Vol. 394 No. 1
I move:
That a supplementary sum not exceeding £26,110,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of December, 1989, for the salaries and expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Food, including certain services administered by that Office, and of the Irish Land Commission, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry grants-in-aid.
As Deputies are aware, Minister O'Kennedy is unable to be with us today. In his unavoidable absence the privilege rests with me of introducing this very significant Supplementary Estimate.
The net amount to be voted is a sum of £26,110,000. This consists of an additional sum of £21,830,000 for various subheads of expenditure, plus a deficiency of £18,445,000 in appropriations in aid, less savings on a number of expenditure subheads totalling £14,165,000.
I propose to follow the traditional approach by speaking on the main subheads, that is on those subheads in excess of £1,000,000 where additional expenditure or deficiencies in receipts or expenditures savings arise.
On the expenditure side I will begin with subhead B.4 where I am happy to be able to provide an additional £8 million for Teagasc this year.
The Government's main objective in setting up Teagasc was to ensure better co-ordination and cost effectiveness in the operation of the agricultural advisory, training and research services. The legislation places a special emphasis on the training of young farmers and on food research, matters to which this Government attach great importance.
On the one hand our young farmers need to be at least as well trained as their international competitors and on the other hand the raw materials they produce should be processed to the maximum extent possible to provide maximum returns.
In combining the considerable resources of the former An Foras Talúntais and ACOT under a high calibre authority and a strong unified management, the Government's objective was to deliver the agricultural research, training and advisory services in the most efficient and cost-effective way possible. I am heartened by the manner in which Teagasc have set about reorganising and restructuring the services and much has been achieved in their first year of operation. They are now well on the way to becoming a streamlined organisation with greater commercial orientation, capable of meeting the current and future needs of the agriculture and food sectors. In this way, Teagasc can greatly assist our major industry in responding to the challenges of the nineties.
In order to undertake the various activities, it is essential that the finances of Teagasc should be put on a sound footing. This £8 million will ensure that Teagasc end the year with a clean slate and can plan for a balanced budget in future years.
I turn now to subhead C2 — bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis eradication — where I am providing an additional £4 million to cover increased expenditure by ERAD. Deputies will be well aware of the determined way in which ERAD are tackling the problem of disease eradication. By bringing together all interested parties to accelerate the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis, ERAD are proving to be a successful initiative that has resulted in a dynamic coherent and forward-looking approach to the eradication of the diseases. In the course of 1989, the board of ERAD formulated a comprehensive strategy for the eradication of bovine TB and brucellosis, the primary thrust of which was to increase the reactor extraction rate, with particular emphasis on those sources acting as persistent reservoirs of disease in the national herd. Intensive testing for TB has resulted in the identification of in excess of 37,500 reactors in almost 10.7 million tests to date, an outcome fully in accordance with the target of the eradication drive for the year. With regard to brucellosis, a full monitor of the national herd has been undertaken to guarantee the continued officially brucellosis free status of the national herd. Brucellosis testing comprises approximately 2.1 million individual blood tests on eligible animals in addition to bulk milk ring testing of all dairying herds at six week intervals during the year. Earlier this year, agreement was reached with the farming organisations that an additional £8 million, to be funded jointly by Exchequer contributions and increased levies, would be provided for the years 1989 and 1990 to cover increases in grants paid under the eradication schemes. Of the additional £4 million required for 1989, £3.106 million will be provided through savings from the 1988 allocation. I have recently made an order under the Bovine Diseases (Levies) Act, 1979 increasing the rates of levy payable.
There is a link between this subhead C2 and a particular Appropriations-in-Aid Subhead M8 — receipts from farmer contributions towards the cost of eradicating bovine disease — where, due to an 11 per cent reduction in the numbers of cattle slaughterings at meat export premises, the levy receipts will not reach the estimated amount of £22 million. It is expected that a shortfall of £900,000 will result. The estimated levy receipts are now £21.1 million.
As regards subhead L1 — farm, improvement programme, farm modernisation scheme and western measures — there is an additional rquirement of £8 million for various schemes aimed at encouraging on-farm investment as well as such measures as the young farmers' installation premium.
This year the demand for grants under these schemes has exceeded the budgetary allocation and the additional amount is required to meet the additional claims that are likely to mature between now and the end of the year.
This high level of demand is encouraging. It is an indication that farmers are investing heavily in improving the efficiency of their enterprises. They are thus expressing their confidence in the future of the industry. This investment also has important spinoff effects locally. The demand it generates for materials and services creates valuable employment in rural areas.
I am glad to say that much of this investment relates to measures to control farmyard pollution. This is in response to the very attractive grants which were introduced for this purpose in the past two years. Last year we succeeded in getting the EC to approve a scheme providing for grants of up to 55 per cent for animal housing, fodder storage and waste disposal facilities in the disadvantaged areas. Seventy per cent of the cost is funded by the EC. This year I got this scheme extended to the whole country.
The protection of the environment is vital, not alone for aesthetic reasons but from the point of view of the national economy as well. The image of a clean unspoilt environment is a major factor in boosting our tourist industry. It also helps to sell our agricultural products abroad. It is important therefore that it is not damaged. I think that the majority of farmers are realising their responsibilities in this respect and are taking the necessary precautions. With the level of grant aid now available there is no excuse for any farmer not undertaking the investment required to ensure that his farming activities are environmentally friendly.
There is a link between this subhead and a particular Appropriations-in-Aid subhead, M18 where there are additional EC receipts of £9,580,000. These receipts were originally estimated at £9,980,000 but are now expected to amount to £19,560,000. The improved receipts are due to a supplementary sum of £8 million which was approved in the Supplementary Estimate 1988 and which was spent last year, together with the maximisation of EC advance payments this year.
There are a couple of other expenditure subheads in the structural area — L10 and L11 — where, although the extra amounts involved are less than £1 million, it would be appropriate to give some explanations.
An additional £180,000 is required on the original Estimate of £400,000 under subhead L10 for the operation of the pilot programme for integrated rural development. Expenditure covers the cost of the salaries of the 12 co-ordinators who were appointed to the 12 pilot areas throughout the country, their office and administration expenses, the costs of engaging training and design consultants, conducting workshops and of providing a limited amount of funding for feasibility studies on projects which are emerging. The EC Commission recently agreed to increase its contribution to the cost of the programme to 75 per cent. The programme is advancing according to plan and the results to date are quite encouraging. It represents a very important stage in devising a national programme for the development of all rural areas.
In so far as subhead L 11 — set aside of land — is concerned it is mandatory on member states to implement the Community's scheme for the set-aside of agricultural land. The estimate for this item was prepared at a time when the EC Commission had not decided on the full details of how the measure would operate so that a token provision had to be made. An additional amount of £163,000 is now required to meet payments to participants in the scheme this year.
As regards the deficiencies in Appropriations-in-aid, the main deficiency arises under subhead M22 — receipts from the EC in respect of market intervention expenses. The Department of Agriculture and Food are the designated EC intervention agency for Ireland and, as such, purchase such products as beef, dairy products and cereals in order to support producer prices. The capital involved to make these purchases is borrowed by the Department. The Department also arrange for the necessary handling, transport and storage of these commodities. In turn, the EC makes payments to the Department in respect of all these operations at rates which are standard for all member states.
