Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 15 Jun 1976

Vol. 291 No. 7

Return to Writs: North-East Donegal and Dublin South-West. - Dairy Produce (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Bill, 1976: Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move:

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The main purpose for which An Bord Bainne Co-operative Ltd. were established was to take over from the statutory Bord Bainne on a voluntary basis, as from 1st February, 1973, the central purchasing and marketing of Irish dairy products. With the support of the milk processing industry generally in Ireland the board have since that date been purchasing the vast bulk of our output of dairy products and marketing it to best advantage.

As the production of milk, and consequently of milk products, is largely concentrated in Ireland in the months of April to August each year and as, on the other hand, marketing by the board takes place, fairly evently throughout the year, expenditure by the board on purchasing by far exceeds income from sales during the peak production months. As a result the board are obliged to borrow on short term vast amounts of working capital from banks and other lending institutions the borrowing to be repaid in the valley period of production when income from sales exceeds expenditure on purchases. When the board were established they had very little capital of their own and were consequently not in a position to depend solely on their own resources to borrow the vast amounts of working capital they required. It was for this reason that in 1973 I sought and obtained in section 6 of the Dairy Produce (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1973, power to guarantee borrowings by the board for the purchase of dairy products up to a maximum, of £20 million at any one time. With the aid of this State guarantee the board have up to recently been in a position to borrow their full requirements each year, which at maximum have been well in excess of the £20 million guaranteed.

Now with the increasing volume of milk being produced and with the substantial increases which have taken place in the price payable to farmers for their milk and, consequently, for the products manufactured from the milk, the peak borrowing requirements of the board have increased to such an extent that the State guarantee of £20 million is no longer sufficient to induce the banks and lending institutions to advance the board's peak capital needs, which this year are expected to exceed £90 million. The Board have in the meantime been endeavouring to build up their own capital reserves so as to enable them to operate free of State guarantee as soon as possible. However, to enable them to borrow sufficient capital this year and next to meet their needs a State guarantee of borrowings up to a maximum of £40 million is needed. Section 2 of the Bill before the House in effect increases from £20 million, as specified in section 6 of the 1973 Act, to £40 million the maximum amount of the State guarantee of borrowings by the board. This increased maximum will apply until 31st December, 1977, when, as laid down in the 1973 Act, the period over which the guarantee is available is due to expire.

In this Bill the Government are demonstrating their continued confidence in the marketing arrangements which the dairying industry itself have drawn up and which are operated by An Bord Bainne Co-operative Ltd. I trust that the House will readily approve of its terms.

This Bill introduced by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the Minister is necessary and, for that reason, should be welcomed. It affords us an opportunity in the House of discussing, briefly I hope, certain questions that arise for An Bord Bainne and the dairy industry generally, especially in the context of the Minister for Finance's proposal to tax this industry which finds it necessary to seek State guarantees for their borrowings.

There seems to be a conflict of purpose in the minds of different Ministers with regard to this. The Parliamentary Secretary, in reading the Minister's speech, alluded to the activities of An Bord Bainne acting as a collective marketing organisation for the dairy industry generally. I should be greateful if, when replying to the debate, he would enlighten us as to the Government's attitude to the most recent indications of Community policy with regard to what has come to be known as producer co-responsibility, especially in the light of Commissioner Haferkamp's speech reported yesterday wherein a very sharp tightening of the resources being placed at the disposal of the Community's farmers is envisaged and in which the likelihood of exceedingly tight control over price support is adumbrated.

I should welcome the Parliamentary Secretary's observations on the proposals being alluded to at present in the light of the unsatisfactory situation in the existence of 1.3 million. tons of dried skim powder and the growing impatience of some of our colleagues in the Community with this situation; the growth of a strong feeling within the Community that the intervention system which worked satisfactorily enough for the old Six is breaking down in the reorganised Community of Nine because there is a strong body of opinion that feels that the intervention system is not the best means of maintaining some control over production and, at the same time, guaranteeing producer incomes.

The questions of marketing boards is currently being discussed in the different sectors but particularly in the dairy sector. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would let the House have the benefit of Government thinking in this regard. It must be admitted by the Minister, the farming community and everybody that the progressive build-up of more or less unsaleable skim milk powder reserves serves neither the Community nor the farming industry and that if some more satisfactory and equitable method of controlling output could be found—that would have regard to the state of development of the different countries within the Community—then such method should be considered. In that context it would be very necessary to remember that the dairy industry in countries such as Denmark and Holland is indeed a very sophisticated enterprise.

Here, if measured by production per acre or lactation per cow, one readily recognises that our state of development lags very far behind the countries I have mentioned. For that reason we would be entitled to demand that any restrictions that might be put on the production of dairy products would not militate against the further development of our dairy industry. It is on that industry more than any other that the continued existence of the small farmers depends. The question of the replacement of the creaking intervention system by a system of deficiency payments has been mentioned. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to be good enough to give us the benefit of the Government's thinking on this subject.

The Parliamentary Secretary in his speech referred to the peculiar difficulties of the dairy industry, and said that the great bulk of production takes place, broadly speaking, in the summer months. It would be to our advantage as well as to the advantage of Bord Bainne and the dairy industry generally if the length of the lactation season could be extended at both ends, if milk production could begin earlier in the year and be continued —possibly by a suitable arrangement of an incentive price bonus—into the winter in order to flatten out the very deep valley which production falls into in the winter months. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say what the thinking of the Department in this regard is.

