Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1960

Vol. 183 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 46—Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"That the Estimate be referred back for reconsideration."—(Deputy Dillon.)

Last night I was complaining that the Minister was not making a sufficiently vigorous effort to ensure that the T.B. eradication scheme would be brought up to a standard which would ensure that our very valuable cattle trade with Great Britain would be properly maintained and protected. The position at the moment is that our scheme appears to be lagging behind the sister scheme in Britain. In Britain they appear to have reached a standard which leaves us out in the cold. The result is that our farming community, which depends on the sale of store cattle to Great Britain, is obliged to accept depressed prices. The farmers find it difficult to sell their cattle. Generally, the position is that the small farmers who normally depend on the sale of store cattle for export at reasonably good prices must now depend to a greater extent on the larger farmers in the fattening areas to purchase the majority of these store cattle. The result is that the demand for store cattle is not as strong as it would be if there were competition from across the water. To these small farmers the price of a few store cattle in the year means all the difference between making ends meet and failing to do so. They have been obliged to hold on to their cattle instead of selling them for the purpose of meeting their liabilities.

The Minister, in his statement, admitted that the cattle population has increased, but it has increased mainly because of the difficulty farmers experience in getting their store cattle exported. It is now much easier for them to export finished cattle, provided they come off accredited farms, but only a limited number of feeders in this country can cope with our very high production of young cattle. For that reason it is necessary for the Minister to make a vigorous effort to try to have a large part of the country accredited as soon as possible. In fact I feel he should take some emergency measures which would ensure the completion of the bovine T.B. eradication scheme at the earliest possible date.

There are many cases of national emergency where a Government may find it necessary to take drastic action, and the livestock industry is so important that any factor affecting that sphere of our economy should be regarded as a national emergency. The Minister mentioned that, up until now, he has spent approximately £7,000,000 on this scheme but does he consider the expenditure of that amount, in connection with an industry whose welfare is a matter of life or death to the country, a sufficient effort? We can point to the fact that in the last 12 years we spent well over £100,000,000 on the provision of dwelling houses for our people. That was a national emergency and it was met within a reasonable time but, at the present rate of expenditure, we certainly shall not spend £100,000,000 on the T.B. eradication scheme over a similar period.

As I say, this is a matter of life or death. If we do not maintain our cattle population and the fertility of the land that produces them we shall not have an economy strong enough to maintain our dwindling human population, and I may emphasise that that population is dwindling. I mention this because I feel the Minister should be prepared to spend £10,000,000 a year on this scheme in order to get the whole country accredited as soon as possible.

I wonder would the Government consider floating a National Loan, in order to obtain the necessary money, if there is any difficulty regarding the financing of the scheme. Perhaps the Minister may tell us that he is not short of money, that he has money to spend and, if that should be so, my suggestion to him is that he should be prepared to spend it immediately to ensure the early completion of the scheme. Even within the next 12 months he should be prepared to spend a sum of at least £10,000,000. Surely such an amount is not too heavy an expenditure to protect a £100,000,000 industry? When the job would be completed at least our livestock industry would be safe for years to come, depending on any change that may occur within the industry itself and, naturally, we must be prepared for changes.

The idea of bovine T.B. accreditation, which has spread amongst the more progressive peoples of the world, is something that we could not have anticipated ten or twenty years ago. It is upon us now and we should tackle it vigorously and complete the job as soon as possible because we cannot stand back and allow the main sector of our economy to become more depressed than it is. I should add that already there is widespread depression, particularly amongst farmers who have store cattle to sell but who cannot find a ready purchaser and, when they are obliged to sell, have to accept a loss or only a very small profit which is not sufficient to enable them to carry on this business as they did in the past.

We are all wondering just how long more will cattle prices continue to be as low as they are now, and how long more will producers experience difficulty in getting them sold. Our farmers, I feel, will continue to face these difficulties until they stand level with the farming community across the water who have advanced their eradication scheme much further than we have ours. We can make the same progress but it will depend on the Minister giving the leadership which is necessary to get the job done.

He did mention that to a certain extent a number of counties west of the Shannon have been cleared. Certainly they are the areas worst affected, but it has been noticed that in areas outside those counties there is often delay experienced in having farms accredited. Many land owners comply with the necessary regulations and then send notices asking for the usual inspections to be carried out in order that their holdings can be accredited, but very frequently these notices are either ignored or overlooked. In any event there is a hold-up in the accreditation of their farms.

I do not intend to go into the technical side of accreditation. That is a matter for the technicians, but I feel that the Minister must insist on co-operation amongst the farmers. It is all very well for one farmer to do his best to comply with the regulations and reach the standards laid down, but when his neighbours make no attempt to do likewise, they spoil that man's efforts. That is why I suggest the Minister will have to interfere more directly so far as the clearance of these areas is concerned. He will have to point out to the farmers that this is a matter of national importance and that the nation is affected to a considerable extent by the fact that this scheme is lagging behind its counterpart across the water. He will have to ask all land owners to keep pace and to comply with whatever regulations are proposed to each area in order that that scheme can be completed.

I consider that this is a crisis for this country which must not be overlooked but a solution found as soon as possible to ensure again a ready flow of cattle out of this country to Great Britain, our main customer. After all, we must face the fact that we depend on Great Britain for the import of nine-tenths of our livestock. It is all very well to talk about exploiting markets for beef and canned meat in European countries and elsewhere and to suggest that our factories should process the meat and export it; but when we face the fact that less than 10 per cent. of the beef produced in this country can be disposed of in that way we must realise that the other nine-tenths are exported, mainly on the hoof, to Great Britain and that the larger portion of our livestock industry depends on a ready market there. The market is there provided we can comply with the regulations. We are not able to comply with them because we are so far behind time and we are therefore not able to compete in the cross-Channel market with our cattle.

Deputy Dillon mentioned that another reason for the depression which exists throughout the length and breadth of the country on the land is the fact that the income of farmers has dropped by £18,000,000 in two years. At the same time the farming community has got to face higher costs. Higher wages have been granted to meet the higher cost of living faced by every section of the community, and the farmers, who have dropped £18,000,000 in their incomes, have to meet these higher prices and costs. It cannot continue.

For instance, the farmer is obliged at the moment to pay I suppose 7d. a loaf more for his bread than he paid as recently as three years ago. Still he has to take less for his wheat. Yet, in that background, he is facing a levy in the coming harvest.

I was glad to learn from the Minister's statement that the sheep trade, though it met with some difficulties towards the end of last year, has improved again. A great part of that trade is the price which is obtained from wool exports. I hope that whatever can be done to improve the economy in relation to sheep production will be done. There is plenty of hillside grazing in this country where much larger numbers of sheep could be reared and fattened. There is no scheme here to encourage the improvement of grazing on mountainsides and hillsides, but in other countries they have brought up very suitable schemes in connection with this type of sheep rearing. I feel we should take advantage of that and implement some kind of a plan which would enable sheep farmers to take advantage of these larger areas on which better feeding could be provided.

Although the pig progeny testing scheme was introduced here by the previous Government, and though very useful work was carried out, I fear that full advantage has not been taken of it. We have got some useful statistics and results from experiments that have been carried out and I feel they should be encouraged in every part of every county through the county committees of agriculture. The information gathered could be made available by the committees so that better quality pigs would be produced.

I noticed in the Minister's statement that the Marketing Advisory Committee set up a few years ago had suggested the establishment of a number of boards, one of them being the Bacon Export Board. I am in favour of that suggestion and if it will result in a very good increase in bacon exports it should be welcomed everywhere. It is very encouraging to notice that a reasonably high percentage—17 per cent. I think—of pigs qualified under the new section as super-grade bacon. I feel our advisory services, which can be provided through the various committees of agriculture, in connection with progeny testing and pig feeding will ensure that a much greater percentage than that will qualify as super-grade bacon.

In the matter of poultry, it is to be noted that the real progress has been made in connection with the double-breasted turkey. There seems to be a growing demand for this type of poultry flesh, and we should take advantage of all the technical advice resulting from the setting up of the station at Athenry. Such advice must inevitably result in expanding the production of turkeys. In past years turkey production was a very important part of our economy. But last Christmas the Minister and the Government made a very bad mistake in advising turkey breeders to sell at the wrong time. Many of them suffered heavy losses as a result. They sold their flocks for less than half the price secured by many of their neighbours who sold at a later date.

I would advise the Minister to watch the market and give better advice to turkey breeders this year. Many housewives in this country rear large flocks of turkeys and at Christmas time, after all their trouble and expense, expect to get some profit from the work they have put into the rearing of their birds. The money they get in this way enables them to meet quite a number of the costs that arise in connection with their domestic activities. Quite a number of wives of small farmers depend nearly exclusively on their turkey flocks and on the profitable sale of the birds at Christmas to make ends meet.

I mentioned that farmers were suffering because of poor cattle prices but they are also suffering because of the poor prices they are obtaining for other produce. Mechanisation has taken place here to a certain extent and the result is that we have surpluses of various crops, and the difficulty is to sell them. The sale of this produce to our dwindling population is becoming more and more difficult. The Marketing Advisory Committee should concern itself with this problem. I hope their suggestions concerning the setting up of these boards will meet with success because something will have to be done about the matters they have mentioned—the export of eggs, bacon and dairy produce. But there are other surpluses available for export and, unfortunately, they cannot be sold. They either go to waste, and the farmer gets nothing for his labour, or they are sold at sacrifice prices.

We must face the fact that in most modern countries to-day the mechanisation of agriculture has resulted in a very big rise in the volume of production; but here, according to the Minister's own report, the volume of production has increased by only three per cent. In many other countries production is increasing by leaps and bounds, and if we are to have mechanisation we shall have to have a higher output. Having got that, we must then find a market for our surplus. The increase in the population of the world at present is approximately 20,000,000 persons—an extra 20,000,000 people to be fed every year. Yet here we are in this country, capable of producing a vast surplus of food, but our producers are unable to sell it at a profit. They are capable of producing far greater surpluses but are all the time faced with the danger that, having produced that surplus, they will be unable to dispose of it.

I suppose that explains to some extent the reason why production on the land in this country has gone up by only three per cent in the last twelve months. If we examine the rate at which agricultural production has increased in other countries, we must admit that progress here has been very slow. We must aim at producing greater surpluses than we have at present, but if they are produced in the immediate future, there is no doubt that our producers will find it almost impossible to sell them.

I turn now to wheat. We have been warned by the Minister that it is proposed to impose a levy on this year's harvest and that the scheme will be operated by An Bord Gráin. If An Bord Gráin are not prepared to give it, then we should ask the Minister to give us an undertaking on this occasion that if a levy is imposed on wheat for a certain purpose, it will be used for that purpose and for no other purpose. A couple of years ago when this Board was set up and a levy of 5/9d. per barrel decided upon, the money was collected and it was to be used for the purpose of giving a reasonable price for the wheat surplus. Because the harvest that year was a complete loss, there was no surplus. Yet the 5/9 per barrel, which was to be used for levelling out the price for an expected surplus, was taken from the producers and used for another purpose. If a levy is to be imposed again this year, the Minister should set out clearly the purpose for which it is being collected, and it should not be taken for any other purpose.

I do not believe it is necessary that any levy should be taken this year because I do not think the acreage of wheat has increased to such an extent that we shall have an unmanageable surplus. I understand the Minister has in mind approximately 300,000 tons of wheat. But supposing there are only an extra 10,000 tons, would he consider that the imposition of a levy, with all the inconvenience and annoyance associated with it, would be justified? I do not believe he would. The Minister ought to be in a position to know from the approximate acreage of wheat sown the estimated amount that will be harvested if the weather is reasonably good.

We must remember, when talking of wheat surpluses, that there was a surplus on the 1956 crop, and the Minister and his Government exported it at sacrifice prices. The following year the country would have been very glad if we had held that surplus of high quality wheat. Instead, because of the bad harvest that year, we had the panic importation of wheat. Most of the big countries—Canada and the United States in particular—always carry in store one or two harvests of wheat. Surely it is reasonable to expect that we should carry the harvest of at least one year. We could have used every ton of it following the bad harvest I have referred to.

I am suggesting that the Minister has let down the wheat growers in the matter of price. He gave them to understand they were going to get £4 2s. 6d. per barrel when they got 78/6 per barrel, and they are getting very much less now. If the Minister intends to play ducks and drakes with the growers, at least he should be fair to them in the matter of the levy and adopt a reasonable policy which will not cause them unnecessary hardship. Last year, the barley growers had to be glad to take 38/- a barrel for feeding barley but they were getting up to 50/- a barrel for it at a time when the Minister and his party were telling the farmers they were not getting half enough. Fianna Fáil told the barley growers to take 38/- a barrel and be happy about it.

In the same way the milk producers were politically exploited by Fianna Fáil in Opposition. The producers were led to believe during those years that it would be quite simple to give them an extra 6d. a gallon but it was not so simple when the change of Government came. Fianna Fáil had got the support of the producers in the meantime even though they reneged them afterwards and broke their promise and gave them only a very miserable increase, one from which deductions were made rendering it almost useless. At the same time the rates on agricultural holdings were increased considerably; wages and costs of equipment were increased and even the cost of butter made from the milk produced by these people was put up by something like 10d. a lb.

Those are the difficulties which the wheat and milk producers are facing at present. They were led to believe they would have prosperity and a sound economy if they changed the Government. They did change it in 1957 in return for those undertakings none of which was fulfilled. Only a few weeks ago we saw the verdict given in the Carlow-Kilkenny by-election by the farming community and to a great extent they are producers of wheat and milk.

There has been a certain amount of boasting on the part of the Government about industrial activity but the figures of employment have not shown that any more people are earning wages in that sphere. The Government should not ignore the fact that in the long run it is a prosperous agricultural economy that will count here. The Shannon industrial gimmicks will not pay for the collapse of the agricultural industry if it is allowed to collapse and it does seem to have fallen down in many ways.

Before I conclude I want to refer to the vast amount of poor land we have. There are a couple of million acres which are capable of producing livestock and crops and which are producing nothing because of the depressed economy and lack of capital among owners. These people cannot go out into the fields and take advantage of the fertile soil and produce crops; they probably could not get a market for them. Now we have the same position in regard to livestock, but, at least, if an effort was made to improve the quality of grass on what appears to be derelict land, it would start producing something and would add considerably to our volume of production. We should be in a position to find markets for these surpluses. We must increase our volume of production if we are to maintain the standard of living to which the people have become accustomed in the past 10 years. If we are to keep up that standard, production must go up as soon as possible. We have modern techniques at present; we have mechanisation and technicians and all these combined would be capable of getting increased production from our fertile land. These things should be combined to bring about that increase soon.

Last night Deputy Dillon mentioned the fact that in western areas particularly there is such poverty in the land that families have locked their doors and emigrated. That is happening not only west of the Shannon; it is happening in every county and parish in Ireland, because people are losing the fight for existence. They are losing an economic battle and are forced to emigrate to try to keep body and soul together by offering their services elsewhere. I think we shall have more emigration unless our agricultural economy improves and there is a change of Government. It seems from the last by-election that we shall have a change of Government.

They are on the way out.

Possibly the Government intend to hang on as long as possible but is that fair to the country? They have failed in regard to the major industry, agriculture. If they had a good story to tell in that connection the position would be easier and the need of a change of Government soon would not be so obvious. If the Government are not going to bring that prosperity to the farmers which came to them during the term of office of the inter-Party Government the Government should give the country the opportunity of a change.

We have seen Fianna Fáil loss a seat in Dublin city; we have also seen them lose nearly 10,000 votes in Carlow-Kilkenny between one by-election and another. The signs are there. We have had the Minister's statement and all he could offer were three or four more new boards. There are the Dairy Disposal Board, which I will leave to Deputies from the creamery areas to deal with, the Bacon Exports Board and the Egg Exports Board. It is all very well to set up boards but we must get results very soon because the country depends on a prosperous agricultural economy. There is a considerable amount of depression and poverty amongst farmers at the present time.

The statement from the Minister has been very disappointing. I do not think he has any reason to be pleased even with the progress that has been made in certain counties west of the Shannon with the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. That scheme should be much further advanced. I do not consider that the Minister is making sufficient effort to get that scheme further advanced. If he does not make that effort it is certain that there will be further depression because we shall be left without a market for the major portion of our livestock on which we depend and will have to depend if the agricultural economy is to continue to be our mainstay. There is no evidence that we can clear off the land and set up industries. In the long run we must look to the land for whatever standard of living and prosperity our people are to enjoy.

In his opening remarks the Minister referred to the difficulties farmers had to face during the years 1958 and 1959 which were due mainly to weather conditions. The bright hopes with which the year 1958 opened were soon dimmed by the dreadful weather experienced during the year. The fact that farmers saved so much of the crops was a tribute to their initiative and energy. In 1959 we had a different problem in that the lack of rain here and in Great Britain adversely affected our cattle trade.

Deputy Dillon and Deputy Rooney during the course of this debate were at considerable pains to try to place the responsibility for adverse weather conditions and fluctuating prices on the British cattle market on the shoulders of the Minister. If I were to adopt a similar line I would point out that in 1956 the price of cattle was exceptionally low and I have no doubt that if at that stage, when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture, the then Opposition tried to place the responsibility for the price of cattle on the British market on Deputy Dillon's shoulders he would have declined to accept responsibility, and quite rightly so.

You would require to hear Deputy Childers and Deputy de Valera who were over here at the time.

The experience of those years has shown how much our economy depends on the farmer. It has brought the urban dweller to appreciate the difficulties and hazards of the farmer's life and perhaps we shall get more consideration in future from people who are inclined to talk about the price the farmers get per cwt. or per barrel for his produce while ignoring his many hazards and expenses.

Farming is no longer a haphazard occupation. Scientific methods of production and improved methods of marketing have made the farmer more aware of costings than he had been. The farmer now is not interested solely in the price he gets for his produce; he is interested in the profit per unit. He knows only too well that high prices for his produce are of little value if production costs are so high as to reduce profit to a minimum or to result, as sometimes happens, in a loss.

For that reason, the action of this Government in reducing the cost of fertilisers was one of the best things done in the agricultural sphere by any Government since the foundation of the State. The reduction in the price of fertilisers reduced production costs and increased yields. We all agree that the economy of the country mainly depends on what we can produce from the soil and sell abroad. Cattle exports have a high priority. For that reason it is only sensible that we should do all we can to improve the cattle trade and everything that pertains to it.

Increased use of fertilisers is increasing and will further increase the amount of grass available. Until comparatively recent years, grass was regarded as a heaven-sent crop and it was left at that. Our aim should be to get grass to grow one month earlier and one month later. The availability of good grass could increase the carrying capacity of our lands and would bring cattle to early maturity and by bringing cattle to early maturity farmers could avail of better prices.

