Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 Dec 1985

Vol. 362 No. 12

Supplementary Estimates, 1985. - Vote 38: Agriculture.

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1985, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture, including certain services administered by that Office, and of the Irish Land Commission and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.

This token estimate is required in order to make adjustments to the allocations for certain subheads, including some grants-in-aid, and to provide for expenditure on schemes introduced to assist farmers affected by the bad summer weather. One of the main items being provided in this Supplementary Estimate is £3 million under subhead D.8 to meet the expenditure in this financial year on three new schemes designed to provide assistance to farmers with serious winter fodder problems.

When it became clear by early August that a serious problem was going to arise for many farmers in securing sufficient fodder for their stock this winter I arranged for the introduction of a winter fodder scheme. The object of the scheme was to induce farmers to make late cuts of silage to replace hay and silage lost as a result of the continuous rain. The scheme consisted of two elements. Firstly, farmers with not more than 30 cows or 50 cattle were eligible for a subsidy of £35 for a tonne of high nitrogen fertiliser spread by them on grassland by early September. Notwithstanding the early gloomy prognostications for this measure some 24,000 applications were received and the bulk of these have already been paid. We are providing £650,000 to cover these payments. There will be a small carry-over into the next financial year.

The second element was the provision of grants for first time silage making. Under this measure a subsidy of £4 per tonne, subject to a maximum of 50 tonnes per farm, is payable to applicants from farms where silage had not previously been made. The response to this part of the winter fodder scheme exceeded all expectations with some 33,000 farmers applying for the subsidy. The total cost will be about £6 million and it is expected that some £1.7 million will be paid out in this financial year. The balance of the payments will be made early in the new year.

Flooding in the River Shannon Valley caused the loss of all or a substantial part of winter fodder supplies on many farms. Under a special aid scheme for the farmers concerned a sum of £20 per livestock unit up to a maximum of 25 livestock units per farmer, that is, a maximum payment of £500, was made available to people mainly dependent on farming and with not more than 60 livestock units. Special arrangements were made for those who suffered crop losses from the flooding and they too could obtain payment of up to £500. Applications were received from just over 2,000 farmers. Processing of these is now well advanced and it is expected that most of them will be dealt with by 31 December. The Supplementary Estimate includes £650,000 in respect of this measure.

Of course, these schemes do not represent the totality of the measures which were introduced by the Government to assist farmers hit by the bad weather. There is also the countrywide feed voucher scheme providing assistance for farmers in difficulty to purchase winter feed. This scheme will be financed by some £13 million from the Exchequer and 125,000 tonnes of intervention grain at 75 per cent of the intervention price from the EC. We have received some 90,000 applications under this scheme.

Last week I announced that I would also be introducing a scheme which will provide a 5 per cent interest subsidy on lendings of £40 million for tillage farmers who were badly affected by the bad weather. The scheme will cover cereal and pea growers who have suffered serious income loss and also potato growers who have incurred major losses because of flooding — I want to stress that — potato growers who suffered losses because of flooding and not people who suffered losses as a result of something like potato blight. Furthermore, producers whose crops were seriously damaged by the freak hail storm last July will also be eligible for aid under this scheme. The subsidy will be paid on individual loans of up to £10,000 and will operate retrospectively to cover producers who have already sown winter cereals. Details of this scheme are still being worked out with the financial institutions.

Turning now to subhead M.3. the additional sum of £9.6 million is to meet the payment of livestock headage grants under the disadvantaged areas schemes to an extra 20,000 applicants this year compared to previous years. It seemed to me that we should do everything possible to bring forward the payment of headage grants in order to alleviate the effects of the bad weather. The combined efforts of the Department's field staff and local office personnel have resulted in a record number of headage payments being processed this year and, in fact, some 90 per cent of applicants under the 1985 disadvantaged areas schemes will be paid before Christmas. The staff concerned, indoor and outdoor, are to be congratulated on the tremendous efforts they have made to bring forward these payments which resulted from carrying out inspections.

