing rushes, water-logged and no return coming from it. We hope the problem will be tackled in a big way because there are years of work to be done under that scheme.
When speaking on drainage I have always referred to the small rivers which were doing so much damage and needed to be attended to. Under this modernisation scheme a small group of local farmers will get a 50 per cent grant to drain the small rivers that were doing enormous damage. Heretofore, there was only the local improvements scheme to deal with that type of drainage or the arterial drainage scheme, and neither one nor the other could grapple with this big problem.
Water supplies are also being provided by means of well bores and otherwise. However, in respect of well bores, one thing which has been brought to my notice is that the ESB estimate is extremely high. Many people would provide a water supply for their farmyard, their home or their farm maybe two miles away, but the demand made by the ESB is excessive and on a small scheme could amount to as much as £1,000 plus rent. I would ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries to try to come to some understanding with the ESB about meeting such demands and easing the problem for those people who find themselves in this position.
Again cattle prices reflect themselves in the distribution of lime to farms. In my own area one or two farmers tackled this problem of getting lime for their farms. It will finish up with something like 3,000 tons of lime being spread over a six- to ten-mile radius because one farmer got it and they all saw the modern way of putting it out on the land. The day for struggling with it and getting it to the hilltops has gone. There is the 20ton truck to bring it from the lime kiln to the farm and the contractor will, for the sum of 75p per ton, spread as much lime as any farmer requires. That is the charge in the part of the country from which I come. This is a sure sign that we are progressing and that the people are becoming more interested in the land, due to the fact that cattle prices are very tempting. They have fallen a little over the last few weeks but we hope to see them moving again after Christmas. Over the last two years they have put money in people's pockets and the money is being spent. Those people are not afraid to say to the contractors: "Get me 50 or 100 tons and spread it for me." They have nothing more to do except pay for it. Farmers living in isolated areas or with mountainous land can get such contractors to spread the manure. We are making progress when we can say that and it is all due to the fact that farmers have money and are not afraid to spend it.
Quite an amount of money was in circulation in my area during the summer and it came from sheep subsidies and the high prices paid for sheep. Practically every sheep farmer in my area got his £4 for his one-year-old ewe and £3 for every lamb together with a good price for wool. That will give great encouragement to farmers to improve their fencing and increase their sheep stock so that they can have this steady revenue. A damper was put on that in 1974 when weather conditions upset everybody's plans. I should like to remind the Minister that there is a need to get on to the question of headage grants. The Department informed me that the matter would be tackled as soon as possible, but that to date they have 70,000 applications to deal with. We all accept that that is a big problem.
I have no doubt that farmers were happy with the price paid for milk in the last few years and that has meant more money for them. As long as that prevails we can rest assured that the farming community will continue to improve their holdings. If they do not have the money, they become depressed and find it hard to get a proper return from their holdings. The Parliamentary Secretary spoke of the need to increase tillage. That is of vital importance. Farmers have had to pay out a substantial amount of money for cattle feed, from £5 to £6 per cwt, that if more oats and barley was grown, particularly in the west, it would be a big help towards relieving the pressure. I was asked to suggest to the Minister that something should be done to have inspection for the headage scheme carried out earlier or have it based on the cow alone. Like the beef incentive scheme, inspection for many farmers comes too late. Something should be done to have this inspection carried out earlier so that when there is a demand farmers can dispose of their calves and not lose, as they will now, in the region of £25 per calf.
I have been approached by people engaged in the export of cattle in a small way concerning the issuing of licences. Apparently, licences are only granted to those who are engaged in this business in a big way. Those engaged in a small way have been told that for the present they cannot be considered. I believe we are approaching the stage when the people engaged in the business in a small way will be permitted to export. I had correspondence from the Department in relation to this matter and I was pleased to learn that the matter was being investigated. It is disappointing for an exporter engaged in the business for up to 30 years to be told that because he was not engaged in it in a big way he was not being considered for a licence. Most of those people have a good record.
