While we wish the B.T.E. scheme every success, I should like to get some information from the Minister on its costings. To date, the cost is £30.5 million. The net amount paid to herd owners is £19,300,000, so that more than one-third of the total expenditure has gone on administrative expenses. I believe that is far in excess of what it should be. The number of cows in the country at present, according to the last page of the notes, is 1,290,500. That figure is somewhat greater than the previous year's figure and, as those of us who are conversant with the BTE scheme know, TB is more or less confined to cows. The percentage of affected cattle other than cows is very low. In County Cork, the figure at the original inspection was only about six per cent., and it scaled down to a negligible percentage in some cases. Taking the Minister's figures, we must bear in mind that up to date more than £23 per cow has been spent by the Department on this scheme. That is more than £23 per head of our total cow population. That is a formidable figure, and the question now is, could the work be carried out cheaper?
Committee on Finance. - Vote 43—Agriculture (Resumed).
That is not correct.
What is not correct?
That all the money was spent on cows only.
The greater part of it. I have mentioned, as one who has studied the figures supplied monthly by the chief officer for Cork, and the figures for the other counties as they became available, that TB was confined to a great extent to cows and that the percentage of non-cow reactors was small. In some areas, more than 40 per cent. of the cow population was affected, while the non-cow population affected was only about five or six per cent.
Taking the cow population, we have paid up to the present more than £23 per head towards the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Have we been successful? Was the money utilised to the best advantage? Could we have done better? Were better methods suggested by members of the House and if they were accepted, would they have reduced the all-in cost by a considerable amount? They were not accepted and the Minister and the Department devised this scheme and no advice was accepted, and no recommendations from subsidiary committees, such as the Cork BTE Committee, were accepted by the Minister.
We find that a number of herd owners who had 12 or 13 cows at the original inspection have more reactors now than they had originally. It seems that this matter was treated lightly, to a great extent, in the early stages. A man with 15 cows had, say, five reactors. The herd was tested; he sold two or three reactors and said he would hold on to a few that were good milkers. When the next test came, he still had five reactors or, perhaps, six. Unfortunately, some of these cattle are carriers of TB and spread the disease not only to animals in their own herd but to adjoining herds also. As a result, we had to pay big sums by way of headage grants and also for the administration of the scheme.
To date, we have paid £23 per head of the cow population under this scheme. I assert with some reasonable knowledge of this work and after conversations with people familiar with the technical side of the problem, that the cost is much greater than it should be and possibly if we had tackled the programme in a different way in the early stages, or if the Minister had accepted recommendations addressed to him after close and careful consideration by local organisations such as the BTE Committee in Cork, we might have had better and cheaper results.
We are told that compulsory measures are being introduced in the southern area. Having regard to the amount of money being expended, it is possibly necessary to introduce such measures. We dislike compulsion but unfortunately some seven or nine per cent., I think, of the farmers in County Cork refused to co-operate in the scheme or at least failed to apply or have a first test. Naturally I assume it is essential for the common good to introduce such measures.
We have now reached the position where herds must be attested and reactors disposed of, whether we like it or not. A peculiarity of this scheme is that 79 per cent. of the farmers in the County Cork did not co-operate. You possibly have a similar percentage of farmers in the other five counties of the southern area. Viewing it not from the national point of view but from their own personal angle, they were very wise men because they will do better than the man who was co-operating in the scheme all along and who had his tests frequently. When his cows went down, some of them good milkers, he sent them to the farm or market immediately and got rid of them. The Minister is looking very nicely after the man who did not bother. He will not be at any personal loss or inconvenience.
The Minister will tell us now: "We will test your cattle. It is compulsory and, of course, we will pay you the market value for any cattle that are found to be reactors." The percentage of people who did not co-operate in the scheme are now guaranteed the market value for their reactors, as if they never reacted. That is made quite clear. They will be bought at their market value. That may be all right, but I think we should have some foreknowledge of this.
Let me take my own case. I am advising farmers, whenever I meet them or whenever they pose the question to me, that it is essential not only in their own interest but in the national interest to get rid of reactors; that there was nothing to be gained by holding on to them; that this scheme was essential for the good of the country and the cattle export trade; that they should free their herds and that the scheme in existence at the present time was possibly as good as, if not better than, any future scheme which the Minister might put forward. However, as a result of the generous way in which the others are being dealt with, I believe that that advice was not very sound and that it would have been better for such people to have held on.
If we have additional money to spend or if there is some additional fund in the kitty, some way must be found to channel most of that to those who are co-operating rather than to the other considerable percentage. I agree that it would be very hard to use compulsory methods and take cattle from a person without giving him value for them. It is peculiar, having regard to the fact that this scheme has been in existence for such a long time, that the people who held out are to fare best. I think the Minister in his concluding statement should be in a position to let us know what the final figure will be. We have gone a reasonable part of the road now and the Minister should be able to give us what he believes to be the approximate all-in cost of this scheme. He should do a little explaining in regard to the expenditure of this big amount of money on the administrative side. He should tell us how, out of the total money devoted to this scheme, more than 30 per cent. is channelled into the administration side. That is a rather big percentage. I think the Minister owes us some little explanation.
We are told, as well, that every endeavour should be made to have attested herds and that it should be the aim of every farmer to have his herd tested. The number of attested herds is given in this report at page 14 for the end of April, 1962. It is unreasonable to ask people to have attested herds in isolated districts, one here and one there. Surely it is impossible to carry out such a scheme without taking a group of farmers together?
We in Cork submitted proposals to the Minister and to his Department stating that peninsulas should be deemed to be clearance areas and should be attested areas in a very short time subsequently. The Berehaven peninsula is about 44 miles in extent. The total percentage of reactors in that area was only two—the smallest in the country. There are a big number of small farmers there. We in a local committee in Cork thought that where there was a peninsula it should be deemed to be an attested area. I know the difficulty. In view of the insignificant percentage of reactors in that area, how could you expect a farmer in that district to say he was going to have his herd deemed to be attested? If he did that, look at the difficulty that would confront him in the sale and purchase of cattle, when everyone round him was not attested. Surely the obvious thing to do, when you have a big group of farmers, is to attest the lot in bulk? A similar position could apply in the other two peninsulas—Sheeps Head and Mizen Head, as well as in the islands. I do not want to delay further on the matter. I hope that in the not too distant future the Minister will be able to say that the work has concluded.