The very large amount of money made available in this Estimate for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis underlines the seriousness of the problem and the sense of urgency we should all feel about it. The subsidy guaranteed by the Government on fat cattle together with the fact that store cattle fattened in Britain will now get the full British guaranteed price for beef is a further incentive to farmers to get on more quickly with the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. The plain facts are that the economy of the country is dependent on the speed with which we can get this job done. In my constituency very good work is being done by a voluntary committee and members of the committee and the officials attached to it are deserving of credit.

On the question of pigs, the difficulty is that the profit margin is low and for that reason it is necessary to keep a considerable quantity of pigs before it is worthwhile. We do not know the exact margin of profit and it would be of considerable benefit if experiments were carried out by feeding pigs under various conditions and with various feeding stuffs and publishing the results of the experiments. That would be helpful towards the economic production of pigs. Our beet industry is one of our most efficient industries. It has reached its present stage of efficiency particularly because in the early stages experiments and considerable research were carried out. Similar research should be carried out in the case of pigs. Increased grants for warm, draft-free sheds and the remission of rates on farm buildings are incentives to farmers to improve their buildings.

Progeny testing is of the utmost value in pig production. So much was said and written as to the merits of the Landrace that farmers could be deluded into the belief that a Landrace, simply because it was a Landrace, would produce exactly the type of bacon needed for export. The facts are that there are good and bad strains of Landrace pigs just as there are good and bad strains of Large Irish White and it is essential that we find the best strains of the Landrace. Last year the fall in the price of Grade A bacon was disheartening but the feeding stuffs had something to do with this, particularly the fact that we had a considerable surplus of potatoes. I think the problem is being properly tackled by means of the new Grade A special bacon.

I was glad to note that it is the intention to centralise bacon selling in Britain. I have mentioned this matter on previous occasions when I said that there were too many agents handling our bacon in Britain with the result that each of them dealt only with a small quantity of bacon and it was not worth their while pushing sales. If we could centralise the sales so that particular agents would have a considerable quantity to deal with it would be worth their while and it would pay them to push it.

The production of our own feeding stuffs is clearly the way towards the economic production of bacon. As we all know, there are certain areas in which a considerable quantity of feeding barley is produced and these areas are the places where pigs are not reared in large numbers. Not so much feeding barley is grown in some areas where considerable numbers of pigs are reared and by the time the feeding stuffs have reached the farmers who rear the pigs the cost has gone up considerably because of storage and transport costs. This problem must be tackled. I wonder if it would be possible to have a credit scheme for the small farmer whereby he would be able to retain his own feeding stuffs at harvest time? The difficulty is that at harvest time he needs the money and must sell his grain crops and feeding stuffs at the lowest price and later on he is forced to buy them back at a much higher price.

In latter years our farmers are becoming more and more aware of the value of fruit growing and a considerable share of the credit for that must go to the county advisory services. In my constituency the people who man these services are doing excellent work and I feel that they have a realistic approach and an enthusiasm in this matter which must eventually arouse similar enthusiasm amongst our farmers. I mentioned a realistic approach because enthusiasm which is misplaced can do considerable damage.

We are frequently told that there is an enormous market in Britain for fruit and vegetables and that we are importing here a considerable amount of these products which could be grown at home. We know this is true but we would be foolish to believe that all we have to do is to throw these goods on the British market and that they will sell themselves. We must realise that the British market is being supplied by farmers in Britain and from other countries. If we want to find a place in this market we must make the necessary contacts and win our way by producing a superior article, market it with high pressure advertising and guarantee a continuity of supply. We are importing a considerable quantity of fruit and vegetables in one form or another. We have got to examine the position in regard to this and find out why we are importing them instead of producing them ourselves. We know that our own produce is of the finest but in order to sell it in competitive markets we must market it to the best possible advantage.

On previous occasions in this House I dealt with the question of marketing and I do not think it is necessary for me to speak on it again except to say that I am glad to note that the Minister has stated that certain points put forward by the Advisory Committee are being adopted by the Government. Better packing and more imaginative advertising are necessary if we are to sell our produce to advantage. I was glad to know that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann are going into the processing of fruit and vegetables and are setting up a pilot plant in Carlow. We know from past experience that Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann have made a success of the beet industry and we have no doubt that it will make a similar success of this matter of the processing and export of fruit and vegetables.

I referred already to the matter of having the problems of the farmer more sympathetically considered by the urban dweller and I should like to make a few further comments. Suppose we take one of the ordinary industries in this country which supplies reasonably good employment and imports about £300,000 worth of raw material. We consider that such an industry is doing a reasonably good job if it exports £100,000 worth of its finished product. What we must bear in mind is that if it does that it is still £200,000 short of the price of its raw material. The question is: where does that money come from? The answer is that it comes from our agricultural exports and mainly from cattle.

If the price paid for milk is so low that the farmer is incurring a loss on it, it means that the farmer will go out of milk production. If that happens it will result in a falling off in the number of cows and consequently in the numbers of stores and fat cattle for export. That would entail a reduction in the amount of money available to pay for the import of raw materials and fewer raw materials would mean less employment in our factories. For that reason I feel that where an increase is provided in the price of milk and where an increase is justified it is not only a financial aid to the farmer but it is also an insurance of his employment to the industrial worker.

I believe that the Government would be doing good work in trying to get the position of the farmer across to the people in the towns and if the position of the urban dweller could be put across to the farmer. There is no such thing as prosperity for one section without prosperity for the other.

What I have said in this matter is designed to help our people working on the land, not only the farmer but the farm worker as well. We are constantly listening to the cry of the flight from the land, and we have various suggestions as to how it could be stopped, but I believe that one factor of overriding importance is the income of the small farmer and the pay of the agricultural worker. While farm workers' wages are at the low level which places them at the bottom of the social scale it is a waste of time to appeal to them to remain on the land if they can improve their position elsewhere. That is one of the reasons I am most anxious that the farmer's position should be improved so that he will be able to improve the rate of wages of his employees. To increase the wages of farm workers in certain circumstances would simply mean that the farmer, if he were unable to pay the rate of wages, would have to let the man, go and we would be in a worse position than we were in at first.

The wages now being paid to workers in rural industries—it is quite noticeable in my constituency—have put in a bad light the low wage that is paid to highly skilled agricultural workers. While we appreciate the importance of strengthening the agricultural economy, the low rate of wages of the agricultural worker is detrimental to the whole industry. We should endeavour to make the farm worker's life more attractive with regard to his rate of wages, his working conditions and recreational facilities.

The most important aspect of Fianna Fáil policy over the years has been the efforts that were made to get a balance inside agriculture itself, a balance between tillage and grass. The fact that this policy is now generally adopted by all Parties——

"The British market is gone for ever."

——is proof that it was a proper policy to adopt. However, also of importance were the efforts to get a balance between agriculture and industry. Prosperity is indivisible. It is not possible to have prosperity for one section without having prosperity for the others.

Hear, hear!

He has learned quite a lot to-day.

In my constituency of Louth there is a typical example of the policy I have mentioned. Unfortunately it is the only county where we can examine it in all its aspects. There we have intensive tillage; and we have cattle and milk. On the other hand we have industries not only in the towns but in the rural areas as well. The effect of this was that in Louth between 1951 and 1956 there was an increase in population and, what is perhaps more relevant to this debate, I found from statistics I got from the Statistics Office that from 1955 to 1959, which is the latest date for which figures are available, our working population on the land remained constant. This is an aspect of policy which is well worth studying to see how it can be developed throughout the country. Fianna Fáil policy, which aims at getting a balance inside agriculture and then a balance between agriculture and industry, is leading to national prosperity.

I should like the Minister to consider the question of a person obtaining a grant or a loan from the Agricultural Credit Corporation where a person may not have completely full title. I have come across a case where a man owned a farm on which some close relative of his was given right of residence and because this other person would not sign a document the Credit Corporation could not give him a loan. If the Credit Corporation believe that a man is creditworthy they should be enabled to have another look at that type of case.

The increase in the Estimate for Agriculture is welcome and essential. The amounts provided for bovine tuberculosis eradication, fertilisers, seed testing, An Foras Talúntais and for educational facilities are all designed to increase production and to increase the wealth of the country.

Finally, I should like to thank the Minister for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with various problems during the year and particularly with regard to this matter of the payments for the 1958 wheat crop. Some of these payments were outstanding this year for various reasons. They have now been paid and we appreciate that very much in my constituency which is a wheat growing county.

I am tempted to reply to the previous speaker but I had better deal with the Minister's brief. I was disappointed with the Minister's brief because, especially in agriculture, the most important aspect is selling and the most important item is cattle. What the Minister had to say about the marketing of cattle is written here on just one page of this lengthy brief. He gives us the old prescription which we have had all over the country for years especially at chambers of commerce dinners:

In the long run the most effective means of helping farmers is to try and reduce the cost of production and thereby increase productivity.

"We have heard it before, Joe." Now to come to what the Minister says on page 4 of his brief:

I should now like to deal in some detail with some important aspects of our largest export industry— cattle.

He goes on to tell us that we exported 403,000 cattle in 1959 where we exported 595,000 in 1958. That meant a substantial reduction in the farmer's income. The Minister goes on to say this was compensated to some extent —he does not mention the extent, of course—by the increase in exports of fat cattle and carcase beef. The extent was not great enough. He then refers to the "once-tested" concession. He says:

In my opinion, an important factor in the present situation is that housewives in Britain have been able to turn to plentiful supplies of lamb, mutton and broilers when beef prices reached high levels.

He never mentioned anything he and his Department were doing to improve our market. Neither did he make any suggestion as to how our market for cattle in Great Britain, or anywhere else, could be improved. I remember the famous flourish of trumpets here when the Minister for Finance announced that the Government were to spend £250,000 charging around the world, attacking world markets, and forcing our way into them. I should like to know how much of that £250,000 has been spent, if any; and, if any, I should like to know where we have increased our markets and what new markets we have discovered. Perhaps we discovered some of the famous alternative markets about which we used to hear so much when the Taoiseach's predecessor was sitting over there.

Last year the Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy Lemass, was going to Paris to see if we could get into the "Outer Six" or the "Inner Five", or whatever they are. Deputy Dillon suggested early in February of last year that the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Agriculture should go first to Britain, and make their arrangements with the Government there, before running off to France, Germany, or anywhere else. We were, of course, very busy at the time with the referendum that was being foisted on the country. All the business of this House and the country was bedevilled by that referendum for six months at least. When we had nearly reached the surface after the referendum debate, we read in the papers one day that the "Quiet Dutchmen" had been over in Great Britain and had made their arrangements with the Government of Great Britain; they had got an advantage that they had never had before.

We always had ten per cent. over the Danes in bacon. As a result of the visit last year, they were put on a level with us. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Agriculture, and the Minister for Education, Deputy Lynch—he is now, of course, Minister for Industry and Commerce—rushed over to London one evening, and were back again the next day. There was no ten per cent., or five per cent., or anything else. We have never been given any clear picture as to what happened. I take it it was a case of trying to shut the stable door after the horse was gone. The Danes had wiped our eye.

I am dealing now with pigs. I shall come back to cattle later. I have been reading for some time the reports the Minister sends me issued by the various advisory committees. They all seem to think that the solution to everything is the establishment of a board. It seems to me these boards would want to be constituted of fairies or leprechauns with crocks of gold at their disposal. I have no faith in boards. I have too sorry a recollection of boards. The first board I came into contact with was the Pigs Marketing Board established by Fianna Fáil. It succeeded in wrecking the pig industry and robbing the farmers. The bacon curers in the years 1936, 1937 and 1938 could say they did not have profits, but they had plunder. Pigs were down to the lowest price practically and the bacon curers had to be brought before the Prices Commission to answer for the profits they had made in those years.

I do not have to refer to figures. I was one of the mugs who had to pay. I was a big pig feeder at the time. I protested publicly against the action of this Pigs Marketing Board. I said that the people who were representing the farmers had betrayed the farmers. I got a solicitor's letter from one gentleman, a Mr. Murphy from outside Cork. Mr. Murphy thought he was dealing with a fool. He wanted me to apologise in public to him because of what I had said about him, his Board and his actions on the Board, he being the farmers' representative. He said there was an implication of dishonesty. I told him that, if there was an implication of dishonesty, it was he who had said that and, if the cap fitted, he could wear it.

What was the result of this Pigs Marketing Board? I want to draw the Minister's attention to some figures I got recently. We can no longer compete with the Dane except on level terms. There is one aspect, however, from which we can compete. The Dane cannot send a live pig into Britain. If we go about our business in the right way, we can. Prior to the deluge in the year 1931 we were killing and curing enough bacon for our own consumption. We were exporting 295,000 cwt. of bacon. We were exporting 17,000 cwt. mainly to France. We were exporting 373,000 cwt. of pork. We were exporting 44,000 cwt. of other pig meat. The industry kept our bacon factories going full blast. Apart from that, we exported 476,000 live pigs. What was wrong with that situation? The only conclusion I could come to is that what was wrong was the fact that these exports were mainly by constituents of yours, Sir, and mine.

I thought the Ceann Comhairle came from Clare.

He does, but I am addressing the Acting Chairman. That was the reason why the Government of the day set out to destroy both them and their business. They introduced a Bill here. There was nothing covert about the Bill. It was supported by no less a person than the man who later became Cathaoirleach of the Seanad. Two men who became chairmen of the Seanad stood up in the Government benches here and welcomed the Bill because it would do away with the pig buyers. Because these buyers were their political opponents they were to be done away with; they got the Bill, destroyed the bacon trade, and left the bacon curers in a position to plunder the Irish farmers.

After that the war broke out and that settled the grading question. All the pigs became Grade A overnight. The farmers had been so discouraged that when the war broke out they had practically no pigs at all on their hands. I merely mention this not only to point out the injustice involved but to indicate that there was a market there at one time, and it should be worth spending some of the £250,000 voted by this House to investigate if it could be revived. It may be said that we should kill and cure these pigs at home, but the same answer can be given in regard to cattle. If the packing factories want to kill cattle all they need do is give the farmers 10/- a head extra and they will get all they need. The same could apply to pigs.

On this question of marketing one of the reports the Minister so kindly sent me was a report on the general aspect of the export trade in Irish agricultural produce, and in that report it is disclosed that we bought goods to the value of £111,000,000 from Great Britain and exported £99,000,000 to Britain. The ratio was 1.1 to 1, and when we come to terms the ratio was 3 to 1 against us— £7,900,000 to £2,700,000. I believe Britain now has given contracts to other countries sub rosa and, in that connection, I would draw the Minister's attention to something I have already brought to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce on the Vote for his Department, concerning something other countries do and which it would be well worth our while trying.

I have here a newspaper cutting of May 8th, 1960, headed: "Bacon Key to Plane Exports." It states:

Britain's appetite for Polish bacon has increased our prospects of selling airliners in Eastern Europe...

The British quota for Polish bacon was reduced under a six-month provisional agreement—and promising negotiations over something like two years for the sale of British airliners to Poland were suspended.

Good for the Poles! They said: "If you will not buy our bacon we will not buy your aeroplanes."

The cutting continues:

The Poles, who had been on the point of placing an order for three or four Viscounts and were thinking of ordering three more in 1961, ordered three Russian II. 18s.

I do not suggest that we should start buying from the Russians. I always deplore it whenever we buy anything from them, but I say that if the Germans do not do something about our balance of trade with them we should do something about all the agricultural machinery and other things we buy from them. We should buy them from countries like Great Britain who do trade with us.

I am saying all this to the Minister in a detached way. I am suggesting to him that he should examine the things that are worth looking after. He is in charge of agriculture. It is his duty to do it, and if the Austrians, the Belgians or the Czechs try to take us for a ride in the matter of our balance of payments with them, we should see to it that they will not get away with it. When I mention Britain, however, I do not mean that we should go hat in hand to the British. We are good customers of Britain and there is no necessity to do that.

As I said on other Votes, we are buying coal from Poland and Eastern Germany, countries behind the Iron Curtain, when we should be buying it from Britain, but I repeat that I would not buy it from Britain except on a deal. The British are up to their necks in coal dumps and would be glad to sell a certain amount of coal to a country like this, but it would have to be at the right price. In this connection, I repeat that I do not know what has come over the present Government with all the talk they have about the British market and, in passing, I want to say that I was once physically assaulted by the Minister's supporters when I advocated trade with Britain.

In his statement the Minister referred to a new provision for the payment of grants to bacon factories in respect of modernisation in lay-out and plant, and during the week I heard of a group of West Cork men who wanted to have a bacon factory established in their area. I heard that they were met with opposing forces, not in the Government or in the Department, but forces composed of people like themselves, farmers who did not want them to open such a factory. The reason I mention this is that I think the Minister should assist such a project in West Cork. Though they may not have a big pig population in that area they have a plentiful supply of other livestock, the meat of which could be processed.

They may also have fruit and vegetables that could be processed in such a factory. That would be a great advantage, but having these raw materials apparently is considered a disadvantage according to the Government's policy. They will put up factories only where they are not wanted. They build them just to be able to say that the Government has opened a factory at such a place, there were so many employed on its construction, and a Minister officially opened it. There is the usual flourish of trumpets and newspaper headlines, but then the factory dies away. Here is an area in which there are great prospects for a small factory and, as I say, I feel the Minister should do something to help it.

The bovine tuberculin testing scheme is a great burden on the Department and on the farmers, still it must be carried on and completed. Anything our Party or any Deputy on this side of the House can do to assist the Minister and his Department in bringing that scheme to a successful conclusion, will be done. There is no question about that, even though it is a great burden and involves great sacrifices on the part of the farmers. Usually it is their best beasts that have to be sold, but the Minister has now started his compensation scheme and I have heard it has been having a reasonable amount of success. I am very glad to say that in this House. I always give honour where honour is due, and I hope this compensation scheme will continue to meet with success.

The cattle trade has been bad in England and there has been difficulty there with the tuberculin testing scheme. Here at home there has been a clash between people who favour marts and those who are opposed to them. I only hope the two viewpoints may be reconciled because I realise the cattle dealer has a great part to play and should be recognised for it. I would ask the Minister to do something to reconcile this business of mart and anti-mart. If he bends himself to it I do not think he will have much trouble.

In the matter of wheat, I think the temper of the people of Kilkenny should give the Minister a better idea of how the farmers are feeling. They consider they have been very badly treated by a Government which, when in Opposition, promised them that they need never be in doubt as to the price they would get for their wheat crop. Yet they now find themselves hanging up on a line with a levy hanging over their heads. That is not good.