I should like to remind the Parliamentary Secretary that a number of business people have not been paid yet on the feed vouchers given out in 1974. I accept that that is not the fault of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I understand that the matter lies with the factories. I would ask the Department to contact factory owners and seek to have the payments made as soon as possible. Those business people made great sacrifices to purchase the feed and it is wrong that they should have to wait two years for payment.
In the course of my contribution I should like to deal with the farm modernisation scheme. The big fault with it is that it is applied uniformly throughout the Community. No consideration was given to the needs of different areas. There is no reason why every farmer should not be working towards a plan and that is the big fault I find with the scheme. Various proposals concerning the scheme were sent by different bodies, instructors and so on, but if different proposals which are contradictory are sent to Brussels what will the Commission make of these proposals? It is important that the Department give the lead in this matter. The situation in relation to the processing of applications in my county is appalling because of the shortage of staff. In fact, instructors are doing a lot of the paper work instead of giving advice to the farmer. Recently six young people applied for permanent posts in Galway but not one of them was appointed. They were excellent young men but they were turned down. One of the big holdups in the scheme is the lack of extra clerical staff to deal with applications.
Deputies referred to the disadvantaged areas. Galway County Committee of Agriculture have asked that the 12 western counties be included. It is of concern to me that very few areas in Galway are in the scheme, particularly in north Galway. I advise the Parliamentary Secretary of our intention in Galway to press to have all 12 western counties included.
The Parliamentary Secretary referred to drainage, a problem of concern to most Deputies. It is obvious the EEC do not regard drainage as a matter of priority. I hope they will change their minds because there is not any great value from the point of view of drainage in the local improvement schemes—the money is too little. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to tackle this problem.
I welcome the increase in money given to the Farm Apprenticeship Board. They are doing great work in the training of young farmers. At this point I should like to draw attention to the lack of co-operation in regard to Directives 159 and 160, in particular, in the context of making land available for restructuring. The farm retirement scheme has failed and in cases where land has been made available under the scheme it is reserved for potential development farmers as distinct from smaller farmers. The scheme has not been a success in the west.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about animal disease eradication. In this matter the Minister must accept total responsibility. Deputy Callanan pointed out that he is accepting only partial responsibility. This is a matter of vital importance to the entire agricultural economy.
It is important also that incentives be given to individual farmers as well as groups of farmers. I am glad, of course, that farming groups will be given further grants for equipment and so forth.
It was not very welcome to hear the Minister for Finance talking about the possibility of a withdrawal of agricultural grants. On top of that we had delegates at the Labour Party Conference advocating more taxation of farmers. This has become the basis for a lot of fear—that the Government may kill the golden goose. I hope the Government will think again and that they will not stifle agriculture by taxation as they did to the industrial sector. I press on the Parliamentary Secretary the need to introduce an overall policy for agriculture instead of the day-to-day system we have at the moment.
Like the other speakers, I will be brief because of the limited nature of the debate. I hope I do not ruffle the Parliamentary Secretary's feathers when I say that agriculture is such an important concern—the main concern in our economy—that much more time should be available to Deputies to debate the subject.
The Government do not seem to have any set plan for agriculture. Farmers are not being given the leadership they need from the Minister or from the Government and this means that our overall economy is suffering. In the industrial sector, in health and education, there are plans, and I cannot see why the Government have not got a definite plan through which they could tell farmers what their incomes are likely to be in a fiveyear period—what the price of cattle, beet, beef and corn crops will be. When one considers some of the measures introduced in the past year one could not be blamed for thinking that the Government are trying to stymie development in agriculture rather than improve it. One of the main causes of concern—and I speak especially for County Galway—has been taxation of co-operatives. Not only has it affected the incomes of individual members but it has retarded co-operative development. Taxation on co-operatives, in effect, is a tax on our primary producers.
