Pending the arrival, Sir, of the Minister for Agriculture the Tánaiste will sit in for this motion.
Cattle Guaranteed Payments Scheme— Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann is of the opinion that unless the Minister for Agriculture revokes the decision to end the scheme of guaranteed payments for fat cattle and carcase beef on March 31st the effect on producers of cattle might well be disastrous.
The reason for this motion is that I very much fear that in the coming year the price of cattle will be such that many farmers will find themselves in a serious financial position. I am basing this assumption on last year when there was a Government guaranteed payment, at one stage, of £2 a cwt. If the same position prevails this summer the farmer will probably be taking in the region of £4 10s. to £5a cwt., probably nearer £4 than £5, for his cattle. I am speaking now of beef cattle. If that is the position, and if the Minister goes ahead and stops the guaranteed payment, the position of the farmer who is producing cattle will be very difficult. For instance, in today's market the top price for cattle was in the region of £6 15s. a cwt. with the subsidy of 15/-. If the price drops 15/- a cwt. in March when people have hand fed their cattle throughout the winter, they will be faced with feeding them for nothing because they will probably be taking less than what they got for their cattle last December.
This to me seems to be a disastrous position with which the farmers are faced. I would not like the Minister to feel that I, as a nominee of the livestock exporters, was doing this on their initiative because that is not the case. In fact, the livestock exporters would prefer the guaranteed payment to be made direct to the farmers instead of to the exporters. There have been suggestions that the exporter got most of the subsidy and that the farmer got none of it. That is completely untrue. If any proof is needed, I shall give a case in point. We had a case recently where one of our biggest exporters of live cattle—in fact, I would say the biggest exporter; he ships 1,000 cattle a week—went bankrupt. If he were getting all this subsidy that could not happen. I am just mentioning that to let the Minister know that the livestock exporter is concerned as to what way it is paid and that he would prefer that it was paid direct to the farmer.
Last June or July, the guaranteed subsidy of the Department of Agriculture credit to farmers was something like £2 or £2 2s. a cwt. There is no guarantee that the price of beef on the British market, with the importations of beef from the Argentine, Jugoslavia, Uruguay, will be any better next June or July than it was last June or July. Under those circumstances, I feel that the farmer is facing a calamitous period.
Deputy Farrell asked a Question in the Dáil to-day. Deputy Dr. Ryan, the Minister for Finance, answering for the Minister for Agriculture, said, when Deputy Farrell pointed out that that might be the position, "Wait and see". Very well, let us wait and see but will the Minister give us an assurance that if we wait and see and if the price of beef is, as we think it will be, although we hope it will not be, as low as it was last year, he will compensate the farmer in some way so that he will not be at a complete loss?
I know very well that the Minister will put up the argument that with full attestation this position will not prevail. Unfortunately, however, more than half the country has not reached full attestation yet. Even by the back end of next year, in my opinion, two-thirds of the country will not be attested. You have all the south of Ireland which is not a clearance area. Take counties such as Limerick, Tipperary, parts of Cork, parts of Kerry, parts of Clare—beef producing counties. The farmers who are not attested and who have to sell their cattle for beef may be faced with having to take anything from £4 or £5 a cwt. For their cattle. My worry is if that is the case then the bankruptcy courts will be very busy meeting many of these farmers.
I do not want to prolong the matter. If the Minister has made up his mind to end the scheme on 31st March, I should like him to give me an assurance that he will devise a scheme to meet any collapse that may occur in the beef cattle trade in the coming year. I do not worry unduly about cattle that are fully attested. There is a good market for them for store purposes although I think that some of the attested cattle might have to go as beef because if they get too beefy they will not be accepted as stores. Therefore, it might not be possible to sell all the attested cattle as stores and thus get the British guarantee.
The British farmer, even with the scheme as it is, is getting roughly about £2 5s. a head more in guaranteed payments for cattle as compared with the Irish farmer for the same type of animal, that is, roughly about £21 or £22 extra on an average beast. Our subsidy has been in the region of £2 5s. less. Therefore, it should be considered how much less the Irish farmer will have to take in comparison with his counterpart in England if the Minister goes through with his decision to end this scheme on 31st March.
I appeal to the Minister to give the House some assurance that there will be no collapse and that he will introduce some scheme—if it is not a scheme that has hitherto been used— that will guarantee the farmer against a collapse in the price of his fat cattle.
I second the motion and reserve the right to speak later.
I wish to support the motion very strongly. We are all only too conscious of the fact that if the Minister does not take action it can have a very serious effect. The farmers have been on the march on the question of rising costs and reduced incomes.
In my view, this decision might put the tin hat on it. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister to give every consideration before he takes a final stand on this matter.
I should like to support this motion to a great extent also. I had hoped that these payments would continue until perhaps such time as the farmers got markets elsewhere, if necessary, if prices on the British market dropped, and that possibly we would give this boost to beef production until we had secured outlets for some classes of beef on the Continent. That was my hope in the case of the guaranteed payment. It was a great boost to attestation, I know, and I have heard of farmers outside the area who were hoping to get some benefit from this in the near future.
