Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 8 Dec 1977

Vol. 302 No. 7

Vote 39: Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Gibbons)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £532,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1977, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, including, certain services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.

The main Estimate for Agriculture amounting to £124 million net and a Supplementary Estimate amounting to over £11.3 million net were passed on 6th July last. This Supplementary Estimate brings the total net provision for the year to approximately £135.8 million which is some £20 million over the total net provision for 1976. The sum now sought takes into account savings amounting to about £10.9 million to which I shall refer later.

Under subhead A. 1 provision is made for a further £600,000 which is required mainly to meet the cost of the 1977 National Wage Agreement. At A. 4 an extra £¼ million is being provided to meet increases in travelling rates, including arrears for 1976, which were decided upon at the end of last year.

I am seeking an additional sum of £77,000 under subhead B.2 to meet the general cost of the Veterinary College up to the end of May last when the college and the non-administrative staff were taken over by UCD for the unified Faculty of Veterinary Medicine. The excess is due to the unexpected delay in the transfer, which had been scheduled for 1st January, 1977.

The supplementary provision of £187,000 at B.5 for An Foras Talúntais is to meet the cost of the 1977 National Wage Agreement.

As regards subhead B.18 my predecessor, with the sanction of the previous Minister for Finance, granted an amount of £2,000 to the National Agricultural Authority to cover its initial expenses. I have already announced that I intend to introduce proposals for the amendment of the legislation relating to the authority. In particular, the amending legislation will maintain An Foras Talúntais in existence and preserve its autonomy. The preparation of my legislative proposals is already well advanced and it is my aim to have the new organisational arrangements for the advisory, education and training services in operation at the earliest possible date.

A sum of £600,000 is being provided at C6 for the Hardship Fund in connection with the Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Eradication Schemes. The sum of £1 million provided by the previous Government for the Hardship Fund has been exhausted and the £600,000 is needed to meet further hardship cases arising from the current rounds of TB and brucellosis testing. Most of our partner States in the EEC are now virtually free of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis and are determined to remain so. Accordingly, unless we too eradicate these diseases completely our exports of livestock and livestock based products are liable to encounter increasing restrictions. It is essential, therefore, that there should be a total commitment on the part of each farmer to protect his livelihood by cooperating with my Department in achieving total eradication of these two scourges in the shortest possible time.

While on the subject of disease eradication, I should also like to say that under subheads C2 and C3 a total of £19.5 million was provided for bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication in the current year. Expenditure on the two schemes is now estimated at £12 million and the saving of £7½ million constitutes the bulk of the saving to which I referred earlier. As regard the reasons for the saving, the number of reactors disclosed during the year was fewer than had been expected when the rounds of testing commenced. Also, there was a decline in participation in the Pre-Intensive Brucellosis Scheme. This is most regrettable because by availing themselves of this scheme herdowners with reactor herds can remove reactors progressively and thus lesson their difficulties when compulsory measures are introduced.

There are supplementary provisions of £320,000 and £1,140,000 at subheads D2 and D3 for land reclamation work, farm buildings and water supplies under the former schemes. When the farm modernisation scheme was introduced in 1974 farmers who had applications lodged under the old schemes were allowed to opt to continue under these schemes or to transfer to the new scheme. While a number did transfer to the farm modernisation scheme, an unexpectedly large number opted to have their investments treated under the old schemes. These schemes were would up on 30th December, 1976, and the clearing of many cases continued into the first quarter of this year. Only a token Estimate will be necessary in 1978 to cover a small number of cases where legal proceedings or other special circumstances apply.

I am seeking a further sum of £105,000 at D5 in respect of sheep headage grants. Because prices were low in the spring the number of hogget ewes held over and presented for grants was far in excess of what had been anticipated. The provision is also needed to cover the cost in this financial year of the reintroduction of the Mountain Lamb Extension Scheme for the 1977-78 winter season. In reintroducing this measure my aim was to show the Government's interest in the sheep industry and to provide an interim measure of practical assistance to the industry. The £2.5 million at E.2 is to meet the cost of an increase of 3.75p per gallon in the liquid milk subsidy which was announced on 14th October and also some extra expenditure on the butter subsidy caused by a slight increase in butter consumption.