In connection with barley, this crop is a great asset to a farmer who can get a contract for malting barley. These contracts are, of course, limited by the intake of maltsters. If the distillers' business could be expanded it would be very good for the farmers. I consider that the efforts of the Irish distillers to increase their sales of whiskey abroad are not good enough and I would suggest to the Minister this is something on which he should give a direction to the organisation which has been set up by the Government on the selling of Irish whiskey in America.

It is realised that they have increased their sales in America, but look at the comparison of Irish whiskey sales there with Scotch whisky. We hardly sell £1,500,000 worth. Sales of Scotch whisky total over £40 million pounds. I would point out to the Minister that there must also be a reasonably good market in England for our whiskey. Yet when one asks for Irish whiskey in an ordinary English public house one is told they have not got it. It is said that there is a preference for Scotch whisky. In one of those public houses I asked for the manager to try to find out why this was so and he said there was nobody coming in to him to ask for Irish whiskey.

I say it is all a matter of salesmanship. There is no substitute for that. You must have a staff who will stand over the quality of the stuff, who will make their contacts and who will sell it. If the Minister and his Department consider that the setting up of boards will provide a solution for this problem they are completely wrong. In my time in England I watched the sales of Irish butter and I have always seen it sold at a price lower than that paid for Danish butter, not because the Danish butter was better than ours.

I am not merely being a vain Irishman, when I say that ours was as good as and maybe better than theirs, but there was no proper sales push behind our product. It was just left there in large quantities and the only way it could be sold was by offering it at less money than that paid to our competitors. I saw the type of agents—some British, some Irishmen—who worked for the people selling Danish and Dutch butter on, the British market. They were on the ball; they knew their business. The men we had were just waiting for the people to come in and buy from them. If we are to have a butter surplus again—and I hope we soon shall—I trust the Minister for Agriculture will see to it that he has the proper machinery set up to sell that surplus.

I have before me a report on shell eggs and liquid eggs. It recommends that the whole export market in this field be put in the control of an export board. I would ask the Minister not to consider that for one minute. If you take private enterprise out of that business you will finish up by doing harm instead of good in the matter of expanding your markets.

It is not just good enough to come in here and say that all we want are better advertising and better packaging. We want better salesmanship and the sooner the Minister, his Department, ourselves throughout the country and the agricultural industry get that into their heads the better. I have noticed that in various aspects of the agricultural industry the main idea of the producers is to get rid of the middlemen, the gombeen men as they were called. But whenever they did that they found they were doing bad instead of good. They got rid of people who knew their business and replaced them with people who did not.

There is a place for everybody and the value of good salesmanship, of a good man who knows his business and knows how to push sales, is incalculable in furthering the interests of those by whom he is employed, whether it be in the manufacturing or the industrial end. The Minister should study his brief again and realise how little he said about the selling of agricultural produce. He did not say half enough. In the short time left to him and his Government, the Minister should bend his energies towards effecting an improvement in our agricultural produce sales, and particularly towards improving our position in the British market.

In addition, he should take up the question of selling agricultural produce to those countries with which we have an adverse trade balance and wring from them some concessions in this regard. If the Minister would tackle that question, I am sure he would meet with success. It is an insult to the Irish farmer that anybody should get up and tell him that he should produce this or that. If the commodity can be sold, the Irish farmer will produce it and produce it in abundance.

In view of the fact that our very existence depends on agriculture it is a public disgrace to look around this House and find only eight Deputies— four from Fianna Fáil and four from Fine Gael—listening to this debate. That does not augur well for the future of our country. Agriculture is one of the noblest of all callings. You work with and against nature; and you can never predict success or failure. Success depends on many factors, but chiefly on stability and good government. Thrift is also essential, but, unfortunately, we are not a thrifty people. Much of the money earned by our people goes through their hands as water through a sieve.

What we need is an agreed agricultural policy which will stand the test of time and will not be affected by changes of Government. If we could get to the stage where agricultural policy would not change at the whim of different Governments, then we could get down to bedrock and achieve success. I know that for many years Fianna Fáil went around the country doing and saying many stupid things. Now they are back to where they started, and I hope they are wiser men. It was a costly venture, but I hope they are wiser today. They have left us with much leeway to make up.

At present the cattle trade is going through a difficult time and there is very little stability in it. The cattle trade should be the most stable of all our industries, but for the last two or three years it has been very "jittery." I know that in the fall of the year there is very little profit left to those engaged in the cattle industry. I hope the Minister will seriously concern himself with introducing stability into the trade.

The eradication of bovine T.B. is most essential, and I believe it is going as fast as this small, impoverished country can afford. I shall not lambaste the Minister or the Department about this. I believe we are doing the best we can within our resources. We, a poor country, are trying to do in five years what it took England, one of the richest countries in the world, twenty years to do. I would ask the Minister and his Department to push ahead and try to bring the farmers along with them. I know they have a very hard task because many farmers, big and small, are stubborn and backward and cannot see that their very existence depends on the eradication of bovine T.B. None of us was worried about it until Britain eradicated the disease and then refused to take our cattle unless they had a clear test. Now we must take off our coats and get on with the job so that we can get back to the position of having our cattle trade once more what it was in the past—the lifesaver of the nation. I have no criticism to offer of the work of the Department's officials in the eradication of bovine T.B. They are operating in close contact with the agricultural committees, but we must remember that the scheme is a costly one and it is difficult to complete it.

Mechanisation has changed the face of the country, but it has also depleted it of its working population. When machinery comes into a farm, the men walk out; and there is very little we can do about it. None of us will stand against mechanisation. It represents progress and it is needed at present, but something must be done to see how we can retain in this country the people forced to leave the land by mechanisation. If we cannot do that and mechanisation continues, we shall soon be back to where we were 40 years ago: the herd and the dog, large tracts of land with cattle and sheep roaming across them but very few people on them. We set out 30 years ago to destroy that type of farm, but it is fast coming back.

It will tax the Government and Department to find a way of bringing about a balance between man and machine. We should endeavour to preserve the little homesteads, but they are being wiped out, not only in the west but even in the royal county of Meath, where there is supposed to be plenty of wealth. We cannot sit back and merely say: "It is a sad thing; we must do something about it." Money must be spent in seeing to it that we preserve the homesteads of those people who have been the mainstay of this country for generations. Instead of forcing them out to other countries, we should keep them for Ireland and for God.

In a country such as ours where such a small amount of land is available there should be a ceiling on the size of farms. Any man who has 200 acres of land, who works it well and gives it proper attention can get as much out of it as the man with 500 acres. We have far too much waste land here. Some men have more land than they are able to work, but they will not give an acre for a labourer's cottage, because of the greed for land which is ingrained in all of us. It is a dangerous situation that our population is dwindling year after year, and something must be done about it.

The only satisfactory prospect we have in this country is provided by the British Trade Agreement, as far as I can see. It is not even a good agreement but I suppose it is the best they could get. That is all that is between us and absolute destitution and if we do not make an effort to get other markets abroad we are doing badly. I have great hopes of the dead meat trade. I was never in favour of driving cattle out of the country on the hoof but I know that if Britain wants store cattle and will pay the price for them it is right to sell them but at the same time she is getting the benefit for her glue factories and other industries of all the offals which, if kept in this country—as would be the case if the cattle were exported as dead meat— would provide the basis for many subsidiary industries, such as tanneries, in towns and villages.

An effort should be made to make the dead meat trade a real success. If we could do this in a modern way and improve our trading facilities abroad, selling meat even to Asia, Africa and India if possible and beating our competitors, it would mean a change in the face of the country and there would be very little talk about the cattle trade or anything else. The populations of our villages and towns would increase and the subsidiary industries would absorb the agricultural workers who are now becoming reduntant on the land because of mechanisation. There should be far more concern about the dead meat trade because of its enormous potentialities in the solution of many of our problems.

Wheat growing was certainly a headache in the past not only to Governments but to everybody for many years and Fianna Fáil must take full blame for that. They allowed wheat ranching of a most dirty and dangerous type; racketeers of all types were allowed to come in here. Nobody knows more about racketeering in wheat than I do because I saw too much of it in Meath. I trust we shall never see the like of that again. We cannot continue to grow wheat intensively on the same land and, as the years go by, we shall find that the amount grown will be smaller. In a year or two there will be no big ranching and wheat will be grown in a balanced proportion and we shall all be happy.

I want to see wheat-growing extended because we can grow very good wheat with a reasonable return. I do not want to see it grown for very big prices but for a reasonable return for work put into it. I do not want £4 or £5 an acre because that brings in all the speculators and it is not only the farmers but the publicans and the racketeers from the north who will come in and try to make good while the sun shines. I should prefer to have wheat grown in proper proportion to other crops and I hope that the Government will be wiser in future than they were in the past.

The milk producers have a definite grievance. They were told—not by the Government but by Government henchmen throughout the country and particularly in Meath through the secretaries or officials of milk producers' organisations—to keep quiet. They were told: "Do not worry; we are in touch with the Government. We know you will get at least 3d. extra for your milk. There is no question about that." They called meetings here and there and told the unfortunate farmer to keep quiet, that they had inside information from the Government—in fact they had the ear of the Minister—and then the farmers found they were offered 1d. and that they did not even get that 1d. That was an insult to the farmers and I ask the Minister to see that those lackeys of his do not go on trying to make fools of the farmers. There should be no whispering campaign for the one purpose of boosting up things for the time being

There are other lines which could be developed which would be of great assistance to the small farmers People talk about the splendid cattle trade and it is perhaps a lifeline but at the same time the small farmer with 10 or 15 acres of scraggy, poor land can produce very little on it. He can produce items other than cattle and I should like to see the Government embark on a sound scheme which would give the 15 or 20-acre man a better opportunity. If that type of man goes in for cattle he will be poor all his life; unless he works for farmers or somebody else he cannot exist, but where horticulture is concerned there is wide scope for development. I do not mean that we should rush into it but rather that we should give close study to it as a means of solving the problems of many small farmers which are not being solved at present. I believe that a man who goes in for horticulture with a five year market in prospect can build for the future if he has the know-how and the technical assistance and I believe, too, that his 15 acres would be as good as 40 acres under cattle. The Government should leave no stone unturned in their efforts to develop along these lines.

An agricultural committee of which I was chairman has made an effort in this direction and we have got into the growing of strawberries, raspberries, onions and blackcurrants. This scheme has been very successful and many of the smaller farmers are availing of it. I know one man living beside me in a labourer's cottage and on half of his one-acre plot, I think he will have made £300 on raspberries when he completes his year's profit. Granted he was lucky, the season was good and everything right.

I believe there are markets at home and abroad for fruit juices of different types and for preserves and that we could secure these markets and send Irish-produced fruit all over the world. The Department should give full consideration to extending this development. Now that the new freezing plant is to be operated by the Irish Sugar Company I hope it will be a great success. If it is, more opportunities for agricultural development will be opened up and there will be a new market for vegetables of all kinds. That will completely change the position in which the small farmers and cottiers are always begging for a living, working for neighbours, seeking Government work, work on the roads or some other employment because they are not able to live on their old holdings.

That will become possible if the development to which I have referred proceeds and it is something of which we could all be proud. I think a five-year guarantee with reasonable prices could be obtained. Our men have got it and it has given good results. I know there can be a bad year which will tend to dispel the optimism but one must take a chance somewhere.

We want more intense education of the right type. There is a tremendous amount of ignorance and it is not confined to either farmers or workers. We are happy in Meath in that we have nine or ten agricultural advisers. We have four or five poultry instructors, four horticultural officers and I think we are as good as any county in Ireland in that regard. We need two more advisory officers to give us one officer for every three parishes. In many places when an officer has given a course of lectures on the necessity of using lime and manures one finds reasonably intelligent farmers saying, "What is that fellow talking about? Is he not only an agent for a manure ring? Is he not making enough out of the whole lot of us?" That sort of thing, coming from one or two farmers, is very dangerous because it makes other farmers ask "Could it be possible that these young advisory officers are tools of the manure rings?" There is need for instruction to dispel that nonsense which is the result of ignorance. If we could eradicate that nonsense and get people to think and to fend for themselves after receiving proper instruction from the advisory officers, we could make headway.

In this country there is lack of co-operation. I cannot understand it. It may be that we are individualists. Sir Horace Plunkett started a system of co-operation which almost succeeded but people were afraid and eventually all the co-operatives closed down and those working in the co-operatives took them over and made good while the going was good with the result that the spirit of co-operation was killed. An effort must be made to bring co-operative effort into the working of agriculture. It would be of immense benefit to the farmer and to the worker. The many factors between the producer and the consumer could be eliminated. If there were a large co-operative store in a district where produce could be held until better prices were available it would greatly benefit the farmer. I should like to see every farmer joining in a co-operative organisation, putting money into it and having a place in it so that he could see what was going on. I would impress on the Government the need to make an effort to introduce co-operative organisations. There is no use in waiting. The Government should try it and if it is a failure it will be a glorious failure.

One thing of which we can all be proud and of which Deputy Dillon, the Leader of our Party can be especially proud, is the manner in which almost overnight he improved the land of this country by his schemes for drainage, fertilising and liming. It would be difficult to imagine the results that have come from those schemes. I know them because I availed of all these schemes and worked them intelligently and with the advice of the advisory officer. One field now produces as much as five fields produced before these schemes came into operation.

That is one of the factors that have kept the country from being bankrupt. Under those schemes a million acres of land that had been under sedge, scutch and water, were brought into fertility. The finest crops are grown on them to-day. That is a matter of which we can be proud. I am certainly proud of our Leader who introduced the schemes. I shall be proud of the Fianna Fáil Government if they carry them on until there is not an acre of bad land in the country. There are tens of thousands of acres of bad and waste land that can be made productive by drainage, reclamation and liming. If farmers can be induced to avail of the advisory service provided in many counties, progress can be made.

The development of the country is the responsibility of the Government. It is the duty of the Government to ensure that bovine tuberculosis is eradicated with the utmost speed and efficiency. It is most essential that the farmers should co-operate to the fullest extent. The officers of the Department are working tooth and nail to ensure that their part of the work is done but there are many farmers who do not give two hoots about the scheme. They are under the impression that if a war breaks out the people who buy our cattle will not worry about bovine tuberculosis. We have a job to do. Let us do it. The farmers and the Department should co-operate to eradicate bovine tuberculosis as quickly as possible so that we shall not lose the stable market that we have had over a long number of years for our cattle. We should be able to hold the British market as our right because we give England as many concessions as she gives us and we can demand our rights as she demands her rights from us.

The Government must make good or get out. If they make good they will have a chance but if they do not make good then next year the people will put them out. The Government are on trial. Fianna Fáil have been running round in circles for 20 years making fools of the people. They have seen the population being depleted. They have seen our labourers emigrating. Now the small farmers are emigrating and their holdings are being bought up and big ranches are being built up at a rate the country cannot afford. This country requires the small thrifty farmers who will work with their coats off for a Government that will work with them. I hope we shall have such a Government in the future.

In the past 20 years the farmers were working against the Government and the Government were working against the farmers like two goats tied together. Many of the best farmers, disgusted by the nonsense that took place from 1934 to 1937, sold out and left the farms which their ancestors had held for 200 or 300 years. The chancers and fly-by-nights came in and bought the holdings. They are the big people today. I hope we shall be able to restore the position and give hope to the farmers and to the Irish people of the right type.

Fianna Fáil are maintaining a wall of silence.

Who would blame them?

I am glad to have an opportunity of speaking on this very important Estimate, coming as I do from a dairy county. In Limerick, dairying is the chief mode of farming. In Limerick city there are three very important bacon factories. I should like to express my gratitude to the Minister and the officers of his Department for the valuable information they have given Deputies in the Notes on Agricultural Activities for the past 12 months. That information is very useful to Deputies who may not have time to study reports to obtain this information. The form in which the information is provided is very helpful.

I particularly welcome the Minister's statement that it is his intention at an early date to establish a Dairy Produce Board. That is more necessary now than ever because of the fact that we are living in an age of competition, when trade is taking a different course from the pattern in years gone by. In the past, individuals could influence trade as between countries. Trade is being developed now by organised bodies. Therefore, I particularly welcome the proposal to establish a Dairy Produce Board which will have the responsibility of marketing dairy produce. I hope that one commodity which they will have in mind is butter. Butter marketing is a very delicate problem.

The failure to get an increased price. for milk has been brought very much into the political arena and used very much against the Leader of the Opposition, Deputy Dillion. The people were told that if they changed the Government that situation would be remedied. But I got a very accurate estimate as to what could and could not be done quite recently when, as Mayor of Limerick, I was asked to attend a meeting called by the cream exporters of this country which was addressed by a member of the cream importing body in England.

In the course of his address I heard him say that 70% of the milk produced in England was for liquid consumption and that 30% of it was for manufacturing purposes such as for conversion into condensed milk and butter. That conveyed to me an idea as to where the price of our milk products is being regulated. It is being regulated in England by the English as well as being regulated in such a way that the English farmer is getting approximately 3/- a gallon for all the milk he can produce. As I have said 70% of that milk is for liquid consumption and the remaining 30% is being sold as condensed milk and butter. The British Government, when they come to deal with that 30%, subsidise it to such an extent that the butter can be sold very cheaply in the British market. That is evidently a headline for the butter producers of this country, of New Zealand, Denmark and all the other countries that compete in Britain.

If you want to get into that market you will have to subsidise our products as it is evident that the Danes and Australians are subsidising theirs. What way are they subsidising it? To some extent they subsidise it directly, but they have also mechanised the industry in those countries. and have provided the dairy farmers with an opportunity for co-operative farming. They have also given them direct assistance in other ways. Knowing the importance of the dairying industry in this country and knowing that it is the foundation of our cattle industry on which we depend to such a great extent, it is not out of place to regard that industry as vital to our country. Being vital, as it is, and in the changing world in which we live, the Government should take serious notice of the dairy farmers' position and come to their assistance in order to have greater production. The incentive to greater production is an increase in price.

There are not many people outside those directly interested in the dairying industry who are talking in that vein, but I think it is worthy of serious consideration, knowing the importance of that industry. The cattle industry is the industry on which we depend to pay for our raw materials so that serious consideration should be given to the position of our farmers, particularly that of our dairy farmers. I certainly trust that the Dairy Produce Board which will be, I am sure, composed of people directly interested in the dairy industry and the officers of the Department will do everything in their power to help on the dairy industry.

It is quite true that the Minister recently went to Britain and brought back a Trade Agreement which may not be as good as we would like it to be. I would not find fault with him for that. A Trade Agreement has been in operation between the two countries for many years past. Deputy Dillon, in 1948, brought back a very fine Trade Agreement which lasted for a number of years but, like all other agreements, it had to be reviewed from time to time. If we are to get greater production of butter, the only way to do it is to give a better price to the farmers. It may not be advisable to do it in the form of an increased price for milk but it should be done in some other way. Deputy Dillon tried to give farmers the means of increased production by various schemes, by the drainage scheme, the land reclamation scheme, the lime scheme and the cow house scheme.