I do not want to repeat any statement I made here earlier on, but in dealing with milk, the price of milk and butter and the income of farmers, I overlooked the question of home-made butter. Home-made butter does not cost the Exchequer anything by way of subsidy or any subvention from the Department. The quantity of home-made butter is very small, as the returns here indicate. Of course, people produce this type of butter only when it is not possible for them to avail of the creamery service. I believe that they should get some consideration.
I am particularly interested in a group of people who have no opportunity whatsoever of sending butter to the creamery. Those are the farmers in the islands off the coast of West Cork. There are a big number of small holdings there. Butter production is completely uneconomic in such places. Representations were made to have a travelling creamery provided to meet their requirements but that was found to be impossible. I agree that a travelling creamery was not a practical proposition, but in any case the Dairy Disposal Board, which is a State-sponsored body, in the course of their submissions to the Government, actually rejected completely the idea of providing creamery facilities by way of travelling creamery. They also believed that the islanders had a good case for special consideration.
If my information is correct, they made the case that here was a group of people entitled to subsidy, that creamery butter produced in inaccessible places should be subsidised to some extent, say, from 3d. to 6d. I questioned the Minister here on the submission of this independent and neutral body. I assume they viewed this matter impartially and made their submission. I would ask the Minister to consider this case as a special one. I am sure he will agree these people are entitled to some increase in their income. The only increase this Government have given that type of farmer is this insignificant increase in rates. Most of them are of £6 or £7 valuation and they will benefit from the recent Government measures to the extent of about sixpence or sevenpence per week. I do not know whether the Minister considers that reasonable help for these people.
I should like to refer to the Connemara scheme mentioned in this report on the Department's activities. It states, at page 21:
Rated occupiers in that part of Co. Galway west of the Corrib whose rateable valuation (including buildings) is less than £10 per acre are eligible for grants amounting to 3/4 the estimated cost of the approved work (subject to a maximum of £30 per acre) and, in addition, where the land reclaimed requires ground limestone or fertilisers, these materials are supplied free of charge up to a limit of £8 per acre. Up to the end of March, 1962, grants had been approved under this scheme for work on five thousand acres.
In the constituency of South West Cork, which I represent, I believe we could make as good a case, to put it mildly, as the Connemara districts for such concessions. I am sure the Minister has an idea of the type of land on the islands and the three peninsulas. The same could be said of South Kerry and other parts of the southern seaboard. I would ask the Minister to consider the extension of that scheme. I do not see why such a scheme should be confined to one area. It is a big advantage to farmers in that district to get £8 worth of fertiliser free of charge along with the £75 grant for reclamation.
In conclusion, I should like to remind the Minister of the problems besetting the small farmers. I hope that this report on the small farms will be acted upon and that the Department will initiate the establishment of industry based on agriculture, such as the processing of vegetables, in the seaboard areas. I cannot see why the Minister cannot find the money to devote to the development of the agricultural industry. It has been the main industry of this country for centuries and will remain so for years to come. A foreign industrialist has no trouble in getting large grants for industries of doubtful value, doubtful in that they may not measure up to economic requirements and, as has happened, may not continue for very long.
I am making a special plea on behalf of the farming community in general and in particular on behalf of the small farmers. The Minister should be more watchful than he is of agricultural interests. Every other Minister looks after the people within his sphere of activity better than the Minister for Agriculture is looking after his. All other sections are fairly well catered for now so far as increased incomes are concerned. They are much better looked after than the farming community. It is the Minister's job to ensure that the farming community will continue to get their fair share of the national kitty. I do not think they are getting it at present. The small farmers and the small shopkeepers are two sections not getting their share. The Minister's job is to ensure that farmers, big or small, will be treated fairly; but in view of the difficulties facing the small farmers, if there are any special measures which would help them, such measures should be brought before the House.
To say the least, I was surprised to find Deputy Murphy criticising the scheme for the eradication of bovine TB. If there is any scheme for which the Minister and the Department deserve credit, it is this scheme.
I did not criticise it at all.
I am very glad to be in the position to congratulate the Minister on the very excellent work he has done in this particular field. When one looks back on the early stages of this scheme, and recognises the great obstacles which faced the Minister in his efforts to get this disease under control, one must admit immediately that he has done excellent work. In the beginning, he had to convince the farmer that this work was necessary. I remember meeting many farmers at that time who appeared to think this effort to eradicate bovine tuberculosis was a fad, something which would pass after a time, and in relation to which there was no necessity to be in any way concerned. When the Minister succeeded in convincing the farmer that it was vitally essential, it was then necessary to convince him that it was possible. Again, remembering the enormous obstacles, it was difficult to convince the farmer that it would be possible to eradicate the disease.
I should like to couple with these congratulations my congratulations to the NFA for the manner in which they helped to convince their members of the necessity for this work. Finally, I should like to point out to those who are engaged in manufacturing industry and who, on occasion, complained of the very large sums which were being devoted to this particular purpose that, were it not for the fact that this work was undertaken, and were it not for the drive and energy put into it, our cattle industry could have collapsed; if that happened, then the raw materials necessary to keep our factories going would not be available.
Hear, hear.
This Estimate is one of the most important which comes before this House. It provides a quarter of the national income, absorbs one-third of those gainfully employed and, in one way or another, is responsible for three-fourths of our exports. For that reason, it is necessary that we should concern ourselves with the possible admission of this country into the Common Market and consider the effect that this might have upon our major industry.
Generally speaking, we are all, I think, agreed that agriculture will benefit from our admission to the Common Market. That is not to say that it will benefit without any effort on our part, that we are, for example, producing the best quality products, processing them in the most efficient way, where that is necessary, and marketing them in the most efficient manner; in short, that agriculture will have a simple or a soft time if we succeed in our application for admission to the Common Market. Far from it. In fact, without a positive effort on our part, the obvious benefits which should accrue from membership of the Common Market could very easily pass us by. In my opinion, that would be disastrous for the country because it is mainly dependent for its economic life on agriculture.
Hear, hear.
The agricultural provisions of the Rome Treaty and the proposals of the Commission for a common agricultural policy are something with which we can, I think, be in relatively full agreement. The common agricultural policy is based on a system of fixed price, with variable levies on imports, and with the objective of raising farming incomes and of maintaining the family farm. That is a very desirable objective, so far as we are concerned. In time, it will, I think, eliminate fluctuating prices for agricultural products, which are largely the cause of any uncertainty which has been for a considerable number of years noticeable in agricultural production.
