May I say it is a highly appropriate day to discuss a report on bee-keeping?
Aid for Bee-Keepers’ Associations.
I suppose, coming from the premier bee-keeping county and constituency, I have an interest in it. I would like an explanation of the part of paragraph 3 which says:
No aid would be made directly available to individual bee-keepers. The aid proposed would work out at about 69p per marketing year for each hive producing honey.
Do I take it that it will be paid to individuals in the end but that it will come through the overall Bee-keepers' Federation?
No.
How is it proposed that the actual producers will get the benefit?
Yes but perhaps by instruction and through demonstration centres. It is set out on page 2. The idea is that so far as the authorities are concerned, the Commission and the Irish Department of Agriculture and Fisheries will simply make funds available to the Association. It would be a matter for consideration how the Association would use those funds for the benefit of individual bee-keepers. The Federation would put forward some suggestions as to what they would do with the funds. They could use them as a subsidy towards the purchase of feeding sugar, for educational purposes and for the establishment of Association apiaries at local centres for demonstration purposes. These are only suggestions by the Association as to what they would do with the funds if they received them.
I am glad to see that they have mentioned that there could be a subsidy towards the purchase of feeding sugar because that can be expensive. I was an apiarist so I know what I am talking about.
I am still an apiarist.
There are two matters which I am surprised are not mentioned. One is the question of disease control, which has been a very serious matter. As we know the acarian, otherwise known as the Isle of Wight disease practically wiped out the native breed of bee in Ireland. It is worth emphasising the seriousness of that situation because the native Irish bee was a far better breed for the production of section honey than any other breed we know of. There should be some provision made so that money could be directed towards disease control. The other matter I would like to see money directed towards is the provision of queen bees which are necesarily of a particular breed that are expensive. Sometimes these have to be imported. This could very well be brought in under the financial proposals of this regulation.
Those are two very sound suggestions. In general, our approach should be that we welcome any initiative which helps to stimulate the home production of honey because at the moment we are quite dependent on imports. We use approximately 1,000 tons in a year and we only produce about 200 or 300 tons. It is an area in which there is scope for considerable development. Of course, bee-keeping as Deputy Esmonde would know, as well as others who are interested, is of particular interest in relation to botany and horticulture. Bee-keeping is a very important occupation. Apart from the production of honey, it serves a very useful botanical purpose.
In connection with the point raised by the Chairman, I believe the second part of paragraph 1 should be reworded. It refers to " damage caused by chemical treatment of crops ". I should like it to be highlighted that it is pesticides that are causing the difficulty in this matter. There are certain groups of pesticides involved and I feel that some money should be allocated to investigate the damage they are doing to such crops.
The suggestions made by Deputy Esmonde should be incorporated in a recasting of paragraph 4.
Would it suffice if we crossed out the words, " chemical treatment of crops " and say " damage caused by pesticides"?
Pesticides and contact chemicals. Chemical treatment of crops would be condemning weed-killers which are not necesarily dangerous to insects.
The Deputy wants to say " caused by pesticides and contact chemicals"? Is that comprehensive enough?
Yes.
Paragraph 1 amended by the deletion of " damage caused by chemical treatment of crops " and the substitution of " damage caused by pesticides and contact chemicals ".
Paragraph 1, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 agreed to.
It might also be possible to incorporate my remarks about disease control and breeding stocks.
I agree that we should direct attention to those. Disease control will probably have to remain the function of the Department.
Yes, but it is possible to have a particular pocket or area where this money could be well used as a back-up or help to producers who run into trouble. Very often people do not discover their loss until spring starts the following year.
We can incorporate that.
There could be a virtual wiping out of breeding stocks in an area due to disease or weather conditions and it is necessary to get some assistance.
There is also the point about the ecological use of the bee.
Independent of the contribution honey might make to the GNP there is also the value of the bee to fruitgrowers, botanists and the whole field of horticulture. I take it that the Committee, in general, are very happy with this initiative and think the time is opportune for assistance to the honey-producing industry.
I take it the report will be amended in the light of Deputy Esmonde's suggestions?
That is correct.
Paragraph 4 amended by the addition of the following: " In addition, the Joint Committee would like consideration to be given to the possibility of applying some aid towards disease control at local level and for subsidising the importation of quality queen bees ".
Paragraph 4, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraph 5 agreed to.
Draft Report, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered: To report accordingly.
The Joint Committee adjourned at 5.30 p.m.