The drop of £15 million, from £61,625,000 to £46,625,000, is due primarily to lower stock levels than were originally anticipated. This in turn resulted in reduced EC receipts. The other two subheads where deficiencies arise are subheads M25 and M28. Subhead M25 provides for receipts from the United Kingdom Government in respect of the special premium on exports of beef to the United Kingdom. The scheme concerned was terminated on 2 April and as a result receipts will be £13.75 million below the amount originally provided for in the Vote. As indicated in the Supplementary Estimate there will be corresponding savings of £13.75 million in expenditure under Subhead L.7 and so the overall effect on the Vote will be neutral. The abolition of the scheme was part of the reform of the EC beef regime and coincided with an increase in the level of the suckler cow premium from £37 per head to some £52 per head. The suckler premium is paid directly to producers in all areas and, in my view, the increase will encourage expansion in the national breeding herd. A year ago we saw the first increase in the breeding herd since the introduction of the milk quota regime in 1984. This trend was confirmed by the June livestock enumeration, which showed an increase of some 64,000 head compared with June 1988. The increase occurred despite some decline in dairy cow numbers and I look forward to seeing an increased supply of calves coming on-stream in the run-up to 1992.
Receipts from meat inspection fees collected by my Department are credited to subhead M28. Receipts in 1989 are expected to be £1.1 million below the amount provided in the original Estimate. This reflects the reduced level of cattle slaughterings for much of the year and the fact that some provisions of an EC directive on meat inspection fees will now be implemented next year. I commend this Supplementary Estimate to the House.
First, I want to respond by saying that I am delighted to see that £26 million is being provided in this Estimate. I will have some fairly hard words to say as to why part of this money has not been paid already nevertheless I welcome the Estimate. There was an under-provision of about half that amount for payment to farmers for works undertaken to farm buildings under the control of pollution programme and so on. The question must be asked as to why, in this age of technology, farmers cannot be paid on time for the work they do. I am getting a little tired of hearing about all the planning that goes on in the Department — I have also seen it for myself in my day. When a farmer in any part of Ireland decides to undertake a particular project, his understanding is that as soon as the payment has been approved he will be paid for it promptly.
The Minister will argue that many people are paid promptly but I could give him a list the length of my hand of people who, through no fault of their own, are unable to get the grants. There is a lot of talk about planning for 1992 and that is important in its own way but surely it should not be beyond the ingenuity of people in Agriculture House to send out grants to people who have committed themselves financially. As an aside, I cannot understand why, when a commitment was given to every sheep farmer a couple of months ago that they would get the first instalment of the ewe premium before Christmas, the payment has not been made. I have been reliably informed that the vast majority of farmers will not receive this money until January or February. I know that, with computerisation, a lot has been done in the Department over the years but, as Fine Gael spokesman on agriculture, I get complaints from all over the country about these matters. Not a week goes by but I get four or five letters from outside my constituency. I know that the Minister and the officials in the Department always do the best they can but all I am asking is that if a person is entitled to a grant and the grant has been approved and authorised for payment, it should be paid promptly.
The Minister mentioned the £4 million provision for disease eradication which I will come back to. I know of at least six people in east Galway whose herds have been locked up and they have been waiting five months for their money. It was not the understanding of ERAD when they were set up that that should happen. I brought this matter to the notice of ERAD but I was told that there was not enough staff in the Department of Agriculture and Food to physically get the cheques out. Now we find that there has been a shortage of money in the last month or two. There is a Minister and two junior Ministers in Agriculture House and I wonder if any of them are taking particular note of what I am talking about. This matter is very important. I do not want to labour the point but it is not right that there should be a delay in payment to a person whose herd has been locked up for four or five months and who has no way of making a living. It is highly unfair that that should happen to even one in every 100. This is one of the reasons I was delighted to see the allocation of £26 million. I would not want to stop this Estimate going through because I want the money to go to the people who have been waiting for it for a long time. I do not know of people in any other walk of life who would actually wait five or six months for money which is rightfully theirs. What man would sell property and wait six months to be paid? I do not think this is good enough. It might be the aspiration of everybody in Agriculture House to get this money out to the people who rightfully own it, but it is not being given out.
This brings me to the disease levies. I want to again put on the record my objection to the method by which the last Estimate was brought before us a few weeks ago. The Minister said an additional £4 million is being made available for the bovine TB/brucellosis eradication scheme. We welcome that provision but it should be said that far more money is coming from the agricultural community. When this Estimate was going through the House we gave the nod to the sums of £6.90 per animal killed or exported and £1.20 per gallon of milk supplied. We agreed with those charges on the day, but I had not left this House two hours when I was informed that the board of ERAD had decided to cut the payment for certain types of reactor cattle. If we had known this was going to happen we would certainly have had a different debate on that occasion. The Minister must have known this was going to happen.
I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Food a straight question during Question Time last Thursday. I asked if a complete round of brucellosis testing would take place in 1990 and the cost involved. I did not get an answer. I found out that there would be a round of brucellosis testing but I did not find out the cost. I was told it was tied up in the £35 million for the entire eradication scheme but I already knew that. I want to tell the House why I was not told the cost involved. I was not told because the subhead for brucellosis testing is likely to be paid for by the actual reduction in the price for reactor cattle. I want to say loud and clear that I do not like that type of accounting. Whatever about the rights and wrongs of what ERAD are doing, everyone is at one with them in hoping they will get to grips with the problem of animal disease. I have had a remarkable feedback from farmers all over the country who genuinely believe that, not alone under this Government but under every other Government they were never paid the true value for their reactor cattle. Basically what happened is that there has been a fairly biggish cut in the price of reactor cattle because cattle reached a certain price in the last couple of months. If this ever happens again, all relevant information should be put on the floor of the Dáil where it can be discussed.
I want to refer to Teagasc. There is no shortage of comments one could make about the farm advisory body. I welcome the Government decision to allocate them an additional £8 million, but no thanks is due to them for this because they took out far more than that during the past couple of years — that organisation had to deal with a reduction in their allocation of 44 per cent. Their role bears no resemblance to what I understood the role of a farm advisory body should be. I will refer to this point in a moment.
What has happened is that their accumulated debts over the past two years have been crossed out tonight because of the £8 million being pumped in by the Government. As I said, I welcome this allocation because if they did not receive it they would have to close their doors altogether. However, when we look ahead to 1990 the first thing they will have to contend with is a 2 per cent reduction in their estimate. One might say that a 2 per cent cut is not bad, but taken with the earlier 44 per cent cut we can see how the "surgery" is trickling down the line.
With regard to the £27 million being made available in the Estimates, Teagasc will not have this sum for operational activities in 1990. A sum of £5.5 million will have to be provided from the £27 million for their pension fund. I want to make a very important point in this regard. Because of the age profile of many of the research staff in Teagasc and the people who left in the past year or two, the actual pension provision of £5.5 million for 1990 — this means that £21.5 million of the £27 million will be available for Teagasc to carry out their work — will be £6 million in 1991, and will increase each year. It is very important that people who retire or become redundant get what they are entitled. All of us here, and many other thousands of people will be paid our pensions by the Paymaster General's Office, and there is an onus on the Minister for Agriculture and Food and the Minister for Finance to provide for Teagasc in the Estimate. Basically what they are doing is making farmers pay directly for their pensions. This means that Teagasc will not be able to carry out their functions because they have to make provision for their pension fund.
There is more bad news which is not spelt out in this Estimate. There was an overrun of £4.5 million by Teagasc in carrying out their activities in 1989. I am not privy to whether they will have a neutral budget in 1990 but if they have to trim their activities by another £4.5 million to keep within their budget, it could mean that another research farm will have to be sold or that some of their area offices will have to be closed. This Estimate is far less satisfying than one would believe from the way the Minister introduced it.
I intervene to advise Deputy Connaughton that some two minutes now remain of the time allotted to him.
