Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Dec 1976

Vol. 295 No. 6

Vote 39: Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,639,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1976, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, including certain services administrated by that Office and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.
—(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries).

In this limited debate we do not cover the whole agricultural field, but in its restricted form the debate covers important sectors of the industry. I agree with Deputies who suggested that as our most important industry agriculture deserves the best consideration we can give it, and that has been the aim of the Government since they took office. That has been the aim of the Minister and, naturally, I personally agree that agriculture must be given priority. It is vitally important that the Government's watchfulness and carefulness should bring about a healthy agricultural sector, and that is what has been happening. We are all grateful for that. Many farmers who were in the low income group, comparatively, are now moving upwards, and that is welcome.

One of the main matters adverted to in the debate was animal disease eradication, which I regard as of exceptional importance. One of the main aims of the Department is to eliminate, or at least to reduce drastically, bovine TB and brucellosis. Evidence of that is available in the fact that since we took office the taxpayers have contributed more than £97 million for this purpose, and there is little doubt inside or outside the House that value has been received for this money.

It is mandatory on any Government to ensure that money voted for a particular purpose will be gainfully employed, and as far as this Department are concerned, and the Government generally, we have been endeavouring to ensure that value will be received for the money we make available, and we appreciate fully the gravity of our situation if marked progress is not made in the disease eradication programme. Under the new payments scheme in regard to reactor brucellosis cattle, it was represented to the Minister that because of the numbers of cattle reacting in particular herds, grave hardship was being inflicted on the owners of such herds and that it would be a great help if the Department could relieve the financial problems of such herd owners. Our answer was the sale of cattle to the factories and direct subventions to the owners.

However, the Minister and the Department felt that because of the numbers of cattle reacting the owners were entitled to extra consideration, and this is being done in this Supplementary Estimate by way of a direct contribution at the expense of the Irish taxpayers of £1 million. This does not come from Brussels or Luxembourg. The Government accept the need for this direct contribution from the Irish taxpayers.

As I indicated at the opening stage, the Minister asked the Advisory Council on Animal Health and Disease Eradication to recommend the criteria which should be applied in defining hardship cases and the level of assistance to be given. I think that was a very fair gesture. Neither the Minister nor the Department took it on themselves to establish the criteria for the payment of this hardship money. Their report is awaited.

In making this fund available and having regard to the case made by farming organisations that this hardship was widespread and that some of their members would be affected, one would think that those who were not affected would put their hands in their pockets to help their less fortunate neighbours in the same industry. This fund was open to that kind of supplementary contribution. Deputy Callanan mentioned today a balancing fund, as he termed it. He mentioned it on the question of pigs some months ago. There is nothing to preclude any organisation from supplementing that fund. If there are, as has been represented, greater numbers of people affected than we are aware of, then the fund could help. Now of course, we will be getting reports from all around the country of all herds which are seriously affected.

The system of paying compensation for affected herds or reactors was mentioned by almost all the Deputies on the Opposition side. They contended that the Department should provide the replacement value of infected cattle. Never since the scheme was initiated has the replacement value of reactors been paid. Every Deputy in this House knows that. There was never a question of paying the replacement value of a reactor. How could it be done? On the assumption that a farmer has a cow, at present day prices——

Was that point made today, the full replacement value?

The replacement value is what Fianna Fáil were speaking about.

No, but this full replacement value——

How can Fianna Fáil realistically make such an assertion? That would be tantamount to saying that if I had a cow worth £150 reacting today in my herd I can go along to the Department and say, "Look here, it will take me £250, £275, £300 to replace that cow and I expect you to give me that money." That was never the case. It could not be the case. This was the point that was brought out because all the emphasis was on replacement value.

The State has helped the farming community generously to eradicate this disease by removing the reactors, whether TB or brucellosis reactors. It is not many years back since I was agitating here for help for owners of brucellosis reactors without getting much satisfaction until recently. We ignored the brucellosis question for too long a period with the exception of some counties in a particular part of the country. This was a great disadvantage, but the point I am making to Deputy Leonard and others is that the Department of Agriculture generally down through the years were mindful of the desirability of eradicating TB and in later times brucellosis, as indicated by the payments they make towards that objective. Ninetyseven million pounds is the net cost to the Department for veterinary expenses and the difference between the prices of reactor animals and the prices obtained from the factories.

I refer again to this £1 million. It must be admitted that it is a generous gesture, generous as can be in the circumstances. Many people in their business have difficult periods no matter what walk of life they are engaged in, be it farming, any other type of business or even as a worker. Problems will arise, illness can strike a person, other difficulties can bring about hardship. It is not too easy in other sectors to get special aids to overcome such hardship. In the case of the farming community when sections or individual members of them have the misfortune of having reactors on their lands it is difficult and a tremendous disadvantage. I refer to the small farmer with 15, 16 or 17 cows and the difficulty he has when he calls out the vet, has his animals tested and gets the report back in a few days' time that half that herd reacted. This may happen at this time of year, November, December or January, and the reacting cows may be due to calve in February, March or April and he would be then looking forward to a big intake of money from the milk of such cattle. There is a great hardship when a farmer's cattle, particularly incalf cows, are stricken with this aliment. The £1 million is there to help and Deputies opposite and the farmers should be grateful. I have no doubt that if the boot was on the other foot, so to speak, and if we had a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture, from my experience of different Fianna Fáil Ministers down through the years this £1 million would not be there.