I should also have liked to see the payment kept on at least for carcase beef. It would have encouraged the slaughtering of cattle here and would therefore have assisted the provision of employment. If the Minister decides: "I cannot give it to all fat cattle to be exported but I will give it on carcase beef to be exported" then it would be an enormous help to those large establishments started here which give a great deal of employment. Even on that part of the beef trade alone, if we could give some extra payment to bring the price nearer the British price it would be a much-needed help.
I live on the very Border. One can hear daily of the difference in prices that my neighbours and my neighbours a few hundred yards up the road get. It seems important that we should try to bring up and steady the prices of beef cattle and hence steady the prices of cattle, shall we say, all down the line. I should not like to see our having to revert to selling all our cattle as store cattle and not being able to produce enough to export carcase beef or beef on the hoof. It would be of great assistance if the Minister would reconsider this matter.
As the Minister for Agriculture is still unavoidably delayed, I move that the House adjourn until 7 p.m.
Business suspended at 4.30 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.
Uimhir 4, Tairiscint, ath-thógaint.
I formally seconded the motion but I reserved the right to speak later.
I suggest you do not rush them, Sir.
I call on Senator Prendergast, then, to conclude unless the Minister wishes to speak.
Is it not in order formally to second a motion and reserve the right to speak later? I did that last year on the wheat motion.
My position is a simple one, that if nobody offers to speak my duty is to call on the mover of the motion to conclude.
If that is the case I am quite prepared to speak now, Sir. We were told last year that a Senator could formally second a motion and reserve the right to speak later. I did that on two occasions last year—on the wheat motion and on another motion.
I called on Senators to resume the debate and left it free to Senators to speak. Nobody offered to speak. Then my duty was a simple one—to call on the mover of the motion to conclude. I now call on Senator L'Estrange.
There are very few people who will not admit that the effect of the decision to end the scheme of guaranteed payments might well be disastrous. There is no denying that the farmers are becoming disillusioned. They are suffering one body blow after another. They are watching other sections of the community getting more than their share of the national income when the farmers' own share, as has been proved here and can be proved with statistics, is declining. The farmers have to live on profit, and their profit is the difference between their cost of production and their selling prices. From 1947 up to the middle 1950s admittedly their costs of production were increasing but their selling prices were also increasing, with the result that they always had a reasonable margin of profit and could live on that profit reasonably well. Since 1953, the statistics can prove that their costs——
The Senator is going outside the scope of the motion.
I want to say that their costs are increasing and what the farmers want is a reasonable degree of stability. These guaranteed payments that the Minister gave the farmers led to a period of stability. They could plan ahead. There is no greater bugbear or nightmare for farmers than uncertainty. When this guaranteed payment is removed, as we have been told it will be on the 1st April, there is no doubt that it will lead to grave uncertainty and also, I maintain, to disastrous results for the farmers.
The Minister is quite well aware that during part of 1961 the subsidy was as high as £2 per cwt., that is £20 on a 10 cwt. beast or £24 on a 12 cwt. beast. If the subsidy had not operated at that time farmers would have had to take as low as £3 10s. to £3 15s. per cwt. for their cattle. We all agree that if they had had to take that last summer it would have been disastrous for the farmers when their rates and overheads were increasing. If the Minister removes the guaranteed payment on April 1st this year it is reasonable to assume that the same can happen next July, August or September and, if it does, the Minister must admit that it will gravely affect both the large and the small farmers of Ireland. If the price of fat cattle is reduced it will hit all cattle down along the line and all farmers including the small farmer who sells a suck calf in Tipperary, Limerick, or Cork or any other part of the country because if the farmers in the midlands who fatten the majority of cattle get £15 or £20 less when selling they must try to pay £15 or £20 less for their stores when buying. If we look at the figures in the Budget we will see that under all headings there are increases: wages and salaries, £5 million; health £1.5 million; defence, £1.1 million; and it is only when we come to agriculture that we find a decrease of £7.3 million.
The Senator is going outside the scope of the debate.
The decrease of £7.3 million is due to the fact that the Minister is withdrawing the beef subsidy.
How could it be?
The figures are there plain to be seen. In 1961/62 there was £5,327,000. In the year 1962/63, £200,000 is allocated, taking the figure in the Book of Estimates, which is a decrease of over £5 millions under that heading. That is there in black and white. I believe this withdrawal will definitely have a disastrous effect in the years ahead. The majority of us agree that this year is heavy with destiny for the people of Ireland whether we decide to enter the Common Market or not. If we are to enter and face the challenge to our ability to survive, to increase production, which we should be doing, and to hold our own in the Common Market, the farmers should get a fair crack of the whip. We are giving incentives to industry and to other sections of the community to prepare them to enter but instead of preparing the farmers to face the challenge and the opportunities that lie ahead we are interfering with them in such a way that they will not be able to avail of the opportunities.