I welcome the Minister's statement as regards the Dairy Produce Board and also his statement with regard to the Pigs and Bacon Board. That, to my mind, is overdue, because of the fact that over a number of years the people have become choosy with regard to bacon. As a public representative for Limerick, I have had occasion to go into bacon factories from time to time and I am told that they get in much larger pigs than they need at certain times of the year. That left them in the position that they were buying pigs and producing bacon for which they had no ready sale. The provision of a guaranteed price for Grade A pigs was the best incentive of all time for proper pig production. It has produced a very high percentage of bacon of the type which can be sold. I feel that this Pigs and Bacon Board will find that they will sell bacon much more freely in the British or any other market if they have the right goods to sell. They cannot sell goods which people do not want to buy. I welcome the establishment of that board and I know that it will do much towards providing a solution of the bacon problem.

I am also glad to see that there is an increase in the cattle population. That is very encouraging. While prices are not as good as they were 12 months ago, we know that people will stay in production and they should be encouraged to do so. Sometimes prices may not be very attractive but it is safer to have reasonable prices which will ensure a fair return to the farmers for their efforts.

Like everybody else the farmer has to meet increased costs both in relation to his home and his way of living. He has to meet increased rates and increased expenses in regard to his own family. The day is gone when the farmer's son was prepared to stay at home and work for nothing. That is perhaps one of the reasons why the farmer's son, when he hears of his neighbours going across to England and earning good money, asks himself why he should spend the best years of his life working for little or nothing. However, there is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps we would do the same ourselves in similar circumstances, but it is regrettable from the national point of view. None of us wants to make capital out of that situation. It is a national loss that boys and girls who have been educated in this country should, when they reach manhood and womanhood, emigrate and give their services to another country.

I welcome the efforts of the Minister to eradicate bovine tuberculosis. It is evident that the doors will be closed unless we can send our cattle across to England certified as free from T.B. Some millions of pounds have been spent to date and £5 million was spent in the last year, which is very creditable to all concerned. I regret to note that the dairying counties, Limerick, Tipperary, Cork and the other southern counties have not responded as well as other counties. There must be a very good reason why they have not responded more freely. I believe they are doing a reasonably good job. However, being dairying counties, they are counties with high-yield cows which I understand are more subject to T.B. than other cows. It may be that some of our farmers when they had this test on their cows found that 75 per cent. or perhaps a higher number went down in the test, and to eradicate tuberculosis from the herd would impose a very severe financial strain.

Many of these farmers who have been for years in the dairying industry doubted the results of these tests and were prepared to give their cows another chance. It is not uncommon apparently that cows would go down in one test and come up in another. Perhaps that is the reason they are holding back. However, I agree with the Minister that our farmers will have to take serious notice of the directions they have received from the Department of Agriculture as to bovine T.B. eradication. A very serious responsibility is placed on farmers' shoulders. They must either reduce their herds if they are not able to stand the financial strain of retaining them or, as many of them are doing, carry on in the hope that the next test will be better. I am glad the Minister is prepared to give another test. I understand the first test has been given free and now another test is to be given free to those people who have not carried out any further tests.

The Minister has stated he is prepared to increase the grant from £15 to £25 for attested cows. High-yielding milk cows are more valuable than other cows. In the counties of Limerick, Cork, Tipperary and Kilkenny, where there is a farming tradition, there are high-yielding milk cows. I would make a plea to the Minister to give a further incentive to the dairying counties in which there is a high percentage of T.B. cows to get rid of those reactor cows and so speed up the eradication of T.B.

I was also very pleased to note an increase in the production of feeding barley. Feeding barley is being fed more and more by the farmers to their stock which is a very good trend. Producing the food his animals need rather than buying it from somebody else is bound to be more profitable to the farmer.

The question of wheat production has been bandied about for years at by-elections and general elections. It would be much better if this question could be left out of such campaigns where one Party claims to be able to give a better price to farmers than another Party. When the farmer goes into production it is obvious that the price will be less than that promised. It is better to be candid with farmers and to promise them a price that is reasonable and one which can be honoured. I understand that in the coming year wheat production will be increased and there will be a surplus, which means that farmers will have to take a lower price. However, if we get a good harvest and if we get higher production generally the farmers' position will be improved.

The tactic of one Party going out at an election and saying they will give a better price than another Party, and blaming the other Party for not giving a good price, is a bad tactic, and one which creates uneasiness in the minds of the farmers. If it is the intention to produce wheat, let us produce wheat and give the best price possible. There should not be competition as between one Party and another.

I have dealt with dairy farming and pig production. Dairy farming is an important industry in the area from which I come. The city of Limerick is dependent upon the dairy farming industry. We have three bacon factories in the city. They produce a first-class product. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to the interests of dairy farmers. I speak for the farmers of Munster. Dairying is the backbone of agricultural economy in Limerick, Tipperary and Cork. Anything that can be done to help the industry should be done. Farmers in other countries are protected. I see no reason why similar protection should not be given to our farmers.

I thought I might give way to my colleague from Longford-Westmeath, the Minister for Transport and Power. I thought he might find his voice and break the dull, dumb situation that seems to have arisen on the Fianna Fáil benches. God be with the day when, on the Vote for the Department of Agriculture, it was very hard for a Deputy on this side of the House to have a say because there was not one single Fianna Fáil Deputy who was not up to talk about the progress that had been made, the progress they were making, or the progress they would make, if they got the chance.

Things are being done so well now that there is no longer any need for that.

The Minister has my sincere sympathy because it is quite clear that, since this Government came into office three years ago, the Minister for Agriculture is being walked on by his colleagues in the Government. I know that the Minister is himself a farmer. I know that if he had his say, and if he had his way, no man would go out of his way to the same extent as the Minister would to assist the agricultural community. He would be the last to allow the farmers suffer the hardships they are undergoing, hardships I hope to demonstrate in the few remarks I have to make.

It is axiomatic that a prosperous agriculture means a prosperous nation. Time after time, when townspeople have grumbled because the farmers were getting this, that and the other, I have pointed out that, when the farmer has money in his pocket, he goes into the town and spends it like a prince. He has a welcome from everyone in the town, and there is a smile on every business man's face; when, however, he goes into town and has no money to spend, there is no meaner man, and there is no welcome for him. It is then the grumbling starts.

Since 1956, the numbers engaged in agriculture have decreased by several thousands. Instead of individuals emigrating whole families are packing up and clearing out. Deputy Dillon referred to emigration from Mayo and Roscommon. I can assure him, the Minister, and the Government, that emigration of whole families now extends to Longford, Leitrim and Westmeath. In the last five months I have seen houses locked, the windows nailed, the husband, wife and family all gone to England. These were the people who produced the finest of our stock. These are the descendants of those who fought the landlords, and everybody else, to keep their land.

That emigration is due in no small measure to the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government. The policy today is akin to that implemented in 1933. I do not want to open old sores, or to resurrect old complaints, but last week in the Seanad the Minister for Finance declared that the reason the situation existed in 1933 and 1934 was because of the opposition with which Fianna Fáil were confronted. He asserted that it was true that certain people prevented them settling the Economic War. That, of course, is very far removed from truth. There was not a Fianna Fáil Deputy at that time, and this can be proved by an examination of the Official Report, who did not boast that we did not want the British market. At least there is some return to sanity today. The Government at last realise that markets are important, and that the British market is of considerable importance to this country.

Remembering the wholesale emigration, I think it is time we had a complete re-examination and re-appraisal of the whole situation. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he says that it is not our responsibility to formulate policy for the Government. The truth of the matter is that we must put the Fine Gael policy for agriculture into effect if this country is ever to make any headway. I am proud that it now appears the Fianna Fáil policy is on the way out and the Fine Gael policy is on the way in. The sooner the change comes the better it will be for all concerned.

The Minister is to be congratulated upon the things he avoided saying in his statement. There were some things about which he should have told us something. I, for one, felt he should have given us some survey of the work of the Agricultural Institute. We would like to know what headway has been made and what is the position regarding that Institute at the present time. However, he has told us that because of the increased acreage under wheat there is likely to be a levy imposed again this year. It is important that a statement be made regarding such a levy as early as possible. Though the Government are taking this line I know the Minister for Agriculture cannot be in favour of it, but the Government are taking it in spite of him. They are imposing it upon him and he will have to submit to their plan. The reason I say he does not approve of it is that I was listening to him speak on behalf of the wheat growers of the country, telling them that the price of 78/- a barrel was too low.

Would the Deputy please quote me?

I was listening to the Minister and I have a good memory.

I never mentioned wheat from a public platform in my life.

If the Minister did not, then I must have been deaf.

Not in 25 or 30 years.

You never talked about wheat at all?

Never. Can the Deputy not make a speech without talking nonsense?

I was listening to the Minister speak in Cavan.

I never mentioned wheat or the price of it from a public platform in my life.

Agricultural produce?

Well, that is a different matter.

I hope I shall be able to get the Anglo Celt.

I should be delighted.

I am relying on my memory and I was about to pay a tribute to the Minister. Now, apparently, I am mistaken. Now it appears he never advocated an increase in the price of wheat, that he left that to all his colleagues, to the Martin Corrys and everybody like him. However, I am not accepting that because I know he was anxious about it, or at least I thought he was. If I am wrong in that, if he did not want an increase in the price of wheat for the farmers, then I shall stand corrected because I suppose he knows best, but my recollection of the Minister's speech in Cavan town was that he was in favour of it and that, as a member of a Fianna Fáil Government that would come into office, he believed there would be an increase in the prices of agricultural produce. He mentioned a string of them, milk and so on. There was no question about that.

Nonsense.

At least in my mind there was no question that he was advocating an increase in the prices of agricultural produce and was suggesting that Fine Gael, of which I was a member, was not doing as much as we should, that we could give higher prices, and that the farmers could have higher prices just by voting for Fianna Fáil. It was like their promises on the ending of Partition; vote Fianna Fáil and they would get an increase in the prices of milk, wheat, and so on. Anyhow, the truth of the matter is that the price for wheat is going to be reduced by the amount of levy that will be imposed. That will reduce the farmers' income, and the prices of oats and barley are to remain the same—this at a time when the income of the agricultural community has been seriously reduced by the fall in the prices of cattle and other agricultural produce. We must remember that the value of a dropped calf is now £10 instead of £20, and £12 instead of £24.

Hear, hear.

How much does that reduction mean in a constituency such as Deputy Carew's? How much of a loss does that represent to the dairying community in that area? I notice that the Minister did deal with poultry and eggs and, of course, as Deputy Dillon pointed out the marketing board that was set up for eggs, Eggsports, was abolished. Now the Minister says he has to build it up again. Fianna Fáil were always experts at breaking things. They could always do that well, but let us, hope that when this board is reestablished it will be a success.

One thing that the Minister did not mention at all was the old, homely potato. Last year the price which producers got for seed potatoes fell very seriously.

And of ware potatoes.

I shall come to that in a moment. There is a considerable amount of labour, hardship, care and time involved in the growing of seed potatoes, but it is an astonishing situation that, though the bottom almost fell out of the market, something happened which resulted in Donegal prices being higher than the Athlone prices. I am not a bit jealous of Donegal but why that happened I do not know. One would think that there should be equality. The Minister also blandly passed over any reference to ware potatoes. We all know that the price producers got for ware potatoes was infinitesimal, but yet their prices on the Dublin market and elsewhere did not come down in the same way. He has not told us anything about it nor apparently does. he intend to do so.

The Minister in his statement says that the most effective means of helping farmers is to get reduced costs of production and thereby increase productivity. He also says that the subsidy on fertilisers could assist in the achievement of that aim but that the use of fertilisers by the farming community has been disappointing. Is it any wonder that would happen? Is it not true to say that when the Farm Improvement Scheme was being developed many Fianna Fáil clubs and Deputies advised farmers not to make use of it on the ground that if they did there would be an increase in their valuations?

It appears to me that Fianna Fáil somehow think farmers, their wives, sons and daughters should work on their farms at a lower cost because one of Fianna Fáil's chief beliefs is that the cost of production could be reduced. That day is gone and the Government must realise that. There is only one way in which the young people can be kept on the land of Ireland and that is by paying them adequate compensation for the work they do.

Time and time again I have pointed out that the young people are leaving the land because of insufficient compensation for their labour. They are prepared to take any sort of posts— that of a postman, a rate collector or Garda—no matter how badly paid, rather than stay on the land. That is true of labourers' sons as well as those of farmers.

We are told there is an increase in our livestock. That is true chiefly because we have not been able to get rid of them. If we could have got a sale for them we would not have them, and the proof of that is the fall in the numbers exported and the amount of money that the farmers have been able to get for their produce. I do want to appeal to our people to make every effort to make a success of the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Again let me remind the Minister—I hope he does not correct me this time—that I heard him say he did not himself intend to get his cattle tuberculin tested.

No, Sir.

The Minister did say that one?

No, I did not say that one.

Well, he did not say it then.

He said something awfully like it.

Let me be quoted correctly in a matter of this nature.

He put his foot in it and let him take it out with grace.

It is unfair in a matter of this kind that words should be put into my mouth.

What did the Minister say?

Is the Deputy making the imputation?

Quote me then.

I think both Deputies should let me continue to say what I want to say.

I will say this: the Minister for Agriculture was not enamoured of the scheme at one time.

Not true.

The Minister, then, was delighted with it and urged all his neighbours to have it carried out?

At all times?

The Minister did not have much success. Whether he was in favour of the scheme or not, the truth of the matter is that he now realises—and so does everybody connected with agriculture—the importance of complying with the regulations the Minister has made. I would appeal to everybody to assist him in the carrying out of that scheme. It is true to say that complaints are many and varied. I shall not go into them here, but I am glad to know that the Minister and the Government will clamp down on any officials they find to be lax in putting the scheme into full operation. More power to the Minister's elbow in stamping out any such cases because slackness could be very serious. It is important that all concerned should know that this is a matter of prime importance to every section of our community. Therefore, I commend it to our people and I appeal to them to comply with the tuberculosis regulations to the best of their ability, so that by 1962 this country will be free of the disease.

There are many other aspects of the agricultural policy of this Government that one is inclined to criticise, but I do not think to do so would serve any useful purpose. The picture painted by the Minister last night is a dark one indeed. I think there is a great future before the agricultural community of this country, and I trust that by putting our policy into effect after the next general election the people will get an opportunity of earning a decent livelihood at home on their own land—the land which their forebears fought so hardly to retain.

I am not unmindful of how the Irish tenant farmer was in the past so independent; of how he owned his own land. I know that the struggle of 1916 to 1922 could not have taken place without him. It was because the Irish farmer was the owner of his own land that he was able to support an Irish army in the field. He was unpurchased and unpurchasable and my sincere regret is that the people who rendered such a valuable service to the nation have had such hard times ever since. It is still a disappointment to me, but it is never too late to mend and I think that when the people get the opportunity they will show a realisation that flag-wagging and talking of shirts will not improve the situation—that it is in complying with and assisting the Government of the day this country can make real progress.

I wish to address a few remarks to the Minister on the bovine T.B. eradication scheme. First, I want to deal with the subsidy scheme. It is being operated in a very bad way. I realise it is hard to make a start, but the way the scheme is being operated gives the farmers and feeders in the best beef counties of Ireland no chance whatever of getting the subsidy. If a farmer in Mullingar sells his cattle and wishes to get the subsidy, the man who buys them must bring them to the Dublin cattle market. Instead of their going direct to the North Wall, they are taken off at Liffey Junction. That wagon load has to be brought down to a weigh-bridge in the cattle market and that costs an extra 10/-. In addition, drovers cannot drive the cattle down without hitting them with sticks, and on every place the beast is struck blackening occurs. Consequently, the beast is all black and when it is hung up in Birkenhead or some place else there is a loss of from three lbs. to four lbs., and with beef at 2/6d per lb. that means a monetary loss of up to 10/-.

What will happen when thousands of cattle come out of Westmeath and Longford? Will they all have to be rounded up into wagons, taken off at Liffey Junction and taken down to the Dublin cattle market to be weighed? In addition to the other extra charge I mentioned, there is a toll charge of 1/9d. per head. It is not possible to have them shipped the same night so they have to be kept in a paddock at a further charge of 5/- per head, and the next day they have to be brought down to the port. Consequently, there is a total extra cost of at least 30/- on the beef producing farmers of the midlands.

Why are farmers put to this extra trouble and expense? Is it simply to back up the boycott or something else? I do not want to go into it. There are scales in every town in the midlands and I do not see why those cattle cannot be weighed there. It is said that the same cattle might not leave the port as leave the midlands, but the same could apply to the cattle going to the North Wall from the cattle market. I understand that a label only is put on them. We have officials of the Department attending the fairs and marts looking after the 14-day tested animals. Are they not to be trusted to weigh those cattle? I would honestly ask the Minister: is it fair to put all this extra trouble and expense on the cattle feeders of the main beef areas of the country?

Another matter causing great concern is the rejection of cattle because of earmarks. Yesterday I saw 12 cattle which were sold to a shipper and which came up to Liffey Junction. I know those cattle were fed on Westmeath land for the last 12 months, not a quarter of a mile away from me. They did not come from Northern Ireland but were fed by a genuine, honest feeder in my area. Yet five of them were turned down because their ears were mutilated. We have all marked our cattle with a hole in the left ear. No one can control cattle in a field. An animal might put its head into a ditch with the result that the cut is pulled out. Many of the cattle were reactors and had tags inserted in their ears by the vets. In some cases those tags were removed by being pulled out instead of being cut out, resulting in a big cut in the ear.

The Minister should take these matters into consideration. It is not fair that the Midland farmer who endeavoured to help him out last summer by buying reactors should now be penalised by having to send his cattle up to the Dublin Cattle Market and incur an extra expense of 30/- per head before they can be shipped. It should be a simple matter to have the cattle weighed at the various fairs and marts.

The eradication of bovine T.B. is a very difficult task but no money should be spared on it. The cattle industry is the lifeblood of this nation, and even if eradication costs £20,000,000 or £30,000,000 we should press ahead with it. At present the small farmer does not know where he stands. The small man with four or five cattle gets them tested. Two of them come through the test but the other three are reactors. In the case of the latter, if a bullock is less than eight cwt. or a heifer less than 7 cwt., the farmer does not qualify for the subsidy.

It is said that we have a shortage of veterinary surgeons, but half of the ordinary practising vets in the country are idle. I believe that the shortage is one of administrative staff in the various towns. For instance, the men in the Mullingar office have all of Longford and Westmeath and they have only two or three clerks to assist them. If the Government are serious in the drive to eradicate bovine T.B., they should ensure that there is sufficient administrative staff to operate the scheme. If a man wants to get his herd accredited, he gets his first test; but when he wants his second test he has to go into the office four or five times before he can have it. He is supposed to get it within 60 days but it is usually 90 or even 200 days before the man comes out to him. It is really no one's fault, but the small farmers are becoming tired of it.

