Vol. 310 No. 7
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,954,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31 day of December 1978 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.
I wish to comment on this Supplementary Estimate. I take it that the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture will be replying to this discussion. Is that correct?
Yes.
Will the Minister of State indicate the position in relation to the expenditure of moneys? While I understand that the Department have so far been able to keep within the provision made in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and that none of the £6,954,000 has been spent, I would like to know on which individual subheads extra money is being provided in this Supplementary Estimate. To my mind there is not sufficient financial control in this House if the Department are able to get around the safeguards provided by spending more on individual subheads without authority simply by making savings on other subheads. Has this happened? I would like the Minister of State to cover this point in his reply.
The incorrect estimation made by the Department in the original Estimate is for £20 million. Admittedly £6.7 million is all that is needed in this Supplementary Estimate. This is part of a pattern of insufficient provision for Agriculture. The position is that in the 1978 Estimates there was an increase of £8.8 million over the amount provided in 1977. This was much less than the average increase given to other Departments who were given an increase of 17.6 per cent. It is no wonder that the Minister for Agriculture has come here looking for more money. As we said at the time, the original Estimate was skimped. Even with this Supplementary Estimate the additional amount being provided is only 14 per cent more than the figure for 1977, still less than was provided for other Departments.
Agriculture has been lagging behind as a Department so far as receiving aid from the Exchequer is concerned. From 1971 to 1978 the average increase in provisions for Departments was 359 per cent while the increase to the Department of Agriculture was only 113 per cent. This means that on average for every £3 extra given to other Departments since 1971, Agriculture has got only £1 extra.
I would like to deal with specific points in relation to this Estimate. I note in subhead B.9 that there is an additional provision for the Farm Apprenticeship Board of £2,000 on the £40,000 provided in the 1978 Estimate. I understand that the board are in real financial trouble and are not able to meet their expenses. There is a strong case for an increase in the allocation for that board.
I should like to point out that the cost of training under the farm apprenticeship scheme is very low to the Exchequer in comparison with other schemes. I should like to give a few examples. The 1978 cost to the Exchequer of the Farm Apprenticeship Board is only £190 per student per year while under the farrier apprenticeship scheme the cost to the Exchequer is £2,172 per year. The cost of the pig husbandry course run by the Department is £1,300 per year while the cost of a full-time student at AnCO is £3,500 per year. The cost of the 100-hour EEC course, a four week part-time course, is almost twice the amount of the farm apprenticeship course. A total of £350 per student per year is allocated for that course, a lot more than the meagre £190 per student per year being provided to the Farm Apprenticeship Board.
I am aware from representations I have received that the board are in significant difficulty this year. The meagre increase of £2,000 on the inadequate £40,000 is insufficient. The Minister should have a close look at the finances of the board because we all recognise that they are doing valuable work in giving students who have a theoretical knowledge of agriculture after spending one year in an agricultural college, a sound practical knowledge by working on farms over a three-year period.
I should like to point out that there has been a saving of £4.2 million on the amount provided in the 1978 Estimate for the eradication of brucellosis. I am sure Members will agree that when 36 per cent of an amount allocated in an Estimate is not spent the Minister has a question to answer. We are told that the eradication of brucellosis is an urgent national priority but how is it that the Department who were given £11 million to spend on the eradication of brucellosis in 1978 failed to spend £4.2 million? There are a number of ways that money could have been spent. For example, small store producers who suffer considerable hardship resulting from the introduction of the 30-day test could have been compensated by the payment of the fees for the carrying out of the test by the Department. In view of the low density of veterinary surgeons per square mile in the west the cost of having these tests carried out tends to be higher for such producers and they could have been helped with that money. There is a great need to help small producers meet the extra burden they must bear. It is unfair that the Department have now to hand back £4.2 million because they failed to spend that amount on brucellosis eradication.
The grants for compensation for reactors and under the hardship scheme in relation to brucellosis are not adequate and that is another area where the £4.2 million could have been spent. There is also a need for an additional veterinary laboratory to be established in Munster and in Connacht. At present all samples of blood under the brucellosis scheme must be sent to Thorndale in Dublin for testing. There are considerable postal delays in this and for that reason there is a strong case for separate laboratories. I should like to draw attention to a problem which has arisen in relation to the 30-day test. To the best of my knowledge if animals are tested for brucellosis and tuberculosis the 30-day movement period for tuberculosis starts to run from the date on which the second visit of the vet to the herd takes place and the animals have been read. The reality is that the blood test result for brucellosis would not be back at that stage and may not be returned for up to eight days after the 30 days for tuberculosis has started to run. Obviously, a farmer cannot move his cattle unless they are clear of brucellosis and tuberculosis but the result of the present situation is that the movement period is considerably less than the 30 days, perhaps only 20 days or less. This is unfair and was not the intention of those who introduced the scheme. Something should be done about it. We should ensure that the 30-day movement period does not commence until the results of both tests are to hand.