The Minister should reconsider his decision and at least continue this guaranteed payment for another year. In all probability the Minister will make the case that in an agricultural country we are only feeding the dog with part of his own tail when we give subsidies and he would be correct to a large extent. Where 70 to 80 per cent of our wealth comes from the land, if we give agricultural subsidies we are only feeding the dog with part of his tail. In Britain where 85 to 90 per cent, of their wealth comes from industry it is quite feasible and, I suppose, good economics to subsidies agriculture and they are doing that. For the first time in the last 12 or 14 years the trend of our cattle population is down. According to the Farmers Journal of last Saturday, and I would say their figures are fairly correct, there are 214,000 fewer cattle in the country today than there were a year ago. If those figures are correct, and I have no reason to believe they are not, then the outlook is indeed bleak for every one of us. We are told by people we know that when we enter the Common Market——
The Senator must come back to the question of guaranteed payments for fat cattle and carcase beef. I shall not allow the Senator to rove over the whole field of agricultural production and the Common Market.
I am speaking only of cattle and beef.
The Senator must come back to fat cattle and carcase beef.
That is exactly what I was going to say. If the subsidy were maintained, instead of the cattle population being reduced it could be increased. Instead of this reduction of £5 million, extra money should be given so that the farmers could increase the number of cattle, change the downward trend that we have to-day and be in a position to export if we enter the Common Market in the next year or two. The removal of this subsidy will be a retrograde step which will have disastrous effects on the economy of the country.
Having listened to Senator L'Estrange and his reference to the small farmers of Tipperary who rear a suck calf, I am reminded of the sophists of old who endeavoured logically to prove that motion was impossible. The other side did not bother to argue with them but just said: Solvitur ambulando or, “Walk and you will prove it for yourselves.”
I do not think the farmers of Tipperary, or indeed the small or medium farmers in any part of the country, would be at all impressed by the arguments that have been advanced. The Government, as such, have a responsibility first of all to keep the limits of taxation within what the people can pay.
The people are faced with a bill which we were told last week by the Senator who has just spoken was far too high. The Government have a responsibility to see that the different sections of the community get a correct and reasonable share of the national cake which is to be divided. They have the further responsibility, when part of the national cake is being divided among a section such as the farming community, to see that it is divided equitably and properly and that the exporter, the middleman and the rancher do not take more than their due share, at the expense of the medium or small farmer, and the farmer, as Senator L'Estrange has said, who rears his own suck calves, or the farmer who keeps his own cattle up to the stage of stores. Our exports of cattle are twofold. We export store cattle and fat cattle. It is the responsibility of the Government and the Minister for Agriculture to keep those two branches of our exports going side by side, and not to impose on one at the expense of the other, not to damage our store cattle trade by our fat cattle trade.
This subsidy scheme for cattle was introduced for a special purpose. It was introduced in connection with the TB Eradication Scheme. It was intended to serve the purpose of seeing that farmers who had affected cattle did not lose as a result, because they could not afford to lose. At that stage the Government could not discriminate between sound cattle and reactors. They had to give the subsidy on all cattle, whether reactor or healthy. The TB Eradication Scheme has made vast progress. The West of Ireland is now a cleared area and the remainder of the country is a clearance area—all except six counties, five of the six counties of Munster, and Kilkenny. Clare is a cleared area.
Kilkenny is not.
I did not say it was. I said that Clare was a cleared area and that the remaining five counties of Munster and Kilkenny were not.
I thought the Senator said Kilkenny was a cleared area.
I did not. If I may continue without further interruption, please——
The Senator has a lot to learn here yet.
We are impressed by the new farmers of Fianna Fáil.
They are better than a bad farmer any day.
For the 12 months ending 31st March, 1961, this scheme cost the country something over £4 million. The bill which the country will have to face during the coming 12 months is something around £148 million, we are told. We have been told by the Senator who has just spoken, and by some of the people who interrupted me, that that bill is far too high for the country to bear.
Despite the lack of logic and despite the erroneous figures given, that bill includes an increase for the Irish farming community of slightly over £3 million. Of the entire expenditure on running this State, including the Garda, the teachers, the universities, the Army and the Civil Service, one-quarter goes to the farmers, and very properly so. No one quarrels with that.
The Senator must get back to the motion.
As I say, that subsidy cost us a little over £4 million. Is that £4 million still to go to the exporters? Is it to be taken out of the money that is left for fertilisers, for irrigation——
On a point of order. That money did not go to the exporters. Senator Nash has said it went to the exporters. It should have gone to the farmers and I believe it did go to the farmers.
That is a point of explanation.
As the Senator says, it should have gone to the farmers. It did not. I still insist that it did not.
It did.
Yes it did.