We have also accelerated non-vote payments of EC premium grants. Under the 1985 suckler cow premium scheme, we have brought forward by five months payments to some 43,000 applicants who will get over £7 million before the end of 1985. Under the 1985 ewe premium we succeeded recently in having the EC Commission fix an early advance and as a result some 17,000 applicants in the disadvantaged areas will be paid about £5 million by the end of the year. All in all, between the disadvantaged areas schemes and the EC premium schemes, an extra £22 million in grants will be paid by the end of this year as compared with last year. This makes a very substantial contribution to farmers' income and enables them to purchase winter feed. In particular, these arrangements should assist the majority of farmers with beef cows in the disadvantaged areas to retain their breeding stock over the winter and to qualify for the £70 beef cow grant next year as announced in the national plan.

Under subhead D. 2 £1.4 million extra is provided in respect of payments under the calved heifer scheme. This scheme ran for the three years 1982 to 1984 and resulted in an increase of 88,000 cows in the national herd. The original provision, of £3.5 million for 1985 was intended to cover residual payments that would arise this year. However, participation in the scheme in 1984 turned out to be higher than we had allowed for at the time the 1985 Estimate was finalised. Total residual payments this year will, in fact, amount to £4.9 million and, as a result, an additional £1.4 million is now required.

Additional sums totalling £2.781 million are being provided under subheads A.1, B.3 and B.12 to cover the cost of pay increases, mainly under the 24th round, for staff of the Department and of An Foras Talúntais and ACOT.

Under subhead G.2 an additional sum of £336,000 is provided in respect of redundancy payments to 17 former employees of the statutory body, the Pigs and Bacon Commission, who were wound up in mid-1983. These employees had been taken on by the industry-funded Pigs and Bacon Commission Limited when they commenced trading in August 1983. The company ceased operations at the end of 1984. My Department had liability for redundancy payments to these employees and the additional sum of £336,000 sought is for this purpose.

Subhead M.5 covers losses arising on market intervention operations. The original Estimate for this heading was £1.45 million and the new provision is £3.336 million. The additional £1.886 million is required mainly to cover the cost to be borne by the Exchequer arising from the Commission's refusal to finance refunds on exports of certain dairy products by An Bord Bainne to third countries in 1981. The question at issue is whether the export clearance of these products should have been carried out at the Irish ports or at a port of trans-shipment in another member state. We are satisfied that export clearance at the Irish ports was in accordance with the arrangements approved by the Commission and that the refunds were properly payable to the board. We have, accordingly, commenced legal proceedings in the European Court against the Commission. In the meantime, however, the sum of about £2.28 million involved has to be paid to the Commission.

The total of the additional amounts being provided in the Supplementary Estimate is £19 million. This is being covered by corresponding savings on subhead M.4: Market Intervention — Incidental Expenses. The amount voted for this subhead in 1985 was some £97 million but substantial savings have arisen because of lower levels of intervention stocks than had been anticipated and also because of lower interest charges than had been allowed for in respect of borrowings for the purchase of intervention products.

I commend the adoption of this Supplementary Estimate to the House.

(Limerick West): I wish to reiterate what has been said by the Minister concerning the staff of his Department, both indoor and outdoor, who are operating the various schemes which were introduced as a result of the disastrous summer. We appreciate the work being done by the staff to ensure that the schemes are implemented. Although the payments are inadequate, we are anxious that they should reach the farmers as quickly as possible.

I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister that some concern has been expressed by farmers that officials of the Department are not really concerned with the quality of the fodder used for livestock. They seem more concerned about the quantity of fodder. As the Minister knows, quality is far more important: a farmer could have a great quantity of fodder but it might be totally inadequate to meet the needs of his livestock during the winter. I ask the Minister to consider this matter and to request his officials to review their attitude.

With regard to the interest subsidy to grain farmers and crop farmers, the amount of £10,000 in respect of loans is inadequate. It should be increased at least to £15,000. I ask the Minister to clarify if the loan will be applicable only on a once-off basis or if it will apply in subsequent years. The damage suffered by farmers will affect them for a number of years.

