asked the Minister for Agriculture the proposals he has to increase the national cattle herd.

32.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the proposals he has to increase the national herd.

33.

asked the Minister for Agriculture the action he proposes to take to have a greater volume of slaughtering at our meat plants.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 31, 32 and 33 together.

The reduced level of slaughterings at meat plants since 1980 is due mainly to a decline in the cattle herd which this Government are actively seeking to reverse.

A range of measures is already in operation to encourage farmers to expand livestock numbers. These include the calf premium, the suckler cow premium, calved heifer grant, and the headage schemes in the disadvantaged areas. A farmer in those areas can now obtain as much as £169 for an extra heifer and calf, while a farmer outside those areas can get £118. These represent very attractive incentives to increase breeding herds.

I am glad to note that slaughterings at our meat export premises to date this year are 8 per cent higher than the corresponding period last year and I hope that this upward trend will continue.

Arising from the recent EEC price negotiations, the support price for beef has been increased by over 13 per cent and this should also have a stimulating effect on production and on factory throughput.

A reply to a question yesterday indicated that our cattle herd is not increasing. Will the Minister not agree that the only hope of improving our economic situation is to increase the number of livestock? This Government took a retrograde step when they set out qualifying limits for applicants for cattle headage grants in severely disadvantaged areas. It is generally accepted that the quickest and cheapest way to increase the cattle herd would have been to increase the cattle headage payment rather than impose limitations.

I fail to see the logic of the Deputy's query. I do not know what source the Deputy was using in his original statement. Was he referring to a question answered yesterday?

Yes. It was information regarding the estimated number of cattle in the State on 1 December 1981 and 1 December 1982. On 1 December 1982 there were 5,000 fewer cattle: the number was marginally over 5,750,000. This is lower than ten years ago when we entered the EEC with all the aids and benefits we received in the meantime.

I would point out to the Deputy that the year in which cattle numbers were most seriously depleted was 1980.

It was 1974-75.

The numbers have been built up since, although not as speedily as I would have hoped in spite of the incentives, subsidies and premiums to which I referred to in my reply. The latest statistic I have is that between June 1980 and June 1982 the total number of cows rose by 1.9 per cent. That seems a little at odds with the Deputy's figure but I am quoting from statistics which I have before me.

On a point of information, I was talking about the overall cattle population, not figures in respect of cows.

If the national herd is to increase, surely the number of cows has to increase first.

Perhaps sometime someone will explain to me the difference between cattle and cows. Will the Minister indicate the reasons for the fall in the number of cattle herd during the years? The year 1974 was mentioned as was 1980.

It is very difficult to explain. When people experienced financial difficulties, primarily in 1978 and 1979, the natural recourse was to sell off stock in order to meet bills. That, unfortunately, was a trend at that time which I am glad to say has been reversed.

Having regard to what the Minister said with reference to the fact that the Brussels farm price agreement is likely to stimulate the industry plus the fact that there has been an 8 per cent increase in slaughterings over last year, would he be prepared to use his good offices to bring about a situation whereby two meat plants in my constituency in County Kildare which are now closed due to various problems will reopen soon?

That is a separate question which embraces a whole new field.

The Minister lumped those three questions together. I would like to ask him a supplementary in connection with Question No. 33. Would he agree that the amount of input into the meat industry by the IDA and so on should warrant more serious consideration by the Government regarding the future of those plants as they are at present? We are suffering severely here, not only from the point of view of unemployment but also in food processing where so many cattle go out on the hoof and so few are going as carcases and slaughtered meat.

The Deputy refers to the number of cattle going out on the hoof. I refer him to my original reply which stated that the number of slaughterings is up by 8 per cent this year over the corresponding period last year. In 1982 73 per cent of cattle were slaughtered in this country as against 68 per cent in 1981vis-à-vis those exported.

Would the Minister agree that the reason for that is lack of feed over the last number of months and many people have had to dispose of stock which normally would have had three or four months grass feeding after the silo?

I have no evidence that the trend in 1983 has been more significant than in previous years.

Would the Minister accept that the beginning of the nose dive with regard to our cattle was in 1974 and the dive continued at an enormous rate until 1977? Would he accept that the cattle population in this nation is far below what it might be, and that if the economy is to improve it will depend on the increase in cattle population? What positive steps have the Minister's Government taken since they came into power in order to increase the cattle population? I know, as every other farmer knows, that the cattle population is smaller this year than last year or the year before, irrespective of what we have heard here today. I would also like to ask——

A question.