That is a pity because I had a lot more to say.
With regard to farmer training, I believe there is a huge bias against every boy and girl in rural Ireland who wants to get agricultural training in FÁS or any other training school. Quite rightly, these students are paid in a certain way but it is scandalous that that does not extend to farmers' sons and daughters who are being trained. I know that this year Teagasc looked for £9 million from the EC Social Fund and got £5.6 million and £4.5 million last year. This is an indication that they are not going anywhere this year either.
I want to refer briefly to integrated rural development, a subject which warrants a great deal of comment. I hope that in the next four weeks Teagasc will be allowed play a leading role in the rural development section. Their advisers are almost trained and I wonder why it is considered necessary to recruit people and train them when we have the expertise available.
I accept that rural development is a slow way for farmers to get extra income into their pockets, but a start must be made. This was a bad week for farmers so far as headage payments and so on were concerned. I appeal to the Minister to allow Teagasc play a greater role in the integrated rural development set up.
I should like to preface my remarks by wishing the Minister who cannot be with us this evening a speedy recovery to full health. I am sure he will be back with us shortly. I should like to take the opportunity to restate Labour Party policy on the agricultural industry. We recognise agriculture as the greatest natural resource available to the Irish people and their greatest single source of wealth. The details of how we see that and how agriculture might be developed are contained in the Labour Party agricultural policy document. I recommend that the Minister, and other Members who are interested in agriculture, should read that document. Our objective is to develop that natural resource to achieve a number of aims. We want to maximise the number of people and families engaged in agricultural activities. That would mean the protection of the small and family farm units from the cheque book speculators. There is no movement, as far as I can detect, from the Minister in his statement in that regard. Our objective would also ensure that policies are put in place on quotas in the interest of the small holder, on prices in the interest of the small holder and on markets.
I am acutely conscious of the flaw in the system of quotas whereby the co-ops are subject to impossible pressures. I shall deal with that issue at a later stage. The second objective of the Labour Party is to maximise production. Again, we see the use of the small unit as desirable in that regard. There are facts and figures available to show that the maximum production per acre is available on units between 70 and 80 acres and that above that level production per acre decreases. Support for small units is called for but there is no evidence of Government action on them.
We believe that those policies and objectives would lead to the creation of additional wealth. The primary producers, farmers and their families, would gain from that. The wealth created should be for the benefit of all and should lead to the creation of jobs in the spinoff industries that would materialise. We have put forward a suggestion that there should be a fair system of taxation from the additional wealth created. We have argued in support of the position of the Irish Creameries Milk Suppliers' Association on a land tax or a product tax and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions have taken a position in favour of land tax combined with other tax systems. I can see a merging of opinions in the farming and non-farming areas on the vexed question of taxation of farm incomes.
The Government have failed to protect the small farm units and policies which they support, such as CAP, benefit not the small farmer as was the original intention but the ranchers. That has led to thousands of small farmers being forced off the land, and will if continued — present policies seem to indicate that they will continue — lead to thousands more leaving the land. I have experience of the countryside being denuded as a result of those policies. People are being replaced by fat cattle who roam up to their bellies in grass producing beef that nobody wants which we store at huge cost in intervention stores. I should like to ask the Minister if it is possible for producers to sell into intervention at high prices, for the same people to subsequently buy out of intervention at cheaper prices and for the same people to subsequently sell that meat on the market at high prices. I put that question because I did not receive a reply to it when I put it to the Minister during Question Time recently. If the Minister does not have the answers to the questions the Fine Gael spokesman and I put to him, he should carry out a further investigation. There is a need to examine that matter because there is a danger of some excesses.
The Government have failed in the area of processing. They hung their case on what I would describe as the Goodman-Government sweetheart deal but that is in a shambles and we have not heard of anything to replace it. That is widely recognised and it appears that there is no possibility of that deal being implemented. Tuam has been officially abandoned by that organisation despite the many promises made by the Government.
We believe in maximising the number of people in agriculture. The maximising of production does not exclude the protection of the environment or the protection of the consumer. The Government have failed in both areas. As far as the protection of the environment is concerned, we are aware that many Irish rivers are dead of all forms of fish life. That has occurred because we do not have any effective legislation or meaningful policies to deal with pollution despite the many promises made by the Government and the near threat to finalise legislation. We have the crazy position that a household housing human beings is required to obtain planning permission to erect a small separate tank unit while a person anxious to erect a unit to house 10,000 pigs does not require planning permission. He can set up such a unit at will and is not subject to any controls. That is highly undesirable as far as planning is concerned. It is time that was put right.
As far as the protection of the consumer is concerned we have the ongoing row on the airwaves between the vets, who say that huge amounts of hormones are being used illegally, the farmers' wives agreeing with them on the "Gay Byrne Show" and other programmes, and the IFA disagreeing strongly.
The Deputy does not believe it.
The Minister does not know the answer because he does not have an effective inspectorate to get it for him. The reason there are contradictions is that the Minister has failed to provide an effective inspectorate to investigate the use of hormones and other additives such as tenderisers, and the use of them. I should like to refer to a booklet published recently by the CII about additives and food additives. It is scandalous that the Minister for Health wrote a welcoming foreword to that booklet because it unscientifically, and incorrectly, stated that any additives with "E" numbers were implicity safe. It is worth noting that 25 per cent of the "E" numbers allowed here are banned in the USA and other EC countries. I wonder why the Minister for Health added his name to a booklet that stated that "E" numbers were implicitly safe. That is not correct but it is an indication of the inaction of the Government in this regard.
Arising from the misinformation and lack of information in regard to this we have reached the stage that if we cook a steak we are talking about a cocktail of unknown, unchecked and illegal drugs. That is serious.
It is because of the Government's failure to initiate debate and discussion in regard to agriculture, and because of the lack of an effective agricultural policy, that the Labour Party tabled a motion on today's Order Paper requesting the Government to establish an Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture. We are suggesting that that joint committee should be made up of 20 TDs and Senators, that they should have wide ranging powers to discuss and debate all issues within the agricultural and food sectors, would provide the widest possible participation and political accountability over developments in this sector at both national and European level and would eliminate panic measures such as this Estimate. The national planning board, the National Economic and Social Council, have criticised the lack of a coherent national policy on agriculture. They have specifically pointed to the lack of policy on land use, education, investment, industrial development and farm incomes. The Oireachtas committee on agriculture would begin with these policy areas which have for so long been neglected.
Land structure is another area where seemingly there is no movement on the part of the Government, except their stated position that they will abolish the Land Commission. This should be a matter of serious concern for all those who have an interest in agriculture. The reason behind the proposal to abolish the Land Commission is political interference, jobbery and something close to corruption in the allocation of land. Possibly, the Land Commission needed to be reformed but certainly it did not require abolition. We believe the handing over of the allocation of land to the cheque book invasion is not in the interests of farming and will lead to non-nationals moving in with their cheque books to buy up land. This is not in the interests of farming and I do not see how under that proposal, which is what is being suggested, small farmers can increase their land size or how landless persons who are qualified can compete to get into agriculture. Again, the Labour Party are tabling a motion in this regard and will be seeking all party support for it.
It is regrettable that the Minister did not announce the provision of £26 million earlier. If he did so it would have allowed for planning in the agricultural area, in particular by Teagasc. We are aware of the crisis in the education, advisory and research area and I believe if Teagasc's very capable chairman did not put a gun to the heads of the Government he would not have got this £68 million. We told the Minister at the time he made the original provision that it was inadequate. Effectively what he is doing now is responding to very severe pressure and I am pleased that it has proved successful. However, it is not sufficient. Basically, what we are dealing with is a panic measure from the Government to prevent a collapse. As long as there is no structure and no policy — there is no evidence of either — in relation to the primary industry in this country we are really pouring money into a black hole.