Feeders are losing confidence in southern cattle. I want the southern men to hear that. We are becoming afraid to buy southern cattle. We bought a lot of them, 14-day tested cattle, over the last nine months. No later than four days ago I saw five nice little heifers, 14-day tested animals, which were bought three months ago. They were tested again last week and five of them went down. I would not say it was the fault of the vet. who first tested them, but they may have contracted the disease from all those cows in the South of Ireland which have not yet been removed.

That is one of our biggest problems—that these animals are not being removed quickly enough. In these months of July, August, September and October the Government should endeavour to speed up the removal of these cattle whether they are in clearance or non-clearance areas. If a beast goes down in a test it is months before it is taken off the land and in some cases is never taken off. No money should be spared in having these animals removed.

If the animals are not taken away when the vet. notifies that they are reactors they should be cleared out within a week. A better chance could not be provided than at the present time, because in those months the animals would not be a waste if the Government buys them. I should like the Minister to consider this; I am not saying it in an aggressive way. I know the task is difficult, but if nothing is done the man who will suffer most is the small farmer because if he has four or five cattle and if two or three are reactors he has not a hope of selling them.

I ask the Minister to consider changing the present system of subsidy. He should get more money from the Government rather than leave those reactors. I cannot see that there is a shortage of vets., but they are not being asked to test the cattle. There is insufficient staff in the various offices concerned, and it would be impossible for them to do all the work required. Twenty or thirty clerks would be needed. When a man's cattle are due for testing, that operation should be carried out; he has to get a second test done in 60 days. What happens is that the farmer has to remind the office and frequently it goes to 70 days before the second test is made. That test may be inconclusive with the result that the whole business has to wait again. If one is first in, after the 60 days, you are lucky to get a man out in a week or ten days. If you do not go in, there is no hope of them coming out. It is humanly impossible for the present staff to cope with the task. That is a serious matter. I know there are difficulties, but I think money is being spared. I imagine that there must be thousands or millions of orders lying in the Department never opened. I am not blaming anyone for that, but we have had the benefit of some experience now, and I ask the Minister to have matters speeded up. No money should be spared, because the cattle trade is the lifeblood of the country.

In introducing the Estimate, the Minister appropriately referred to the harvesting conditions in 1958 and their disastrous consequences on the farmers' income and the national income also, in so far as these consequences meant the importation of large quantities of foreign wheat in the latter part of 1958 and the early part of 1959. In 1959 we had a magnificent harvest and it was saved in ideal conditions. The grain was magnificent and the yield perfect. But on the whole, I think that year was worse for the farmer than 1958 because during 1958 cattle prices were firm but in the latter part of 1959, from the summer on, cattle prices began to recede and whatever advantage accrued from the magnificent harvest was more than offset by the drop in cattle and sheep prices.

The extraordinary thing about cattle and sheep prices is that, with all our research and experiments, nobody was able to pinpoint the cause for that recession. The Minister says it was the drought in Great Britain; many others hold that was not so and that it was not any feeling about T.B. What was the reason? It is extraordinary in view of all the money spent on research that our people cannot be advised as to what the future has in store for them. This year the future is entirely unpredictable because of the international situation and because the democratic European nations are feverishly anxious to come together in the interests of their own collective economic security. We are at the crossroads; we do not know where to turn. Only part of the year has gone and so far it has been most promising. Certainly, the weather in the past ten days has been causing great disquiet. But whatever hay has been saved up to now has been perfect in quality. Whether or not the hay that was under the weather for the last ten days will be as good is another matter. We do not know what the year will bring but if it is like 1959 there is nothing to cushion us against future hazards.

While 1959 was worse than 1958, as far as the farmers were concerned, in addition people did not take precautions in time to guard against hoose in cattle. In my part of the country we had enormous losses in the latter part of 1959 and in the winter and early spring of this year. I know one farmer, not in my own parish, who lost nine cattle, aged between one-and-a-half and two-and-a-half years. The vet. was called in and he could not diagnose the cause. There was no special name for this disease, I think. He notified the Department. When the carcases were examined afterwards, however, it was discovered that the livers were completely gone. Why that should happen I do not know. Was it that the germ was in the beasts all the time but that it did not become active while the weather remained dry? That is something that should be cleared up because a similar position might arise in the coming year. Because of the very good summer people did not avail of the injections and the ordinary precautions used to protect livestock.

The Minister referred to the wheat acreage in the current year and with the increase in acreage it is very likely that we shall have a levy on the wheat again. I think that is most inconsistent. It annoys farmers when they are asked to increase production to find they are penalised on that very production. I think the Minister mentioned during the year that he was having the question of growing wheat on contract reviewed. I sincerely hope that is being done. It should not be impossible to devise a new system so that sufficient wheat, at least for our own requirements, would be grown and so that we do not have to levy those who apply themselves to wheat production.

I think it would be right to say that there is a drop in the acreage of feeding barley. I do not know what the price is going to be but the Minister has indicated, I think, that the price will be on last year's level. It seems extraordinary that we should have this drop because I think feeding barley has been a wonderful asset to our farmers. We should be independent of imports of coarse grain when we can produce barley so successfully and abundantly at home.

Anyone who applies ground limestone will certainly get a moderate if not a very good crop of barley, even from average land. I do not know if it is possible to export barley on its own merits or if sufficient green barley is grown in Great Britain to supply their own needs. There was an exchange system last year whereby we imported maize for the barley that we were able to export. It would be very profitable for us if we were able to expand those exports and to send out barley on its own merit.

The same applies to butter production. We were glad to learn that milk yields were up in this year. The drop in milk yields last year obviated the need for a levy of any kind. Any rational, national Government of a country that has been traditionally so successful in the production of milk, butter and meat should be prepared to buttress the prices of those commodities and to have them for home consumption at a price commensurate with the capacity of the people to pay. It is a hardship on the poor to have to pay excessive prices for commodities that we can produce so successfully. Whatever subsidies or price support we give should be given to those commodities so that our people will be able to buy them at a fairly reasonable price and that our farmers may get a little profit for their labour and be compensated for any loss they may incur in selling their products on the open market.

A good deal of the debate has hinged around the question of bovine T.B. I was shocked at Deputy Fagan's announcement about heifers that came from the South. One does not know what happened them in the course of transport. The 14-day test is the obvious, feasible, reasonable way of dealing with cattle exports at the moment. We ship about 1,500 accredited cattle per month but the 14-day test gives us the outlet for the cattle that we have in abundance at the present time and people should be encouraged to avail of it. Deputy Fagan's assertion should be investigated. If his statement is correct, we must ask ourselves where we are.

There are many people who have devoted their savings in the past 30 years to building up herds of high milk yield and who today are very slow to participate in the bovine T.B. eradication scheme because they are doubtful and confused about the whole situation. It is the duty of farmers to avail of the scheme and to try to eradicate bovine T.B. as rapidly as possible. The farmers have not the confidence and even the veterinary officers of the Department have not the confidence. Milk producers feel that they will never again bring their herds back to the standard in regard to milk yields that they had in the past and they are, therefore, very slow to participate.

I was glad to hear from the Minister —and it is a well known fact—that young cattle are very free from the disease. As that is the case, I cannot see why on the moderate size farms, where there is abundance of calf-sheds or outhouses, those houses would not be disinfected and young cattle kept in them apart from any possible source of infection or contagion. That would be reasonable. If people were encouraged and advised to do that they would, in turn, in their own best interests, if not in the nation's interests, adopt the scheme. We have until 1965 to become clear. We should at least preserve young cattle in a state of purity from the disease and gradually get rid of older cattle in the next four years. There is still an outlet for those cattle by converting them into beef. This year, with the large supplies of hay that we see around us and the possibility of heavy cereal crops, we shall be in a better position to finish cattle and to get rid of reactors.

Deputy Fagan's remarks bring to mind another matter. I have heard veterinary officers saying, "once a reactor always a reactor". I have seen that disproved. That contention is not always correct. That may be the explanation in the case stated by Deputy Fagan this evening. It is a very technical point.

There is a good deal of uncertainty and doubt about our future in the cattle trade. We have got nothing out of this year's agreement. The Minister was very guarded in referring to the Trade Agreement recently concluded with Great Britain. He said it was a strengthening of the agreements already made. I admit it gives us this advantage, that our accredited cattle will become eligible for the price differential for which they were not eligible up to now. Our accredited cattle will be placed at parity with British guaranteed prices after three months in Britain. We are all glad of that and it should be a great encouragement.

May I quote from the "Irish Banking Review" of June of this year? This is a well-informed journal and is conservative, if anything. It says, under the heading "The Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement":

The supplementary Trade Agreement between the Republic of Ireland and Britain, concluded in mid-April, falls far short of the far-reaching Irish proposals for full participation in British agricultural subsidies and co-ordinated agricultural policies in return for an extension of present preferences for British exports to Ireland.

These proposals, which were discussed in our March issue, were considered by the British Government to be outside the realm of practical politics at present. Nonetheless the Supplementary Agreement, which must inevitably appear anaemic by comparison with the original full-blooded proposals of the Irish delegation, represents an important consolidation of the special trade relationship between the two countries, the importance of which is explicitly recognised in the Agreement itself.

That is an outside objective opinion on the Trade Agreement. We must stand on our own feet in competition with all other countries and yet this traditionally agricultural country is still in doubt as to where it will be in the alliances that are being formed in Europe today.

I want to comment on the Department's publications. The recent booklet issued specially for the farmer is a very helpful index to publications which are of interest to the farmer. I do not know how the booklet is distributed. There is no price marked on it. Is it on sale publicly? If it were commercialised it would sell well and farmers would be prepared to buy it. There is the Farm Bulletin which, perhaps, is rather technical and for that reason does not suit some farmers. There is also the Farm Research News. All these aids are very valuable and should be available to every farmer. Whether they are distributed through committees of agriculture or through rural schools they should reach every farmer. If advice were given and appeals made in these periodicals to farmers, and if they were given the pros and cons in respect of T.B. eradication and the necessity for it, confidence would be restored and people would participate much more rapidly than they appear inclined up to now.

I am glad that the Minister has stated that the activity in connection with bovine T.B. eradication will be continued in the south from now on. There was a lull in that activity and there were various rumours as to the reason for the lull. The Minister said it was because sufficient efforts were not made by producers in the south to get rid of their reactor cattle. There were also rumours that there was a shortage of vaccine. If that was so, it should be stated that that was the case.

Deputy Giles referred to the large amount of money spent on foreign machinery. All that money goes out of the country and the money for the very oil required for the running of those machines also goes out of the country. We are inclined to run away with ourselves in that respect. I think that we should go in more for co-operative farming so that the farmers could buy that machinery together and there would not be so much duplication. Some of these expensive machines, and they are very expensive, are used for only a few days in the year and then they are left lying idle until the following year. If we had more co-operative farming it would obviate the necessity for all this expenditure.

We were glad to hear the Minister announce the increase in the numbers of cattle, sheep and pigs. This was inevitable because of the fact that our land can now carry many more cattle and sheep than formerly due to the fact that the application for fertilisers and ground limestone has given new heart to the land. We also have a million extra acres of land available, due to the land project scheme. That, too, is a reason for the increased numbers of livestock we can carry.

We regret to hear that employment on the land is decreasing all the time. It is the case in all western European countries and is largely traceable to the fact that mechanical appliances are doing away with manpower on the land except in cases where a person cannot succeed in getting a job elsewhere. That is the case within a five or six mile radius of Cork City and I am sure it applies in the vicinity of other cities also. That inclination amongst people to congregate, that wish for society and that longing for company is natural and it is also natural that people living in isolated places feel that need. All this is not conducive to stability on the land. It is a trend that we do not like to see particularly when we remember that:

"A bold peasantry, its country's pride,

When once destroyed can never be supplied."

All our best traditions were built up by our peasantry and if we lose our loyal peasantry it means disaster for our society.

We have here an overlapping number of rural organisations. We have Muintir na Tíre, the I.C.A., Macra na Feirme, the National Farmers' Association and other farmers' organisations and it is a great pity there is not some liaison between all these very worthwhile organisations. They do not come together in their own interests to preserve our traditions and to ensure that their voice would be heard in a united way and have the ear of the Government. A Government could be guided by a strong organisation of that kind. The Farmers' Union in Great Britain has far more power outside the Government than it would have in the Government. Organisations outside this House, if banded together, would have wonderful resources and would be able to bring great pressure to bear on Ministers in getting what they need. For that reason it is a pity that we have this dispersion of their energies and finances.

These are the few remarks I wanted to make. I think there should be some sort of encouragement and advice given to our position at the present time and as to the alliances with which we will have to line up in the future if we are to preserve our rural economy.

It is a truism that in this country we cannot ignore the vital importance of our agricultural industry. While it is true that industrial production is increasing and is a very important element in our national programme and that the establishment of factories means much more money to spend and more wealth in the country, we are inclined to disregard the vital importance of agriculture. Every barrel of wheat produced in this country is important to us; every gallon of milk and every animal are most important because our basic interest has been, and will always remain, what we can win from the land.

Other countries depend on the wealth beneath their soil and base their economy on it. We have not found, or have still to find, any natural wealth beneath the land and therefore we must continue to depend for the wealth of our country and the employment of our people on the goods we can produce from the basic industry of the country. It is noticeable that there has been all over a decline in the number of people working on the land in this country. The tendency has been to leave the land and pursue some other vocation at home or to leave the country altogether, which is more regrettable still.

In Limerick, the constituency which I represent, we have had a decline in population of about 3½ per cent. between the census of population of 1951 and that of 1956. What the figures will reveal as between 1956 and the next census period we can only speculate on, but it is certainly apparent that there are fewer people working on the land. For that there is a reason. People nowadays do not find work on the land a profitable way of life, particularly the young people. There are not sufficient attractions nowadays to keep them attached to the land and for that reason they have left it. When the population of the countryside dwindles and the farming community and the labouring community working for the farmers find themselves without money, the villages and towns are equally hit. That is very noticeable at the present time. There is stagnation in the rural areas, both in the countryside and in the villages and towns.

There is a net increase of approximately £870,000 in the Minister's Estimate. One is struck immediately by the fact that practically half that increase is accounted for by the grant to An Foras Talúntais which is shown in the Estimates at £400,000. We hope that will be a most valuable asset to the agricultural community as a whole because competition is very keen in all walks of life. It is especially evident in relation to a country's produce on foreign markets. Anything that An Foras is able to do for the guidance of our farmers so as to enable them to farm more economically or to market their produce better must be a distinct advantage to the community. I am sure when the report is laid on the Table of the House valuable suggestions will be made by this body for the benefit of the farming community.

I should like to refer to the decrease in education grants to various schools of farming and private agricultural schools. Various subheads of the Estimates show decreases. There are of course increases in regard to the Faculty of Agriculture in the Universities, but why there should be a decline in the other cases is something I should like to hear from the Minister. Equally in regard to the advisory services there is a decline in the amount made available. Whether that has any bearing on previous progress I am not in a position to say, but I am sure the Minister will be able to tell us why it is considered advisable at the present stage of development to reduce these grants.

The amounts available for various schemes which are there to aid the agricultural community are increased a little in some cases and decreased a little in others. Everybody realises that projects such as farm building and the installation of water are of primary importance to the agricultural community. I am glad, therefore, that in the case of farm buildings the amount available for grants is increased by approximately £10,000 and that grants for the lime and fertiliser scheme go up by £65,000. That is something which we hope will be fully availed of by the farming community.

There is one matter in regard to water schemes to which I should like to draw the Minister's attention. Take the case of a farmer whose home is detached from his land. I do not know whether the regulations have been amended so as to allow for the payment of a grant to such a person. I think it has been, subject to this condition that the farmer installs water in the dwelling house as well. In rural areas it is not always easy to install water in a dwelling house, whereas there may be an adequate supply of water available for the farm. Surely we should be able to devise a scheme whereby such farmers could secure the grant for the installation of water on the farm.

The southern counties have been referred to already this evening. Water is one of the most important things in the eradication of bovine T.B. Without an adequate water supply for cattle, both for cleansing and drinking purposes, we cannot hope to get rid of T.B. at all. If cattle have to drink from stagnant pools of water we are inviting disaster. Therefore anything which will encourage our people to avail of this scheme to a greater extent for the installation of water is very much to be desired.

In regard to the pasteurised skim milk scheme, I note that the amount has come down from approximately £200,000 to £100,000. I hope that reduction means that the progress has been sufficient in that scheme to enable the grant to be reduced. If young cattle are to be healthy it is important that they should have skim milk which has been pasteurised.

I regret I was not here when the Minister made his statement but I understand he made reference to the Irish Dairy Produce Board. I do not know whether he elaborated on the setting up of this board but I am sure the Minister and his Department are aware of the claim which the dairy farmers of the south make for their place on it. When the Minister comes to set up the board I hope he will give to the dairying areas in the southern counties, which carry the largest number of cattle in the country, the membership to which they are entitled. The latest figures in this document show that in my county there are approximately 287,000 cattle and there are 114,500 milch cows. That is for Limerick alone. In the Munster counties in which dairying is carried on there are something like 500,000 milch cows. The dairy farmers feel, and rightly so, that our cattle trade is based on the dairy cow and without it there would not be the same future for the cattle industry which, as was mentioned already by Deputy Fagan, is the life blood of this country. It is now more than ever necessary that that trade should continue to expand and remain unimpeded. I hope that when this board is set up the Minister will give due consideration, not special consideration, to the personnel from the point of view of the dairying areas.

I spoke here last year about the marketing of Irish produce and the competition we have to face on the British market. The marketing of our produce to the best advantage is of vital importance. It has been suggested that there should be permanent display centres in certain areas in Britain for the sale of Irish agricultural produce. We should like to know what the Minister and the Government have in mind in that regard.

It is apparent now that there will be an increase this year in milk production. This increased production will inevitably mean increased butter manufacture. On previous occasions a surplus of butter has proved an embarrassment from the point of view of the amount of money needed to subsidise the export of the surplus. While the production of milk and butter is increasing, the consumption of butter is declining. I cannot see why we should subsidise butter for export and refuse to subsidise it for consumption by our own people. Indeed, we do not consume enough milk either, and milk is a very valuable food. Steps should be taken to popularise milk as a drink. Such a course might help to solve the problem of surplus butter. A few years ago there was quite a good market for cheese. I do not know what the prospects are to-day. I doubt if cheese could be exported without the help of a subsidy. Here, there would not be quite the same objection to subsidy since the amount required would be small as compared with what has to be paid to subsidise the consumption of butter.

