asked the Minister for Agriculture why he has decided not to allow heifers into intervention.
19.
Ceisteann—Questions. Oral Answers. - Beef Intervention Policy.
18.
asked the Minister for Agriculture the reasons why he made a decision not to allow beef heifers into intervention.
20.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if there is a surplus of beef heifers on the market; and if he is prepared to allow the reopening of intervention.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18, 19 and 20 together.
As I have already indicated publicly, the purpose of my decision is to encourage, as far as is possible, the retention of heifers for breeding and thereby to promote the expansion of the national herd. The December 1977 livestock count showed a 7 per cent fall in the number of in-calf heifers compared with December 1976, and if this trend is not reversed a serious obstacle could arise in the development of our beef industry.
Does the Minister consider that the type of heifer sent for slaughter is the same type of heifer put in calf? Is he not aware of the fact that a much lighter heifer is put in calf than the one sent for slaughter?
From my own knowledge of the livestock industry I could not but agree with the Deputy. The main idea behind this is to encourage an increase in the national herd. For that reason the Minister found it necessary to withdraw heifers of this kind from intervention. Should any difficulties arise in the market at some future date, the question of reintroducing intervention for heifers can be reconsidered.
Did the same anxiety to increase the national herd motivate the Minister to do away with the beef cattle incentive scheme?
That is a separate question. It does not arise.
21.
asked the Minister for Agriculture whether there is to be a total ban on intervention for all beef cattle or otherwise; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
There is no question of a total ban on beef intervention. There are proposals to modify the system and in this regard my aim will be to ensure that any modifications of this kind will not impair the intervention system or weaken the level of support which it provides for our producers.
22.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is in favour of the maintenance of intervention as one of the main elements of the European Common Agricultural Policy; and if he will make a comprehensive statement on his policy on the matter.
I fully support the continuance of intervention as a major element in the Common Agricultural Policy.
Would the Minister agree that intervention is under attack from a number of interests outside this country but within the EEC?
I suppose it is to a certain extent. It should not be there as a permanent fixture. Every effort should be made to try to sell the beef. It is only as a precaution that it should be put into intervention at all. It should be seen more or less as a safety net in the market. We have to be careful at all times that its scale is kept to manageable proportions and that over-reliance on it does not undermine commercial marketing.
Is the Minister saying intervention should not be a permanent feature of the Common Agriculture Policy?
I am not saying any such thing. I am saying it should be seen as a safety net in the market.
Would the Minister agree that when our Government unilaterally removed portion of intervention as it operates here, this gave arguments to other countries who wish to do away with intervention because it indicated a lack of conviction on our part of the utility of intervention.
The Deputy is wrong in his assertion. It showed that the Government are concerned about our national herd. That is why we have withdrawn heifers from intervention. That should be a matter of major concern to every Deputy and to the farming community in general.
I do not think Europeans will believe that any more than Irish farmers will.