A sum of £185,000 is provided at E. 6 for payments on exports of certain processed agricultural products. Because of the devaluations of the Irish Green £ in October and December last year, the prices of cereals, sugar and dairy products in the UK were about 22 per cent lower than in this country. At the time the monetary compensatory amounts system did not apply to certain processed products based on these raw materials, such as cakes, biscuits, sweets, chocolates and ice cream, and so UK manufacturers had significant cost advantages over Irish manufacturers. Because of difficulty in getting the MCA system applied to trade in these processed products, the EEC Commission authorised this country to apply levies to imports of them from the UK and to pay subsidies on exports to that country. This national system operated from 1st April to 3rd July when the Community MCA system was applied. The cost of the national subsidy for the three months was about £185,000.

As regards the supplementary provision of £3.5 million at subhead M1 for the farm modernisation scheme, the level of investment by farmers has been consistently high throughout the year. Activity under this scheme is of course widely dispersed throughout the country and is of particular value in maintaining employment in rural areas. In addition to the employment generated on the farm there is spin-off activity in the fabrication of building components and equipment and the servicing of farm machinery. A shortfall of £1.15 million is expected in receipts from the EEC under the farm modernisation scheme. This, however, is purely a matter of timing as a payment on account of over £750,000 was approved recently in Brussels but is unlikely to be received here until after the end of December.

Under subhead M3 which provides for the disadvantaged areas, an increase of £1.7 million is being sought for the cattle headage, beef cow and sheep schemes. This is required partly to offset the carryover of grants from 1976 and partly to meet the cost of certain increases in the rates for 1977. In connection with these schemes also, there is a shortfall of £1 million in the amount recouped from the EEC.

The £25,000 being sought under M7 is to meet some old claims under the cattle slaughter premium scheme, which ended early in 1976.

A small deficiency is expected in appropriations-in-aid, the shortfalls in receipts from the EEC in respect of the farm modernisation scheme and the disadvantaged areas scheme together with some other deficiencies being largely offset by additional receipts of £3 million from the Community in respect of intervention expenses.

So far as savings are concerned, I have already referred to the savings on TB and brucellosis. A further important saving amounting to £3 million arises on intervention expenses where the volume of purchases of dairy products was appreciably less than had been expected. Also, the fall in interest rates reduced the net cost of borrowings to finance intervention purchases.

I think I have now covered all of the more important items in the Estimate, but if any Deputy wishes to have further information I shall do what I can to supply it.

Mr. Bruton

Although this is a Supplementary Estimate for £500,000, the cumulative variation in the way in which the money is now being spent as revealed in this Supplementary Estimate as against the way it was to be provided in the original Estimate is £22 million. An extra £11.5 million is being spent on some heads and £11 million less is being spent on others. This House is being asked to approve of these very large changes in the distribution of spending on agriculture, and I do not believe it is being asked to approve them in an appropriate fashion. Deputies of this House received in their post this morning a detailed estimate on which this discussion is based to ask them to approve changes amounting to £22 million. At that sort of notice this sort of debate, in which there is no real opportunity to tease out the various issues involved because of the time limit, is highly unsatisfactory and suggests parliamentary irresponsibility in accountability for Government spending in this House. This is not a matter in which the present Government need take full responsibility; all governments are responsible for the procedures that exist and I do not wish to raise this matter in a partisan fashion. However, the fact is that this debate is not a real one although it is an important one. There is a case for having a special Estimates Committee for considering this sort of issue in detail and for ensuring that in future years the Supplementary Estimates are circulated to the House at least two weeks before they are to be discussed, not a few hours before.

The most notable feature of this Supplementary Estimate is the fact that there is a saving of £7.5 million on the brucellosis and bovine TB eradication schemes. The Minister in the election manifesto of his party promised to introduce realistic compensation for reactors and to ensure that full compensation—those words were used specifically—would be paid in cases of hardship. Since then he has promised on two occasions that this would be done. It now appears that he has the money to do it. He has £7.5 million with which he could have raised the level of compensation during this present year, and his Government could have implemented the promises which he made so loudly during the recent election campaign. Yet they have not done so. They have not increased compensation rates and they are now saying that it is a matter for next year's budget. Even though they have £7.5 million to do it this year they will not do it this year, they will do it next year. Why? The farmers are asking that question and they are entitled to an answer, not only for a financial point of view but from a national point of view. The eradication scheme will be successful only if reasonable levels of compensation are available. If the Government have the money with which to pay reasonable levels of compensation a stern question needs to be posed to the Minister in charge as to why he will not use that £7.5 million for that obviously desirable purpose.