With regard to the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, the scheme is of vital importance in my constituency. It also presents a problem, and we shall not solve that problem by refusing to face up to it. We appreciate the seriousness of the position. We appreciate the urgency of the problem. I sincerely hope the farming community will avail to the full of the scheme. I regret to say the scheme is not making the progress one would like it to make in my county. There is, of course, an explanation for the lack of progress. I understand that approximately one-quarter of reactors have to be taken out of a herd before a second test is given. Consider the position of a farmer with 24 cows. He will have to take out six and replace them immediately. His capital outlay on replacements will be something in the region of £400.

I suggest to the Minister that we are perhaps trying to advance too rapidly where this second test is concerned, and that is why the scheme is not making the progress it should. Small farmers find it very difficult to take out that proportion of reactors at one "go". Very often, too, replacements are found to have gone down, and so replacements tend to become a recurring capital outlay. In order to make the scheme successful I think it should be based on creamery areas. We should have miniature clearance areas. I admit that in such areas intensive measures would have to be taken. The area would have to be sealed off. I cannot understand the economics of trying to seal off a large area with a large number of reactors.

Mention was made of Limerick this evening and I previously said I thought Limerick should have a head office of its own. There is no fault to be found with the staff in the office in Tipperary, but it is anything up to 50 and 60 miles away from parts of West Limerick. Limerick is an important dairy county and, as I say, should have a centre of its own from which the bovine T.B. scheme could be controlled.

When reactors are found in a herd it sometimes happens that the herd owner applies only for cards for as many of the reactors as he intends to get rid of at one time. As far as my knowledge goes, it is not the practice to apply for cards for all the reactors at the same time. The reason for that is that the farmer concerned could not afford to get rid of all his reactor dairy cattle at the one time because, if he did, he could not carry on in business. In that connection I made a certain plea last year and I shall make it again this year. It is that when a farmer clears his herd he should be given some encouragement by way of an increase in the price of milk, something like a bonus, for perhaps three years in succession. If there were an inducement of that kind, the farming community might pay more attention to the scheme and co-operate more in eradicating the disease.

The re-housing of animals on the land has made good progress and I hope it will continue to do so, but it is important that where a farm contains both reactors and cattle that are free of disease they should be housed separately. That applies in particular to young cattle, and without it the scheme cannot be completed as quickly as we would wish it to be. The whole problem is one that has been imposed upon the country because of events that have taken place abroad but, whether it had been imposed or not, it would be essential to eradicate bovine tuberculosis to maintain our cattle trade.

Deputy Fagan mentioned this evening that there was no confidence in some of the southern cattle but it has to be appreciated that the problem is greatest in the south. That is where the herds of cattle are most numerous and it is where the incidence of the disease is highest. Therefore the southern area is in need of special attention from those who feel that we are not making as big an effort as we should. It is a financial problem as well as everything else, but we ought to try by every means possible to induce the farming community, first and foremost, to believe in the efficacy of the measures which we have taken and, secondly, believing in the efficacy of the measures we have taken, we want them to be reassured that they will not suffer financially.

I was glad to note that the Minister mentioned an increase in the headage grant for cattle which applies, of course, to animals who are on the register. I do not know the exact figure as to what proportion of animals in the dairy counties are entered on the register but it would be interesting to find out, because the incidence of disease is as high amongst those entered on the register as amongst those that are not. The Minister also said that he cannot consider extending this to any class other than that which he announced, but it would be interesting to know what proportion of cattle this increased headage grant applies to.

The farming community appreciates the urgency and the necessity for getting rid of bovine tuberculosis, but we should do more in this House and elsewhere to dispel certain of their fears in regard to it. The price of milk has a basic connection with it and, if we do not do something about that, we shall be leaving the farmers in the same position they are in at present, when a dairy herd is barely sufficient to produce a very meagre living for any farmer and his family.

I would also appeal strongly to the Minister to lower the proportion of reactors which must be got rid of to qualify a herd for a second test. This at present involves a financial burden on the farming community, and if they feel it is too much for them, second tests will not take place and the problem will remain with us. People may say that a slow rate of progress in the beginning would mean that the scheme would never be completed, but we must have regard to its financial impact on the farmers. We ought to lessen that in its initial stages and I would strongly appeal to the Minister in his own interests, and those of the community and the nation, to take all steps he can, and should, take to solve the problem.

Crops do not concern us so much in my county. We are primarily interested in dairying and pasture. The amount of wheat grown would not affect us very much. We might be interested in it to a certain extent as far as pig production is concerned. In that respect, I have heard from many farmers complaints in regard to grading. They find it hard to understand why, following all the advice they have got, their grading still does not measure up to what they would expect. Whether the grading of pigs is administered differently in different places I do not know, but farmers in my area seem to find fault with the fact that they have not increased their percentage a whole lot.

I hope that since the advisory services administered under this Department figure so much in regard to production and since we are all urging the farming community to produce more, the Minister will see to it that these services are availed of to the full extent so that the farming community throughout the country may produce more without fear that such production will impose disabilities on their economy. It is not my intention to speak on any other aspect of agriculture because I am confined in the main to the industry on which we in Limerick base our economy— that of milk.

I should like to join with Deputy Jones in his appeal to the Minister in regard to the special problem presented by the dairying counties which to his constituency and mine, I think, is the most important. The Minister, in the course of his speech, mentioned the difficulty of getting the farmers in the dairying counties to dispose of their reactor cows and said that such a state of affairs could not be tolerated under present circumstances. I think the whole House joins with the Minister in wishing him well in his efforts to rid the country of bovine tuberculosis.

However, I think the Minister would be the first to admit that the dairying counties do offer a particular problem which is not met to the same extent in other less affected counties. For that reason, I would ask the Minister to be as generous as the finances of the country permit in helping the dairy farmers to dispose of their reactor cows. I am glad to learn that the Minister has gone some way, as far as the increased headage grant is concerned—by increasing it from £15 to £25. I think this is indicative of the fact that the Minister does see the southern counties do present a particular problem in regard to the disposal of reactor cows.

The fact that the incidence of bovine tuberculosis is far higher in the dairying counties than elsewhere does present the dairy farmers—mainly small family farmers—with a very serious financial problem. I feel sure the Minister realises it is not an easy task to dispose of possibly up to 50 per cent. of a herd quickly and to replace them with suitable cows without incurring heavy financial losses.

The Minister mentioned in his speech that milk supplies this year were running at 8 per cent. above 1959 and that this year we might have a certain amount of butter for export to the British market. I should like to ask the Minister why it is that we apparently have to export our butter at the time of the year when prices in Great Britain are at their lowest. I think the House will remember that during 1958 we subsidised exports of butter to the tune of over £2 million at the taxpayers' expense and that it was a fact that Irish butter was selling in England and in the Six Counties at a price little in excess of 2/- per lb. while at the same time the people here were paying a price of 4/- per lb. or more. Within a matter of a few months the surplus had disappeared and the price of Irish butter had advanced very substantially on the London market.

Could our exports not be regulated in such a way that we could get the benefit of the higher price on the British market later in the year, or is there some difficulty in the way of regulating our exports in this manner? It does seem to me it would be good economics to try to get the highest price. As well, it would mean a very substantial saving to the Irish taxpayer, of which the farmer himself forms a large section. It is true that in this country we ask our dairy farmers to produce milk at a price lower than most European countries. By and large, our dairy farmers have accepted that situation over a long number of years, principally at the cost of enjoying a standard of living far lower than their counterparts in Denmark or the Netherlands.

I appreciate that the situation here is not the same as in Great Britain or elsewhere where there are large industrial populations to subsidise the farmer and where subsidies on milk and other agricultural products can be carried by the wealthy industrial section of the population. Here we have the situation that whatever we give to the farmer, if only a penny in the gallon of milk, comes as a severe impost on the direct taxpayer, of whom we have a very small number and of whom the farmers themselves form no small part. We must, of necessity, have regard to the fact that when we talk about increasing the price of agricultural products we are asking Peter to pay Paul to a large extent.

I should like to refer to the activities of the Condensed Milk Company of Ireland which, as the Minister is aware, has a very large condensery in Limerick. I was surprised the Minister did not make reference to it in his opening remarks. I should like to congratulate him on the recent developments there in the manufacture of cheese. I was hoping the Minister might say something about the success of these developments and of possible future expansion. I should like to urge on the Minister the desirability of taking fuller advantage of that factory. It employs, at the peak seasons, over 400 workers in the city of Limerick. This is a very substantial proportion of our employable population and, to some extent, makes up for the lack of other industrial development in Limerick during recent years.

I wonder is it too late to consider the development of a chocolate crumb industry in the Condensed Milk Co. in Limerick? I know we have a number of these factories in the country but their exports have been increasing again in the last year or two and I should like the Minister to examine the possibilities of developing this industry in Limerick. I would ask the Minister to urge on the board of the Condensed Milk Company of Ireland the desirability of showing energy and initiative in going into new lines. It would be a very substantial relief to the taxpayer if we could manufacture in Limerick products from milk which we would not need to subsidise as we have to subsidise butter.

A question I have wanted to ask in this House for quite a time is whether the accounts of the Dairy Disposal Board can be seen. I have never seen them and I wonder if they are placed on the Table of the House? Can any information as to the books of the board be secured? A further matter I would like the Minister to consider is the desirability or practicability of establishing a milk board something on the lines of the milk board in England which, I understand, has been very successful despite its early teething troubles. It does strike me as worthy of investigation and the Minister might look into the question particularly as he is setting up an export board to handle the export of dairy produce. I feel it would be a good time to examine the whole question of setting up a milk board to handle generally the supplies of liquid milk throughout the country.

In regard to the Dairy Produce Board I should like, with other Deputies, to ensure that the dairy industry is adequately represented on it by which I mean the producers through their organisation, the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association and also the Irish Creamery Managers' Association. If the board is to be a success it is essential that all interests should be adequately represented on it. The setting up of any board, and we seem to have a weakness for setting up boards of one kind or another in this country, does not of itself guarantee success. The most important constituent of success is the personnel of these boards and that is why I urge the absolute necessity of ensuring that all interests in the dairy industry are properly represented.

The Minister also mentioned that there had been an increase in the pig population of the country. I would have wished the Minister to have said something more about our position regarding the British market, now that the Danes have succeeded in getting rid of the 10% tariff imposed on them for a number of years. I should like to ask the Minister if, in the conditions which appertain in this country, we can confidently expect to compete with the Danish farmer having regard to the conditions under which he works or are we hitting our heads against a stone wall? In a matter like this one must be realistic and there is not much use in talking about Grade A or Super Grade A bacon unless there is a good chance of having it produced and marketed in reasonable quantities. It would be better to concentrate on the type of bacon that we can produce under the conditions appertaining here and, if necessary, take a lower price.

The Minister also had something to say on the exports of store cattle which have shown a substantial falling off. I feel that we may have to face up to the possibility of a change in the pattern of the export of cattle to Great Britain and it is quite possible that our total exports may have to be changed over the years. We may have a substantial increase in the export of beef cattle and carcase meats, and possibly other types of meats, in place of export of cattle on the hoof.

I think that in many ways this will be desirable. It would give much more employment here but it would necessitate our being aware of the changing conditions there and having regard to the change in the buying habits of the English people, particularly with the development of the supermarket and packaged goods of all kinds. It may be necessary to consider marketing goods in this country in a packaged or processed form. If this development is likely to affect our trade we would want to be up-to-date and make sure that we are in on the British market.

The Minister also referred to a possible falling off in the acreage under barley and mentioned that he was again putting into effect the barley marketing scheme which he operated last year. There was a good deal to be said for that scheme. It worked generally very smoothly and the trade honoured their undertaking to take up the barley as it was offered for sale. I often wonder if it is good economics to export barley produced at home and to import maize. I know that it is needed to help the compound manufacturers in the northern counties where barley is not readily available but that deficiency might be offset if a flat price scheme were introduced which would allow for barley grown in Cork or Tipperary to be sent to Monaghan or Cavan at a flat price similar to that at which it is sold in the producing counties. I know that maize is a useful constituent of cattle, pig and poultry rations and that we shall have to continue to import a certain percentage of it but I do question the economics of exporting barley and importing maize. We have to take a substantial loss on the exports of barley which can only be recouped by putting it on to the price of the maize. That was done during the past twelve months.

The Minister did not refer to a development about which there has been a good deal of publicity recently. I refer to the processing and packaging of vegetables. I should like to think that his Department is alive to the value of this development and of its usefulness, particularly to the small farmers of the country. I know that the Irish Sugar Company have important developments on the way, but the Minister's Department might have given us some general review of the possibilities of this trade which could be a useful adjunct to our export trade.

The Minister mentioned that we have a trade of between £4 million and £5 million a year in agricultural products and produce with the Common Market Countries. As I understand it, with the tariffs which these six countries will raise, we are likely to lose that valuable trade, and I wonder if the Minister has given any thought to the development of alternative markets. I am aware that we have made considerable progress in developing the U.S. market, but I wonder what we have done towards developing a market with the Outer Seven Countries, apart from the British market. The loss of that export trade of £4 or £5 million yearly is not to be taken lightly.

I should like to feel that the Minister's Department is alive to developments over the past year particularly in the Middle East, Africa and other similar countries. There must be a very substantial existing potential market in these areas and, with the political goodwill we have in these areas, it seems to me we should be up and about and alive to the possibility of expanding our exports into those areas.

The most astounding thing about this debate is the silence of Fianna Fáil. I remember a few years ago the way in which Fianna Fáil Deputies came in here and clamoured that they, and they alone, represented the farmers. I remember the manner in which they used come in for debates on the Agricultural Estimate and make the welkin ring showing their interest in agriculture; the manner in which they tried to present themselves throughout the country as the persons interested in agriculture. To-night that has been shown to be another of the hollow frauds which they have perpetrated on the people, particularly during the last three years.

Individual farmer Deputies who have ideas on agricultural means and methods and who might well have something constructive to offer have been silenced apparently by orders of the Fianna Fáil Government. Apparently they are not allowed to give their views in this debate on our principal industry. I have been here most of the day, except while I was having a meal, and so far as I know the only person who spoke from the Government Benches on this Estimate was Deputy Faulkner from Louth. I do not know whether that was because of the fact that he had made an epoch-making discovery and let the cat out of the bag by stating that at last—speaking I presume for Fianna Fáil as he was the only speaker for them today—the British market was really the only market for our produce. Secondly, he said that agriculture was bound to be the basis of all our economic progress. It is a long cry back, an alarming number of weary years over which the Fianna Fáil Party has been taught that but, thanks be to God, it has been taught at last.

From another angle I am not surprised that Fianna Fáil Deputies have not seen fit to speak on this Estimate this year. The story that their Minister told was hardly a story that would enthuse anyone. The story he told in his opening address, the record of his Department issued some ten days ago, certainly had nothing of which the Government can be proud. To that extent, I can sympathise with Fianna Fáil Deputies in their difficulty and their reluctance to enter this debate but I should have thought all the same that they would have overcome some of their natural coyness or shyness in regard to the bad record presented to them in order to make some effort to come to their Government's assistance. Apparently, they realise that the record of this Government's promises in regard to agriculture is so bad that it cannot be defended.

It is something that is more than unfortunate from the national point of view that we have now had another year which has accentuated the trend that was there before. We were told by the Government all through last year that the reason for the difficulties, the reason for the decline in economic progress, for the decline in agricultural output in the previous year, was the bad weather of 1958. The weather was bad in 1958 and the farmers had to surmount an almost insuperable difficulty in weather and harvesting conditions, but that was made the excuse for everything—that it was an abnormal year. I am inclined to agree that it was an abnormal year, but when we come to this year to see the comparisons that are put before us, the comparisons on which we are asked to judge progress or decline, we find that the comparisons are not made to the average year but to the abnormal year.

Agricultural output, of course, increased somewhat in 1959 as compared with 1958, but I do not think anybody who thinks back and remembers the conditions of 1958 can regard that as being in any way anything of which a Government has the right to be particularly proud. In the last couple of months we got two records which show statistically the Government's own presentation of agricultural output. First we have the tables issued with the Budget and in which, in particular, we can see the situation as it is shown in Table 6 on page 21 of Economic Statistics. The index numbers of net agricultural output, even including livestock and even including turf, while they have increased a trifle since 1958, are at the same time substantially down on the figures for 1955, 1956 and 1957 and, in fact, are virtually where they were in 1954.

The rising trend that there was in net agricultural output in 1955, 1956 and 1957 was halted and thrown back, as I have already willingly admitted, by the bad weather of 1958 but if it was only a temporary set-back one would have expected it, even with the dry weather of last year, to have rebounded much nearer the trend of those earlier years. The fact, of course, is that it has not done so and the fact that it has not done so is something that must give us all the gravest cause for concern.

Anyone moving through the country in the last six or nine months must have been struck by the fact that the same tale was heard everywhere. It did not matter into what town or village one went, one met everywhere the same story, that money had never been so tight. I heard people from Fianna Fáil try to deny in public that such was the case but in their own hearts and in their private conversations they had to admit that it was undoubtedly a fact. It all sprang fundamentally from the decline in agricultural output and the resultant shortage of money in the villages and towns in rural Ireland that must, and always will, depend for their prosperity on the prosperity of the agricultural hinterland surrounding them.

When one looks at the figures and statistics one cannot help noticing the results that are revealed. In Table 4 of the booklet to which I have referred one can see that in 1957 we received £45½ million for our exports of cattle. In 1958 that had dropped to £38½ million and in 1959 it had dropped to £30,000,000.

I shall tell the Deputy why when I have heard him speak. I am glad to know that he has a voice because the whole day we have been discussing agriculture and, with the exception of Deputy Faulkner, we have heard no voice from Fianna Fáil. I am glad indeed to hear that Deputy Moher has regained his voice. I trust that, having regained it to the extent of an interjection, he will further regain it to the extent of a contribution such as we used to hear from him when he was on this side of the House and we were on the other side.

One of the reasons our exports of cattle are down is that this Government wasted its time and wasted the people's time traipsing up and down the country trying to change the system of voting for their own Party interests while other Governments and other countries were walking in, behind their back, pinching bargains that we should have got and that we should have held and, as we have seen in relation to the Danish Agreement, losing the 10 per cent. preference which had been there, which was rescued back, from the time that Fianna Fáil threw it away 27 years ago, but which is gone again now, thanks to the fact that Fianna Fáil were more interested in trying to rivet themselves in office than in looking after markets for our products, particularly in relation to agriculture.