In July, 1961, the subsidy on cattle was 44/- a cwt. In August, 1961, the subsidy was reduced to £1 per cwt. One would imagine from that, that the Irish farmer was losing 24/- a cwt. The price did not drop to any practical extent whatsoever. Where was the 24/- per cwt. going in the meantime? The Irish farmer was still getting the same price for his cattle. We have only to look at the prices quoted in our cattle marts to verify that. We are now told that this subsidy should be maintained, that it should go to the exporters, that it should still go to the ranchers, and not on fertilisers and irrigation schemes.
The Government would be failing in their responsibilities and in the duty they owe to a vast section of the community, the reasonably sized and small farmer of Ireland, if they were to pay any heed whatsoever to this motion which, I submit, has been put to the House in an almost irresponsible fashion.
I am very glad you, Sir, induced some Senators to intervene because it is difficult to have to break into a deliberative Assembly like this and start off without having heard someone else speak. Now that you have broken the ice, it makes it a wee bit easier for me.
I should start off by emphasising to a somewhat greater extent the point that has just been made by Senator Nash, and that was the purpose of this scheme when introduced on the 4th July, 1960.
I am not surprised, of course, at the reaction shown in some quarters to the announcement which was made recently concerning that scheme but let me say that no support scheme, for whatever purpose it was introduced, can ever be withdrawn by a Government without somebody saying "Leave it there", even if the purpose for which it was introduced has been fully served. I do not misunderstand that sort of approach because I suppose it is a human approach and certainly it is an approach one must expect in an Assembly like this.
We have experimented with many schemes in our efforts to deal with the enormous problem of bovine tuberculosis. We have experimented with schemes for a while and have dropped them. Some experiments are still on trial and they too will be dropped in due course. When dealing with a problem like this even if you gave all the thought that you could, and had all the advice that you might receive from those with an intimate knowledge of all the difficulties of the problem, and the objectives, you would still find that the best thoughts and plans when put into operation would be found wanting.
In 1960, when we introduced this scheme—it came into effect on 4th July—the British had, in March of that year, announced it as their policy not to permit unattested live stock into the country at all. That was a serious matter for us at that time because the area in this country which was attested was so small and the availability of fully attested stores so limited, and the desirability of continuing the export of store cattle so urgent, and since that could only be effected by the export of once tested cattle we, the Minister and his officials, had to take a very serious view. Very early on I saw what that problem would be like unless we could devise some scheme of a temporary nature to meet the position. At that time those people who were in the export business, buying and exporting once-tested live stock came, with other interests, to discuss their problems with me. One of their problems was one that I could understand very well indeed, and that was that since we were not branding cattle that had failed the 14-day test they were exposed to the risk and inconvenience to themselves and their business of going to the fairs and marts and purchasing unattested stock, taking them home, applying the 14-day test, then finding that a number would fail and they would have them on their hands. They could not export them and their money would be tied up in these animals.
It is not difficult to imagine just how that would affect people in that important business. On the other hand, if they arranged to purchase their stock from farmers or feeders who had themselves applied the 14-day test, these farmers and feeders would do that work for them, but if they did not have to brand the reactors to that 14-day test these reactors would lie around the premises and they could be exposed for sale at fairs and marts and be purchased by traders in the belief that they were cattle that would have a reasonable chance of passing a test which they had in fact already failed. The traders came to me several times and asked "Why do you not brand these cattle?" I said: "We have considered doing that many times but if we brand these cattle at a farmer's place, or even if they are in your custody and ownership, well then, they will carry a disfigurement that will result in the owner, whether he is a trader or feeder, having to pay some penalty because of the fact that the animal in question carries a brand that clearly shows he is a disease-stricken animal."
Our organisation at the time was not in a position to purchase these reactors, and treat them as we would treat animals purchased under the scheme itself. I am dealing in this matter with the export side of the business and the importance of maintaining it pending our bringing the eradication scheme to the point where our store trade could continue. As I say, we had not the organisation. We had not the means of handling them and therefore a scheme had to be devised. We had not been punching these cattle because of the reasons I have given when the scheme was introduced on the 4th July, 1960. Although it was intended to support the type of animal I have described, it would not have been possible to identify the animal because there was no brand and again, because of the urgency of this question, we said we would apply the scheme until the end of June or the 1st July, 1961 to all fats of a stated type and to all carcase meat of a certain quality up to and including the 31st July, 1961, announcing at the same time that it was our intention to review it on that date along the lines I have described, that is, of applying it to rejected cattle.
It was round about the month of July, 1961, that we came to consider this whole matter. I shall not deal with the price factors; I shall not deal with the market fluctuations at this particular point. I shall not deal with the catastrophe in relation to the prices that hit the trade at a time when no one would have expected it. I am sure that all the knowledgeable people in the trade had not the faintest notion nor do they have the faintest notion as to what will happen the trade. I shall not deal with that aspect of the matter.