The vast bulk of our exports goes to Britain. It is clear to everybody that this trend will continue if we become members of the Common Market. While we would face severe competition in the British market, this would be compensated for very considerably by the better conditions which would be available from the point of view of price. As we are aware, at the present time the British system puts many of our agricultural exports, such as eggs, dairy products, and bacon, in a vulnerable position. As time passed, were the position not to change, the fact that there would be reductions in the tariff wall between Britain and the EFTA countries would place us in an even more difficult position. Our exports to the Common Market countries are at the moment restricted in many ways but, if we get into the market and if we are in a position to compete with producers in the Common Market countries, because we are a relatively low-cost producing country, we would have a very good chance of getting a reasonable corner of the market.
Taking it, then, that we are satisfied we would have improvement generally in regard to agriculture, if we were to get into the Common Market, it is, of course, necessary for us to examine the various exports we have and to consider what their position might be. Because of the natural advantages we have here, the beef trade would have the greatest potential under free trade. We have, relatively speaking, and compared with prices in Europe generally, a low price for our beef. At the moment, the bulk of our beef is exported on the hoof. With an expanding market for beef products, I believe the dead meat trade should improve very considerably. Such an improvement would have, of course, a number of advantages in that it would give us a better price for the animal and also help in the establishment of various industries to deal with the by-products.
According to statistics available, there is a surplus of milk and milk products in the Common Market countries. Whether this is caused in a natural way or because these countries subsidise, in one way or another, their milk production, I am not sure, but I think it is for the second reason. The fact that there is a surplus should not deter us because production costs and marketing will have a very considerable effect on sales. As I have said, if we can produce a quality article at the right price, and market it efficiently, there is no doubt that we will be able to compete and gain our share of the market.
The milk yield here is low mainly because we turn it into a low-priced product. Other Deputies have discussed the position with regard to cheese. I do not intend to go into it in any detail. The production of cheese here is low. While we constantly advocate that cheese production should be increased, we have to recognise that it is not an easy industry to operate. For the better grade cheese, a very high quality milk is needed. The techniques of cheese making are also very complicated.
We should not be deterred by any temporary setback in this field. We have had some setbacks in it but we should not be deterred by them. We have cheap production costs here and we should be able to compete in this market. I have no doubt that Bord Bainne is examining the whole structure of the creamery industry and that from that examination we will get results in time.
With regard to grain crops, it is agreed that there will be some reduction in the wheat acreage under Common Market conditions. This reduction will be compensated for by an increase in the production of barley. Wheat, however, will remain an important cash crop as far as the farmer is concerned. The increased price for barley which is visualised under Common Market conditions will have its effect on the pig industry. That effect may not be so bad for the farmer feeding his own barley to his pigs but it will have a detrimental effect unless we can do something with regard to those who will have to buy barley for feeding purposes. This matter concerns not only individuals but pretty wide areas throughout the country.
We will have to be able to answer a number of questions if we are to be successful with regard to the pig industry. One question is why we cannot get the same price for our bacon as the Danes can get for theirs. Our pig food is as good as theirs. Part of the answer seems to lie in the methods of feeding. There are new methods advocated to produce the most attractive type of pig. The question of housing also arises. Here the increased grants to farmers for piggeries are having their effect. I was glad to know from the Minister that there is a considerable increase in the demand for these grants.
There is also the question of our marketing methods. We have to ask ourselves if they are as good as those of the Danes. I am afraid, from my experience of enquiring into these matters in Liverpool some years ago, that we have a lot to learn. There is the question of our overall costs, and whether we are conducting experiments in costings to see how our costings compare with those of the Danes.
Because of the fact that our horticultural industry is of relatively recent origin and is a protected industry and because, so far as we are able to ascertain, there will be free trade in vegetables and fruit in Common Market conditions we will have to strain every effort if we are to keep our horticultural industry alive. Much of our horticultural produce is protected in season and we have to consider what will happen if there is free access to our markets for horticultural products from the Continent. Our aim must be to increase production in this line and to reduce costs as much as possible.
To do this, expert advice is necessary and I am glad to note that over the past few months the Department have been particularly anxious to help county committees of agriculture in sending members of their advisory services to countries such as Holland to learn what they can do in this field. The county committee in Louth were glad to avail of the opportunity of sending a member of their advisory service to Holland on a study tour there and we have no doubt that what this man has learned there will be of great value to the horticultural producers in the county.
The deep freeze scheme of Córas Siúicre Éireann is another matter which is very helpful in this regard. If we could develop this facet of our agriculture to a high degree of efficiency we would be going a considerable way towards helping the small farmer. In fact, it would help to clear away many of the problems that face our small farmers at the present time. Many Deputies have laid stress on the fact that it is impossible for the small farmer to farm successfully when using the methods applicable to the large farms. It is impossible for the small farmer, as Deputy Moher has said, to ranch successfully.
In connection with horticulture processing is most important and I feel that with the great market shortly to be opened up to us in this field, there is a great future for our processing industry. This is the type of industry we would prefer to have as it is based on home-produced raw materials. With reference to the sale of agricultural products it is difficult to decide which is the most important aspect, producing goods at the right price, processing them as efficiently as possible or marketing them. We recognise that they are all important aspects but from our point of view, because it seems to be the least developed, I think we will have to concentrate to a considerable extent on marketing.
It is easy to criticise our marketing endeavours, but I would stress that the really important matter in connection with marketing is that we must be able to guarantee continuity of supply. It is absolutely useless to attempt marketing unless we can guarantee that continuity. One could not visualise an industrialist sending out salesmen with a first-class product to sell, telling them to go around and sell as much of it as possible, to create a market, and at the same time, making no provision for a continuous supply.
If we are to be successful in our efforts to sell our agricultural goods to other countries, it is more than ever necessary, especially with the Common Market facing us, that we should follow the ordinary business maxim that the customer is always right. We must consider what suits the British palate, what suits the German palate, what suits the French palate, and so on. For example, we must be concerned about whether they want their bacon fat or lean. We must be concerned about the method of packaging. We could learn something from the report issued some time ago by the Swedish experts on design. We find, for example, that one colour attracts the customer, another colour repels. It is essential that we should study the basic principles of salesmanship. However, the most important aspect of all is to be able to give the customer continuity of supply.
