asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what he anticipates will be the future for wool production in EEC conditions.
133.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Agricultural Operations and Prices.
130.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the agricultural commodities in which the 1970 targets of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion for annual volume of production are unlikely to be reached; the extent of the deficit in each case; and the reasons for it.
134.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why Ireland chose not to accede to the GATT agreement for the observance of minimum prices for skim-milk.
135.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries when he expects the performance testing service for bulls in the AI service to become operational; and if he will state the reasons for the delay in initiating this service which was called for in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.
138.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what measures he proposes to take to compensate liquid milk producers for increased costs since the beginning of 1970.
141.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why there is an upward limit for compensation for reactors under the brucellosis eradication scheme.
144.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the number of bulls currently in use in the AI service which have been progeny tested for purely beef characteristics.
146.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries why there is no producer or consumer representation on the body drawing up a system of classification for Irish meat.
147.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will comment on the fact that the headquarters staff in his Department has virtually trebled between 1960-61 and 1970-71 while agricultural production has risen by about 30 per cent.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 130, 133, 134, 135, 138, 141, 144, 146 and 147 together.
May I protest against this procedure?
I am aware that these questions were raised by the Deputy during the unfinished debate on my Department's Estimate for 1970-71 and it is my intention to deal fully with them in my reply to that debate.
That is no excuse for refusing to answer questions. I put down questions in order under Standing Orders 30, 31 and 32. I am entitled under the normal procedure of this House, under the Constitution, to answers to these questions. Nobody knows when the Minister will give his reply to the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture. It might be four months hence. Many of these matters require an answer now.
I understand that this arrangement was cleared by the Ceann Comhairle's office and it was on that understanding that I prepared the reply.
Acting Chairman
The Chair cannot be of any help to the Deputy here. The Minister is entitled to take this attitude if he so desires.
My questions were perfectly in order. Why does the Minister answer any questions at all? Surely all questions that have been put down for the Minister could conceivably be raised on the Estimate and he would be able to use the same excuse for not answering them? Why single out my questions?
I have no wish to evade answering the Deputy's questions, but I recall his saying on the Estimate that he would ask the Minister when he was replying to the debate to deal with the particular points. It is my intention to do so. I must ask for the guidance of the Chair on this matter. I think this was cleared with the Ceann Comhairle's office but I am not absolutely certain.
I was not informed of it.
Acting Chairman
It is normal, if a debate is either taking place or coming up, for the Minister to refer questions to his reply to the debate. In this case the question of the debate is under consideration and, as Deputy Bruton says, may not come up. It cannot now come up until after the Recess. The Minister is entitled to refuse to answer the questions if he does not wish to do so.
I do not wish to refuse to reply to the Deputy's questions but he will appreciate that, on this basis, my replies will not be as exhaustive as they might otherwise be. If the Deputy wishes me to go through them seriatim that is all right with me.
I do. No. 130 is the first one.
An expanded EEC would not be self-sufficient in wool. Our main export market would probably still continue to be Britain.
In regard to Question No. 133, the Second Programme targets published in 1964 were based on the assumption that EEC membership, with all its implications for markets and prices, would be achieved by 1970. Even though this basic assumption did not materialise remarkable progress was achieved, although increases in output involved a higher use of inputs than had been originally anticipated. The cattle target has almost been achieved. An output of 1.5 million head was set as the 1970 target and we now estimate an output of 1.45 million head of cattle this year. For cows the programme envisaged a rapid expansion in the herd to about 1.7 million in 1968. The figure in 1968 was, in fact, 1.6 million and this year has reached 1.7 million. Up to the early 1960s cow numbers remained static at about 1.25 million head.
The output target for milk was 760 million gallons. By 1969 an output of 671 million gallons had been reached, an increase of 150 million gallons on 1963. Had price and market conditions been favourable, as they would have been had we gained EEC entry, there is little doubt that the targets set would have been reached.
In the case of pigs the 1970 output target of two million pigs was, in fact, exceeded by 1969. The main reason for the disappointing trend in sheep seems to have been the relatively greater attraction of other enterprises but with good prices and improved incentives now available there is reason to expect that the period of decline is coming to an end.
Did the Minister give the figures for sheep?
No, I have not got them.
How does the Minister happen to have the ones that are favourable and not have the ones that are unfavourable?
If the Deputy wishes I shall get them for him or have them sent to him. For wheat the target was 300,000 tons set for 1970. This has been surpassed in the years 1968, 1969 and 1970. A considerable increase in barley output to 600,000 tons was aimed at in the Second Programme and it now looks as if the output this year will not be far off this figure. The target for sugar beet was 1.2 million tons. The output for 1970 is expected to reach the one million ton mark. The target for the output of potatoes is 600,000 tons. In 1969 the output of potatoes was 495,000 tons.
