asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, in view of the alarming drop in the numbers of cows and heifers-in-calf evidenced by the December, 1974, census and the consequent loss of confidence in the cattle trade, he will indicate the steps he proposes to take to restore confidence.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Cattle Trade.
4.
The total number of cows and heifers-in-calf in December, 1974, was well above that in any previous year except December, 1973; also there was a high level of older cow slaughterings in 1974 following the low culling rates in the previous couple of years. I am satisfied that the EEC measures now in operation, which the recently agreed price support arrangements for cattle and beef in 1975-76 have improved substantially, provide the necessary confidence to our cattle industry.
Does the Minister not agree that a drop of more than 12½ per cent in the number of heifers-in-calf is conclusive evidence of the lack of confidence of farmers in the cattle industry generally? In those circumstances, would the Minister say whether he will contemplate the introduction of an EEC guidance premium in the disadvantaged areas as a matter of urgency to stimulate the breeding of cattle?
I am not greatly surprised at what the Deputy says, because the number of heifers-in-calf is a number that has gone up and down very much over the years.
No. It has been rising steadily since 1965.
The Deputy is aware than agreement has been reached on a scheme for the disadvantaged areas. We are just hoping that at our next meeting we may be able to increase the Community support for the disadvantaged areas scheme. In the meantime, we are making arrangements to bring it in as quickly as possible.
Would the Minister not agree that the immediate introduction of a guidance premium in the disadvantaged areas is a matter of vital and urgent necessity?
The intention is to bring it in at the earliest date possible.
Is the Minister aware that there were more than 140,000 extra cows and heifers slaughtered this year and would this not indicate to the Minister that farmers have lost confidence in the future so far as cattle breeding is concerned?
No, but I am aware that the price of milk has been increased by approximately 75 per cent since I took office.
Is the Minister saying that this increase came about as a result of his good offices?
5.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, from 1st May, he will supplement the slaughter subsidy premium which will be payable from FEOGA; and, if so, by what amount.
In the case of exports to the UK, the FEOGA slaughter premium will be increased by the amount of the variable premium payable by the UK Government on their own cattle. Exports to the Continent will benefit from the reduction of monetary and accession compensatory amounts and customs duty.
Would the Minister not agree that while his announcement regarding the variable premium on exports to Britain will be payable also and that our cattle are welcome there, live exports to the mainland of Europe in the context of the new intervention price for beef prejudices the export of live cattle to the mainland and that, therefore, some additional assistance is required?
I wonder whether the Deputy appreciates that, first, they will get the FEOGA contribution which is £15——
Thirty units to the £.
——and in addition they get a 10¾ percentage increase— 4.5 from the accession, five from the green £ and a further 1.25.
Is the Minister satisfied that the live export trade to the Continent will be able to continue against the competition provided by the new intervention price for beef?
Is the Deputy complaining that the new intervention price is too high?
No, but I am saying that it prejudices the live trade.
On which side is the Deputy? Is he saying that the intervention price is too high?
No. What I am saying is that a balance must be maintained between the live export trade and the meat trade; otherwise the farmer may be placed in a disadvantageous position if all the meat goes to the factories.
With a 10¾ percentage advantage, they are in a very much better position than they were.
That may be so in the context of diminished numbers because there will be a shortage of cattle due to the failure of the Government to act.
This seems to be leading to an argument.
This situation is due to the improvement in the market generally because the embargo continues on imports from third countries.
Until April 1st.
This Government have acted to an extent that the previous Government never acted.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
6.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he will arrange to have slaughter premiums paid on cow-heifers; and, if not, why.
In the case of female cattle the scheme applies only to clean animals, thus excluding not only cows but also heifers which are so advanced in pregnancy as to depreciate the value of the carcases.
Surely the Minister realises I was not referring to pregnant heifers but to the very widely established practice of taking one calf from heifers before they are slaughtered. This is very desirable in that it serves to build up the herd. It would appear now that cow heifers will be excluded from intervention.
They always have been.
Is that not prejudicial to our purpose of increasing the herd?
This is something that was decided in the EEC and, consequently, I can do nothing about it.
It is the Minister's business to do something about it.
I am one of nine and if I am to get a decision on this, I must have the support of the other eight.
The Minister cannot claim credit for the good things while passing the buck for the bad things.
We have had so many good things happening lately that I think the Deputy is disappointed.
7.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the steps he proposes to take to support the live cattle export trade, in view of the new intervention price and its effect of making that trade more attractive.
The recent EEC cattle and beef price arrangements for 1975-76 not only increase the beef intervention price here but also confer substantial benefits on the live cattle export trade through the reduction of monetary and accession compensatory amounts and customs duty as well as improvements in export refunds to third countries and extension of the payment of cattle slaughter premium.
8.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the floor-price he proposes to offer farmers for intervention type cows in the event of the European Commission's introducing a killing-out percentage of 55 per cent for intervention cattle.
The proposed change referred to in the killing-out percentage for intervention cattle is not now being made.
Am I to take it, then, that certain cows will continue to qualify for intervention?
That is so. The Deputy may not be aware that this was part of the package.
Does the Minister wish to take the credit for that or are we to thank the other eight?