Yes, this is the question. I would like to ask him if the discontinuance of the Farm Modernisation Scheme will contribute to a further slowing down or decrease in the national herd.

That seems to be a separate question.

It sounded more like a Second Stage Speech. There is a great deal of conjecture in what has been said. The statistics for 1983 are not available. As I stated in reply to an earlier supplementary question, the national herd increased by 1.9 per cent between June 1981 and June 1982 and all the indications are that that trend is continuing.

(Limerick West): Is the Minister aware that the plans he outlined in his reply were already in operation when he took up his position as Minister for Agriculture and that he did not reply to the question at all? He was asked what his Government's proposals were to increase the national herd. We would like to have those details.

The matters that have been referred to by Deputy Noonan are not perpetual schemes. The subsidies and premia to which I referred in my reply are negotiable every year and there is a considerable area of doubt annually as to whether these are to be renewed by the EEC. Luckily for us, they have been renewed for the current year. As I stated in my original reply, the subsidies and premia available to a farmer for a cow and a calf in the disadvantaged areas amount to £169 and the sums available in those areas of silage which are disadvantaged amount to £116.

Does the Minister accept the fact that he has not introduced any new schemes? Do I understand that small farmers who have off-farm occupations—

That is a separate question. These do not arise out of the questions on the Order Paper.

——have been severely hit by the budget changes and that it is a disincentive to increasing the national herd?

Those questions do not arise out of these.

(Limerick West): Three questions are being taken together and you, Sir, have allowed me, as my party's spokesman, only one supplementary.

If the Deputy puts a question which is relevant I will allow it, but most of the questions that have been put are not relevant and do not arise under these questions.

(Limerick West): Are you suggesting that my question is not relevant?

No. I am talking about the questions to date.

(Limerick West): In view of what the Minister has stated in his reply regarding Question No. 33, that slaughterings this year are up by 8 per cent, how can he reconcile that statement with what has already been stated by his party colleague, Deputy Durkan, that a number of meat factories are closing down and a number of others are on a three-day week?

As I stated, the number of slaughterings in 1983 is up by 8 per cent over the corresponding period in 1982. If some plants are doing excessively good business, I can only congratulate them.

(Limerick West): Would the Minister consider that the increase in slaughterings is due to the high incidence of cattle being eradicated because of disease, both TB and brucellosis?

Not necessarily.

(Limerick West): Could the Minister give us the different figures?

I would want to have a volume with me, not just a few questions. That is a different question altogether from that on the Order Paper.

(Limerick West): Would the Minister reply yes or no?

That more cattle are being slaughtered under the disease eradication programme, whether for bovine TB or brucellosis, is not the answer.

That is a separate question.

From my information the incidence is showing a reduction which would indicate that that would be the very reverse of what the Deputy is insinuating in his question.

The remaining questions will appear on the Order Paper for Wednesday, 8 June 1983.

On a point of order, Sir, you referred to one of the supplementaries asked here.

I said that those questions did not arise because they were not relevant.

I am looking for guidance in the future at Question Time. I hold that the questions that were asked here as supplementaries were relevant. Would the Ceann Comhairle tell the House the particular supplementary questions which were not relevant?

The Deputy is entitled to his opinion, but the Chair ruled that they were separate questions.

But, a Cheann Comhairle——

The Deputy cannot invade the debate on the Department of Health Vote. I call on Deputy Faulkner.

On a point of order, is the Chair prepared to allow Questions Nos. 31, 32 and 33 to be placed on the Order Paper for Wednesday of next week?

No.

On a point of order——

That is not a point of order.

It is.

(Limerick West): On a point of order, in view of the situation which arose yesterday, the Chair should allow those to be placed on the Order Paper for next week because of the fact that a number of my colleagues requested supplementary questions.

I have no authority to do that. I have no discretion. I am sorry.

(Limerick West): But the questions should be——

I am sorry, I have not got a discretion. I would love to oblige Deputy Byrne, but I have no discretion in the matter.

On a point of order, these are questions of national importance.

(Limerick West): On a point of order, am I to take it that the Chair does not recognise the importance of agriculture?

I am really surprised at the Deputy. The Chair recognises that he is bound by Standing Orders. He has no discretion.

(Limerick West): In view of the ruling of the Chair, I am now asking that the content matter of Questions No. 31, 32 and 33 be raised on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with Deputy Noonan.