I notice that an additional sum of £10.3 million was provided for market intervention incidental expenses. I understood that the cost of market intervention was recouped entirely by the EEC but I note that, under Appropriations in Aid, the recoupment by the EEC of incidental expenses is only £9.5 million. It appears that the Irish Government are being asked to spend £10.3 million but get only £9.5 in return from the EEC. That is not the way the scheme was intended to operate and there should not be a shortfall of that sort.
I note that there has been a big saving under the scheme for the promotion of horticulture. Of the amount of money provided for horticulture in the 1978 Estimate 75 per cent remains unspent. Why was that money not spent? Is there a policy of not providing money for horticulture on the scale it should be provided? That saving is significant when one notes that under another subhead, a provision for horticultural producer groups, there was another saving of 29 per cent of the amount provided. It appears that money is being provided for horticulture in the Estimate but not spent. In view of the importance of horticulture to the economy this is regrettable.
Under Appropriations in Aid I note that the receipts from poultry hatchery licences and blood testing fees increased greatly. I should like to know if the fees were increased or if there is a greater usage of the facilities. I note also that there is a deficiency of about £500,000 in receipts from the EEC under the farm modernisation scheme. Many Members have expressed dissatisfaction about the way the EEC are providing money to us in return for money spent by us on that scheme. There is an undue delay in the payment by the EEC. Would the Minister explain that deficiency? Are steps being taken to avoid a recurrence of this? If we spend the money in 1978 and the EEC do not recoup us until the middle of 1980 we are out of our money for a long time. At present high interest rates that is a serious situation.
I should like to know from the Minister if in the areas he is looking for an increase he intends spending more money. Will £7 million extra be spent or is the Minister seeking the approval of the House to spend money alloted to certain subheads under other subheads? Is there an element of that in the extra £7 million? My second point is with regard to the increases sought under the various headings. Are the increases due to inflation or is there an increase in the services in those areas? If the increases are due to inflation, the attitude of Members and the Minister is at variance with the attitude of the Minister's colleague towards county councils. They have to work within their original estimates. I should like that point clarified.
There is an increase with regard to subsidies on dairy products. Does that reflect an increase in the consumption of such products? Some time ago we were told by the Minister for Health when we pressed him here to introduce a levy for milk for schools and where some of the money would be provided by the EEC that it was not possible to increase consumption of milk and butter. He told us that consumption of those products was at a peak. Is the increase in the amount available here due to an increase in the consumption of those items?
While the following point is not mentioned in the Estimate I should like to put it forward because this will be the only opportunity we will have to discuss agriculture, and in particular dairy products, before the recess and it may be too late to deal with the matter afterwards. I would ask the Minister of State to impress on the Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Foreign Affairs that they should take a very strong line with regard to the GATT proposal to allow New Zealand to import cheddar cheese into the EEC. The amount in question is small but it is the thin end of the wedge. If it is necessary for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to use his veto on the result of the GATT meeting if it does not suit us, he should do so.
I ask the Minister to give special attention to the Farm Apprenticeship Board, as has been mentioned already. In view of inflation the sum being provided is not realistic. Everyone accepts that the board are doing wonderful work and it would be more realistic to double the amount. They are providing jobs and are training farmers as farm managers. There is considerable demand at the moment for farm managers but there are not enough of them. We see the work of AnCO and the high cost involved. This is an area where we could spend a little money and obtain good results with regard to providing jobs.
A sum of £20,000 was provided for horticulture and it appears we spent only £5,000. This is an amazing situation. I do not know if this could be diverted to commercial horticulture. Companies such as Erin Foods and the potato processing company in the Minister's area are crying out for money for development, processing, market research and so on and I should have thought that a sum of £250,000 would be a much more realistic figure for horticulture. This is one area where we can and have competed. It is a question of finance. At the moment the sugar beet industry is trying to finance horticulture but that is not good enough. Under the EEC regulations the sugar beet grower has to get the full EEC price for his beet and there is not much money left for development. I should like the Minister of State to take note of these points.
I should like to refer to the apprenticeship board and to ask the Minister to consider this matter further. I was instrumental in setting up the board and in getting the first subsidies for them. They are doing a very good job and I should like to endorse what has been said. I know they are short of money and if anything could be done to increase the amount I would be very grateful.