When June, 1961 arrived we did, as we undertook to do, review this scheme with a view to applying it from the 1st August to the scheme we had originally intended and that was of supporting reactor stock which were identifiable at that particular time because, since we introduced the scheme, we had been punching all the animals that had failed the tests. Therefore, we had a year's rejects under the 14-day test. From the physical point of view it was possible then to do as we originally intended but it is like everything else in the world. It is like all the ideas that men can have, that groups can have, that thoughtful people can have and that thoughtful members of groups can have about problems when they are looking at them from afar.
It is very easy to find a solution for them. You can have half a dozen of them but when you find yourself in close proximity to these problems with the solutions you devise when you were standing out from them, you will discover that the solutions about which you thought a lot are not just equal to the problem that has to be dealt with. So it was with us in June, 1961 and so it was with us apart altogether from any question of price fluctuations or the market conditions that prevailed at the time.
We saw, for example, something that I will just briefly illustrate. We saw that if we were to confine a subsidy in any form to reactor stock it might mean—in fact, it would in all probability mean—that we would be exporting to Britain, for slaughter of course—because no unattested stock would be allowed in except for slaughter—a number of heifers and bullocks that failed the test here and which would be carrying the State subsidy on their backs and travelling to the same market would be that stock of bullocks and heifers which had failed no test at all and which were as sound as a bell as far as health was concerned.
It occurred to our mind that it would not ring true in the ears of the British public nor would it look too sweet if the British reader were to have this served up to him in the way pressmen and correspondents can serve it up—sometimes in a helpful sense and sometimes in a destructive sense. We always have to think, because of the importance of the business in which we are engaged, of the possibility of its being served up in a destructive sense. We felt that if we were to do this, if we were to confine the subsidy as from July, 1961, to reactor stock only, it could mean that that stock would be more valuable and would make a higher price than similar quality beef and everything else which had a completely clean sheet as far as records were concerned.
It could not be possible for any man who has not the most intimate knowledge of the workings of a scheme like this, even after a week's study, to see all the implications involved. That is only one small aspect of this whole business. He would not see it in the sense of being able to make a fair, objective assessment or criticism, if you like, of the problems that confront a Minister and a Department dealing with a situation such as this is.
I have demonstrated that this scheme was very justifiably introduced for the purpose I have stated and that purpose was caused by the factors to which I have referred. If Senators want the prospect of having another skirmish with the Minister and his Department, of a certainty I will be announcing in a very short time the abandonment of a scheme that applied for some years to the five Munster counties and one Leinster county. Somebody can put down a motion and say that we are withdrawing a headage payment or we are withdrawing some other scheme that has been in operation from which some people will feel they have benefited to an extent to which they may not benefit under whatever amended proposals may be announced.
We in this Department have got to examine all the problems and try to deal with them. We have to try to devise ways and means sometimes even in a temporary fashion, as was the case here, so as to bring ourselves to the point where we will have enough elbow room and freedom to have another look at things and make whatever alterations we feel are necessary.
The situation now is entirely different from what it was then. The progress we have made has been tremendous. Even our neighbours who take a close look at us at times and who do not always regard us as a serious people—unfortunately, they do not always regard us as people who will apply ourselves to an awkward task like this as, perhaps, they would like to think their people do—are loud in their praises as to the progress we have succeeded in making since July, 1960. It is because of that fact that we can at this point now have another look at things and see where we are going.
Let me just touch on the other aspect, that of prices. That is the aspect to which those who have moved this motion would like to have this problem fitted. Senator Prendergast is a knowledgeable man in the cattle trade, and I do not think—and I regret it as much as he and as much as any other man that it is so—that I can ever remember complete stability in the cattle trade. Neither can any man who has been in the trade as long as Senator Prendergast or I, which is long. I never remember an occasion when those engaged in it could look twelve months ahead and be sure of the outcome of any one year.
Why should not there be stability?
I am not going to argue that point now. I am stating a fact. If the Senator were to take 1956 for example, and that is not so far back, I do not remember beef prices being as low for many years as they were in that year when there was no support price scheme. The fall in the price of beef and stores last May, June, July and August was really catastrophic, and in my Budget speech I referred to that fact, and I think it was the Leader of the Opposition who questioned some statement that I made in that speech expressing my doubts as to why that should be the case. I had my suspicions as to why it was the case but suspicions are not enough. My suspicions were sufficiently strong to warrant me referring to the fact that the price fall was catastrophic at a time when nobody expected it.
The British Government have now established some sort of machinery to enquire into a number of matters including that one, that is, the mystery of the market slump and how it came about, what extent it had and who was responsible. But apart from that we might as well face up to this: Senators who spoke on this matter have talked about export prospects for the coming year. Of course, we all know that the exports for last year were extremely high. The figures are there and there is no use in cantering through them, but the principal thing is not so much the number of two-year-olds or 3-year-olds that may be floating around the country, but the number of cows and in-calf heifers. That is the fundamental thing. If that is right then you cannot go far wrong. That has been the case, that exports were abnormally high and according to the records there are supposed to be fewer young stock —I forget the figure—but the figure for in-calf cows and heifers has gone up and that was the very thing we wanted. The only thing I regret is that they have not gone up to a greater extent.