In a study I made some years ago in connection with our butter in Britain, I found that where a supply was available, eventually people would begin to buy it. They developed a taste for Irish butter and then after some time, the supply dropped off. The result was that when the supply became available again, people had developed other tastes in regard to butter and our butter had to start at the bottom price in the market again so as to get a footing.
Should we enter the Common Market, I recognise our agriculture will have an uphill road to travel. However, the reward when we get to the top will be well worthwhile. We shall have new confidence which will be based on stable economic conditions in the industry. I would suggest, too, that we redouble our efforts to attract the industries from the Continent which are using agricultural products as raw materials. If we could get industries from the Continent which are basing their products on these raw materials, it would be of benefit, first of all, to our own farmers. These industrialists would also have a knowledge of what exactly the continental people want and would be in a better position to supply it. The fundamental point we must always keep in mind is, that while we have natural advantages in relation to agriculture, success in the long run will depend on our ability to produce a quality article at the right price, to process it efficiently where that is necessary, and to market it well.
To do this, we need more and more technical know-how, and more and more research. The farmers' bugbear has always been over-production, whereas in order to be successful now, we need more and more production. The economic stability which the conditions laid down by the Common Market countries for agriculture, would appear to make available to us if and when we do enter the Common Market would give us a sound basis for increased production and a more stable economy for the country generally.
Many Deputies have referred to the cattle position. We know there are fewer cattle in the country than there were last year, but the number of milch cows, the number of heifers in calf and the number of cattle under two years on the farms last January was higher than in 1961. This is a good basis on which to proceed. We could increase our cattle population considerably with better management of our grassland and more use of fertilisers. It is here the very excellent scheme which the Minister for Agriculture introduced some years ago of subsidising fertilisers should be of great help.
With regard to the reduction which was given in the rates, I should like to compliment the Government on the fact that they made available this £2,500,000 for this purpose. I made my own views on that clear in my speech on the Budget. I would prefer if it had been possible to allocate a greater proportion of this money to the small farmers but we must recognise that the NFA request in connection with rates was that health and roads should be taken off the rates which was tantamount to asking for a reduction of a specific amount in the £. That is the manner in which this money was allocated. The NFA is a democratic body and the manner of the allocation of this money was obviously the manner in which they wanted it allocated.
I should like to thank the Minister for the courteous manner in which he has dealt with the many problems from my constituency which I have put before him during the past year.
I should like to start by quoting from the Minister's speech last Thursday:
As the House is aware a useful arrangement was negotiated some time ago with the United States authorities under which some 5,000 tons of sugar were exported to that country on favourable terms, in consideration of the import of a quantity of maize.
Deputy Clinton and I yesterday asked the Minister if he would state if the export of sugar was contingent on buying maize and how much maize was bought. We did not get any answer from the Minister at all, except a reference to a document in the Library. It seems to me that a Question asked in this House is the property of the House and that Deputies are entitled to know the answer. As the Minister would not give the answer, I am forced to give it myself in the House to-day, having looked at the facts. As far as I can read the Agreement made, the arrangement is that in return for the export of 5,000 tons of sugar, we have to buy 50,000 metric tons of yellow corn over and above the normal purchase of yellow grain from the United States of America.
That poses a question as to whether it is a good deal or not. I agree that it is highly desirable that we should try to sell sugar to the US. It is obvious there must be a considerable market for it in the US, in view of the changed trading relations between the US and Cuba. But is it a good deal when we have to buy more maize or yellow corn from America in return for the sugar we export? I wonder if there is not some other avenue of export, especially when we consider that we are already importing nearly £2 million worth of yellow corn from the US, and that we are importing 1,000 tons of feeding barley also? It seems that it would be better overall policy if the Minister were to give a better price for barley and encourage farmers to grow more foodstuffs at home. At present we are guaranteed 37/- a barrel as a minimum price for barley. That price has been guaranteed for the past few years, but the Minister knows that the cost of every item of production has gone up, wages, machinery, fuel and so on.
It might well be, and probably will be, argued by the Minister, that the object of farming in this country is to produce grain as cheaply as possible so that pigs may be economically fattened. That does not hold water as an argument when you find we are importing 1,000 tons of barley and nearly £2 million worth of yellow corn. In the majority of cases, barley is sold here on the open market, after the first rush is over, for £2 a barrel.
I should like to put this to the Minister. Many people have been fighting the case of the small farmer. It is the small farmer who is "stuck" every time with the minimum price. The bigger farmers can afford to wait; they are not in such a rush for money and have storage facilities, but the small farmer must sell the crop as soon as he has it. That is the idea of giving a proper, fixed minimum price. I see no reason why the Minister should not increase the minimum price for feeding barley to £2 a barrel, thus safeguarding the farmers and ensuring production here. It is surely good economics to produce the feeding stuffs we require to rear the raw material that is vital to our balance of payments and the entire community.
I am glad that quite a few Fianna Fáil Deputies took part in this debate. They have been unusually silent in recent years. Perhaps they are not encouraged by their leaders to speak. Deputy Moher, in quite a long speech, posed many questions to the Minister. I thought his speech was very sound in spots and was a very severe indictment of the agricultural policy of the responsible Minister. Deputy Moher made three main points: that the farmers were not producing as much as they could produce; that they had not money at their disposal to do it; and he also referred to markets. He was not the only Deputy who did so. Had he been in the House when Deputy Dillon was speaking, he would have heard Deputy Dillon deal with these three points very clearly and incisively. He outlined the policy of the Fine Gael Party when we get into office again.
In regard to markets, he said we should look for markets other than those we have. He said there were many possibilities and openings in many parts of the world for new markets and said the Minister should do something about that. Whether the Minister has done anything or not, I do not know. The only information we had from the Minister as a result of a Parliamentary Question today is that An Bord Bainne are supposed to be looking for markets for butter. That is the first time we heard that information. Apparently, An Bord Bainne have secured markets for butter in several European countries. There is no information as to what the price of that butter is, whether it is economic or whether we are just selling the butter to get rid of it. I do not think the Minister has given us any other information as to what has been done or what his Department are doing in an effort to expand and increase agricultural markets.