The vets' strike was the problem.

Who was at fault? The Minister, the Department and the Government were not. I think it was Deputy Noonan who said: "this stupid vets' strike". Who were the stupid people?

Do not say any more. Least said soonest mended.

I want to say this. This vets' strike was brought up here in the course of this discussion. We have clean hands so far as this strike is concerned. £17.8 million was set down in the Book of Estimates for 1976 to be utilised towards the eradication of TB and brucellosis and that all of it was not used was not the fault of the Department, but as Deputy O'Kennedy said, let sleeping dogs lie. Deputy Leonard is anxious to awaken them.

The Government should not have to provide the £1 million for hardship cases. They should take responsibility for their deeds.

The Farm Modernisation Scheme was mentioned and people expressed dissatisfaction with the scheme, but this dissatisfaction is not embodied in this Supplementary Estimate. The House is being asked to pass £2,340,000 in addition to the amount in the original Estimate under the Farm Modernisation Scheme and I know the reason why. The favourable prospects in farming over the last year encouraged farmers to invest at a greater scale than was originally envisaged. As a consequence expenditure on this scheme is running at a higher level than was anticipated when the Estimates were being framed. The farmers have confidence in their future and have invested well over and above what the Department people had anticipated they would in the current year. We find ourselves in this House on the 16th December passing a Supplementary Estimate of £2.5 million extra under the Farm Modernisation Scheme. That is something we all welcome. I am delighted, and so I am sure are Deputy Leonard and every Member of this House, that the position is thus, that we have so many applications under the scheme that we have to find this money. We all are aware of the advantages that will accrue to our nation generally and to our farming community and those dependant on them by virtue of this increased injection of public funds and work in development of our farmland.

The scheme is a relatively new one. All schemes are likely to be amended. The Minister, in reply to questions some time ago, said that the farm modernisation scheme was under constant review by the Department and that the views of farming organisations and others were always welcome. The interpretation I got from Deputy Callanan's remarks was that we were spending too much time talking to other organisations. The Minister is quite justified in asking farming organisations and other interested bodies, such as committees of agriculture and so on, for their views on this important question. It is our job then to try to make the best scheme possible, see what is wrong, see what our committees of agriculture and our farmers say is wrong in the existing scheme and to try to adjust it to our particular standards. When we have done that we must take it to our European partners and try to get them to agree with suggestions we make for amending the scheme. That is what is happening.

So far as some areas are concerned there might be shortcomings in the scheme. Agriculture varies so much all over Ireland that it is very hard to set down a national scheme that will apply to all districts. The position is far different in Deputy O'Kennedy's constituency than it is in Deputy Leonard's or my constituency. There is a great deal of indifferent land in my area of south-west Cork with low productivity content. When I travel up to Dublin or when Deputy Leonard travels down from Monaghan we are envious while passing through fertile land having left hand that is not nearly as productive. I hope Deputy Leonard will excuse me if I made any reflection on the farming activities of Monaghan.

The Parliamentary Secretary's Department did not take that into consideration in the disadvantaged areas scheme a few weeks ago.

The disadvantaged areas scheme was mentioned. Deputy Callanan had his usual sermon on that scheme and on the severely handicapped areas scheme. This matter has been explained again and again in the House in reply to questions. Take the 12 western counties, as they are termed.

Is this in order on this Supplementary Estimate?

I am replying to questions.

The Parliamentary Secretary must be allowed to make his speech.

On a point of order is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there are three other Supplementary Estimates to be cleared?

The Parliamentary Secretary is aware that the Deputy came in here last Thursday and for a lengthy period filibustered the Transport and Power Supplementary Estimate without any justification. The Parliamentary Secretary's obligation here today is to reply to pertinent points made in the course of the debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary is making a charge which is unjustified. I ask him to withdraw it. I spoke for 20 minutes. The Parliamentary Secretary has been speaking for half an hour.

I am well aware that there are other Supplementary Estimates to be taken. I was about to conclude my remarks when Deputy Leonard made a comment about the disadvantaged areas and then the Deputy from Laois/Offaly interrupted. If he had not done so I would have completed my remarks. We have the 12 western counties set down as disadvantaged areas. That is a great advantage to them. We have the entire western counties and parts of other counties which are deemed to be severely handicapped areas where the headage grant payments are made. That is the main crux in this question. There must be a border somewhere. One man lives on one side of the border and gets a headage grant of up to £348 and the man who lives on the other side of the border does not get anything. There may not be much difference between the circumstances of both. That fact is accepted by me because I can see it in my areas of south-west Cork.

In south-west Cork the area which is deemed to be severely handicapped benefits very well. They get their headage payments and they also qualify for unemployment assistance. The area is divided in west Cork. The man at the other side of the fence does not get either of those payments. Deputy Callanan's constituency is quite different. Those who are deprived of the headage grant because they are outside a severely handicapped area qualify for unemployment assistance under the Department of Social Welfare schemes. That is not a handicapped area to the same extent as the areas contiguous to centres which qualify for both unemployment assistance and the headage scheme.

The Deputies who contributed were quite sincere in their remarks and were quite anxious to help. Their comments will be taken into consideration by the departmental officers and by the Minister later when making further assessments of our agricultural industry and what should be done for its further improvement.

Vote put and agreed to.
Barr
Roinn