Did anybody in this country ever think what a permanent subsidy on our store and beef trade would be like? We start with the cow, with her milk, consumed by the people to whatever extent they require liquid milk, butter, cheese, chocolate crumb and milk powder. We follow the cow around and every commodity into which her milk is converted we support, and at considerable cost to the consumer and the taxpayer, and rightly so. The calf is left alongside, and we are now asked for a permanent support scheme for him. I do not think that that is realism in the world in which we are living, and I am not afraid to say so.
I was asked a question in the Dáil the other day to the effect that I should consider the advisability of subsidising artificial insemination so that the service fee would be reduced by whatever the amount of the subsidy might be. The answer to this suggestion, and the suggestion that is clearly contained in this motion, is the cow, what she produces, what you aim at when you encourage the man to keep her and support him in all his efforts to market the products that result, and not only encourage but subsidise him so as to ensure that he will feed her well. Whatever loss befalls the store animal or the beef beast, as the lawyer said to the witness when an old lady whose name was Kitty was being prompted by the daughter in court and he objected to the prompting, "Never mind Kitty. Kitty can paddle her own canoe". So too will the bullock when he reaches that situation, and so he should. Apart from that, let me show the unwisdom of any other course. What is the main purpose of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme that is costing the country millions of pounds and that will cost millions more?
Every Party in the House has agreed as to what the purpose is or was and that purpose which has been stated repeatedly was to preserve the store cattle trade with Britain. Of course, there is a financial reason for such a policy and a very sound financial reason because if we send our cattle or most of them as stores to Britain, after they have been fed there for a few months they get, since 1960 anyway, the full British price support when they are sold as fats. Therefore, it is and it will be a far more attractive proposition for us to send the great bulk—they will not all go—of our cattle in that form as we used to do. That has been the aim of all this expenditure. Some Senator can get up and say that was foolish, that we should not send out one beast as a store.
No.
He can make that statement until the cows come home, but I am telling Senators what the aim was when this scheme was introduced, in the knowledge that the taxpayers would pay millions and millions of pounds for it before the work was completed. There should be clarity as to what the purpose was and I am stating that purpose fairly.
Suppose you had at some time, as you had in 1956, a range of prices for fat cattle that were about the same as the prices for stores and assume that at that particular time you had a subsidy of 10/- per cwt. Naturally, those in the trade would pick up £5 on a 10 cwt. animal and say: "This animal could have gone out as a store; all right, but he is more valuable if he is sent out as beef." You could in certain circumstances divert trade in a temporary way and break the continuity of supply of stores which in the knowledge of all who know anything about the business could have only a harmful result, to put it mildly.
Let us come to the effect of the subsidy schemes. I do not like and I never did like to accuse traders of sharp practice, whether they were small in number or influence. We politicians can be terribly unfair. Often a small section of the community may be engaged in a business that affects a very large percentage and public men may say that this small group appear to be doing something against the public interest, deliberately, to line their own pockets, and dishonestly. None of us is a saint and that is a line of approach which I never like. It is impossible to eliminate it but it should be curbed every time it can be. People have had many misgivings about the whereabouts of the subsidy payments, into which pockets they are getting and into whose pockets. I do not like to carry that too far because I know that most of the people engaged in these trades, whether they are bacon curers, millers or cattle traders, are people whom, if you met them in ordinary life and had any dealings with them, you would find straight and honest and you may take it as almost a certainty that if we are as good as they are we may not be doing too badly.
Having said all that, I still believe that no subsidy paid in this fashion ever went fully to the producer. It should go to him but I doubt if it works out in that fashion. Senator Nash very briefly pointed to something that it is almost impossible to explain. I could not explain it. You have a rate of subsidy of, say, 40/-, maybe a little over. In July, 1961, at one time it was 44/-, I think.
It was 44/-.
One of the frightening thoughts I had when making the change was that there could be a rush to sell before July 31st, when this order would reduce the subsidy. It meant that those who saw the subsidy at 40/-, 41/-, or 42/- said: "out we go". The markets were crammed with animals.
That answers Senator Nash.
That is all right. It is part of the explanation, part of it. I concede every point without painful extraction at all. The fact that we had that onslaught on the market, cattle tumbling in from every part that would otherwise be marketed in a more orderly fashion, would have, I am sure, the result of depressing prices, overburdening shipping facilities with the probability of stock having to be held over for a night or two, at extra cost, uncertainty, and all the rest. At the same time, although the little shock was felt on the first market after July 31st, on the next one and the one after that prices seemed to steady back to where they were when the subsidy was twice as much. Whatever the trade tells me and whatever may be their desires—it is all right to express such desire that the subsidy should be paid direct to producers and feeders—in making that suggestion it is very often realised well in advance that however rosy it may look in print it is not in fact workable. The only way we could pay it was the way we did pay it. If we could decide the means by which we could pay it direct to the farmers that is the way we would do it. I have tried to watch the traders not only in relation to this particular subsidy, and I have sometimes tried to defend them on a theoretical basis. After my experience over the years I say that any time and every time I could avoid paying a subsidy of that nature I would avoid it.