We made a very strong case for maintaining the present arrangement and we succeeded.
9.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries the arrangements he has made to ensure that the full benefit of the new intervention price is passed on to the producer.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave on 30th January to a similar question by Deputy Hugh Gibbons.
As the Deputy is aware, I am at present arranging for a review of the operation here of the EEC beef intervention and slaughter premium arrangements.
Would the Minister not agree that a more equitable system for the payment of intervention-type cattle and also for cattle which qualify for the slaughter premium would be a method whereby their status would be determined at sale points and payment made by the intervention agency against sale documents?
The Deputy probably appreciates that we would all be extremely anxious to get a fair distribution of the profits at the various points. None of the member states is satisfied with the present arrangement whereby the profit is at the point of slaughter and does not go back to the producer. So far nobody has put forward a way of improving the situation. There is particular difficulty in our case because our set-up in this respect is of a type not to be found anywhere on the Continent, that is, that cattle going through a mart may either be going direct for export as live cattle or they may go into the processing factories where they qualify for any of a number of interventions or, not so qualifying, attract the slaughter premium. There are many aspects to this problem.
If we were to reach a point where we could say that the processing factories can take only X pence per lb. profit for the service they are providing, there would be the situation that while one factory might be able to put almost a 100 per cent of their intake into intervention, another, because of lack of freezing facilities might not be able to put any into intervention. The problem is very difficult and that is why we have undertaken to set up an expert group so that they may find a way around this.
Would the Minister undertake to examine my suggestion? Also, would he not agree that the set-up of certain meat factories during the past 12 months lent itself to a great deal of sharp practice and to the building up of very large fortunes by some individuals at the expense of the producers? I ask the Minister to take whatever drastic steps are necessary to ensure that this situation cannot continue.
The Deputy is aware that we, as the intervention agency, must pay intervention prices to the people who give us frozen meat of a certain quality. In relation to the other premium which is a slaughter premium, we must have evidence of slaughter.
Surely the Minister is aware that in certain meat factories and, indeed, in certain allegedly cooperative meat factories, there is a clique of people who have access for practically any numbers they wish while other shareholders of the same factory have no access? Obviously, this is unjust.
Would Deputy Crinion like to comment on the clique of people who have access to the factories?
I suggest that the Minister confine himself to his own Department.
Would it not be a simple matter for the Minister as the buying agent to have officers of his Department ensure that farmers are paid the intervention price less the handling charge, for cattle that are certified for intervention? This has not being happening.
It could have gone through two dealers before it arrived in the factory. It would be difficult to ascertain when the producer was the owner.
This is not contentious but it is an important matter. Could the status of the cattle not be determined at sale points, as has been done in Great Britain for decades under the deficiency payments system?
As the Deputy knows, the big problem was with regard to the store that was being sold at 6 cwt. That was the one hardest hit and it was the area we wanted to get the money to. How does one start to declare status at that point? I can assure Deputies opposite I wanted to do something with regard to the matters about which they are concerned.
If the person who was selling the bigger cattle got the full price that would have gone down along the line.
How can the Deputy seriously say that?
I can because it is true.
I have seen producers like Deputy Crinion who said for months that prices would go lower and who told the people to hold on not to buy. What happened was that prices went through the floor.
The failure was the Minister's.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Crinion made tons of money on this.
If the Minister had devalued the £——
(Interruptions.)
Order. Question No. 10.
10.
asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if, in view of the fact that the recent Brussels package has failed to ensure a price support mechanism for store cattle producers, he will indicate the steps he proposes to take to correct this situation.
The EEC arrangements for price support are concerned primarily with marketing of the finished products and the recent Brussels package provided very substantial improvements for beef and cattle. The benefits of these can be expected to extend to all categories of cattle, including stores, now that the abnormal situation of last year, due primarily to earlier excessive third-country beef imports into the Community, has been overcome.
Would the Minister not agree that the deal got by the Italian Government for their farmers, in so far as they renounced the clean cattle premium in preference to a birth premium on calves of £25 payable in two stages, would be more suitable for our cattle industry than the clean cattle premium?
I do not think that would be generally accepted here because, as the Deputy knows, frequently the calf producers and those who finish the cattle are not the same people. There would be serious disagreement if we were to forego intervention and the slaughter premiums——
I did not say we should forego intervention. The Italians did not do that.
The Italians are foregoing intervention.
They are foregoing the clean cattle premium.
They are not intervening and they said that at the Council meeting. They do not have to because they import 50 per cent——
We export 85 per cent of our cattle. Is the Minister aware that what the Italians are getting is a direct stimulus for the production of calves? Since it is our purpose to increase the size of our herd, is it not perfectly clear that it would be better for us to exchange the clean cattle premiums which goes to beef producers for one that goes to the calf producers?
We have the beef incentive scheme that the Italians have not got. Is the Deputy saying we should forego that scheme and every other benefit to get £25 for calves?
I am not saying we should forego the beef incentive scheme. I am talking about the clean cattle premium, the 30 units of account premium. If the Minister had exchanged that for the calf premium he would be doing a far better job.
I do not think the Deputy would make the exchanges the Italians made.
Question No. 11 postponed.