My final point is that when we pay farmers to leave land idle and fallow there is something radically wrong and we are doing this at a time when we are making provision for the reclamation, drainage and the bringing into use of other land. This year we are paying out £165,000 to farmers to leave their land idle. This may be the thin edge of the wedge. We must have gone mad somewhere.
I, too, would like to be associated with the remarks of other Deputies in wishing the Minister a speedy recovery.
One of the principal elements in this Supplementary Estimate is the allocation of an additional £8 million to Teagasc. While this is likely to bring some relief to the staff of Teagasc it is not going to be enough to deal with the major crisis now facing that organisation. While it will go some way towards clearing that organisation's accumulated deficit it will still not be enough to provide the level of service agriculture needs.
The additional money provided in this Supplementary Estimate has to be viewed against the background already outlined by Deputy Connaughton, including a 7 per cent cut in its allocation in the recently published Book of Estimates for 1990. At a time when it should be expanding and developing its services Teagasc will still enter 1990 with a deficit of some £2 million. This will almost inevitably mean yet more cutbacks. When An Foras Talúntais and ACOT were merged to form Teagasc in 1988 it was hoped that the new organisation would form a new and dynamic force in agriculture and contribute to the sort of development needed at a time when the days of the CAP were clearly numbered and when there was a need for farmers to adapt and diversify. We warned at the time the Bill was going through the Dáil that unless it was provided with adequate staff and resources the new organisation would make little impact. Unfortunately, not only was Teagasc not provided with additional resources, it was subjected to particularly vicious cutbacks as part of the Government's policy of cutbacks at any cost. It has suffered especially from the Government's ill-considered voluntary redundancy programme. Indeed it has been so stripped of staff that its capacity to do its job must be in grave doubt.
Since October 1987, for example, its staff has been cut from 2,300 to just over 1,500. One of the results of this is that in areas like Louth, Cavan-Monaghan, Dublin and Tipperary there are not enough staff to service contracts entered into with farmers. Farmers in these areas have paid money but they are not getting a service. As in many other areas of the public service the staff cuts have cost money rather than saved it. In Limerick, for instance, I understand there are no clerical staff to even look after wages and salaries and a person has to be brought from Ennis on each pay day to make the payments.
I also understand that little real progress has been made in integrating the two old organisations, An Foras Talúntais and ACOT, that they still tend to operate as fairly distinct and separate units. This has contributed to a high level of demoralisation among staff. Another factor which has contributed to undermining staff morale is the recent remark of the Chairman of Teagasc when he compared the organisation's employees to cattle. He did not even have the decency to apologise to his staff when their unions protested at his remark. Mr. Rae's own knowledge and ability to manage cattle is beyond dispute, however it is this kind of comment which calls into serious question his capacity to manage people and, especially, to be chairman of an organisation like Teagasc whose success largely depends on the commitment and education of the workforce.
I note there is a small additional provision of £51,000 for testing of hormones in meat. This weekend the comments of the President of the Irish Veterinary Union, Mr. George Lane, in which he claimed up to 50 per cent of our meat exports were contaminated by illegal hormones, have highlighted once again this appalling and irresponsible practice. Mr. Lane's comments were quite frightening. Even if they are only partially true the implications for our meat exports are appalling as they are for the 4,000 workers in that industry. It has been accepted by all sides that the illegal use of hormones is going on. What is at issue is the extent of their use. There is an inexplicable conflict between the statement of Mr. Lane and the position of the Department of Agriculture and Food who, so far as I know, said in a statement today that less than half of one per cent of samples are found to be contaminated.
I do not think one can dismiss Mr. Lane's comments entirely as I understand his organisation represent a good number of the veterinary surgeons employed in the meat plants to carry out these tests. There is, therefore, a clear need to establish beyond any doubt the extent of the illegal use of hormones and growth promoters. Nothing is to be gained by attempting to sweep this problem under the carpet. That is potentially a disastrous approach. One way of tackling the problem is to significantly increase the number of random samples taken by the Department. Another way might be to seek independent scientific sampling.
I find it appalling that a small minority of farmers and meat plant operators should be so desperate to make even bigger profits that they are prepared to use illegal hormones despite the enormous damage this could do to the industry but it is going on. For example, the Minister told my colleague, Deputy McCartan, in the Dáil on 26 October that the illegal use of hormones had been detected on 98 occasions within the past 12 months but many people outside this House believe that that is only the tip of the iceberg. In December 1987, for example, 400 animals showing prima facie evidence of illegal hormone implants were detected in the feed lot in one well known plant in County Kildare. According to a recent Dáil reply prosecutions have been taken against 39 people over the past two years. The fines imposed are generally small and they are an inadequate deterrent.
Those engaged in this practice stand to make huge amounts of money. There have been strong rumours about the involvement of the Provisional IRA in this and the penalties must be made more severe. The level of penalties available to the courts in these cases must be reviewed and strengthened. Farmers and all involved in the meat trade must realise that anyone involved in this activity threatens the welfare of the farming community and those working in the meat industry. The whole attraction of Irish food products abroad especially throughout the rest of Europe is their clean and healthy image. All it would take is one major scandal to cause possible irreparable damage to the meat trade. That is not to take at face value the charges made over the last weekend. There are sufficient bases, from people who work in the industry, to believe that the truth lies somewhere between what seems to be the drastic under-estimate of the Department of Agriculture and Food and the rather wild assertions made at the weekend.
A related area is the repeated allegations of widespread fraud in the meat trade. The Minister confirmed in the Dáil in reply to Deputy Sherlock on 26 October that four of the seven major firms involved in the aids to private storage scheme had been in breach of regulations, but the Minister has consistently refused to publish the report of the investigation. The Minister is clearly determined to withhold information and his reply on October 26 left many questions unanswered. The Minister's refusal to name the firms involved in the irregularities is most unfair to firms which have been honest and have complied with all the regulations. The Dáil and the public have the right to know the full details of this affair and the extent of the irregularities involved. The Minister's reply confirmed that the concern expressed by The Workers' Party and other public representatives about illegal practices in the meat industry were well founded. It reinforced the case for a sworn public inquiry into all aspects of the meat industry to establish beyond doubt the extent of the illegal practices, to identify those responsible for activities which would cost the taxpayer millions of pounds, and to make recommendations to ensure that such irregularities are not repeated.
I would refer to the provision in this Supplementary Estimate for disease eradication and specifically to the provision of £4 million for bovine TB and brucellosis eradication. I support this additional requirement but I would remind the House of the words of Dr. T. K. Whitaker when he said recently that the money spent to date in disease eradication was the greatest financial scandal in the history of the State. The amount of money spent was in excess of £1 billion. Indeed, 25 years ago in this House, the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Haughey, announced that the country was virtually free of TB. We are now no closer to being able to substantiate that claim. We have a lot to answer for now when we are correctly questioning the spending of every pound of taxpayers' money. We should question the fact that that amount of money could have been spent and that we are still in the circumstances we are in today.