I commend the Minister for accelerating payment of the EC premium grants. Some weeks ago I put forward a proposal that grants should be increased to the maximum allowed by the EC on a once-off basis. This would give an immediate cash flow to the farmers who have suffered losses. Unfortunately the Minister did not accede to my request. I do not agree, because most of the costs would be borne by the EC, and there would be resultant benefit not only for farmers, but for the economy in general. Even at this late stage I urge the Minister to look again at this scheme. The Minister said:

Under the 1985 ewe premium we succeeded recently in having the EC Commission fix an early advance and as a result some 17,000 applicants in the disadvantaged areas will be paid about £5 million by the end of the year. All in all, between the disadvantaged areas schemes and the EC premium schemes, an extra £22 million in grants will be paid by the end of this year as compared with last year.

I understand that we do not need EC permission to pay these premiums. At present sheep farmers are owed money by the Department. The sheep marketing year has been changed and I should like to know how arrears in payment will affect sheep farmers.

My party always have welcomed increases in the number of breeding stock, particularly in the cow beef numbers. That herd has been reduced drastically. The proposals in Building on Reality included a £70 grant and this is much needed, something that should have been given three years ago. The Minister spoke about the calf heifer scheme, another benefit introduced by Fianna Fáil. He said that, as a result of that scheme, there had been an increase of 88,000 cows in the national herd. That scheme is partially financed by the EC and it is of immense benefit not only to farmers but to our general economy. Surely, it was shortsighted of the Minister to withdraw that scheme. I am sorry to say that agriculture as an industry has been and is being created as a poor relation by this Government.

In subhead A, sums totalling £2.8 million will be provided for staff, among other things. In the Department of Agriculture we have some of the finest civil servants in the world. This applies also to ACOT and An Foras Talúntais where we have scientists and other experts who know their jobs. All that is required in the Department is political direction. Then we could have greater development of the industry. Many of those civil servants, from the Secretary down, are men of ability and integrity who know what is needed to develop the industry.

They deserve credit, particularly Mr. O'Mahony, the Secretary.

I do not think it is desirable to discuss the civil servants in a Department in detail, particularly in respect of policy. It might involve them in controversy.

(Limerick West): I did so in connection with the additional sums required under the subheads. I think I am entitled to say that the civil servants need political guidelines, political direction.

If some other Deputy did not agree with you and got up and attacked civil servants, they would become a political football.

(Limerick West): I accept that. However, I want to emphasise that there is lack of political leadership, and the entire industry is suffering because there is not a cohesive plan. The civil servants have a vital role to play. I do not agree that the industry should work towards its own needs and interests or that the people engaged in the industry should determine their own guidelines. The Government and the political head of the Department have a mandate from the people to provide the leadership and the guidelines and to provide a coherent policy for agricultural development.

Subhead G.2 relates to the Pigs and Bacon Commission and here I wish to refer briefly to the pig industry. We are fortunate in that we have some of the most efficient pig producers in the world but regrettably that performance is not matched by other branches of the industry. There is widespread spare capacity in the factories while standards in the factories are not as high as they might be. Marketing in this area is far below the optimum level. There is a great need to rationalise the industry at factory level. We cannot allow a situation to continue where there is a difference at times of upwards of £9 per pig in terms of pigs shipped to Britain from here compared with the prices fetched on the same market by the Danes for their products. The time has come when hard decisions will have to be made to save the pig industry. Many jobs are at risk in this sector. We must face the problems in consultation with all those concerned and especially with the trade union movement.

As spokesman for agriculture for my party I will be bringing forward in the very near future plans for a positive developmental role for the pig industry. We realise the need for the development of this industry, development that would provide many job opportunities both on and off the farm. Therefore I am very much involved in the production of a worthwhile policy for the promotion of the pig industry. There are many openings for the sale of pigmeat even on the home market but we must adopt a more positive and aggressive role in the matter of the export of our pig meat. The leadership and the guidelines must come from the Department first and then from all those involved in the industry.

I have given the Deputy a good deal of latitude.