There is not any doubt whatever that this Government failed in relation to the Trade Agreement to negotiate anything really worth while. The main cause of their failure was that they did not take up those negotiations in an intelligent way or at the right time. It was only when the Danes had gone in and taken the preference that had been there, in spite of Fianna Fáil, and had taken it behind the Government's back, while the Government was asleep, that they sent somebody hot-foot across to endeavour to see exactly what was happening, instead of having their ear to the ground and having gone to negotiate at the proper time.

I said I was delighted to hear Deputy Faulkner accept what we have been trying over the long weary years to teach Fianna Fáil, namely, the value of the agricultural industry as the keystone of our whole economic prosperity and the value of the trade with which that agricultural industry must deal. Anyone who cares to look at one of the tables set out in the report of the Marketing Export Committee or Table 14 of the Central Bank Report will see clearly where the value of our markets lie and where, therefore, it was worth while that we should have taken proper and adequate steps to secure those markets.

In relation to the years 1958 and 1959 our exports with the members of E.F.T.A. were £102,000,000 and £98,000,000 respectively. Our trade with the countries in the Common Market—the Six—during those years was only £6,000,000 and £7½ million respectively. I am not suggesting for one second that we should do anything that would in any way jeopardise or throw away the trade that we have with the Common Market but it would have been of far greater value to have ensured that we would get a better hold in the E.F.T.A. countries and particularly in the British market in order to develop that market which is overwhelming in comparison with the others, to which our total exports, not merely agricultural ones, were £101,000,000 in 1958 and £96½ million in 1959 compared with £6,000,000 and £7½ million respectively in the case of Common Market countries.

Consideration of those figures and the homily they preach make it abundantly clear where the balance of interest lies, make it abundantly clear that if it were not for the idiocy of Fianna Fáil in earlier years, particularly in relation to that market, we might have been able now to have developed it even better. If they had gone on to make a supplementary trade agreement at the right time, then we might have expected and hoped for far more from it.

I do not deny for one second that there is one thing in that agreement worthwhile as an incentive, but it will not affect the immediate moneys the farmers will receive. The increase for fully attested cattle is valuable as an incentive, but it can be considered as nothing more. It certainly will not rectify or remedy in any part of the near future, much less the immediate future, the serious drop in the moneys made available to the agricultural community through exports. I know Deputy Moher will probably say when he comes to speak—and I hope he is going to speak—that the weather was dry last autumn and refer to the drought in Britain. He is perfectly entitled to do that.

I stood on some of those farms last autumn.

I am looking forward to hearing the Deputy tell the House his experiences, but whether he stood in the middle of the Sahara last autumn or not, the Deputy must be aware that there was a substantial amount of rain last winter and that the effect of that drought was wiped out. Yet, after the spring of this year cattle prices were still going back compared with the usual trend for this time of the year.

Of course, anybody who understands the problem realises that there was bound to be some push back of exports, so to speak, and that weather conditions would have some effect on our livestock. That is obvious, but the good weather had other effects, too. As the Minister himself said, it gave us perfect weather in which to reap and garner the crops. This meant that yields were highly satisfactory and that the crops produced last year were infinitely better than those of the year before. Notwithstanding that balancing factor, which came as a result of the drought about which Deputy Moher is now so anxious to complain, agricultural output fell catastrophically compared to a normal year. Last year we just succeeded in taking up the index number by two per cent. from 1958, a year which everybody has described as abnormal and as, perhaps, the most disastrous year, so far as weather conditions are concerned, we ever had the misfortune to experience.

Three years of Government by Fianna Fáil and what is the position in regard to the rising trend in agricultural output which existed when they took office? The Government, in their White Paper, were clear that it existed because the Minister for Industry and Commerce will recollect that the statement of the Government's aims and ambitions in that White Paper was that their aims were not only to maintain the increasing trend in agricultural output, but to expand it. At the time that was published there was a rising trend as a result of the wise policies initiated some 12 years ago by Deputy Dillon in the Department of Agriculture. But, unfortunately, since that White Paper was issued it has not been a question of maintaining the existing trend; it has been a question of noting the downward trend that has taken place.

It is obvious that the first impact of this trend will not be merely upon the farmers themselves but upon those living in the small towns and villages of rural Ireland who cannot hope to exist unless those living around them have the wherewithal to come in and purchase their wares. Apart from that, there cannot be any successful, longterm industrial activity here unless the agricultural community, being the best customers, have sufficient in their pockets to buy the produce of these industries.

I remember, too, some years ago certain members of Fianna Fáil were weeping and crying over the decline in the number of men engaged in farm work. We were led to believe at that time that we had only to translate them from this side of the House to that, that they would wave a magic wand and we would find there would be more men engaged in agricultural activity. Again, we know the story in that respect. It is a story of which the Minister for Agriculture cannot be very proud and is, perhaps, one of the reasons why his cohorts behind him have been so strangely silent today. In 1957 399,000 men were employed in agriculture; that figure was down to 395,300 in 1958, and down again to 389,100 in 1959—hardly the picture painted for us of what a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture would be able to achieve.

I have, Sir, deliberately quoted the figures relating to farm work because I do not wish to incur your wrath by giving the figures for the total decline of those engaged in agriculture, forestry and fishing. As I say, those statistics were published a couple of months ago in connection with the Budget. In addition to that the Central Statistics Office the other day issued some further figures and it is only right that we should consider them and see the impact of any revisions or of any changes that there might be.

In 1959 we find in this latest memorandum that has been submitted by the Statistics Office the index number of the volume of agricultural output reduced in a way that is slightly better than the one that is in the Budget statistics but one can see readily and easily —and it is well that one can see readily and easily—the comparative position in this year as against, not merely a year or two before, but eight years back. The tragedy is that it is almost under all the headings that the trend appears to have turned the wrong way. If we exclude the changes in livestock numbers we see from 1955 to 1959 steadily rising figures, a steadily rising volume, and we see the turn after 1957. Because of the bad weather, perhaps, of that year, the volume is down from 112.9 per cent., say, 113 per cent. to 98 per cent. but last year it is down still further to just under 98 per cent. That is including turf. If one excludes turf one finds the same thing, that 1959 is a slightly worse year even than the year that we all accept was so abnormal. If one takes into account the changes in livestock numbers one will see a slight improvement but there is still a long way to go. If you include turf and take it on the most favourable possible basis to the Government, agricultural output last year, including the increase in livestock numbers, was some seven per cent. lower than it was in 1957.

That is a real seven per cent. Deputy Moher will tell us in the speech he is about to make that the British did not take our cattle last year, that that is the reason we got less cash last year for our cattle, but those cattle would have been here on the land. Even allowing for the fact they were on the land, even allowing for the increase there was in livestock, we are still told by the Central Statistics Office that the volume of agricultural output in 1959 was some seven per cent. less than in 1957. I do not see how anyone can take any view except that that is a trend in the wrong direction, a trend in the wrong direction that has occurred since Fianna Fáil assumed office.

Deputy Dillon, when speaking yesterday, showed what it meant in actual cash lost to farmers, some £17,000,000. Apart from that, any of us who study the economic series issued monthly by the Statistics Office must be shocked by the price index increase there has been in the early months of this year. It started in January as being approximately three per cent. worse than the previous year. It went steadily up from January until May, the last figures that were available in the economic series, when it was over four per cent. worse than last year.

Perhaps we shall get some explanation from the Minister or from some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies as to how after the drought of last year, after the rains of last winter, after the growth of spring this year over the other side as well as here, the agricultural price index measured by their own Statistics Office, shows a trend in the wrong direction and in May is some four per cent. more in the wrong direction than it was last year. Taken over the wide volume of sales, four per cent. is a pretty substantial amount lost to the agricultural community.

I want to refer to certain specific things that arise, apart from the general picture, in relation to this Estimate. The Minister made some reference in his speech to work under the land project. I do not know whether my experience is unique or not but in the past 12 months I have heard more complaints about delays and difficulties in relation to work under the land project in Kildare, particularly all around the Monasterevan area, than I ever heard before. When one takes the matter up with the Minister's Department one is told there that the cause of the trouble is C.I.E., that C.I.E. are blocking progress by refusing to give sanction for the deepening of tunnels and drains under the railway. When one goes from there to C.I.E. one is told by C.I.E. that the reason nothing has been done is that they cannot get any answer from the land project people.

Let me assure the Minister that the people concerned are not by any means all Fianna Fáil. The farmers who have had this trouble in the Monasterevan area when they were selecting a committee at a meeting to deal with the problem, were careful to ensure that the committee selected that night was representative of all political shades of opinion in the area. They find they are thrown around from Billy to Jack, from the Land Project to C.I.E., and from C.I.E. to the Land Project, backwards and forwards so often that they do not know where they stand.

I think it is time there was some authoritative step taken by the Minister; he should speak with his colleague, if not his friend, the Minister for Transport and Power, and endeavour to ensure between the two of them that the muddle—that is the only word that describes it—is sorted out, and sorted out with reasonable speed. There is a great deal of land in that area suffering badly from flooding, flooding which could be alleviated. All that is necessary is some little cooperation between the Minister's Department, on the one hand, and Córas Iompair Éireann on the other. If they cannot themselves arrive at the cooperation, then the Minister must take the responsibility.

I want to ask the Minister now the meaning of the decrease under Subhead M.8. We find there that the sum required to meet the delivery cost of ground limestone, and other suitable forms of lime, has gone down from £485,000 to £380,000. Does that mean that this year there will be less lime spread on the land? It seems difficult to understand otherwise remembering that the cost of transport has been rising; but, despite the rising cost of transport, there is less provided for transport here. I find it difficult to interpret that as meaning anything except that the Minister anticipates there will be smaller deliveries and, therefore, smaller amounts of lime spread on the land this year.

I remember the Taoiseach, now translated to another place, getting white with anger when I pointed out that one of the things that Fianna Fáil had done since coming into office in March, 1957, was to have less lime spread on the land. It looks from this figure in the Estimate, unless there is some other explanation, that the position in 1960-61 will be that even less lime will be spread. If the Minister looks back over the statistics, and looks particularly at certain questions put down by me, he will find that he will have to admit that there was less lime spread on the land in these three years of Fianna Fáil Administration than there was in the comparable three years of our Administration from 1954 to 1957.

He will also find, if he looks at the comparable period again, in relation to the farm buildings scheme, that there were more grants paid to more farmers in the three years ending March, 1957, than there have been in the three years ending March, 1960. We are lucky now in that we have exactly two three-year periods with which we can compare like with like: ground limestone, less in these three years under Fianna Fáil; farm buildings, less farmers in these three years getting the benefit of the grants; less money being paid in these three years under Fianna Fáil in relation to farm building grants than was paid in the preceding three-year period when Deputy Dillon and I provided the moneys for this scheme.

It would seem from Subhead M.8 that, notwithstanding the record in relation to the spreading of ground limestone in the three year period under Fianna Fáil, we must now anticipate that there will be even less lime spread this year. Here is then the peculiar coincidence that, while we see a decrease in relation to ground limestone, we find two lines underneath an increase of £170,000 in the subsidy paid to the manufacturers of phosphates— £350,000 now as compared with £180,000 last year. Again, I think we might justifiably have from the Minister some explanation as to how that increase arises this year.

If we turn over then to Subhead M.13 we find a new amount included— £50,000 grants to bacon factories for certain works of modernisation and lay-out of plant. If I am wrong I am ready to stand corrected by the Minister but, in my reading of his speech, he gave no explanation of that item. I think he must agree that it is normal practice for any Minister, when a new item is introduced, to give to the House some explanation, some details as to what it is intended to do with the sum, and how it is intended to lay it out. Perhaps the Minister will make good his deficiency when he winds up.

In the Estimates also, under Subhead O.3, we find moneys made available in relation to the Agricultural Produce (Potatoes) Acts. There is widespread throughout the country considerable and substantial difficulty in disposing of ware potatoes. As far as I know, as far as I can find, the Board do not appear to have made any effort to find a market for ware potatoes, as distinct from seed potatoes. I know, I understand, and I appreciate that efforts are made to place consignments of seed potatoes and to get export markets for them. Are we not able to do anything to expand the export for ware potatoes? Are we not able to do anything to cope with this perennial problem which is always with us but which seems to have been even worse, possibly because of the perfect weather, last year than in any previous year? It is one of the things that we might, with justification, have expected the Minister to expand upon when he was introducing the Estimate.

There is another matter to which I wish to refer and I think it comes within the ambit of this Vote, though it is always somewhat difficult to place exact responsibility in relation to all the activities of the Sugar Company. The Minister for Agriculture, however, exercises what one might term a general policy eye over their activities. About two months ago that company announced that they were going in for a new vacuum drying process and indicated they were going to erect, at Mallow, an E.F.D. unit which had been developed by Vickers Armstrong.

Some of these State sponsored bodies are frequently inclined to forget that they are, so to speak, trustees for the public of public moneys, that the public are the beneficiaries and that the beneficiaries are entitled to know and to receive just as much detail in respect of State companies as individuals who have shares in ordinary public companies are entitled to receive from them. I do not suggest that it has in any way been exclusively while Fianna Fáil were in office but, down through the years, there has been a tendency by all State sponsored bodies and companies to regard themselves as being laws unto themselves, and not in any way concerned to make themselves responsible to the public. I think this is a bad tendency and one that should be corrected and, in relation to the project to which I have referred, I believe that tendency was exaggerated more than usual, or else the company's public relations were extremely bad.

This process, upon which £200,000 is being spent, is a new process in respect of which Armours in America have been carrying out investigations for a considerable time but the Sugar Company rather suggested, and it was emphasised even more so in the External Affairs bulletin, that they were going in for something that had already been shown to be a commercial success. That is not the case and while I am only too anxious to see any company going forward with developments into new fields, and making new outlets available, at the same time I think it is an absolute mistake to endeavour to present such a development to the country as something that it is not. It is £200,000 for an experiment, an experiment that if it comes off will be well worthwhile in its implications and in its extensions, but it is certainly something that is yet far from being an assured commercial proposition. Therefore, it is something about which we are entitled to be told very substantially more than we were.

As I say, there has been this tendency by many Government concerns, particularly in the last three years. I do not think it has normally come into the purview of the Department of Agriculture, and I only want to refer to it in passing as an example of something that should not be paraded as a new development when, in fact, all that it is doing is taking industry, be it agricultural or industrial activity, and re-erecting it in another place.

There is already in existence a substantial private enterprise activity in certain processing of fruit and vegetables, and I would ask the Minister to assure me that the development which is being undertaken by Comhlucht Siúicre Teo. is not merely a transference of markets that were already there, operated and maintained by private enterprise firms, and that in fact what is proposed and will be achieved will be something outside the existing markets and will not merely be in substitution for them.

Again in respect of the activity that was adumbrated, and to which I have referred, one of the existing firms has no less than 12½ per cent. of its total output exported, and it would be bad for the community to thank that firm for having been enterprising enough to get into the export market by taking it away from them with State money through another firm. Therefore, I sincerely hope that these new developments will not merely mean a greater and a better market, with more satisfactory prices than are paid at present to farmers who produce the fruit and vegetables, but also that new markets will be developed that are not at present tapped by private enterprises, that they will be an addition to the markets already tapped, and will produce a real increase in production rather than merely substitution of it from one place to another.

In his statement the Minister indicated that inspections carried out at the beginning of the year showed we would have an increased pig production but I did not hear him say, nor did I read in his speech, anything in relation to his hopes or to what has been so far achieved in connection with the extra Grade A for which an additional price was announced some time ago. I always thought the difficulty was to get enough Grade A pigs delivered to the factories, much less extra Grade A pigs and, having regard to that, I expected him to make some mention in his opening statement on how the scheme was working, what the indications were, and the manner in which it would work out, if at all.

There was another reason for the great shortage of money in towns and villages in rural Ireland, particularly at times like Christmas. We all know that the money that is always spent in our market towns is the turkey money. The woman who brings her turkeys into the market at Christmas and gets paid for them, certainly in Leinster, the eastern counties and midlands, always spends that money on the things that are needed for the household in and around Christmas. The collapse this year in that respect was another reason money was short and why shopkeepers found that their turnover in the winter of last year was down substantially.

I notice that the Minister made some reference to improved strains. It is highly desirable to improve strains. It is highly desirable to have improvements in our methods of marketing of birds. All these highly desirable developments were initiated by Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture and were derided by various Fianna Fáil Deputies. I am glad that even at this late time we have shown them the folly of their previous line of country.

I should like to say something in relation to the Agricultural Research Institute. I want to make it clear beyond question that I am not making a comment in any shape or form because I do not know enough about the facts to offer an opinion. In a newspaper report of certain discussions there was a suggestion put forward by, as far as I can gather, an official, not one of the Governing Body of the Institute. The suggestion was that the Institute would be very substantially short of funds during the current year.

I do not know whether that is correct and I offer no comment whatsoever in relation to the context in which the hint was given. But I do want to say that if it is true the Institute is short of money that it requires to carry out the programme of research it would desire to carry out, then it is a deplorable thing. We cannot possibly hope to achieve anything in relation to productivity, be it in industry or in agriculture, without very much greater research than we have had heretofore. If that is true of industry, surely, in relation to our major industry, we should make sure there is no shortage of money to enable us to carry out a proper plan of agricultural research which the members of the Institute feel is necessary and desirable.

Certainly the Minister for Agriculture would be supported by almost every member of the House if he were to indicate to his colleague, the Minister for Finance, that it was necessary to have additional sums for the purpose of carrying out agricultural research. Unless that research is carried out, unless the results are made available quickly on a very wide field, we shall not be able to get the increase in productivity which is essential if we are to compete in the new Europe that looks as if it were looming before us now.

The Taoiseach indicated in a recent reply to a Parliamentary Question that it was possible the Government might consider favourably joining the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. He did not commit himself but he gave a certain indication. But whether we do or do not, it is perfectly clear the Europe that is developing before us, in which we must play our part, is a Europe in which every penny in relation to the prices at which we sell our produce will matter vitally. One of the ways in which we can ensure that we are in a competitive position is through the benefit of research to the fullest possible degree.

I should be long sorry, and so would every member of the Fine Gael Party, if the Agricultural Institute were in any way prevented by any shortage of funds from going ahead with any project or plan they have to improve our agricultural production through research. Incidentally, I might add it is not only in the Agricultural Research Institute itself that it is vital we should push ahead in that way. It is also vital that we should be able, so to speak, to translate to the practical working farmer the results of the research that have been achieved. A great deal in that way has been accomplished by means of the pilot farms and through the establishment of the Young Farmers' Organisation, now Macra na Feirme, which gave us the National Farmers' Association.

I only hope that that awareness, that education of our people to new and improved agricultural methods, that opening of the door to a much wider type of agricultural education is not going to be bedevilled by signs I see in certain places of the Fianna Fáil Party trying to impose a Party stranglehold on the National Farmers' Association and Macra na Feirme. If these organisations are to succeed in the job they set themselves out to do, a dignified one, they can do it only by keeping out of politics—out of Party Politics, which is an entirely different thing. It is right they should take part in public matters but that any Party is endeavouring to muscle in on them is going to do them irreparable harm.