Earlier, in relation to the use of hormone growth promoters I commented on the role of the veterinary surgeons and on their right to ventilate that problem publicly. In respect of the bovine disease eradication programme a majority of veterinary surgeons have a lot to answer for. The earnings of veterinary surgeons down through the years in this area have been extraordinary in that about one-third of the money spent goes directly for veterinary fees. In a parliamentary question information was elicited that earnings totalled £10.6 million in 1983, £8.3 million in 1984, £11.5 million in 1985, £11 million in 1986, £12 million in 1987 and so on. The veterinary surgeons have used their muscle to resist measures that could have contributed to a solution of the problem. I cannot understand why for instance, if a human being goes to a hospital to give a blood sample, the sample is usually taken by a nurse rather than a doctor but technicians are not used for taking samples from animals. There is resistance from the veterinary lobby, but it is about time, in the interests of spending prudently——
The unions.
If the unions resist a change I disapprove of that and oppose it. There is no justification for it. I regret that when the Bill establishing Teagasc was going through the House that procedures that could be carried out by qualified technicians were not included in the Bill because of the veterinary lobby and because of their manifest formative influence in the legislation that was eventually enacted. It is one of the scandals involving misuse of public money and it is about time some Government faced up to it.
I am glad of the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to support the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Food. I am disappointed that the Minister cannot be with us and I join with other speakers in wishing him a speedy recovery. It is an opportune time to say that he has been doing an exceptionally good job as Minister on behalf of the agricultural industry.
I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of State who is with us tonight the dispute at the Department's veterinary office in Portlaoise where there is now an all-out picket. The dispute is having serious repercussions for farmers who are unable to get private tests done or to get certificates to enable them to sell their livestock. The Minister of State should take immediate steps to have this dispute resolved as it is causing serious inconvenience to farmers in County Laois. Certainly, the staff who are on strike have no desire to walk the streets in Portlaoise at this time. This matter is relevant to the Estimate because we are making provision in the Estimate for disease eradication and so on. I do not have to remind the Minister that without administrative difficulties the livestock industry is already in crisis, with farmers having to dispose of livestock at margins which are minimal or in many cases non-existent.
The Estimate before the House is significant to the future development of agriculture. We all welcome the increased provision for Teagasc. It is important that we recognise the work this body has been doing in promoting the development of agriculture. There is no doubt that significant development has taken place in the performance of our greatest industry.
Having disbanded the old county committees of agriculture and having observed the performance of Teagasc in the meantime, I feel there is now a need to re-establish some form of committee or structure at local or regional level to bridge the gap between the statutory authority and the farmers. As one who served on the old county committee of agriculture I realise the valuable contribution it made, particularly in agricultural development and educational programmes.
I referred earlier to the prices in the livestock industry. It is hardly necessary to remind the House that in talking about the livestock industry we are not talking specifically about farmers and farm incomes but the overall contribution of the industry to our Programme for National Recovery with particular reference to the potential of an expanding food industry for job creation. This Government, more than any other in the history of the State, has attached considerable relevance to the importance of examining every aspect of economic development for the purpose of creating jobs.
As is the case in almost every area of economic development where targets have been achieved, we have seen the achievement of those targets. In almost every area where these targets have been achieved there has been a partnership and a high level of co-operation between all of the agencies involved, including the Government and other structures. In the meat industry, the food industry there is a need for partnership.
The Minister has his job to do. He must continue to maximise the opportunity for expansion and development within the framework of European marketing. It is essential to find and expand new markets. We cannot afford to lose out in the international markets which have been available to us in the past and which, hopefully, will be available again in the future.
In any reference to marketing one must acknowledge the contribution of CBF which has made a significant contribution to developing our international meat trade. We must ensure that it gets the necessary resources to continue that work in the future.
There is also a need for responsible comment, even in this House, concerning the various aspects of beef production and marketing. While no one wishes to interfere with the concept of free speech, nevertheless some of the comments made in relation to some aspects of marketing and the development of the beef trade here were not helpful and certainly did nothing to assist the development of the meat industry.
Much lip service has been paid to the need for private investment in the economy. Yet when an Irish entrepreneur is prepared to invest millions in the development of a modern meat processing industry he and his proposals come under attack for reasons which are not in the national interest. We have spent millions of pounds trying to attract that size of investment to our country. Yet a successful Irish entrepreneur who is willing to invest in his own country is made the target of suspicion in relation to his operations. That is regrettable at a time when we are examining every possible means of developing and expanding not only agriculture but all of the associated industries and the agricultural service industry for the purpose of job creation.
One must express concern at the failure of the beef industry in the area of marketing. Far too often they have resorted to the soft option of seeking refuge in the marketing safety valves of intervention and aids to private storage. In my view they are not entitled, except perhaps as a last resort, to adopt that form of escapism in relation to their failure to go out and research and develop international markets. There is a urgent need for all the agencies involved to come together to work out a more effective production and marketing strategy.
In conjunction with any Estimate for the Department of Agriculture and Food one must comment on the investment to date in disease eradication. I want to express my concern at our failure to deal successfully with that problem. It is nothing short of alarming to find an increasing incidence of TB and brucellosis in herds that have been free since the scheme was first introduced and also to find that herds, some of which were closed herds and which would be regarded as the safest herds from the point of view of the incidence of disease, are experiencing a serious breakdown in their health status. What is wrong in Ireland? Other countries have successfully eliminated disease at a fraction of what it is costing us here.
I acknowledge the contribution of the Minister for Agriculture and Food and this Government towards making adequate funding available to combat the serious evil which is a threat to the industry and our economy. Yet for some unknown reason in herds which are enclosed, where there is no obvious reason that they should be contaminated by either TB or brucellosis, we are finding a breakdown in the health status of these herds.
I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of State the serious situation existing in the cereal industry where profit margins are at an all time low. Unless some order is brought into cereal production and marketing we will not have a cereal industry in the foreseeable future. If a quota system is necessary to safeguard sectors like milk and sugar beet, we cannot go on indefinitely ignoring the need for similar safeguards for other sectors where profit margins are diminishing.
I compliment the Minister on his efforts in the preparation of our submission for the extension of disadvantaged areas. He set targets in relation to various stages of the survey which have been achieved and I look forward to an acceptance of these proposals when they are forwarded to Brussels. Again I urge the Minister and the Government to ensure that the maximum possible land area is submitted and approved. While there might be some short term problems in funding, in the long term the benefits to the country will be significant in terms of increased viable farm units with a corresponding improvement in the overall urban-rural balance. This is a social consideration which must be taken into consideration in relation to any serious plans for the future development of Irish agriculture.
Let me ask your permission, Sir, to share my time with Deputy McCormack and Deputy Finnucane.
Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
I join with previous speakers in wishing the Minister well. I hope he makes a speedy recovery to health.
We are witnessing an extraordinary situation in the House tonight. It is amazing that in 1989 with modern technology and computer equipment in all the offices the Minister has missed his budgetary target by a massive £26 million. This is outrageous and nothing short of a scandal. Not only is it in the dying weeks of this year; as early as last September it was obvious that there were not sufficient moneys provided to run the Department. We have been well aware from representations made to us that there was a deliberate policy of dragging out the payment of grants, and I have no doubt at all that if it had not been for our front-bench spokesman, Deputy Paul Connaughton, and our backbench TDs raising the matter here in the House at every opportunity and seeking to have it raised as a matter of urgency on the Adjournment and by questions for written and oral reply the Minister would not have come in here to move this Supplementary Estimate tonight. He had to be dragged in by the heels to do so.