A sum of £2,000 is provided for the expenses of the National Agricultural Authority. We have discussed this already in the House, but the Minister decided not to allow this. Notwithstanding his views on the matter, why has he not allowed the authority to go ahead with the job in relation to advice and education—matters which he accepts should be within the competence of that authority? Why has he not let planning on such important matters go ahead? We know that the advisory services are bogged down with work on the farm modernistion scheme. Clearly the advisers need to be relieved of that burden to a certain extent so that they can do the work more effectively in face-to-face contact with the farmers. The authority are not being allowed to function in relation to such matters where something practical could be done about advice and education. The Minister is holding up all progress in relation to research and education to await the time when he can deliver his tablets of stone, his holy writ, in the form of his personal legislation. That is a waste of public resources and of vaulable time.

There is a provision for sheep headage payments, and I wish to avail of this opportunity to say something on this matter. This is agitating small farmers in the west and elsewhere where there is no other enterprise open to them because of the nature of their land. Many of us wonder if the Minister is pursuing a weak approach on this issue. We heard Mr. Gardner on a recent RTE radio programme —a correspondent who is not an Irishman and who is not likely to have any political preference—say that for some reason which he could not explain the pursuit of a common agricultural policy for sheep was not proceeding with the same vigour as was evident some months previously. He did not mention which Government were in office and he was not making a political statement. It was a testimony from a completely impartial source about the apparent lack of effort by the Government in relation to getting a sheep policy and getting access for our lamb on the French market. The views of this independent journalist are perhaps underlined by the fact that now we hear talk of a bilateral deal with the French, a gambit which failed on two previous occasions. Why is it being reopened now? Some rumours were mentioned this morning on the radio that the European Commission may agree to allow the French to retain their right of preventing our lamb entering their markets after 1st January. I wonder if the EEC would have been able to float that kind of rumour if the previous Government were in office?

There is also the fact that the court case in respect of which an oral hearing took place last May has not yet concluded. We know that the European Court tend to give priority to issues where there is pressure from the member government concerned. The question needs to be asked: what degree of pressure has the Minister been applying on the European Court to get a decision on this case, which is so important for laying the groundwork for the introduction of a common sheep policy and for providing immediate access for our lamb to the French market?

In relation to grain there is a grave doubt regarding the substantial amounts of grain now in stock and which are not being used. We have heard that action is being taken in relation to smuggling but it does not seem to be having much effect. Is the Minister satisfied with the efforts being made by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to grain smuggling which is likely to depress the price for the 1978 crop? In their election manifesto the Government promised that a grain marketing board would be established. If ever there was a year when such a board was necessary it is this year when there is so much grain that needs to be marked. The promise was given prior to the election. The need, relevance and the sense of the promise —it was a good one— became all the more evident after the election when the harvest was in. Why has that promise not yet been delivered? Why has the Minister not made an announcement in relation to this important industry and in fulfilment of his own and his party's promise to establish such a board?