A lot has been said about the farm modernisation scheme, one of the talking points in agriculture at the moment. One of the principal objections I have is that we have not enough staff to implement the scheme. There is an unacceptable shortage of agricultural instructors and of clerical staff and consequently a lot of time is taken up by our agricultural officers having to fill in application forms as well as to advise farmers. It is absolutely essential if the Minister cannot give committees of agriculture additional agricultural officers that at least he should give them clerical officers who would help in filling up forms and answering farmers' queries. In the long run it is the farmers who will lose in this matter. If they are to wait six or nine months before their applications are processed, with the way prices are spiralling at present, prices of cement, building materials and other commodities which they need to develop their plans, will be increased which, in effect, reduces the value of grants paid to them. Therefore, it is essential to make more staff available for this purpose. We have had the case of the Galway committee cited. That is only one committee. We have a shortage of staff there and we have tried on several occasions to get additional staff and have been refused. I cannot see how the Minister is anxious to develop agriculture in County Galway if he does not give us the staff we need to implement this scheme.
Disease eradication is very important and we see a saving in the Estimate because of the fact that we had a prolonged strike last year. This is to be regretted. There is nothing we can do about it now but we should proceed as quickly as possible with the elimination of brucellosis and TB because it is important to get our herds cleared as quickly as possible. We had hoped to have our herds cleared by 1978 but we all agree now that this will be impossible because of the prolonged strike and unless the farmers themselves get their cattle tested I see no hope of the Government getting our herds clear by that date. It is strange that the Minister should not accept full responsibility for the eradication of animal disease. It should be the responsibility of the Government to achieve this aim as soon as possible.
There is provision in the Estimate for educational research and advisory services. Modern farming demands a degree of forward planning, vocational know-how and technical skills. This makes it a most demanding way of life. A farmer must have such a variety of knowledge and technical skills that the training and education of a young farmer requires top priority. Any money we can provide under this heading is well spent. An additional sum of £60,000 is being provided here today—I wonder if it is enough. Figures I saw quoted some time ago indicated that we are still very much behind our European partners in this respect. Every effort should be made to educate our young farmers.
In Galway we are fortunate in having excellent colleges doing a wonderful job and we are more fortunate still in that they are now being fully utilised. No other field offers so much scope for working our way out of our economic difficulties as agriculture and no other facet of it needs to be expanded as much as education does. I would, therefore, like to see a greater bias towards what may be called rural science. This has been introduced in the curriculum of our post primary schools and has been fairly successful. For some years back the universities have given extramural courses eventually leading to a diploma. Many adults have availed of them. University courses appeal greatly to many people and I do not see why agriculture could not be treated likewise so that our young people could be offered a diploma or some attraction to a course such as this which is very, very useful.
As regard the brucellosis eradication scheme and the price paid for reactor cattle, there is great dissatisfaction. It should not be left to the factory owner. The farmers should have somebody in the factories to check their cattle because if farmers are left to the mercy of factory owners there may be abuses under this scheme and the farmers will be the losers. I see no reason why farmers could not have a representative at the factories, just as the beet growers have, to watch the farmers' interests and ensure that they get the benefit of anything going.
Recently the Minister for Finance mentioned the possible withdrawal of agricultural grants to western counties. This aroused much speculation particularly in the west because farmers whose valuation is £20 or less are completely derated. The Minister's recent statement caused consternation and we would like to hear an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary when replying that this grant will not be abolished. It is a matter that calls for immediate clarification because it has caused such concern.
The most surprising feature of the debate was the assertion made, commencing with Deputy Callanan and continuing down through the line of Fianna Fáil speakers, that we have had insufficient time to debate agricultural matters in this House and that, in fact, we had no agricultural debate this year. The records show that the main agricultural Estimate was introduced on June 2nd. The debate was continued on 3rd and 17th June. It was an open-ended discussion and all Members were entitled to contribute to it if they so wished. I want to make clear that ample time was given for the annual Esimate debate on agriculture and if Fianna Fáil were anxious to have additional debates on this important industry, they could have done so in Private Members' time instead of wasting time on a number of Private Members' motions of little or no consequence to the country but supposedly of some political advantage to the Fianna Fáil Party. The assertions made generally by the Opposition regarding limitations imposed by the Government on debates on agriculture in the House are without foundation.