I should like to raise one small point on the Diseases of Animals Act. As I understand it, the position at present is that if a herd owner has 50 cattle and puts in for a 14-day test, 47 of them are passed and three are reactors, he gets rid of the three forthwith. Then he takes the remaining 47 for the second test. If, of the remaining 47, one on the second test is either a reactor or doubtful, the herd owner is in the situation where he has to start again and have another test even though he removes that doubtful case at once. It may be that those 46 remaining, or a substantial part of them, cannot be kept and that they are getting to the stage at which they should be sold.

As the regulations stand now, they cannot be sold even if they are 14-day tested cattle. That seems to me to be all wrong. Having gone through the second stage, if the farmer has the necessity to get rid of them, is it not the very least that the regulations should provide that he would have an adequate opportunity of disposing of them within the regulations as 14-day tested cattle if he so desired? It seems to me that there is a vacuum in the existing regulations which could be filled without much trouble and filled in a way that would not cause any letup in the general eradication programme.

I thought we might have heard from the Minister some indication of his interpretation of the trend that apparently exists in artificial insemination as set out in page 11 of the Departmental notes. I remember at one time certain members of this House waxing terribly eloquent and irate when Deputy Dillon defended the shorthorn. It seems from page 11 of the notes that shorthorn inseminations have gone up from 25 to 41 per cent. which would seem to show that on that occasion, as on many others, Deputy Dillon was right and Fianna Fáil were wrong.

It is impossible——

At last we have got some of them to speak.

We have got somebody now to support the Minister.

It is impossible to contribute anything worth contributing to this debate, because, when one listens to the speeches from the opposite side, it becomes apparent that agriculture seems to be a political football which is kicked across the House from one side to another. Deputy Dillon absolved himself from making any constructive contribution to the debate by saying that if he did so Fianna Fáil would steal it from him.

You already stole two things.

I listened to Deputy Sweetman and he grudingly admitted that the weather last year caused a hold-up in our cattle exports. Everyone knows that last year was good from one point of view and bad from another. It was an ideal grain year but it was far from ideal as a grass year. Deputy Sweetman would not admit that there was a drop of 20 per cent. in our milk output last year or that the farmers in the south failed to clear their store cattle at the normal time.

Would they not be there in the livestock changes?

I was in England last August——

I was there in September myself.

——and I saw with my own two eyes what was happening there. There was not a field in the grazing areas there that was not as bare as the carpet here because of the failure of grass. There was also a serious fodder problem and the British were slow to increase stocks or to import store cattle from this country. That is not the only reason. There was confusion in relation to the health of our cattle at that time. Concessions had been made by the British Ministry to our Ministry but, in the final analysis, it is the British farmer that buys our cattle. Arrangements may be made between Ministers but the Irish cattle producer must depend on his English opposite number to purchase his cattle.

Statements were also made by certain influential people which did not help our cattle exports to that country. To date the British have spent £140,000,000 in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. It has been for 15 or 18 years, a recurring decimal in some of their grazing areas and if we are in trouble here now about it I believe it is because we did not start in time.

Hear, hear.

Deputy Dillon became Minister for Agriculture in 1948 and he started with the Bansha experiment. I am almost certain that that parish has its quota of reactors to-day. There was considerable expenditure on general testing but no reactors were removed and the only people who gained were the veterinary surgeons. Even when Deputy Dillon went out of office the prerequisite to bovine tuberculosis eradication was the installation of skim milk pasteurisers. I should like to know how many were installed when he went out of office.

Almost all of them.

Not almost all of them and Deputy Dillon knows that quite well. Shortly after we came into office I asked a question on the matter and it is on the records that a considerable number of creameries were operating which had not installed skim milk pasteurisers.

The Deputy knows that we inaugurated the scheme.

The British have had considerable difficulty in eliminating bovine tuberculosis from their cattle and let no one here try to say that the problem is going to be an easy one for us to solve.

Hear, hear.

In the western area where the incidence of bovine tuberculosis was fortunately extremely low, we are not yet able to declare that it is a completely free area. If rumour be correct, there is a small minority there who are holding the general body of cattle producers to ransom by not selling their cattle at their market value. I think bovine tuberculosis in the south will continue to be a problem because if we realise that the average dairy farm is a nine-cow farm and that the incidence is somewhat between 45 and 50 per cent. in some areas, it will mean that we should have to eliminate almost half the dairy herds in the south.

Then there is the problem of replacement. Some replacements were bought at high prices and on test some of these reacted. We shall have a recurring problem to which I think there is only one solution—that some scheme be devised whereby T.B. replacements are bred on the producing farms. I think some scheme should be devised through the creameries. From my experience and observation in the south I believe that bovine tuberculosis has not been taken up there as seriously as it should be. There should be some competitive scheme to make the creameries more alive to the seriousness and urgency of this problem.

The density of the cattle population in the area which is almost clear is low. The highest density of cattle is in the dairying areas, the breeding areas, and it is there that we shall have to tackle what I consider is the main problem. We all know that the problem in the west, even though the incidence was low, is simple compared with the problem we have to face in the south. Unless we can get a greater effort and more enthusiasm from the co-operative societies and the creameries I am afraid clearance will be a slow process.

We have an advantage in the south, however, in that we have an organisation that did not exist in the western area. The whole southern portion of the country—at least the dairying areas—is covered by organised cooperative societies. Directives from Merrion Street and speeches by Ministers for Agriculture are, I think, of little avail. I think more work would be done if a concerted and systematic effort were made to organise each co-operative creamery. If we could organise societies and creameries in the south the problem of clearance would be much simpler and considerably expedited.

When Deputy Dillon was speaking last night he mentioned 12,000,000 acres of arable land. I questioned that. He continually refers to the 1,000,000 acres added by land drainage as arable but surely anybody who knows the facts——

Did I not hang a picture for you in the lobby showing the land growing oats?

That is a selected picture.

It was down there in the Lobby.

There is a farm quite near where I live, two and a half miles away, where 73 acres were drained at a cost to the State of about £2,000 and to the landowner of about £1,000 and I can tell the House that there is not one acre which will grow oats.

Who owns it?

I shall give the Deputy the facts and figures in relation to it.

The land will not grow barley if nobody sows it.

There is no such thing as adding 1,000,000 acres and no such thing as 12,000,000 acres of arable land. If Deputy Dillon were to travel in the train from Dublin to Cork, once he left Kildare, from that to north Tipperary——

That is about the worst.

Deputy O'Sullivan would see a considerable area of land——

That is a selected area also.

Go in the opposite direction. Go from Roscrea to Cavan and study that line of country and see how much arable land you will find. We probably have some of the best land in Europe.

We have the best rain in Europe anyway.

We have the advantage of a 42-inch rainfall but we have bog-land, bad land and barren hillside and there is no use in Deputy Dillon talking about 12,000,000 acres. Of much more importance I think is the pattern of our farm economy. Practically 70 per cent. of our farmland has farms varying from one to fifty acres. A very high proportion of it is in small farms but an extraordinary thing—and one of the disadvantages that we face—is that the pattern of our agriculture is extensive rather than intensive. I think that is one of the reasons why we are beaten by the Dutch and the Danes. You get the same type of farming on 30 acres that you get on 200. You get the ranching type of farm on 15 acres. I think that is one reason why we are being ousted from the British market by small highly organised competitors like the Dutch and the Danes. Their form of agriculture is definitely highly intensive and highly organised.

Deputy Sweetman referred to developments introduced by the Sugar Company. Everyone will look forward with interest to these developments because it might be the means of interesting some of our smallholders and small farmers in horticulture to a greater extent than they have been up to now. The Netherlands with a small-farm economy exports horticultural produce to the value of £70,000— almost twice the value of our cattle exports. The bulb industry in Holland and Denmark is worth about £20 million pounds to each of those small countries.

What about the rainfall?

We have advantages over the Danes at least in so far as the Danes have an extremely severe winter and, so far as I know, the Dutch have a serious eelworm problem at the moment. I know this development here could lead to a transformation in our small farm economy, particularly in the South.

Bulbs? Is it bulbs the Deputy is talking about?

The value of exports from Holland of horticultural produce is £70 million.

Horticulture is another cup of tea but we had some experience of the bulbs and they were not very profitable.

An acre of strawberries at even 1/- a lb. is worth £500 but, of course, there must be processing and handling plant and training of technical personnel and advisers to advise farmers.

Hear, hear. You blocked it.

There is the problem of finding markets.

You blocked it

Blocked what?

A competent national advisory service. You did indeed.

We argued that across this House at least a dozen times and I am not going to be drawn out to repeat it. Deputy Dillon is in the habit of repeating things.

You blocked that effectively.

And wisely.

Fight it out between the pair of you now. He blocked it.

He says he did not block it. You say he was wise to do it. One of you must be wrong.

If he did, he did it wisely.

Deputy Dillon found himself in the extraordinary position of setting up two authorities—the county committees of agriculture which he hesitated to overbear, and the parish agent controlled by a list of people which I gave on a former occasion and which I do not have to repeat. He could not make up his mind how we were going to have an advisory service. It was duplicated and overlapping. If Deputy Dillon had made up his mind that the county committees of agriculture were a failure and that he would substitute or transfer the control of an advisory service to the body he then had in mind, he would have made a decision but we had the ridiculous position in the one area of the county committee of agriculture being responsible by statute for the advisory service in the area and another organisation getting an adviser free.

Was that not the position? Was that not the problem? Then the control of that adviser was handed over to a rural organisation as distinct from an agricultural one. Was that not the row we debated and thrashed out in this House? Was that not the row in connection with which I got 8 columns in certain newspapers when I discussed it? So, I shall not repeat it. If Deputy Dillon could have made up his mind at that time that the county committees of agriculture had been a failure and that he would substitute for them a new controlling authority, we would have got somewhere but the two were allowed to go side by side, one having by statute a responsibility, the other having none.

I welcomed the subsidy on artificial manure introduced by the Minister. It was money well spent for a creditable purpose but there should have been some condition attached. We are not getting from that expenditure the value which we might get. Much of the manure is spread on worn out swards. There should be some condition attached that the subsidy would apply in the case of new leys. In that way we would get a far better return from the money, which will be increased in the coming year.

Deputy Sweetman referred to the Agricultural Research Institute. The work is being done in the proper way because many of what are called pilot farms are show pieces. The Institute, in taking a farm, giving a certain amount of capital to a man to undertake to start a pattern of farming there have a much better idea. Facts and figures can be produced where there is unlimited expenditure but they prove nothing. Persons who would be interested or who would derive some benefit from such a scheme would want to know the amount of capital involved and how the thing was worked. In many cases the pilot farms were show pieces on which a considerable amount of money was expended but which contributed nothing to the solution of the problems of the small farmers.

I want to refer to the cattle industry. First, there is the bovine T.B. problem. Secondly, there is a development in Great Britain which should make us think. In 1957 the British increased their calf population by 120,000 and, in 1958, by a further 190,000. I have no figure for last year. We now know that the science of induced twinning is a reality. The difficulties which existed have been overcome. That science will add considerably to the cattle population in Britain and is bound to have a consequent impact on the exports of our store cattle to Great Britain.

Lamb production deserves careful study by our Minister for Agriculture and his Department because it gives a higher cash return per acre than beef and because there is a very substantial market in Great Britain. The imports of lamb by Britain last year amounted to 280,000 tons. Our contribution was 8,000 tons. We have an advantage over New Zealand which is the chief exporter to that market of chilled lamb.

If we were to develop the proper types and give the British lamb consumer the right type of carcass, there is no reason why we should not be able to get ourselves a considerable portion of that market. If we had the proper marketing organisation on the other side, we would have the advantage of being able to export fresh lamb to the British market while the New Zealander would be forced to continue exporting chilled lamb. The distance between here and Britain is short, while the New Zealander has to ship his product 14,000 miles.

What have you been doing about it?

I turn now to the question of milk. Despite the fact that the milk subsidy is costing the Exchequer a considerable sum of money, a very high percentage of our milk is still being manufactured into butter, one of the most depressed products into which milk can be manufactured. Butter has been described as the "sink product." We are in the position that the more butter we export, the higher will be the demand for subsidisation. Our position on the British market is not a very favourable one. The price we are getting is from 15/- to 30/- per cwt. below that of our main competitors.

Something should be done to induce our creameries to manufacture milk into the product that will give the highest return. British imports of cheese are something like 125,000 tons per year, and our total contribution to that is almost negligible. Our total cheese production amounts to only about 3,000 tons. The present price of butter on the English market would give us something like 9d. per gallon for milk. If we were to manufacture that milk into cheese, depending on the type and quality, it would make from 1/2d. to 1/10d. per gallon and if it were manufactured into milk or condensed milk, it would give us something like from 1/6d. to 1/7d. per gallon.

There is another unsatisfactory feature. Once a creamery here manufactures butter, it can sell it anonymously. That practice is not calculated to give us the best quality in manufacture. Our butter is exported as "Produce of the Irish Republic" and the name of the creamery manufacturing it can only be traced by the code number under which it is exported. The Danes export to all countries about 72,000 tons of cheese. It is obvious that the time has come for us to review our whole dairying industry. We have got, at least, to review the manufacturing end of it. We have got to do something to induce our creameries to manufacture that milk product which will give to us, as exporters in the British market, the highest possible return.

There is something which is of vital importance to the constituency I represent, and indeed, to more than half the County Cork. That is the production of barley. East Cork, North Cork and South Cork produce something like 50 per cent. of our total barley requirements. One thing with which I cannot agree is the export of that barley and the importation of maize.

Hear, hear!

We are reverting to the bad old days of the 20's and the 30's, and because we are importing maize, we are about to renew the bias which had almost been killed in this country.

You built the stores near the ports.

Between last harvest and April of this year 33,000 tons of home-grown barley was exported.

It is being walked off.

Since maize and other coarse grains had to be imported, the net loss was about £3 per ton. That meant loss of about £100,000 to the nation. While we exported barley and imported maize we failed to control the price of maize to the pig feeder. I have the figures here. Maize was imported at something like £21 a ton. We exported our barley at £20 per ton. Therefore, from the very beginning, there was a loss, and that is not taking into consideration transport costs. In the January issue of the Farm Bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture maize meal was quoted in Cork at £34 8s. 4d. per ton. Flake meal was quoted at £36 15s. 0d. per ton. The import price would have been something around £21 per ton. It is obvious to anyone that the maize millers did far better than either the barley growers or the pig feeders.

Hear, hear!

When we talk of barley we cannot avoid talking about the end product—the pig and bacon. The question of the bacon subsidy was raised both in the White Paper and the pamphlet on economic development. Recently, I saw a quotation from a speech by the Dane, Rasmussen, entitled "Costs and Efficiency in Pig Production". He pointed out that the Danish factories pay 26/- per pig more than the value of the resultant bacon, and 26/- per pig more than the Irish factories pay. That is done by the more efficient disposal of the by-products of the bacon factories. The amount of the subsidy paid here on Grade A bacon is a measure of our failure to compete against our main competitors in the British market.

Recently I saw a statement in Comtel Reuter a publication giving facts in relation to prices. It is very interesting to see what our position is in relation to our competitors in the bacon market. This issue of the 30th June quoted Danish Grade A bacon at 275/- a cwt.; Dutch, 260/-; Hungarian, 260/-; Irish Republic Grade A special, which represents a special pick, as the Minister said, of about 17 per cent. of all our Grade A bacon, 257/-; Polish, 260/-; Swedish, 260/-; Yugoslav, 242/-; Kenya, 252/-; British No. 1, 271/-; and Northern Irish, 265/-.

Much more interesting are the amounts which were imported in that week. We can see that Irish Bacon Grade A is 18/- per cwt. less than Danish, 3/- less than Dutch, Hungarian and Swedish, and 8/- per cwt. less than Northern Irish. However, the amounts in tons imported in that week is of importance: the Danes supplied 5,570 tons; the Dutch, 750 tons; the Poles 930 tons; the Irish Republic, 290 tons; the Hungarians, 50 tons; the Swedes, 170 tons; the Yugoslavs, 150 tons; the British, home 1,190 tons; and Northern Irish 220 tons.

Our main problem is that you cannot sell a product without creating a taste for it and you cannot create a taste for a product without keeping it in substantial quantities in a given area over a considerable period. Our marketing system has failed badly and I should be interested to hear from the Minister what is being done to try to build up a marketing system which would improve our position in the British market.

I remember on one occasion visiting a number of Danish selling centres in Great Britain. They have 52 huge selling centres near the built-up areas. Their job is to sell all kinds of Danish produce, to receive complaints, to have the complaints investigated and traced back to the factory or source of origin. They have, in addition, on British soil two huge smoke plants. It is a well known fact that smoked bacon deteriorates rapidly in cold storage. The green bacon is sent to the plants and the bacon is smoked. They are able to anticipate deadly accurately the amount of bacon required in any week. The average consumption is about 10,000 tons a week. That would vary slightly for one reason or another. The job of that organisation is to keep Danish farm produce on the counter of every shop and store in every town of any size or consequence in Great Britain. It is always before the customer. There is a great deal of advertising. If you look at British television you will see something like this: "This week's best buy: Danish gammon" at so much a lb.

It is unfair to compare our situation with that. Our produce is sold through agents who drop a half ton here and five cwts. there and then disappear, and the product may not appear there for months again. If we are to make any impression whatever on that market we must keep our product there continually. We must keep it in a certain area and we must spend money in advertising that product. We have an advantage over any other exporter to the British market in so far as we have our own people there to eat the product but we have failed badly at the marketing end because our exports to that market are more or less of a seasonal character.

The same situation applies to butter. Developments in the cities there are towards the self-service store where the woman goes in, picks up a basket, chooses her supplies, goes to the counter to have them checked and to pay for them, and takes them away. You cannot sell Irish butter in a retail system like that unless that butter is properly packaged. Packaging and preparation are becoming more and more a vital factor in the sale of any farm produce. If you were to see Danish butter in any of these stores you would see that it is made up in half lb. rolls. Cheese is made up in the same way, and bacon in cellophane. The emphasis is continually on the presentation of the product for sale. We have had reports from various commissions who went over to see how various items are presented. If we are to increase our output in any farm product we must have an organisation to sell it. Any increase in production without that will not bring the return we should get for increased production.

There is another development which seems to be non-existent here but which has been carried out by the Danes, that is in relation to processed meat. They convert something like 1,000,000 bacon pigs into various types of processed and packaged meat. They have a considerable market for that kind of meat there. That is a development which has not occurred here as far as our bacon factories are concerned.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share