Vol. 302 No. 6
asked the Minister for Agriculture (a) the national percentage of herd owners involved in the milk recording scheme; (b) if he is in favour of encouraging greater participation in this scheme; (c) if the fees payable per herd and per cow have been increased recently; and, if so, the amounts and the justification therefor.
4.
asked the Minister for Agriculture if it is proposed to increase the fees charged by the milk recording service; and, if so, why.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 3 and 4 together. About 1 per cent of herdowners, covering 3 per cent of cows, participate in the milk recording scheme. This percentage is low by comparison with other countries and with a view to securing an improvement I recently set up a study group on milk recording to advise on the introduction of a more flexible recording system which would encourage increased participation by herdowners.
The fees payable for milk recording have been increased recently from £3 per herd and £1 per cow to £10 and £2 respectively. These increases were necessary because the receipts from fees represented less than 10 per cent of the overall cost of the scheme. There had been no change in the fees since the scheme was introduced on 1st February, 1972.
It is correct that the trebling of fees mentioned by the Minister was introduced after the setting up of the study group and before their first meeting?
I cannot tell the Deputy the date of the introduction of the increased fees but if the Deputy would put down a separate question I could give him that specific information.
Is it correct that the study group in question asked the Minister to defer this increase pending completion of their study?
I can only say that no such representations were made to me personally.
The Deputy should resume his seat while the Minster is answering.
Is not the Minister aware that such a request was made? I refer to the Farmers' Journal of 19th November where a report to that effect is published.
I did not see that issue of the Farmers' Journal.
Does the Minister accept that the trebling of fees must serve as a discouragement to people to come into the milk recording scheme?
The figures I have given would indicate that the milk recording is not very extensively practised within the scheme.
With respect, I suggest that is an evasion.
It is not an evasion.
If the Minister is of the opinion that the scope of the scheme should be extended and more herd owners encouraged to join the scheme, does he not accept that this trebling of fees will have the opposite effect?
The Deputy is moving from the question.
I have already said that the quest for a more flexible scheme is under way. It is obvious that my Department is seeking the extension of milk recording.
Would the Minister elaborate on what he means by a more flexible scheme? What is involved here?
What is involved, as the Deputy probably knows, is the determination of the individual yield of cows in any herd.
But the Minister said a more flexible scheme. How do you make it more flexible? I know what is involved in recording milk and testing cows.
We should have to devise a general scheme where the application of milk recording will be more readily acceptable to herdowners and more of them will be induced to participate in the scheme for their own good.
Surely the Minister is going the wrong away about it by raising the fees in the first instance?
We have had enough supplementaries now. Just one more from Deputy Bruton.
If the Minister was able to wait since 1972 to increase the fees, why could he not wait until the study group had reported?
The fees were yielding less than 10 per cent of the total cost of the scheme and in anybody's eyes this was an unrealistic level and therefore the fees had to be raised.
Could it not wait a few more months?
It could, if one were afraid to face the disagreeable facts.
More hidden taxation.