As regards Question No. 134, we have not formally adhered to the GATT agreement on skim milk powder for reasons that we feel are imperative for the protection of the interests of the home producers of milk.
What are the reasons?
It is a rather complex matter and if the Deputy would accept my undertaking that I shall deal with this fully in replying to the Estimate debate I shall do that. Alternatively, if he puts down the question again I shall deal with it.
Thank you.
Question No. 135 refers to the performance testing service station for bulls. This station is now expected to be in full operation next year. The main reason for the delay was the difficulty in securing a suitable site.
Did it take almost six years to discover a suitable site? Could the Minister elaborate on the specific reasons for the delay?
The relevant part of the information is that the station will be in full operation next year. One of the serious difficulties was in securing a suitable site.
Why was it so difficult to secure a site for this project when you are able to secure sites for other things much more easily?
It is not always easy to secure sites for any buildings, schools or anything else.
It does not normally take six years.
This was the main difficulty. There may have been difficulties to which my notes do not refer, but evidently they existed and were formidable.
In regard to Question No. 138 the prices payable to producers of liquid milk in the Dublin and Cork District Milk Board areas are at present under consideration. I have no control over liquid milk prices outside those areas.
Is the Minister aware that the cost of inputs—fertilisers, wages and feeding stuffs—have risen in 1970 by between 10 and 25 per cent for most producers and that the increased prices which they got this year, amounting to 3d per gallon, only cover increases in costs up to the end of 1969? There has been no increase to cover the increase in costs during 1970, also, in 1970 the bottlers of liquid milk for distribution got increases equivalent to 8d per gallon. Would the Minister, therefore, not consider that an increase should now be given to liquid milk producers in view of what I have said?
I have this question under consideration at present. Question No. 141 refers to the compensation paid for reactors under the brucellosis eradication scheme. The existence of a maximum limit on reactor prices has been accepted since the start of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme in 1954. Its purpose was to safeguard the Exchequer against excessive demands. The maximum is reviewed from time to time and is set well above the highest price that could usually be expected on the open market. In practice the market values as agreed to with the herd owners of reactor cattle taken up under the bovine tuberculosis scheme and the brucellosis scheme are well below the current maxima and are not affected by them.
Is it not normal procedure to pay value for something you buy? Why is it necessary to have an upper limit in this case? In most cases where a Government Department is buying something it does not have an upper limit written into regulations as to what it might pay. It pays value: whatever an independent assessor decides. Is it true that the Minister has not confidence in his own inspectors to value these animals properly and has to put some sort of rein on them because he is afraid they might not do their job properly?
There is very little substance in Deputy Bruton's declaration. It must be obvious that in the determination of the value of a reactor, either in the brucellosis or the bovine tuberculosis schemes, there must be some form of regulation. The number of complaints received by the Department of Agriculture about this particular subject is very low and by and large the farming community are satisfied, when they are unfortunate enough to have reactors in either category to dispose of.
Would the Minister not trust the judgment of an independent assessor without necessarily putting an upward limit on the assessment he might make?
The system that is at present in operation has over the years, since the inception of the bovine tuberculosis scheme, proved to be very satisfactory and is working satisfactorily now.
Question No. 144 refers to the number of bulls currently in use at the AI Stations. So far 141 of the dairy bulls in the artificial insemination service have been tested for beef characteristics.
Are there any beef bulls being tested for beef characteristics?
I do not seem to have the information the Deputy is looking for.
I will put down a question about it next Session.
Question No. 146 refers to consumer representation on the body drawing up a system of classification for Irish meat.
A small group is currently examining the technical problems involved in introducing a beef classification scheme at beef export premises. When a draft scheme has been prepared consultation will take place with interested parties. It is not possible to say when a carcase classification scheme will come into operation. On that particular subject I should say that this is merely a preliminary exploratory operation and that it is hardly time just now to seek for the representation the Deputy is talking about. I naturally would have regard to all interested parties when the time comes.
Would the Minister not consider that the suggestion made in my question might prove helpful?
Yes, indeed, I do.
Question No. 147 asks the Minister if he will comment on the fact that the headquarters staff in his Department have virtually trebled between 1960-61 and 1970-71 while agricultural production has risen by only about 30 per cent?
The increase in the staff on the agricultural side of the Department, omitting Fisheries since transfer from Lands, from 1,995 in 1960 to 2,865 in 1970—that is an increase of 44 per cent—was necessary to cope with the increased number and complexity of schemes. There is not therefore any correlation between the growth of the Department staff and the growth of agricultural production.