Dealing with Deputy Moher's queries, in regard to getting better production from the land, particularly among small farmers, Deputy Dillon said—and he is constantly advocating this—that there should be an increase in the advisory services. Our contribution to the Freedom from Hunger campaign of the United Nations, is to send technical advisers to Tanganyika, as far as I can gather from the Minister's speech, but we are very short of technical advisers at home. Deputy Dillon has repeatedly said that it is necessary to have an agricultural adviser in every parish. That may not be possible, but every Deputy knows that there are insufficient advisers on agriculture in this country. If anybody wants advice and tries to get hold of one of the agricultural instructors, he has to wait a very considerable time. In County Wexford, which is a fairly big county, I believe we have only about four agricultural matters. We have a few horticultural advisers as well. That is another point in our policy which the Minister would do well to adopt.
Another point concerns the straitened financial circumstances of small farmers and the question of credit. Every Deputy knows that one of the main difficulties of Irish agriculture—is that it is grossly under-capitalised. The farms are understocked; they have insufficient fertilisers and poor fencing in many cases, all due to lack of capital. It is no use saying that farmers are lazy, that they will not try to do what other farmers in other countries are doing and try to compete. Farmers in these other countries have capital at their disposal. The only means we have of getting capital is to pay a high rate of interest. That does not meet the situation. If a small farmer is lent money, it imposes an obligation on him to pay interest of perhaps 6 per cent. If he goes to the bank, even if he is creditworthy and gets a loan, he is not in a position to repay the loan and has to bear the extra charge of the interest. Small farmers cannot do that.
Deputy Dillon stated categorically here—and in his election address also —that it is the policy of this Party to give farmers interest-free loans of up to £1,000. Someone, sooner or later, will have to do that if they want to put agriculture on an equal footing with other countries. There is no use talking about being competitive, being able to increase our production and being able to sell in other markets unless they are put in a position to do it. That brings me to the question of the small farmers.
A report has recently been issued— the Report of the inter-Departmental Committee—which gives many reasons why people are leaving the land and why they are leaving the farms in the west of Ireland and the poorer parts of the country. You need not even go to the west of Ireland or the poorer parts of the country to see people leaving the land. They are leaving the land everywhere. That is a situation which obtains in countries other than Ireland but they are not leaving at the same rate as the people in Ireland. They are leaving the land in Ireland because of the things I have been talking about; because they are under-capitalised and have not got reliable markets.
The inter-Departmental Committee seems to indicate—and I largely agree with it—that the particular form of husbandry which exists in this country at the moment is not suited to the small farms. I want to suggest that in the light of the discussion going on in Europe in relation to the Common Market, whether it relates to agriculture or any other aspects of the economy, the aim of the Common Market is an outward-looking one. It is a world policy.
If a common agricultural policy for Europe is achieved, one of the things that must result therefrom is that each country will be encouraged to produce what it is best able to produce. We will be somewhat fortunate if we get into the Common Market in that we are in a position to produce the two things that will probably be saleable within the Common Market itself and, indeed, not only within the Common Market but also in other parts of the world. Those two things are protein in the form of meat and processed milk and horticultural produce. That brings me back for a moment to the question of the small farmers in the poorer areas of Ireland who are living on a few acres of land and are unable to get a satisfactory living from the land. They are unable to maintain the members of their families or even themselves on the land. Surely horticulture opens up for them prospects? The climate is suitable. We have a better climate than Denmark or Holland. Both of those countries go in for horticultural produce.
We are able to produce vegetables earlier in the year than the people in Holland. We can produce greens and cauliflowers from February on and even sometimes from January on. The frost in continental Europe destroys these products. Therefore, we can supply these products and put them on the market earlier than they can. It is, perhaps, not right for me to speak about the west since I am an Eastern Deputy. The climate in the west of Ireland is particularly mild and free from frost. In that area, there are admirable opportunities for widespread horticultural development, both in vegetables and fruit.
Deputies may well say that if you produce vegetables and fruit ad lib, you are going to glut the market. They are perishable goods and you will not be able to get rid of them. That reminds me of what the Danes did. They preserved the fruit and set up fruit processing plants. They have an industrial arm associated with agriculture. In Denmark to-day, there are only 22 per cent. of the people engaged in agriculture. Our percentage is, I believe, 39. The rest of the people in Denmark, apart from the few employed in heavy industry, are employed in the processing of agricultural products.
There is a market there. There is an up and coming market in the United Kingdom to which we export most of our products. The market has grown enormously during the past few years. It was £15,000,000; it is now approximately £40,000,000. There is almost an unlimited market for that type of produce in the United States of America. I submit that we can extend our agricultural arm. We can export to Europe having regard to the outward looking policy. When we have a united European policy, we can export all over the world.
In the statement of the activities of the Department of Agriculture, I could not discover anything about horticulture. If there was anything about it, it was buried away in some obscure part. The horticultural activities of the section within the Department of Agriculture are very limited. I think the Minister should bear these things in mind. He should bear in mind the discussions which are going on and which are bound to go on in relation to the Common Market, whether we are to be a full member or an associate member.
The standard of living is rising in Europe. When the standard of living rises, people acquire a taste for the higher quality products. Having regard to our climate and the grass we grow, we possess the best and the highest quality meat in the world. On the Continent of Europe, the custom has been largely to go in for poultry and pig meat, veal and so on. They are more inclined to concentrate on the older type of meat. With the rising standard of living there, there is no doubt that the Common Market area is booming with prosperity.
Taking the statistics of the EEC and those of FAO, they are 6 per cent, deficient in their meat requirements in the Common Market, although they may produce more themselves as time goes on. Their standard of living is improving and the market is increasing all the time. We have that market for a first-class product. I do not see that we should have any anxiety, if and when we get into the Common Market.
With regard to the further extension of protein products, I have already said that there is a demand for protein even in countries that are already enjoying a fair standard of living— the new emerging countries throughout the world. According to the FAO statistics, they are short of protein. They have not as yet developed their economy. They, too, to a very great extent, can buy the higher class product we have to offer them, such as meat and processed milk.
I wonder if the Minister, his advisers or any of the numerous boards associated with agriculture, have done anything about looking for markets along those lines? I happen to know that in Nigeria—it has a population of 35 million—they have to bring their cattle by rail from up country to the populous areas on the coast where the industrial sections and the residential areas are. Whatever fat is on them when they leave the fields, by the time they get to the coast, there is no meat on them at all. Nigeria has to import meat from New Zealand and Argentina. Have we sent a trade delegation there to look for exports of beef? If we have not, the sooner we do, the better. I understand that the greater part of £250,000 voted in the first Fianna Fáil Budget when they came back to power in 1957——
£230,000 is left.