An issue that effects the entire situation of agriculture is the forthcoming EEC price negotiations. We hear talk from various quarters which suggests there will be a very small price increase. Many people from whom one would expect to hear different views are almost inclined to accept lying down the suggestion that there does not need to be a substantial increase for farmers this year. The message should go forth clearly from this House that we do not accept that suggestion. In the last year farmer's costs have risen just as they have for everyone else. They depend for their income on the prices they receive for their products, just as a worker depends on his pay cheque for his income. If workers' costs go up their pay must go up; likewise if farmers' costs go up the prices they receive must go up. In 1977 there has been a 20 per cent increase in building costs as compared with 1976, a 25 per cent increase in feed costs, a 10 per cent increase in fertilizer costs and a 15 per cent in fuel costs. These are the figures which the EEC Commission, the Council of Ministers and, in particular, our own Minister must take into account. I hope he will be successful in his negotiations on behalf of Irish farmers. They will expect results from him. They know the facts in relation to their cost increases and they want the Minister to deliver the goods in terms of prices that will compensate them for those increases.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Deputy Bruton in his contribution referred to the short notice which Members of this House got of particulars of this Supplementary Estimate. There is a serious danger that the control of agriculture, our most important industry, is slowly but surely passing out of the hands of the elected Members of Parliament and that in the not too distant future we will find ourselves acting just as a rubber stamp with regard to decisions made in Brussels and elsewhere. That would be a retrograde step. We should have an opportunity of discussing fully in this House decisions made in Brussels, Strasbourg and elsewhere. I hope the Minister will bring before the House any important decisions regarding agriculture that may be taken by the EEC so that we will have an opportunity of considering them fully.

The main item in this Supplementary Estimate is the reduction of £7,500,000 in the scheme for disease eradication. All of us hope that the need for passing substantial sums of money each year for such a scheme will cease in the not too distant future. I am pleased to note that the saving was due to a decline in the number of reactors during the year. There was an impression given last year by many Deputies now on the Government side that disease was on the decline but that the amount of money then provided, £19½ million, was quite inadequate if we were serious in our attempts to eradicate tuberculosis and brucellosis.

We have been taunted by the Opposition benches for what they termed a realistic value of reactors. As Deputy Bruton pointed out, this year afforded Fianna Fáil a golden opportunity of putting their words into practice. The saving of £7,500,000 was there. Their claim, when in Opposition, was that it was the replacement value that counted irrespective of the type of animal sold, that if a farmer sold a cow he has to get the price of a cow in return. Indeed during the election campaign at the chapel gates, that was the impression given that our Government did very little in helping farmers to replace diseased animals. I am particularly pleased that the disease is on the decline, as the Minister has indicated in his introductory remarks on this Supplementary Estimate. That being so—and our economic recession being on the decline also; we are all grateful that that is the position—then the question arises of payments for diseased animals without increasing the amount of money provided in past years. If this decline continues it is reasonable to assume that, with the amount of money allocated for 1977, we can increase compensation considerably in 1978. There are alternative ways of expending these savings so far as farmers are concerned, particularly the smaller and medium-sized farmers in the north-west, west and south-west.

We heard quite genuine claims over the past few years for the extension of severely handicapped areas. There was difficulty experienced in adhering to the representations made. There were, firstly, economic problems and, secondly, the fact that such a high proportion of the money would have to come from local funds as contrasted with those of the EEC. Many farmers in areas contiguous to severely-disadvantaged areas were very annoyed that their areas were not included. I appreciate—and used to make this point from time to time— that there has to be established somewhere a demarcation line between a handicapped and a severely handicapped area. In the course of debates in this House over a considerable period special pleas were made in this respect. Had we the funds to meet them I considered they were pleas made justifiably, or the plea for a recommendation to be made to the EEC authorities to extend the severely-handicapped areas. Taking the case of a farmer in a handicapped, as against a severely handicapped, area he is not only deprived of the headage grant but also of the unemployment assistance allowance he would otherwise have got from the Department of Social Welfare, the payment of that allowance being confined largely to areas deemed to be handicapped.

In West Cork—a limited part of the country only included for such payments—it amounts to the fact that a farmer just outside the boundary line loses his headage grant payment and his unemployment assistance. I would appeal to the Minister to review this position. I say that fully realising the difficulties involved and that money must be found if such areas are to be extended. However, he might review the boundary lines in an effort to increase the territory covered by the severely-handicapped system so that farmers who do not benefit at present might be brought within its scope.