I challenge the adequacy of £26 million to meet the commitments of the Department up to 31 December this year. I have no doubt that the policy of withholding grants will be continued up to and after 31 December, that they will be brought into next year's budget without clearing up the backlog of payments due. This is outrageous on two fronts. Farmers, both big and small but in particular small farmers, are being asked to carry the debts of this country on their backs and are being put in the embarrassing position of not being able to meet their ordinary, everyday commitments. I have the greatest regard for the rural population and for small farmers in particular, people who have always paid their way. They make a commitment and pay on the day, and they have made commitments. They queued up in their hundreds to bring about improvements in their farms whether by way of measures to prevent pollution, improve housing needs for their stock or whatever, on the understanding that when the job was completed their grant would be paid. They gave an undertaking to the man who contracted to carry out the work for them. The work was carried out in good faith, the undertakings were taken in good faith from the Department but these farmers were left in the embarrassing position of having to turn their heads when meeting their neighbours or their contractors or whoever supplied them with the materials to bring about the improvements. That is not good enough.
Worse than all that, this Estimate here tonight will not solve the problem. I was told as recently as this morning by a senior official in the Department of Agriculture and Food that because of the acute shortage of staff it will not be possible to deal with the backlog until well into early next year, February or March, at the earliest. That is not acceptable. We support wholeheartedly the additional moneys being made available by way of this Supplementary Estimate but it should have been brought in last October. The Minister should have faced up to his responsibilities and admitted that, instead of a 12 month year, he had targeted for only an eight month year.
Either extra staff must be drafted in immediately or the Minister must follow the line taken by other Departments when moneys are owing to them. They charge interest on overdue accounts. That is how the Revenue Commissioners, for instance, operate. If it is to be a case of paying interest, the Department should pay it from the date on which the grant was due to be paid. That is only fair. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Why should these people have to carry this burden of debt? It is not acceptable.
Time does not allow me to go into great detail, but in relation to the whole range of policies, there were major shortcomings in budgeting. I saw a headline in the "Farming Independent" section of the Irish Independent last week about something that is nothing new to me, as I have been quite well aware of it and have been stating it in the House since I came into it. I refer to acute poverty that exists in small farms all over the country with 70 per cent of small farmers living on an income of less than £50 per week. These are people with pride, honesty and decency, they are probably too decent to seek help from the Department of Social Welfare, not that it would be available for them, anyway.
There are officials in the Department who will have to answer to somebody for their activities some day judging by the way some farmers are driven to seeking help, something that is totally against their nature. They are being hounded and questioned about every little goose, duck or chicken around the farm and what it is worth. Inflated values are being put on cows that are not due to calve until spring. We saw the carry on of these officials last spring and what happened in the autumn when there was a total collapse in cattle prices. Let them value the farm on the basis of the income from it the day they arrive. It is irrelevant to talk of what its future income may be.
I am reminded of an outrageous case of a widow and her son whose farm was wiped out by TB and who switched then to deer farming with the help of grants from the American Fund. Within a short time an official from the Department of Social Welfare arrived — these people had sought help in the meantime — and by way of assessing their income he asked what the fauns would be worth when sold two years later. Who in the name of God knows what they will be worth? That is not acceptable. The Government's policies will have to change.
Obviously the policies are wrong when the Government cannot budget for a 12 month year but miss their target by four months and £26 million. The Government must gear themselves towards helping small farmers. The Land Commission were a great ally of the small farmers but they are in a state of limbo now with the result that there is nobody to help these people. When they seek extra land to build up their holdings they are outbid by larger farmers and complete strangers, by foreigners coming in and buying up land.
We were told that an agency, a land authority, would be set up in place of the Land Commission but nothing is happening. Land is lying there and still not being divided. I do not know the acreage of such land in my constituency but it is substantial and there is very little movement on it. I am not blaming the officials because they simply have not got the staff. Coming up to Christmas I ask the Minister to put in extra staff and get this money out to the people who deserve it.
Let me remind you, Deputy, that you are grazing on the small farms of your two neighbours in terms of time.
I will not infringe on their time. I am sure they have excellent contributions to make. There will be another opportunity on the budget to continue this debate. I hope I have put the message across. There are other things I would like to say but I will give way now to Deputy McCormack.
Deputy McCormack and Deputy Finnucane have seven minutes between them.
I will have to stick to my brief on this occasion. I cannot but refer to the contribution of Deputy Stagg, the Labour Party spokesman on agriculture. He has added to the unfounded statements of the president of the veterinary union. It is not correct for anybody to come in here and say that when we are cooking a steak we do not know what kind of a cocktail we are unfolding. That kind of throw-away remark should not be allowed go unchallenged because as Deputy Stagg and everybody else knows the home beef market is supplied from the heifers which were never given hormones. To make that kind of statement in the Dáil is not helpful.
That is enough of sweeping it under the carpet.
We have an increased Estimate of £26 million on the original budget of £154 million, an increase of about 16 per cent or 17 per cent. It is stated that it is to be used for the payment of certain grants, subsidies and sundry grants in aid. I would like to ask the Minister if the underestimation in the original budget is the cause of the serious delay in the payment of grants for farm buildings, silage layouts, silage slabs, etc. On the one hand, we have the Department of the Environment encouraging, compelling and even prosecuting farmers to improve their farmyard facilities to avoid the possibility of farmyard pollution, and rightly so. How can one Department ask farmers to provide such facilities when there is such a serious delay in the payment to the same farmers of the legitimate grants due to them for the work carried out? I have on my file, as have other Deputies, various letters from farmers indicating that they will not be paid their grant for legitimate work carried out for three or four months down the line. Deputy Boylan told us what the Department told him today. In many of those cases the improvement work was carried out on borrowed money, on which high interest is being paid, and contractors are still waiting for their money and farmers are under severe pressure in this regard. If we pass this Supplementary Estimate can the Minister assure me that the grants due will be paid? Farmers have been waiting many months for reactor, cattle headage and ewe premium grants which are not being paid until February or March.
In relation to the ewe premium grants, no grant is paid for ewe hoggets of the Connemara hill sheep simply because the mountain ewe hogget will not produce a lamb in the first year. This is serious discrimination against hill sheep farmers. As everybody knows, the lowland ewe will produce a lamb in her first year but the hill ewe will not. A subsidy can be obtained for a ewe with no tooth in her head, yet a ewe premium cannot be obtained for a ewe hogget in the hill sheep area. This is a serious disadvantage because the ewe hogget is the foundation of the ewe herd. It does not make sense that that should be the case.
I join in the sentiments to the Minister for Agriculture and Food and wish him a speedy recovery. The area on which I want to concentrate has been touched on by my colleagues, that is, the £8 million for the farm improvement programme. I want to concentrate on that because of my limited experience as a Dáil backbencher. One of the most frustrating areas I am involved in is dealing with the local agricultural office. I consider it frustrating because it seems to be impossible to get a decision or action out of them. The reason given in most cases is shortage of staff, nobody to type literature and nobody to send out written approval forms. In this day and age I do not know where we are going with sophisticated technology when that pathetic, lame excuse is given.
When one analyses the position — and I listened to Deputy Hyland earlier saying job creation was the primary target of the Government — I cannot understand how the Deputy could be referring to the agricultural scene. On 26 October in reply to a question I was informed that from 1987 to 1989 the number of professional staff engaged in agricultural advisory services has been reduced from 567 to 398, a reduction of 169. The administrative staff, which I think is the most important when it comes to approving forms and ensuring that grants are eventually expedited, have been reduced from 146 to 95, a reduction of 51. When I studied the figures I could understand the problem in my constituency.
The professional, agricultural and advisory service in Limerick has been reduced from 27 to 20 and the administrative staff from six to two. Deputy Hyland's words ring a little hollow when I see those statistics in front of me. In this specific area it is frustrating for farmers because, as my colleague quite rightly said, when speaking about industry, industrialists would not wait a long time for their capital and training grants; they would put pressure on the Ministers and everybody else in the interests of the survival of that business, to actually expedite the payment of those grants. Why, therefore, are farmers left to wait a considerable length of time? Is it because of the £8 million? Is it because the money is not there? Is it deliberate coat-trailing in order to delay the whole process? Perhaps the Minister could answer those questions.