(Limerick West): I was concluding on that point. The Minister tells us that we have commenced legal proceedings in the European Court against the Commission and that the outcome of these proceedings would mean payment to us through the Commission of about £2.28 million. Is the Minister optimistic as to the outcome of this case and if we are successful will the amount be refunded to the Exchequer? Can he tell us, too, whether it is customary for interest to be paid by the EC in such cases?

As this is a very confined debate I shall address my remarks only to those items referred to by the Minister. I wish particular to make reference to the reluctance generally on the part of the Government to accept the fact that agriculture forms the basis of the country's wealth. I may have criticised the Minister for Agriculture in the past and rightly so but we must give credit also where credit is due. I realise that the Minister is working under difficult conditions to the extent that there is a bias against agriculture within the Cabinet but he is learning fast. He is appraising himself of all aspects of the industry. Some recent announcements by him have shown a surprisingly good knowledge of the industry. I refer particularly to those instances in which he departs from the supplied brief and speaks as his own man, as it were. He is learning so fast that he is likely within a very short time to catch up with the Minister of State, Deputy Hegarty, in his knowledge of agricultural matters. I have some concern regarding the bovine TB eradication scheme.

A passing reference will be in order.

(Limerick West): More freedom should be available to the chief veterinary officer in each county with regard to the partial depopulation of herds. This refers also to the brucellosis eradication scheme. I understand that a decision with regard to the partial depopulation of herds must be made by the administrative section of the Department rather than by the technical people. If the technical people who are aware of the needs of the locality are denied that, it will slow down the process. I pay tribute to those people for the approach they are adopting. The Minister has given a commitment, somewhat late, and I hope moneys will be made available to attack this disease.

The Deputy will probably have another opportunity to raise this matter.

(Limerick West): We must not have a stop-go approach in the future.

I now turn to the delay in tackling the problems which arose as a result of the disastrous weather conditions this summer. The consequences are severe for the whole farming industry, I said at the beginning that the schemes were inadequate and did not meet even in a small way all these various problems. But for the prompting of the farming organisations and this party, the Government would be very slow to bring in any scheme, but this one is both inadequate and restrictive. The officers in the field are concentrating on quantity of fodder rather than quality and this has caused a certain amount of resentment amongst farmers most affected. No amount of poor quality fodder will compensate for quality fodder.

The Shannon Valley scheme is totally inadequate and farmers are still in doubt as to whether they will qualify for benefit from the fodder scheme. It is appropriate that the Minister should clarify the eligibility of farmers in this area. They would appreciate an early positive response to the dilemma in which they find themselves. My opinion is that they should be allowed to participate in the scheme because they have suffered from the disastrous summer weather.

A new look must be taken at the direction which agriculture will take in the future. I understand the Minister set up a committee recently to examine ACOT, An Foras Talúntais and farm development services. When are we likely to have the report of this committee? When will it be published? There is widespread concern within these bodies about their future and the proposals contained in the report. I hope they will be positive and that the Minister will implement them.

There must be greater coherence and direction in agricultural development. The research arm of agriculture is increasingly vital. We have achieved much in agricultural research but we must move now into to a new area. Perhaps the Agricultural Institute are the body who should do this. The dairy and food industry needs an organisation who will carry out aggressive and positive research and development. We must consider the development of new products and whether the products already being produced are meeting consumer demands. There is consumer resistance to fat in dairy products.

I knew that the Deputy might have difficulty in understanding my intervention and for that reason I looked at the Book of Precedents. The Deputy may be surprised to hear that the inclusion in a Supplementary Estimate of provision for salaries of civil servants does not permit widening the scope of debate to include policy and general administration.

(Limerick West): I accept that. I hope to be in a position to bring forward proposals very soon with regard to the development of An Foras Talúntais in the research and development section. The Department of Agriculture and many other parts of the agricultural industry, being guided at present by other Departments, will have a vital role to play in that aspect of development in the future.

While I may have disgressed at times, were I to confine myself to the strict criteria you have just read out, Sir, I could talk only about whether the Minister or Minister of State was adequately paid or compensated for the job they are doing.