I readily accept that, whatever the opinion of the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary may be, the dairy industry need not necessarily carry out the Minister's intentions or have any regard to them unless they feel like it. I feel certain within that context that the Minister would like to see the lactation period extended at both ends. Therefore it is likely he has some scheme in mind for the achievement of this purpose. I would be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would let us know what it is.

Has any outline been made by the Department for the reorganisation of the co-operative dairy industry? We recently had a discussion in the House on the great achievement of the co-operative industry when I referred to some of its shortcomings. The shortcomings as well as the achievements are there and will have to be tackled. Bord Bainne and the IAOS should ensure that any structural deficiencies in the dairy industry are corrected as soon as possible. Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to inform us of the Government's attitude to financial co-responsibility on the part of the producers and the intimations by Commissioner Haferkamp of stringent times ahead especially in the dairy sector? Would he tell us the Government's views on the different views on market support and producer and consumer protection and if they believe that the intervention system should be continued as it is or what alteration should be made to it? We should also like to know if the Government would favour a system of deficiency payments and also if the Minister and the Government have any proposals to make to the industry with regard to the extension of the lactation season. I welcome the proposals in the Bill, having asked these questions.

As the House and Deputy Gibbons will appreciate, this Bill is narrow in its scope. It is purely a Bill to substitute £40 million for £20 million which the State guarantee to Bord Bainne for borrowings by the board. I see that Deputy Gibbons has no objection to giving them those extra borrowing rights.

In my view the questions raised by Deputy Gibbons do not arise on this measure, particularly now because it is only a fortnight since the Estimate for the Department was before the House. The Minister then made a rather lengthy statement on the activities of the Department with particular reference to the dairy industry. He also had an opportunity of making a rather detailed analysis of the varying aspects of our agricultural industry in his reply to the debate. The questions asked by Deputy Gibbons about the Government's outlook so far as the industry is concerned were well covered by the Minister during his introductory remarks to the Estimate debate and also in his statement on the conclusion of the debate, but it is no harm to repeat them.

Everybody knows that the Government are particularly anxious to develop our major industry, agriculture, and that any help or assistance they can give towards this development is being given and will continue to be given as long as this Government are in office. That sums up the Government's position. It scarcely needs repetition because we have set it down fairly and squarely on numerous occasions that that is our policy so far as this industry is concerned.

The incidental questions raised by Deputy Gibbons so far as the extension of the lactation period is concerned are questions that would best be considered by farming organisations in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. We would all like to see the lactation period extended. There are differing views on how that can be achieved. I appreciate that it is important and that it is something there is no difference of opinion on. As we are giving the board power to double their borrowing authority with State guarantee I appreciate the work Bord Bainne are doing on behalf of the State and in the interests of the dairy community.

The board are selling the vast bulk of our dairy products to the best advantage. I am also very pleased that they have not sold any butter so far to intervention. I believe that should be the last resort. Deputy Gibbons referred to the skim milk position, which is a worrying one at the moment. I appreciate that the mountain is building up but the board did not sell any skim milk to intervention until March, 1975, when the market for the product slumped badly. Unfortunately it has not yet recovered.

It is no harm to acknowledge the Department's approval of the work of the board. I am sure Deputy Gibbons will accept that the board are comprised of men who are well conversant with the industry on the production side and the processing side. They are all men who merit membership of this board. It cannot be said of them, as it used to be said and as I said on occasions regarding boards set up by the State where Ministers had the nomination of members, that they were nominated because of their political affiliations. This board are nominated outside Department control altogether.

I do not want to be taken as reflecting on boards that were partially nominated by Ministers. Undoubtedly on many occasions such boards did very useful work and are continuing to do so. Many people nominated by Ministers were worthy of their nomination. I do not want to assert here that because a person is of a certain political persuasion he should not be nominated to a State board. If he has the necessary qualifications, the fact that he is a member of a political party should not be a hinderance to his nomination. We hear of some people being nominated to boards who are not associated with politics. I have not too much value on such people because in my view politics are essential. I do not consider that a person who is neutral politically can claim that as an extra qualification for nomination to a board. However, that does not arise in this case.

I am pleased the board are doing a good job. The Government and the Opposition are satisfied that they are doing a good job and that they should get this additional advantage by way of guaranteeing their borrowing up to £40 million. I thank Deputy Gibbons for his co-operation.

The Parliamentary Secretary has not answered my questions.

Let both of us wish the agricultural industry, particularly the dairy industry, well in the future.

The industry will want to know the answers.

I was trying to keep politics out of this. The industry are doing well and we want this to continue. We know how much the economy depends on agriculture.

The Parliamentary Secretary is evading the issue.

Agriculture has a bearing on the life of those living in Dublin and urban areas. It is to their advantage that the farmer is doing well because he will then have more money to spend.

Do the Government think we should have marketing boards on the lines of the Milk Marketing Board in Britain?

I am not in a position, as the Deputy will appreciate, to answer that question on behalf of the Government. I am doubtful about having too many marketing boards. I would prefer to see a board along the lines we are speaking of here— a co-operative board. I do not believe in too many boards set up to deal with one industry. This board are widely representative and are doing the job they are set up to do.

Are the Government against marketing boards?

They have an exceptionally capable general manager who deserves the good wishes of this House for his work. The board are fortunate to have such a chief executive and a very capable staff.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary in favour of marketing boards?

Agriculture is doing well and I am pleased this Bill is being approved without opposition.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee and passed.

This Bill is certified a Money Bill in accordance with Article 22 of the Constitution.

Barr
Roinn