If you read my speech, you will find it has been distributed. A front bencher takes an active interest in the affairs of the House.
If £230,000 is still available, I suggest that the Minister spend some of it trying to get agricultural markets to expand our sales of beef. It would be worth while sending out experts——
£100,000 has already been given to An Bord Bainne and £75,000 to the Pigs and Bacon Commission. Along with the £30,000 already spent, that means that most of the £250,000 is gone. The Deputy does not seem to know it.
If money is wanted, surely the Minister could go to the Minister for Finance and look for more money for an important matter such as trying to get exports of meat? Would the Minister tell us if he or anybody else has done anything about looking for exports of first-class products such as meat to any of these emergent countries? Have they done anything about trying to export the cheaper type of protein there? If they have done so, I will withdraw everything I have said.
I want to ask the Minister about the Farm Improvement Scheme. If a farmer puts up a building under this scheme, the peculiar situation obtains in my constituency that there are two inspectors. One inspects the building and, when he is finished, he has to wait until another man comes along and looks at the same building. Is that necessary? First, it seems to involve double expense to have two inspections of the same building. Secondly, it leads to frustratingly long delays. I am told that the delays with regard to paying grants under this scheme are due to the big backlog of work. That is not peculiar to the constituency I have the honour to represent; it seems to prevail all over the country. Why have we got two inspectors in Wexford? If we have two, why have they both got to inspect the same house?
Why does a doctor call in another doctor sometimes?
He calls him in on a very difficult case. If looking at a pighouse calls for a consultation, it must be a poor lookout for the inspectors.
If the supervisor is in doubt, might he not say: "I had better have the advice of my senior"?
The information I have is that he has to get the advice of his senior, whether he wants it or not. If I am wrong, let the Minister say so. If I am right in my suggestion, then I think each of the inspectors should do a particular job of his own, instead of having this overlapping of work. Then we will not have this continuous backlog we have had all along.
The carriers of wheat have complained to me, as they have to other Deputies, that they are not allowed by the Minister to charge extra for the transport of wheat. Ultimately, it must mean that the charges of those who handle and deal with wheat will have to go up considerably. The Minister says he has a fixed price, but the millers say—they seem to have a pretty big say in everything appertaining to wheat—that the price is fixed and they, therefore, cannot give any more. What we feel on this side of the House is that if the carriers are not able to get more for wheat, they must ultimately impose the charge back on the farmer himself. Although they may not be allowed by the Minister to charge more and although the Minister may think he is protecting the growers by doing that, it ultimately means these people will have to get their money from somewhere. It will be a case of, perhaps, increasing the price for sacks, which they will have to do to cover their own expenses. In the final analysis, the farmer will have to pay more. I would ask the Minister to look into that. I hope the Minister will try to accept some of the points I have raised.
The Minister, to conclude.
Three Deputies behind the Minister have offered, Sir.
When Deputy Esmonde sat down, I looked at this side of the House and no Deputy offered. Since no Deputy offered, I asked the Minister to conclude. That is the established practice in the House.
It is always a pleasure for a Minister to reach the end of the discussion on his Estimate. Not very much new emerged from the discussion on this occasion. The one thing I tried to do in the course of my introductory remarks was to set out clearly what the position in regard to agriculture was during the year 1961-62. I tried to do that as objectively as possible. I claimed it was one of the best years on record for farmers. I did not do that in any boastful way but I produced the figures to prove it. I did not claim that farmers or agriculture in general had not difficulties to contend with. I believe that is how a Minister for Agriculture should present the picture when introducing his Estimate.
One disappointing thing in the discussion was the tendency to distort facts and figures and to make it appear that the claims made by the Minister are either exaggerated or incorrect. In many of the speeches from the Oppositions benches, emphasis was laid on the fact that there were 112,000 fewer aged cattle in the country. Actually, that is an excellent thing. That is a trend with which we should be very pleased. We had last January, a record number of cows. We had a record number of young stock. It would not do some of the members of this House any harm if they admitted these facts, but that, apparently, is too much to expect in a discussion on this very important Estimate.
Deputy Donegan quoted the statistics incorrectly in presenting a picture of a fall of 30,000 cows. He gave the January figure for 1962 and he compared that with the June figure for 1958. Had Deputy Donegan taken the January figure for 1958, he would have got an entirely different picture. Now Deputy Donegan should know that the figures for January and June are not comparable and comparing them only results in distortion of the actual facts. To illustrate what the distortion meant in this particular instance, the figure Deputy Donegan gave for January, 1962, was 1,242,201 as against a June figure for 1958 of 1,260,400. But the figure for January, 1958, was 1,211,000, which was 31,000 less than in January, 1962.
These comparisons can be accidental. Any Deputy may make a mistake. He may also, of course, use the figure that may be most attractive to him from the point of view of making his case.
Quite accidental, but they do not disturb the trend.
There was no attempt on my part to come in here and proclaim in a boastful spirit that 1961 was the best year on record. It was the best year. But I do not say it was the best year in the sense that one could deduce from that statement that this was a land flowing with milk and honey, as far as the agricultural industry was concerned. I admitted there were difficulties, but the claim I made could be, and was, substantiated by me.
I thought there was a more noticeable tendency during the course of the debate this year for Deputies on both sides to make a reasonable effort to approach this very important facet of our economy in a reasonable way. However, there is one remark that one still hears all too frequently, not only here but outside, and from people in all walks of life. Bemoaning the state of agriculture, they say: "Something" must be done about it". One never hears, however, what the "something" is. It is true that one gets suggestions, such as those made by the Leader of the Opposition, and supported by Deputies on the same side of the House, that a great deal could be done and quite an improvement could be achieved, were we to increase our advisory services. The rate of progress and improvement in the past ten years in the advisory services is in fact very notable. Between 1952 and 1962, there has been an increase of over 100 per cent. in the number of agricultural instructors. Since 1956, there has been an increase of something in the region of 40 per cent. If one includes the number of parish agents—the number is the same as it was—and the number of horticultural instructors, one finds a very considerable number of people engaged at the moment on advisory services.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
There has been a considerable expansion in our advisory services. Some counties have done much better than others, but, taking the country as a whole, it can be said that the technical staffs available today are much greater than those available ten years ago.