Deputy Bruton referred to the money saved on the schemes for eradication of brucellosis and tuberculosis. If possible something should be done to help people in the isolated areas with regard to the 30-day test. I heard of a case where a blood test was made, where the sample was sent away and was back within 14 days. However, three cows in the herd had to be tested again. There was no delay on the part of anybody but by the time the matter was finalised a period of 31 days had elapsed. The man had to keep his cattle for another month or two. It is natural that in any new scheme there would be pitfalls but this matter can be very serious for people who do not have fodder.
With regard to county committees of agriculture, in the breakdown of the Estimate there is no mention of clerical staff for the agricultural advisers. Everyone knows that these people are doing too much paper work and not doing enough of the work they are qualified to do.
These are just a few points that I consider urgent and I should like the Minister to refer to them in his reply.
I should like to thank Deputies for their brief contributions to this debate. We realise that in a limited debate like this it is not possible to deal in detail with all the matters we should like to discuss. I shall confine myself mainly to replying to the points raised by Deputies.
The main Estimate for Agriculture amounting to £147.411 million was passed on 27 June last. This Supplementary Estimate brings the total net provision for the year to £154.365 million which is £18 million over the total net provision for 1977. The sum now sought takes into account savings amounting to about £4.761 million. On top of the voted money, agriculture also gets very large sums from the EEC. These are up by more than £100 million this year so it is wrong, as Deputy Bruton did, to talk about less money being provided for agriculture.
From the EEC. I was quoting from the Supplementary Estimate. I did not take this off the top of my head. On the last page under deficiencies in receipts from the EEC under the farm modernisation scheme the figure is £545,000.
That is only one scheme. I thought the Deputy was talking about the total allocation for agriculture.
I was talking about the farm modernisation scheme.
I will come to that later. Under subhead A.1 provision is made for a further £1.1 million which is required mainly to meet the cost of the 1978 pay agreement. Increases provided for under subheads B.2, B.3, B.4, B.7, B.9 and J. amount to £700,000 and are also due to the implementation of the national pay agreement. At subhead A.4, an extra £150,000 is being provided mainly to meet increases in travelling rates which were decided upon during the year.
Deputy Bruton referred to the saving on the brucellosis scheme. The saving is actually £4.2 million. This reflects a substantial reduction in the number of reactors detected. The percentage of reactor animals last year was 0.81 per cent of total and this year it is 0.52 per cent. Some of the saving from this section is going into the hardship fund at subhead C.5.
Only about one-quarter of it.
I did not say what percentage.
What is happening to the other three-quarters?
The Minister should be allowed to reply.
The Farm Apprenticeship Board were mentioned. They got £3,000 extra on the original Estimate. They are now getting a further £2,000 which brings the total increase to £5,000 over the figure last year which, I understand, was £37,500. This is a respectable increase. The Farm Apprenticeship Board are doing a very fine job. If it is found that further funds are needed I am sure we will be able to satisfy them.
On the question of horticulture, projects by two co-ops are not likely to be completed this year, hence the saving of £15,000 at subhead D.8. The saving under subhead M.12 is partly due to the fact that claims have not been received from some producer groups so far. I hope that explains the position with regard to horticulture.
A sum of £1.2 million is being provided under subhead C.5, payment of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication schemes hardship fund grant-in-aid, in order to make additional payments to herd owners who suffer serious losses from having to dispose of a high proportion of their herds as reactors to tests for bovine TB or brucellosis.
The 30-day test was mentioned. I know there are many problems in this area but, by and large, the scheme is working out well. Farmers now realise the importance of this 30-day test. If there are problems which can be resolved we will do our best to try to resolve them. It is in the interests of farmers that the incidence of TB and brucellosis in the national herd should be reduced. I should like to sound a note of warning to persons who refuse to cooperate in the disease eradication effort, or who fail to abide by the regulations. No mercy can be shown to persons who undermine the eradication campaign by illegal movements of cattle, tag switching, forgery of identity cards, and so on. There must be a total commitment by all concerned if we are to get rid of bovine TB and brucellosis quickly. We must do this to stay in business. An additional £1 million arises under the lime and fertilisers subhead, D.1.
Deputy Bruton mentioned the shortfall in receipts from the EEC for the farm modernisation scheme and the disadvantaged areas scheme. This does not mean we will not get the money. It merely reflects the timing of the actual payments which are not now expected until after the end of the year. That explains the position.
I have covered most of the points raised by Deputies. I do not intend to delay the House any further. Other Estimates have to be introduced.
Would the Minister agree to have a special look at the problem I mentioned about the 30 days for TB and the 30 days for brucellosis not coinciding?
I can assure the Deputy that will be done. Any problem which may arise in the course of this scheme will be looked at. We will do our best to make it as workable as possible for the farmers and the veterinary profession.
