asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether he will explain the large differential between the average income of the farming community and that of other sections of the community; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
121.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Farming Income Differential.
120.
Mr. O'Donnell
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he is aware of the ever widening gap in income between the farming community and those employed in other occupations and of the rapid increase in farming costs in recent years; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify the matter.
122.
Mr. O'Donnell
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether he is aware of the present serious unrest in the agricultural industry; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take to improve the income of the farming community.
With your permission, a Cheann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 120, 121 and 122 together.
There is no satisfactory method of comparing the levels of incomes in farming with those in other occupations and figures which are frequently quoted are based on quite unrealistic assumptions. In these comparisons the "average" income of the farming community is usually derived from the total number who are reported as self-employed in agriculture. This includes juveniles, female relatives assisting, elderly widows, elderly males who in other occupations would be regarded as retired and small holders who are already in receipt of substantial social welfare benefits, as well as farmers actively engaged in commercial farming. The average income of these people is then compared with that of an adult male worker in industry. Quite clearly this comparison is not a valid one. An additional consideration is that whereas farmers' incomes are net of rates on land and farm buildings and are not liable to income tax, industrial workers' incomes are liable to tax under the PAYE system.
Furthermore, comparisons based on global figures of farm income and numbers engaged take no account of the wide differences which exist between the incomes of individual farmers. Similarly, outside agriculture, incomes vary widely within and between occupations. Among other difficulties is that of determining the extent to which people mainly engaged in one occupation receive additional income from other sources.
Comparisons based on averages do, however, serve as indicators of broad trends in income changes and the figures available show that average per head income of the self-employed in agriculture has been increasing more slowly than average per head income of employees in other occupations. Recognising that, and taking into account the effects on agriculture of inflation and rising costs, the Government during the past year introduced a series of measures to improve the income position of farmers. Two rounds of price increases were provided for the four major livestock commodities—cattle, sheep, pigs and creamery milk. Headage payments for both cattle and sheep were substantially improved. Growers of feeding barley are to receive an increase of over 10 per cent in the floor price for this year's crop and the minimum prices for pigs will in consequence be further adjusted next autumn. In all, the cost of these measures to the Exchequer in a full year will be about £10 million, over £3 million of which will go to creamery milk suppliers. Other measures of benefit to farmers are the reduction in the Bord Bainne levy on creamery milk supplies, the two increases last year in the price of liquid milk and the substantial increase this year in the beet acreage. Farmers are also benefiting from the higher guaranteed prices for Irish cattle and sheep fattened in Britain.
Total State expenditure in relation to agriculture is now approaching £100 million a year.
The amount now being provided through taxation in support of agriculture is high by any standard and is tangible evidence of the Government's concern for agriculture and those working in it. The beneficial effects are clearly manifest in the growing modernisation of agriculture and the increased prosperity of the farming community.
I consider that reply to be the greatest piece of bluff that I have heard during my time here. This information is not relevant to the facts.
Has the Deputy a question to put?
Yes. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the serious gap in the incomes of those engaged in agriculture and those engaged in other walks of life? Would he accept that the figure is £8 per week? He says people in other walks of life pay income tax and that is true but he referred also to rates relief. However, is it not true that the farmer pays rates on the place where he works whereas this is not so in the case of industrial workers?
We are now having a statement.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his predecessor, more than 12 months ago, admitted after consultation with the various farming organisations, that it would take £14 million extra to bring farmers' incomes in line with those of persons engaged in other occupations? Of course, farmers' costs have increased during the past 12 months but the Parliamentary Secretary comes here and says he does not accept that there is a serious difference between the incomes of farmers and the incomes of those in other occupations. The situation is disgraceful and the answer we have heard is nothing more than bluff.
Could the Parliamentary Secretary express the rise in farmers' incomes during the past 12 months as a percentage? He says there has been a rise but that it was slower than that of other workers.
Their income increased during the past 12 months by 6 to 7 per cent.
Giving the Parliamentary Secretary the benefit of that rather inflated estimate, would he not agree that prices have increased at a higher rate and that, therefore, farmers' incomes have diminished during that time?
Of course that is so.
I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary gave us the oft' quoted figure of £100 million as being the amount paid to farmers by way of subsidies. Would he be prepared to tell us how much of that goes to the farmers? Is it not true that countless millions are spent in the administration of all these schemes?
No, but I will say that £100 million is a considerable amount of money. There has been a significant increase during the past couple of years. Also, there is a big difference between that amount and the £17 million which was the figure at which it stood during the last year of the Coalition Government.
That is ancient history. I am not interested in what happened in 1947. This is 1971.
Whatever percentage of the £100 million goes into the farmers' pockets is still far greater than the percentage of £17 million. No matter how one takes the decreasing value of money or increased costs or anything else there is no comparison between £17 million and £100 million.
Farmers' incomes decreased last year.
Only about £50 million goes back to the farmers.
If what the Deputy says is true, only £8½ million went back to the farmers in the years of the Coalition Government.
Mr. O'Donnell
Would the Parliamentary Secretary get down to basic facts and not engage in statistical or economic jargon? Is it not a fact, as any member of the farming community will be aware, that there has been a very serious imbalance in farmers' incomes during the past couple of years by comparison with the incomes of other sections of the community? Further, can he state whether the Government have any new plans to try and remedy this imbalance which is a scandalous example of social injustice?
Is the Deputy suggesting that wages be reduced? I would like to state that the Government commitments in respect of farmers' incomes are clearly set out in the Third Programme for Economic and Social Development. One of the commitments is to ensure that farmers who work their land fully and efficiently will share equitably in the growing national prosperity and that a reasonable relationship is maintained between farm incomes and incomes of other occupations and to aid the smaller and economically more vulnerable farmer to secure an acceptable level of income. That is the Government's policy in relation to agriculture.
Mr. O'Donnell
Is is not a fact that efficient farmers who work their land efficiently are the very farmers who have been penalised?
Further arising——
Deputies will appreciate we are getting into arguments. There will be an Estimate for Agriculture and Fisheries during which these matters can be argued.
May I ask if the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that the income of creamery milk suppliers has kept abreast of rising costs in the past 12 months? If he has any doubt about what we are saying on this side of the House, let him consult the ACC, because a number of creamery milk suppliers are on the verge of bankruptcy.
No answer.
There is an answer. The fact is that the Minister and I are never satisfied with what the agricultural community are getting. We are always trying to do more.