I remember the discussion on this subject last year. I remember when the parish plan was first mooted. I was a member of this House but I was not at the time a member of a local authority. The question I immediately asked myself was whether we were going to have two advisory services, one running alongside the other, one supervised and controlled from Merrion Street and the other recruited and operated through county committees of agriculture. I immediately made up my mind that we should not have two systems and I have not changed my mind since.
Then, having made up my mind that we should not have two, the next question was that we must have one and if we are to have one, how is this one to be operated. Wisely or not, as an individual with some knowledge of the strength and the weaknesses of county committees and with some knowledge also of the weaknesses of a centralised organisation operated from Merrion Street, I came down in favour of the county committee system and that is still my opinion. I would have been glad if some of the Deputies on either side of the House, and two of them made an effort to do so, had offered to me their honest criticism of what they thought of county committees.
I see weaknesses in those organisations but if you invited me to make a choice as between that scheme and a scheme operated from a Government Department in Merrion Street or somewhere else in Dublin, I would decide in favour of the County Committee scheme. The next question is whether we can improve upon it because it needs improving. I tried, when I attended the last annual meeting of the General Council of County Committees, and looked at the agenda, to make a few remarks in the hope of shocking those people into a realisation of their failure to face up to their real responsibilities.
Deputy Dillon might say the attractiveness of the parish plan as against the advisory services of the county committees is that "I" pay for the services provided through the parish agents, and when he says that "I" pay for them, he means that the taxpayer pays for them; on the other hand, the local ratepayer pays 50 per cent. of the cost of every member of the advisory service employed by the county committees. That would not create any problem at all for me as Minister for Agriculture. If there is a problem there, it can be met. I do not believe that you will get real support for any system of State assistance that is flung at the heads of those local bodies without asking for some contribution from them towards what it is felt they want.
Let it be known now that if we could find some means of improving the relationship between the county committee, their advisory staff and the farmers and if it was felt that whatever reconstruction of those organisations might be decided upon as an improvement might call for more advisory people, as far as the money side of it is concerned I think we could meet that situation. We could have done that at any time. I would like to have heard some comment from those Deputies who have associations with these bodies and who know how these bodies operate in relation to their technical advisory officers. I often had the feeling that the relationship between the CAO and the members of the committee is so fast and friendly that if the Department, through its inspectors, makes a suggestion or offers some criticisms of what a committee is doing, there is a line-up between the committee and the staff which, in a lot of cases, could be harmful.
I have heard people say that our method of electing county committees is wrong, in so far as they are often selected on a political ticket by the parent body in the county and that therefore it would be better if some provision could be made to ensure that a number of what might be described as knowledgeable outsiders might be selected instead. I do not know whether that would be a success or not. I have noticed from watching and reading the discussions at meetings of these bodies, as reported in the local newspapers, that whether a man is selected on that basis or not, when they come together in a deliberative assembly, it is not too long until they show their hand one way or another in a political sense on some issue.
I should like to hear any member of this House, at any time, no matter to what Party he belongs, if he has a constructive suggestion to make on this matter. It is not a matter of my having to refute the Leader of the Opposition when he talks about the necessity to expand the advisory services in the country. But if you moot that proposition or cause it to be mooted at a meeting of a county committee, the chances are that the majority will vote against it.
If their reason is that it would have an effect on the size of the rate to be struck, then I will meet that by saying: "If we can arrive at some system or scheme whereby they will at least make some contribution then they will be free to decide in favour of further recruitment of these advisory people provided there is a need for them. I have read a condensed version of a statement made recently to a meeting of the Cork Committee of Agriculture, as a result of an investigation, that in certain areas in Cork, the percentage of people who made use of the advisory services was 25. I thought the figure referred to was very good—some people might think it was very low— but I was personally astounded that it was as high and I was so curious that I made inquiries and found that that 25 per cent. could be qualified in many ways that would completely after the conclusion at which one would arrive at first sight.
It is all right for us to talk about the need for advisory services. I cannot dispute that but it is the most humiliating thing in the world for technical men or outdoor men of any kind employed by a local committee or by a Government Department to be walking about and spending their time doing nothing. I know parts of this country well. When you know parts of it intimately, then you might say you know it all. I refer to the rural areas of course.
I do not know, but I have often wondered how best you could manage to introduce the local advisory man to our farmers, how he would manage to make contact with them. He is not required to go to these farmers unless he is asked. It appears as if something better than that will have to be done. If it is not done I take a poor view of the progress we shall make.
Look at the record in Bansha.
That is all right but unless there is some means by which these advisory people will make the contacts then the situation will continue that a small percentage of the population benefit by these services because very few are making any demands upon them.
When we talk about the improvement of the advisory services we must think clearly as to the foundation on which we shall build them and how we are to design them so as to ensure that the advisers will be able to make the contacts that are necessary if progress is to be made. I am not saying that even if they were able to make these contacts they will secure results in all cases but it will be necessary to make them. I have never met a body of people who have put up to me a solution for that problem. It does not seem to be a terribly intricate problem and yet I have never heard the solution to it.
I do not want to interrupt the Minister; he did not interrupt me; yet what he said interests me. Is it not the job of the NFA, Macra na Feirme, Macra na Tuaithe and Muintir na Tíre to ask, and our job to provide? That gives you the bridge to bring the people and the advisory services together.
It is all right to talk about the job of the NFA, Macra na Feirme, Muintir na Tíre and so on.
They will do it if they are asked.
I know the extent to which these organisations have contacts with the farmers. I would say these contacts are very limited even if taken together. Some of these organisations come to me and claim to speak for all the farmers. They are entitled to make that claim; I am not objecting to it; but when they claim that they can interpret what is in the minds of farmers generally in relation to any agricultural problem, I know they cannot. I know that as a public man, as a person who moves about through the country, my contacts are far greater than all of theirs combined. First of all, it is a matter of how the advisory services should be controlled, whether centrally from Merrion Street or locally. Secondly, if it is to be locally is there anything we can do to improve the machinery there? I think it needs improvement. Thirdly, having improved the machinery, is there any way, any plan or design we can put before the county committees to ensure they will make contact with at least 50 per cent., 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of the farmers even though they do not get an immediate response from that number?
We have heard discussions here, not only during the debate on this Estimate but from time to time, about markets and marketing conditions. Attempts have been made to paint pictures as to what Europe will be like if the Common Market idea expands as we hope it will. I would always be inclined to be cautious as to my attitude towards a development such as that, the ultimate outcome of which I cannot clearly foresee.
