Will the Minister of State indicate the position in relation to the expenditure of moneys? While I understand that the Department have so far been able to keep within the provision made in the Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and that none of the £6,954,000 has been spent, I would like to know on which individual subheads extra money is being provided in this Supplementary Estimate. To my mind there is not sufficient financial control in this House if the Department are able to get around the safeguards provided by spending more on individual subheads without authority simply by making savings on other subheads. Has this happened? I would like the Minister of State to cover this point in his reply.
The incorrect estimation made by the Department in the original Estimate is for £20 million. Admittedly £6.7 million is all that is needed in this Supplementary Estimate. This is part of a pattern of insufficient provision for Agriculture. The position is that in the 1978 Estimates there was an increase of £8.8 million over the amount provided in 1977. This was much less than the average increase given to other Departments who were given an increase of 17.6 per cent. It is no wonder that the Minister for Agriculture has come here looking for more money. As we said at the time, the original Estimate was skimped. Even with this Supplementary Estimate the additional amount being provided is only 14 per cent more than the figure for 1977, still less than was provided for other Departments.
Agriculture has been lagging behind as a Department so far as receiving aid from the Exchequer is concerned. From 1971 to 1978 the average increase in provisions for Departments was 359 per cent while the increase to the Department of Agriculture was only 113 per cent. This means that on average for every £3 extra given to other Departments since 1971, Agriculture has got only £1 extra.
I would like to deal with specific points in relation to this Estimate. I note in subhead B.9 that there is an additional provision for the Farm Apprenticeship Board of £2,000 on the £40,000 provided in the 1978 Estimate. I understand that the board are in real financial trouble and are not able to meet their expenses. There is a strong case for an increase in the allocation for that board.
I should like to point out that the cost of training under the farm apprenticeship scheme is very low to the Exchequer in comparison with other schemes. I should like to give a few examples. The 1978 cost to the Exchequer of the Farm Apprenticeship Board is only £190 per student per year while under the farrier apprenticeship scheme the cost to the Exchequer is £2,172 per year. The cost of the pig husbandry course run by the Department is £1,300 per year while the cost of a full-time student at AnCO is £3,500 per year. The cost of the 100-hour EEC course, a four week part-time course, is almost twice the amount of the farm apprenticeship course. A total of £350 per student per year is allocated for that course, a lot more than the meagre £190 per student per year being provided to the Farm Apprenticeship Board.
I am aware from representations I have received that the board are in significant difficulty this year. The meagre increase of £2,000 on the inadequate £40,000 is insufficient. The Minister should have a close look at the finances of the board because we all recognise that they are doing valuable work in giving students who have a theoretical knowledge of agriculture after spending one year in an agricultural college, a sound practical knowledge by working on farms over a three-year period.
I should like to point out that there has been a saving of £4.2 million on the amount provided in the 1978 Estimate for the eradication of brucellosis. I am sure Members will agree that when 36 per cent of an amount allocated in an Estimate is not spent the Minister has a question to answer. We are told that the eradication of brucellosis is an urgent national priority but how is it that the Department who were given £11 million to spend on the eradication of brucellosis in 1978 failed to spend £4.2 million? There are a number of ways that money could have been spent. For example, small store producers who suffer considerable hardship resulting from the introduction of the 30-day test could have been compensated by the payment of the fees for the carrying out of the test by the Department. In view of the low density of veterinary surgeons per square mile in the west the cost of having these tests carried out tends to be higher for such producers and they could have been helped with that money. There is a great need to help small producers meet the extra burden they must bear. It is unfair that the Department have now to hand back £4.2 million because they failed to spend that amount on brucellosis eradication.
The grants for compensation for reactors and under the hardship scheme in relation to brucellosis are not adequate and that is another area where the £4.2 million could have been spent. There is also a need for an additional veterinary laboratory to be established in Munster and in Connacht. At present all samples of blood under the brucellosis scheme must be sent to Thorndale in Dublin for testing. There are considerable postal delays in this and for that reason there is a strong case for separate laboratories. I should like to draw attention to a problem which has arisen in relation to the 30-day test. To the best of my knowledge if animals are tested for brucellosis and tuberculosis the 30-day movement period for tuberculosis starts to run from the date on which the second visit of the vet to the herd takes place and the animals have been read. The reality is that the blood test result for brucellosis would not be back at that stage and may not be returned for up to eight days after the 30 days for tuberculosis has started to run. Obviously, a farmer cannot move his cattle unless they are clear of brucellosis and tuberculosis but the result of the present situation is that the movement period is considerably less than the 30 days, perhaps only 20 days or less. This is unfair and was not the intention of those who introduced the scheme. Something should be done about it. We should ensure that the 30-day movement period does not commence until the results of both tests are to hand.
I notice that an additional sum of £10.3 million was provided for market intervention incidental expenses. I understood that the cost of market intervention was recouped entirely by the EEC but I note that, under Appropriations in Aid, the recoupment by the EEC of incidental expenses is only £9.5 million. It appears that the Irish Government are being asked to spend £10.3 million but get only £9.5 in return from the EEC. That is not the way the scheme was intended to operate and there should not be a shortfall of that sort.
I note that there has been a big saving under the scheme for the promotion of horticulture. Of the amount of money provided for horticulture in the 1978 Estimate 75 per cent remains unspent. Why was that money not spent? Is there a policy of not providing money for horticulture on the scale it should be provided? That saving is significant when one notes that under another subhead, a provision for horticultural producer groups, there was another saving of 29 per cent of the amount provided. It appears that money is being provided for horticulture in the Estimate but not spent. In view of the importance of horticulture to the economy this is regrettable.
Under Appropriations in Aid I note that the receipts from poultry hatchery licences and blood testing fees increased greatly. I should like to know if the fees were increased or if there is a greater usage of the facilities. I note also that there is a deficiency of about £500,000 in receipts from the EEC under the farm modernisation scheme. Many Members have expressed dissatisfaction about the way the EEC are providing money to us in return for money spent by us on that scheme. There is an undue delay in the payment by the EEC. Would the Minister explain that deficiency? Are steps being taken to avoid a recurrence of this? If we spend the money in 1978 and the EEC do not recoup us until the middle of 1980 we are out of our money for a long time. At present high interest rates that is a serious situation.