Such subsidy has other undesirable results. Our neighbours in the North enjoy the British support price. The market price for cattle there, which does not really affect the feeder or the producer because he has a guarantee behind him, is very low. Because of our trade arrangements with Britain, as perhaps all Senators know, the movement of cattle is free between both parts of this country and Britain, but as a result of the subsidy here there was the extraordinary state of affairs that while in 1960 some 40,000 animals were imported from the Six Counties area, in 1961, 150,000 odd cattle were imported here. That growth in imports from the Six Counties area was caused by the effect our subsidy payment was having on the market. I am not saying they were not fully entitled to come in here. It was their right. They are entitled to come in here to-morrow and since they were entitled, they were welcome.
Our sheep went out.
That is a different question. There is no subsidy on sheep. I am talking about the effects of our subsidy. Not only had it that effect but it had the effect of depressing our prices, and butchers in Dublin were buying Northern heifers.
The Minister could stop the Northern cattle coming in.
I am stating facts. I will go a little further. In addition, these subsidy payments of ours would not in the ordinary way be applicable to cattle that earned the British price support in the Six Counties area. I said some time ago that we were not all saints—politicians or traders—and politicians in a very special way. I am looking at Senator L'Estrange when I say that.
Politicians on both sides of the House.
These cattle from the North have a hole in their ears. We had to watch the cattle going out for export to Britain to ensure that they did not include cattle on which the British subsidy had already been paid. We had to investigate that, and some of our investigations are not yet complete. A subsidy like this is unnaturally introduced. It is certainly unnaturally introduced in abnormal circumstances, and it would not be introduced in normal circumstances. Having to be introduced in abnormal circumstances, it opens the way for every kind of effort to fill the hole in the animal's ear with wax or candle-grease, and then put two or three of them into a bunch of ten and think everything is as right as ninepence. Those are some of the problems that have to be watched in subsidy payments. In fact, there is not anything that could be said in favour of it, if one were dealing with a normal situation.
I spoke earlier about the progress we have made, but that does not mean that we have not had our disappointments. We have reached the stage at which we have full confidence in our capacity to complete the task earlier than we originally thought. We will, we hope, be able to deal with all of Leinster inside this year. By the time we have reached that stage there will be an unlimited supply of good store cattle, and even as we are we are not too bad.
As I say, we have now got confidence in ourselves and the farmers have had it demonstrated to them that the task can be completed. I am looking forward to having the whole country, with the exception of those six counties, completed during this year. I remember all the pressures, and all the criticisms of the design and pattern of the scheme we set out for ourselves, and the efforts that were made to shake our confidence in it. I believe, looking back now, that we certainly had the right approach. With a full acceptance of that fact I make an appeal to the five Munster counties and the one Leinster county. Some of them have done reasonably well and some have done badly. I have always had the feeling that they had a conviction that they would be last no matter what they did.
They had the feeling in the early days that the task could not be accomplished and were indifferent or if not indifferent they were in some cases even worse and because of their lack of confidence in our capacity or their own, they engaged in practices that would have knocked the bottom out of the whole effort. Now we have demonstrated to them that it can be done. The area will be small; the number of experienced people that we will have to release in the course of a few months will be much greater than it has been and I would ask public men and public bodies and the farmers in their own interests to make a serious effort because, excepting two or three counties which were reasonably good, there are a number of areas which I thought were poor. They are not late yet and they might not be too long after the rest if they would make up their minds. In the course of a couple of weeks we will make the final announcement which will outline the final scheme which we have in mind and our approach to the full solution of this problem for the whole country.
It has cost a lot of money but it has been profitable. The farmers and stockowners in the areas in which we have succeeded have benefited and profited. If we can export all the stores that Britain wants from us and if these cattle earn the full British price support they should be more valuable as stores than any other form we can send. Even if we send out a lot of them there are still a lot of cattle for the export trade and the beef and the dead meat trade also. Without being boastful I can say that this is a subject in which I have taken a tremendously keen interest. I am very pleased that we have done so well and when we meet people outside the country and receive their congratulations as to how well we have done, notwithstanding as I said at the outset the accusations as to our lackadaisical habits, it is very pleasing indeed.
I do not believe there is a possibility no matter what, as the saying is, time may do or what king reigns, of our devising a support scheme for everything and certainly not a support scheme as far as the bullock is concerned, from conception to the plate. It just cannot be done and we shall have to face up to that. It is better we should know it and not have people going around with the idea that from time to time the State can interfere if a dullness happens to hit the store cattle or the beef trade and then pull out again and pull in again if necessary. That has not been the policy of any Government I know of and I do not think it ever will be.