One would hope that, because of the extra £8 million, we could expect efficiency, something which is extremely important as we face 1990. Where are we going with the type of service we got in the past? We are going down the tubes. One would expect a more efficient operation and in this Estimate there is no subvention for an increase in staff. On 18 October I wrote to the Minister outlining the staffing problems in Limerick but when I did not get a satisfactory reply I raised it in the Dáil. The reply I got was that there are no plans to expand the staff in the Limerick office, but they will, if possible, second people on a part-time basis from other Departments should they become available. That is entirely unsatisfactory.
Limerick is only a mirror image of every agricultural office throughout the country. They all have the same problems. It is frustrating and farmers will not put up with it. The Minister will have to improve efficiency. Even if some of the £8 million must go towards improving the position and a few computers have to be installed to improve the situation, that should be done but, for God sake, what is going on? If there is a staff problem down in Limerick or in other offices, the Minister should get to the root of them. The most important thing is that farmers are paid the grants. As a Deputy, I cannot get satisfactory answers from anyone about that matter.
I should like to refer to another matter mentioned by Deputy Hyland. He referred specifically to disadvantaged areas and said that so far the Government have achieved the targets in the survey. Possibly they have and I compliment them on that, but the most vital target the Government have to achieve is that the submission goes to the EC before 31 December. If it does not, there is a strong possibility that farmers who are included for the first time will not receive any grants until 1991. I hope the Minister will expedite that process and ensure that the disadvantaged areas, or whoever is to be included, is included before the end of the year.
I join with other speakers in wishing our Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, a speedy recovery. I thank him for the tremendous effort he has put in since he took over the portfolio of agriculture. With his Ministers of State, Deputies Kirk and Walsh, he has one of the strongest teams I have seen since I came into Dáil and the results are there to be seen, even though some people claim that that is not the case.
I welcome this Supplementary Estimate especially as it covers a number of very important areas. The subheads provide funds for Teagasc, bovine levies, farm improvement and the pilot programme for integrated rural development. On a previous occasion the Minister moved that an extra £8 million be included in the Estimate. This shows the Government's commitment to research, advice and education. The £8 million should put Teagasc on a firm footing.
Before commencing I should have said I wish to give five minutes of my time to Deputy Nolan.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I cannot over-emphasise the importance of research and advice. We have only to look at the young farmers who, over the last couple of years, got involved in the green certificate and the one year course in agricultural colleges to see how they have made progress on their farms.
Many speakers mentioned bovine levies. At one time my constituency was practically free of TB and brucellosis but that is not the case now. In some areas up to 25 per cent of the herd is infected.
Heretofore, people had small herds which meant that not many cattle were affected but now, with large herds, more lesions are appearing on cattle which means that the complete herd has to be replaced.
Despite all the programmes, veterinary surgeons and farm inspectors do not seem to be able to pinpoint the problem. We talked about intermixing and badgers causing TB, but this is not certain and the programme is costing an awful lot of money and not showing a result.
Members mentioned the disappointing prices for cattle. The root of the problem is the small farmers who did not have a milk quota but were making a reasonable livelihood for years out of store cattle. Then they began to purchase calves by way of young stores and prices were inflated because there was a fear that there would be a scarcity of cattle. The margin of profit is not there now and if the balance is not right we will have a problem in that area.
The Minister also mentioned the farm modernisation scheme and the western package. A previous speaker criticised the Minister for not reaching his target but I do not think that any Minister could have budgeted for the spectacular success and unprecedented demand for the scheme which Minister O'Kennedy introduced in 1988, including the farmyard pollution grant. The demand for this grant has been massive and in farmyard after farmyard there are underground tanks and slatted houses. In spite of the cries from the Opposition: "We'll all be ruined says Hanrahan before the year is out" there is confidence in these schemes. Otherwise there would not be the building and development which is evident all over the country. That confidence was created following the atrocious weather in 1985 and 1986. There is no doubt that the success of these anti-pollution measures was evident much more quickly than any of us could have anticipated. One would have expected that it would take many years for the results to be seen, but that is not the case. People have used this grant in a practical way and I am sure that, before long, pollution will be controlled in every farm in the country.
A pleasing feature of the Minister's speech was the mention of the increase in beef cow numbers. He increased the level of the suckler cow premium from £37 to £52 per year which had the effect of restoring confidence in the industry, and statistics prove this as they showed an increase of 64,000, the first increase since our entry to the EC. In 1973 the prediction was that our cattle herd would reach the figure of nine million in 1990. We have failed in that regard — the figure is about six million — as there was a very serious slump in the intervening years. However, there is now a positive approach to the problem, we are coming to grips with it and I hope the numbers will soon rise.
The Minister also mentioned the pilot programme under subhead L 10 for integrated rural development. The initial results from the reports of the co-ordinators are encouraging. Structural Funds will be coming on stream, which is very important, as they can be used to further the gains made in the pilot scheme areas and could be applied to small farms to good advantage.
I welcome the fact that the Minister is widening the young farmers installation aid grant to allow farmers with intensive enterprises to divide up their farms because there were serious anomalies in that scheme. The Minister and the Department examined the scheme and, as it was a worthwhile project, it was taken on board. Indeed, all schemes about which serious representations were made were also examined in this way. I also welcome the fact that the Minister secured an extra 1 per cent in the milk quota. I hope young farmers and small milk suppliers will benefit from this and ensure that it will increase their quota to a realistic level.
Other speakers mentioned beef production, which is one of the black spots in agriculture. In the area of poultry, pigs and milk production there has been organisation and forward planning and they have been examined in detail. However, the meat factories have not been responsible for the failure in beef production. In my county a meat factory can close for nine months of the year, and six miles down the road 300 people are working in a poultry processing plant exporting a wide range of products on a continuous basis. From now until Christmas they will be working round the clock because they have orders for somewhere in the region of 300 live turkeys.
I should like the Deputy to introduce the words "in conclusion".
In conclusion, as I am sharing my time with Deputy Nolan, I hope he will use it well.
I wish to thank my colleague, Deputy Leonard, for giving me five minutes of his time to speak on this very important debate. Like previous speakers, I wish to be associated with the good wishes of the House for a speedy recovery to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy. Of course, both his junior Ministers are well capable of filling in for him while he is indisposed.
I particularly welcome the Minister's commitment of £8 million in Teagasc. In the Minister's opening remarks he outlined the benefits that this money will bring to them. The legislation setting up Teagasc places special emphasis on the training of young farmers and on food research. It is important that a body such as Teagasc should have a solid financial base. I believe that now the Minister has provided the additional £8 million, the finances of Teagasc will be put on a solid footing. The allocation of £8 million will ensure that Teagasc ends the year with a clean slate and can plan to balance the budget in the years ahead. The announcement of an additional £4 million to ERAD, to cover increased expenditure, is also very welcome. The problem of disease eradication has haunted this country for far too long. Nobody can dispute the fact that a great deal of money has already been spent, some would say misspent on the eradication of tuberculosis but we must do everything to endeavour to continue this programme and the £4 million granted to ERAD will go some way towards that.
I was glad to note that agreement was reached with the farming organisations that £8 million which would be funded jointly by Exchequer contributions and increased levies, would be provided for the years 1989-90 to cover increases in grants paid under the eradication scheme. This was a very positive move forward.