I hope the Minister will react positively to the few proposals I have put to him. I like to give credit where it is due and by that I mean I hope the Minister of State will continue to be his own man in the development of this vital industry to our economy.

To respond to the very positive contribution of Deputy Noonan, I should say I have noted what he said about the Shannon Valley, including what he had to say about participants in the fodder feed voucher scheme. We are looking into the possibility of doing that. Probably within a week or so I will be able to respond to the Deputy on that point. I should say that, of course, fodder quality is a problem. In that respect we had to depend a lot on the farmer himself because, in order to get the scheme moving and feed vouchers issued, it was not possible to examine every block of silage, hay of whatever. Therefore we were really dependent on what the farmer said himself.

(Limerick West): Apparently that is not being accepted.

It is something at which I am prepared to have a look because I did not think there was any great crib in that respect.

(Limerick West): May I ask the Minister if there will be an opportunity for the operation of a type of appeals system which would mean that if a farmer is not satisfied with a decision he will have an opportunity of appealing it?

As the Deputy knows, this is being done between the ACOT adviser and the farmer.

(Limerick West): Under the farm development service?

Yes, under the farm development service. Normally there is a very good relationship between them. If there are variable or controversial cases with which the Deputy is familiar, if he will inform us, we shall have them examined.

I should say we are optimistic about the court case. Certainly we believe we are entitled to this refund. The Deputy mentioned interest rates and so on. Again that would be a matter for the courts but we are optimistic about the outcome.

The Deputy mentioned the £10,000 limit. Of course it should be £15,000 or perhaps £20,000. However, the Deputy will readily appreciate that the amount of money available to us would have meant that fewer people would qualify. We thought we were achieving a reasonable balance. For instance, the IFA were asking for something like £50 million whereas our total package would be upwards of £40 million. There are many schemes involved — nitrogen, silage and so on. I believe our endeavours constituted a fair effort on the part of a small country to achieve so much all in one year. Let me hope that this will not happen again. In weather terms it has been the most extreme year we have ever experienced. The Deputy will appreciate that no Government could continue to give that level of support year in, year out. I believe we were reasonably generous in what we gave.

With regard to the marketing year vis-à-vis the ewe premium, the Deputy will appreciate that that premium could not be paid until the Commission had determined the amount. From next year onwards the sheep marketing year will commence on 1 January instead of 1 April, which means that the current marketing year will be comprised of nine months only. I am sure the Deputy will be glad to know that steps are being taken to ensure that the appropriate premiums will be paid for the shorter year.

I agree totally with the Deputy in what he had to say with regard to the pig industry. The Deputy is probably aware that we are making a great effort to improve the whole of the slaughtering scene. Every encouragement is being given to factories to improve and rationalise. Probably the Deputy is familiar with the Munster scene where we are endeavouring to devise some sort of centralised slaughtering, an effort in which the IDA have been co-operating with us. A small number of centralised slaughtering facilities have been established. I believe the need for that will grow because of the swing away from beef towards pigmeat and is something for which we must gear ourselves. I noted the Deputy's remarks about the bovine TB eradication scheme.

I think that broadly covers the points the Deputy made. I might associate myself with the Deputy's compliments to the Department, the well deserved tributes. Whatever about other Departments I am sure nobody on any side of the House could find fault with any of our officers. They work extremely hard, very often without much credit being given to them. They do a lot of slogging behind the scenes for our Minister when he goes abroad, particularly to fight cases in Europe. We must rely very heavily on their expertise. Therefore I am indeed proud to be associated with those tributes.

I also share Deputy Noonan's concern about maintaining the high quality in ACOT and An Foras Talúntais. Looking into the future there is no doubt that alternatives will have to be found for our farmers, alternatives such as flax, such as the development of cottage home cheeses. For example I might say that we produce 30 per cent only of our honey. We still import a tremendous quantity of apples and of potato chips and all these areas will have to be examined. The people best equipped to examine new projects are those in An Foras Talúntais, ACOT and the officers of our Department. We hope we shall be able to encourage them to give us a lead in those areas.

Vote put and agreed to.
Top
Share