The Minister dealt at length with the purpose of the scheme. I am as well aware as the Minister of the purpose of the scheme. I know that originally there was only £240,000 or £250,000 set aside to meet this guaranteed payment. But what happened this time last year and right through the summer compelled the Minister—compelled is probably the wrong word—but in sympathy with the price the farmers would have got the Minister felt compelled to make this the price they should get for all types of cattle. I know that when the scheme was first introduced it was to be applicable only to reactor cattle. There was never any definition to that effect but the price of beef was so low that even finally fully attested cattle were being shipped to the beef market. In that way they were qualifying for the guaranteed price.
The Minister was not here when I moved this motion and I doubt if Senator Nash was either because then he would not have spoken in the way he did about the exports. I should like to point out again that the livestock exporters would much prefer that this guarantee payment would go direct to the farmers. In actual fact they have no sympathy with this motion of mine in so far as they do not want to be the object of any further insinuations either by Senator Nash or others outside the House. I am glad that the Minister made certain remarks to counteract what Senator Nash said. The purpose of my motion is not so much to continue the scheme. It does want that but the real problem is if a certain occasion arises, and it may arise within a short time.
This week the price of beef was on average approximately £6 15s. Od. Possibly next week it may not drop 15/- a cwt. by virtue of the fact that there were a lot of cattle on the market to-day and beef will probably be getting scarce now until June. Next July or August if the beef price in England is the same as it was last July and August, when 1/4d. and 1/5d. a lb. was paid in London for Irish beef, the equivalent of about £4 10s. a cwt. in Dublin for cattle, then if that occasion arises and all the cattle in this country are not yet attested it will mean that 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of the forward stores of fat cattle will just have to take about £4 10s. Od. or £5 Os. Od. a cwt. I would ask the Minister, if he has definitely made up his mind, if he can assure the House that the farmers will not have to take this sacrifice price for their cattle.
Never shake hands with the devil until you meet him.
In reply to a question in the Dáil the Minister for Finance said "wait and see". I am prepared to wait and see if the Minister can give me and the House an assurance that if there is a collapse, he is prepared to step in. This thing is becoming serious. The idea of "live horse and you will get grass" is not too healthy either.
It is a long time coming this year.
Senator Nash spoke about equality in regard to the different subsidies to farmers. The wheat grower is getting a subsidy. The producer of milk is getting a subsidy but the man who produces cattle, if this scheme is ended, will be at the mercy of the Argentine, Yugoslavia, Uruguay and any country that wants to dump meat in the British market. There is nobody to back him up or support him.
The man who keeps the cow produces the cattle.
Of course. If he overproduces he is going to take £4 10s. a cwt. for cattle, which happened last year. The Minister admitted that the guaranteed price was never intended for the purpose it was there for. Nevertheless, the trade was so bad that he could not help but pay this price in respect of all cattle whether reactors or not.
I did not say that.
That is what the Minister meant.
The Minister will want a rest for five minutes in order to answer that one.
The Minister said that there is never stability in the cattle trade. There never has been much stability but why should there not be stability? There is some kind of stability in other forms of farming such as wheat growing and milk production but there is no guaranteed price, if this scheme ends, for cattle production. The argument that there is never stability does not mean that there should never be stability.
That does not produce stability, either.
It will help towards it.
I cannot see it.
The Minister suggested that we should sell all our cattle as stores. We cannot——
I did not even say that.
That if all our cattle were sold as stores we would not have to be looking for this guarantee. All our cattle cannot be sold as stores this year. They are not all attested. With the exception of Clare, the south of Ireland is not in the clearance area. What are the unfortunate beef producing farmers in Tipperary, Limerick and part of Waterford going to do if there is a collapse in the beef trade in England such as there was last year? They will finish up getting nothing. I hope there will not be a collapse in the beef trade but there is no reason to say that there will not be. If the price goes low as it would have to without the subsidy, will the Minister give the farmer some support or help him out in some way? Otherwise there will be chaos.
The Minister blamed the subsidy for the importation of 150,000 beef cattle from the North of Ireland. In 1960, 50,000 were imported and there was no subsidy.
There was a subsidy in July, 1960.
It was nothing.
What did it cost?
I am talking about 1960.
It cost £250,000 in 1960.
It was nothing in comparison——
You would not throw £250,000 across your shoulder.
When it is divided between a couple of thousand cattle, it is not very big. I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter even if it were only for this year. I would join with the Minister in his appeal for the speeding up of the bovine eradication scheme. I agree that tremendous progress has been made and I give all credit to the Department and the Minister for the progress made in the past two or three years in connection with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. I feel that by this time next year the country will be out of the wood and will be 90 per cent attested but until that happens the farmers whose cattle are not attested, through no fault of their own, may find themselves in a very awkward position if the beef trade in England collapses in the same fashion as it did last year. For that reason, I would appeal to the Minister not to drop the scheme for this year or if he intends to drop it he should give us some guarantee that there will be no collapse in regard to non-attested cattle and reactor cattle.
Question put and declared lost.