As we go into the nineties, public awareness of our green image and the beauty of our surroundings is coming more into focus. The control of farmyard pollution has been brought to the fore over the past year and a half. Farmers have played a very constructive role in trying to do what they can to control pollution. With the assistance of various grants we are slowly but surely moving towards the control of farmyard effluent and pollution. This year, the demand for grants under the farm modernisation scheme has exceeded the budgetary allocation, and the additional resources required to meet the extra claims which are likely to mature between now and the end of the year have been provided. It is important not to miss the opportunity of complimenting the Minister on setting up An Bord Glas. It was set up initially as a non-statutory interim board in 1987.
It is well known on the continent that although we had the facility to produce the best horticultural produce in Europe, we did not have the correct marketing approach. The findings of some of the inquiries of the interim board showed the marketing weakness in our horticultural business. It also showed that producers needed to be guaranteed a certain minimum price for their produce. One of the main findings in their report was that 60 per cent of the demand for the produce came from the supermarket groups. If they did one thing, they emphasised that the relationship between marketing and producers needed to be consolidated. The fact that the Bord Glas Bill will be enacted shortly by the Oireachtas will improve confidence in farming. There are a great many areas where we could do a great deal more. Potato production has been a black spot for a number of years. If one looks at the Order Paper frequently one sees a number of questions tabled on the volume of potato imports. The potential for glasshouse products and mushrooms can be studied by An Bord Glas. I am sure that the Minister of State is only too well aware of the benefits this would bring to the agricultural sector.
While speaking on the Bord Glas Bill, the Minister said he was thinking at one time of making An Bord Glas a subsidiary of Teagasc. I am glad that he did not take this option and that an independent board was set up.
I wish the Minister continued success in his portfolio. I welcome the opportunity of lending support to the Department and the Minister in their endeavours for Irish agriculture.
I compliment the two Deputies on the manner in which they knocked 18 minutes out of 15 minutes.
At the outset I take the opportunity of thanking the Deputies who contributed on the Supplementary Estimate. I thank them also for their messages of good wishes to the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Mr. O'Kennedy, which I fully endorse and I will pass the Deputies good wishes on to him.
I will now respond to a number of points which the Deputies raised during the course of the debate. Deputy Connaughton, who was the first to contribute after I spoke, referred to the delays in the payment of development and ewe premium grants. He also cited instances where payment of ERAD grants was delayed over five months. I assure the Deputy that with the taking of this Supplementary Estimate, the main obstacle to expediting the payment of development and reactor grants has been removed. With regard to the advance of the ewe premium, payments are in train and we expect that flock owners will receive the advance payment over the next month or so.
They were supposed to get it a month ago.
Christmas is just a few weeks away and I hope the post will be okay.
They will be after the Minister.
I would point out to the Deputy, but I am sure he is aware, that decentralisation has been in train for some time and the accounts branch of the Department is now located in Cavan. Inevitably there has to be a settling in period in the new environment and that must have a bearing on the payment of grants.
Deputy Emmet Stagg referred to the question of quotas for the small milk producer and the small farmer generally. I heard the Minister for Agriculture and Food, Deputy O'Kennedy, say at Question Time the other day that it was his clear intention that the milk quotas that become available within the Community will go to deserving categories, to small farmers, young farmers and farmers with a quota under a certain gallonage. I believe that all Members will be in broad agreement with the thrust of that statement. Milk quotas constitute a very valuable asset nowadays in that they can provide farmers with the wherewithal to earn a reasonable living. It is only reasonable that deserving categories be considered when surplus milk is being distributed.
With regard to the ewe premium and the failure to pay on hill hoggets while old sheep without teeth are paid grants as mentioned by Deputy McCormack, I should say that the regulations under which the ewe premium is paid are laid down by the EC and are applicable to all member states in the Community. These regulations specify that ewes must have lambed once or be visibly in lamb in order to qualify. With regard to older sheep, the Department's inspectorate examine the teeth of all sheep inspected. I can assure the House that sheep without teeth will be disqualified from payment of a grant.
Deputy Connaughton welcomed the £8 million provision for Teagasc and then went on to criticise the provision in next year's Estimates, contending that they represented a reduction of 2 per cent. It is fair to say that this provision for Teagasc — which I might add has been welcomed by the Authority and its chairman in particular — will constitute a saving for the Authority, via the payment of the £8 million, and should eliminate the 2 per cent shortfall in 1990.
It will not.
On the question of EC funding for Teagasc, the level for 1990 has been increased by more than 15 per cent, from £4.8 million in 1989 to at least £5.6 million next year. The Minister for Agriculture and Food very early in the year gave an undertaking to put Teagasc on a secure financial footing. He clearly indicated that if additional finances were necessary they would be provided.
It is appropriate that I deal with a matter raised by a number of Deputies and which has been the subject of some controversy over the past day or two, that is the matter of the use of illegal growth promoters. For the sake of the beef industry, for the reputation of our exports and for the benefit of the public at large, it is appropriate that a press release issued by the Food Information Section of the Department of Agriculture and Food yesterday evening be read into the record. It states:
The Department of Agriculture and Food today referred to allegations of widespread use of illegal growth promoters in meat being exported. The Department said that these allegations are not borne out by the results available to it from a sampling programme.
All meat produced for export is inspected and certified before leaving meat factories by veterinary practitioners employed by the Department and acting under the supervision of veterinary staff of the Department. There are detailed regulations in place controlling the use of hormone growth promoters in order to ensure compliance with EC Directives.
The Department operates an ongoing programme of sampling of meat and live animals for residues of hormones as well as for antibiotics. In the last 12 months 5,834 samples were tested of which 160 were positive. In the case of samples taken from suspect meat, the carcases of the affected animals were condemned; in the case of samples from live animals the animals concerned were freeze-branded and cannot be used for human consumption. Court applications are in train for the destruction of 35 such animals. Since the ban on the use of hormones for growth promotion was introduced in Ireland in 1987 the classification of Irish beef has shown a trend from leaner to fatter carcases indicating that the widespread use of hormones had declined. That trend continued in 1989.
The Department is aware of the existence of a trade in illegal veterinary products generally and is actively engaged in combating such activities. The Minister for Agriculture and Food has extensive powers to deal with this matter. To date 42 successful investigations have resulted in 162 convictions for illegal sale, possession or use of veterinary drugs.
The Department warned that farmers should be fully aware of the risk associated with the use of such substances. Apart from the danger of detection through the monitoring programme and the loss arising from having animals and carcases condemned the good reputation of our exports is paramount and should not be jeopardised by short-term considerations. A growing number of consumers are unwilling to purchase meat from animals reared with the aid of hormones. Unless we can be seen to produce to those consumer requirements we risk the permanent loss of very important markets.
On the question of hormone and residues, I should add that under subhead B.2 — which provides for the expenses of my Department's Meat Control Laboratory — I propose additional funding of £40,000. This amount is required to finance the higher level of testing of meat for harmful residues, antibiotics, hormones etc. The laboratory carries out testing of animals and of meat for the domestic and export markets under our random sampling programme submitted each year to the EC and also testing of samples taken on suspicion. This additional funding will contribute towards protecting public health and ensuring the continued access of our meat products to export markets.
It is also proposed to provide an additional £10,000, under subhead A.4, to meet the cost of miscellaneous equipment for the meat inspection service. It is important that that information be read into the record.
The value of the beef industry to our economy is too significant to allow scares to upset it or damage in any way the image of our meat exports. Indeed, it behoves every Member of this House, and people directly involved in the industry outside, to be careful in what they say about these matters.