I notice an amount of £2½ million to meet the cost of an increase——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I would remind Deputy Murphy that I shall have to put the Estimate at 1 o'clock and we should give the Minister a few minutes to reply to points made.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I appreciate that. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the payment of subsidies and the consumption of, say, butter, milk and other farm produce at home. Apparently it is the viewpoint of both Government and Opposition that some subsidies are essential. They cost a great deal of money. There was mentioned in the Minister's introduction a figure of £35,500,000. I understand the overall figure to be in the region of £60 million. Speaking for those of us in this Chamber at present I cannot understand why our butter or milk should be subsidised. My contention is that if there are sections of our people who need subsidisation then give them the benefit of such in some form or other, possibly in one different from that of the present subsidies system. Were this kind of money at the disposal of the Exchequer it could much more usefully be employed in other fields of activity. This artificial system of subsidisation of products— in order to place them on shop counters at a cheaper rate, then going back to our people, putting our hands into their pockets and taking it back in the form of taxation—must be reviewed. The cost of administration of this subsidies system is a waste of money. The argument can be made, in answer to that, there is an anxiety to ensure that butter will cost 70p or 75p 1b. or that milk will be 11p or 12p a pint. People who are able to pay that price should pay it and those who are unable should be sheltered against it. This subsidisation system must be reviewed.

Deputy Bruton spoke about the establishment of boards; we have too many boards already here. It is a question always of setting up boards and taking away and reducing the powers of Ministers and Deputies of this House. I do not know how many State-sponsored bodies now operate here with little or no surveillance by this House. Finally, I appeal to the Minister to extend the severely handicapped areas.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Two Deputies are offering, and I suggest they give the Minister a couple of minutes. I suggest they do not take more than two minutes each.

Mr. Callanan

There are only a few points I wish to raise. The first is in relation to the price of reactor animals. I have a document here which shows that an in-calf cow was sold for £130. The quicker the Minister does something about that the better. We all know that outbreaks of brucellosis and TB are being hidden because of the ridiculous prices being paid for reactors.

Prices being paid for sheep are also appalling, and I suggest that this is the reason why our sheep herds have been reduced from five million in 1965 to a little more than three million in 1976, nearly a hundred per cent reduction. If there is not a common sheep policy in the immediate future we will not have any sheep. I am glad Deputy Murphy referred to grants for severely handicapped areas, and in this context I should like to bring to the Minister's attention the delay between inspections of herds and payment of grants. I hope the Minister will try to have the grants paid more quickly. It has become a nuisance to Deputies to have to inquire so often about these things. I hope the Minister will do all he can to improve the farm reorganisation scheme so that we will not have discrimination against transitional farmers.

Mr. McMahon

Because we lost a number of minutes on the Order of Business——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I cannot do anything about it. The question must be put at 1 p.m., on the minute.

Mr. McMahon

You might consider extending the debate to 1.05 to give the Minister——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have no power to do so.

Mr. McMahon

I should have liked to deal with what has become known as the Christmas butter fiasco but I am inhibited by lack of time. I will refer to two recent orders by the Minister in regard to the grading of beef and potatoes. They were important orders and long overdue. Because of time I will confine myself to the order dealing with potato grading. An effort should have been made many years ago to grade potatoes so as to give the consumer a better table product but I doubt if the recent order will achieve that. I speak as both a consumer and a grower. I believe the order will tend to give a poorer table potato because the potatoes graded highest will not be the best table potato. I hope the Minister will consider this. For instance, Arran Banners and Kerr's Pinks are not graded well and there-fore the grading will tend to give a poorer potato to the consumer. The grading refers only to the size of potatoes and not to what is under the skin.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Gibbons)

In the two-and-a-half minutes at my disposal I will not attempt to deal with all of the points raised. I should like to emphasise that the provision of time for this important discussion is again inadequate, as it has been for several years—it has become a chronic situation. We were in Opposition for two years before we had an opportunity in the House to discuss agricultural problems.

I will use my one-and-a-half minutes to correct a possible misapprehension of Deputy Murphy in regard to animal diseases. I said in my opening speech that the number of reactors we have to provide against is not as high as we had expected but it is a great deal higher than it was in earlier years. There has been a regression in the incidence of animal diseases, but the vigorous pursuit of eradication is still vital to agriculture and therefore to the economy generally. I acknowledge that there is a great need for realistic compensation for owners of diseased herds and I will make every effort to introduce a better system of compensation as soon as I can.

However, no animal disease eradication scheme will be succssful if we have not the full active support of every herd owner. The situation is critical in our case and we cannot afford to wait for the process of legal constraints. There must be full Government and herd owner participation and co-operation. Without that the scheme will not succeed.

Vote put and agreed to.