What I see as attractive in the Common Market idea is that it offers a fair opportunity to compete with your neighbours; to produce what suits your climate and it gives a fair assurance that you can do so without limitation. It gives you the sort of freedom that, if you happen to be Minister for Agriculture, you can go out confidently and say: "You know the conditions under which you produce and it is up to you to set your sights on your target and you can do so in the confidence that you will not be obstructed."
In recent months, we heard a great deal of talk here about milk and milk products. The one frightening thing I felt about milk last year was the British attitude in imposing penalties following the development of a certain situation there. My whole anxiety, especially in view of European developments, was to preserve here a situation wherein we could encourage our farmers who were engaged in milk production to increase cow numbers, if that were possible and attractive at present prices, and that we could at the same time offer the assurance that the milk would be taken from them and that the products resulting from it would be marketable.
The same could be said for my attitude towards pigs and bacon because the market there has been very "sticky" for a considerable time, but with the prospect of the developments that are spoken about in Europe, we should do everything not only to hold on to but to expand that industry.
Are milk products in scarce supply in any country of the Six?
They are not.
Are pig products in scarce supply?
They are not.
Then how does the Minister propose to develop this market that does not seem to exist?
I shall not work that out here. My main concern was to ensure that we would be able to tell our farmers: "You will get a market for this product without limitation as to the amount you produce." Much as we were disappointed with the ultimate quota which the British gave us and although that quota will not enable us to dispose of our full production in Britain this year—because we expect this year to be even higher than last year which was the best year on record for milk—I am glad to say that we were able to say to our producers that they could continue to produce to capacity. When we talk about the cattle population, about improving grasslands and increasing their capacity, I can see no way of stocking the land and availing of that improved capacity except by increasing the number of cattle. I can see no way of increasing the number of cattle except by increasing our cows. I see no better way of increasing the cow population than by increasing the movement of older cattle out of this country. That is something that has been criticised in this debate but it is true that the quicker they go, the greater and the keener the demand will be for younger stock. The demand for younger stock will mean that in-calf heifers, the present day prices of which are a source of complaint by some people should also increase in value.
The number of cows therefore is largely, though not entirely, influenced by the price of milk. The price of milk influences the number of cows we keep but while we would like to see the number of cows increase, we must have regard to the problems that confront us in the marketing of the products resulting from more milk.
Some time ago, when I advised the Government that we should extend the creamery industry to that portion of the west of Ireland where it had not so far developed, it was awkward to make that recommendation because of the marketing problems involved. It was difficult to justify that recommendation while we found it hard to sell our surplus dairy products. One must keep these things in balance. You think you see the long-distance need for pursuing a certain course but if you approach it with too much enthusiasm —not so far as creamery development is concerned but in regard to prices given to producers—you are naturally confronted with the immediate problem of marketing.
It is all right for those who see the advantages that may arise to argue about what the Common Market may mean for us, but those responsible for disposing of the commodity at present cannot say with any degree of certainty what the future holds. They must keep in mind all these facts and factors to which I have referred.
There was some discussion about the possibility of developing contacts and establishing new markets in the under-developed countries. Most people know that the problems in that regard are tremendous. These countries are poor; the standard of living is low. In many cases, they have not developed a taste for the products we have to sell and even if they had, they have not money to buy them. Things may change in that regard, but it may be years before that happens. There are those who say: "Could the developed countries not come together and make some effort to meet that situation? Would it not be a good long-term investment to distribute surplus foods free in these countries?" One must remember that these foods must be paid for. The farmers of the exporting countries have to be paid for the surplus foods and the only way in which that can be done is by the Governments concerned pooling some of their resources to finance that sort of activity. It that were to develop, of course, we would in our own small way be glad to take our part in it. Those who have examined that situation and who were in search of outlets are almost unanimously of opinion that there are no commercial opportunities there at the present time as far as these markets are concerned.
Deputy Dillon asked me about the Bovine Tuberculosis Scheme and especially irregularities arising in connection with that Scheme. Let me tell the Deputy and the House that in every case where we detect irregularities, on the part of our own officials, on the part of professional men, or on the part of exporters, or farmers, we immediately report that discovery to the Garda authorities.
Hear, hear.
That has been the practice in every case and as far as I am concerned, that is the practice that will be followed while I am here.
Hear, hear.
I do not pretend to know the difficulties these authorities have in investigating these cases but I often thought that the time it takes to carry out these investigations is unduly long. I know, of course, that when the State goes to court whether it is a criminal or other case, it is not an easy thing to have your proofs in order but, notwithstanding that, I often thought that the time lag was tremendously long between the date on which the facts, as we knew them at the time, were reported to the authorities and the actual legal steps taken one way or the other. As far as the Department and myself are concerned, the procedure I have outlined is the procedure we have followed and will follow. We have had in all about 200 prosecutions since the Scheme was introduced. At the same time, I should not like to give the impression that this is the only scheme in which irregularities can occur.
I have said before that we have got a tremendous amount of co-operation from farmers. In some cases, however, we did not get as much as we were entitled to. We have got a tremendous amount of co-operation from practitioners all over the country. In some cases also, they were not as helpful as they might have been. The same could be said of the cattle dealers and the exporters but the point is that, it being a human world, nothing will be perfect. You will not always get people to obey the regulations and the law. We are trying our best but we do not pretend that a loophole will not be found in any regulations made by us. We can only try to stop the gap when we discover that the weakness is there.
We have made considerable progress. When irregularities happened in the early period of the Scheme, when people were inclined to be in doubt as to our capacity successfully to undertake this work, I might have made allowances for them. In view of the advanced stage at which we have now arrived, and the success which we have achieved, it is amazing to me that one or two of our people should still attempt to sidetrack the regulations.
Might I ask the Minister if he had time to consider the matter of the ear tag?
There was no subject to which we gave so much attention as the question of the tag. That has been one of the hot ones for the past four or five years.
When you go through the country and look at farmers' places as you pass by, whether it is in Munster, Leinster, Ulster or Connacht, you see quite a number of beautiful farm homesteads and well worked land. How could one induce those others who for one reason or another are neglecting their land to go through the simple and, indeed, at the present time inexpensive effort of dressing it with phosphates, lime and potash? There are thousands and thousands of farmers in the country with plenty of means who will not do that.
Hear, hear.
Just as in the case of the advisory services, when I hear Deputies talking about the non-availability of credit to farmers, I immediately say to myself: "What area of County Cavan or Monaghan do I know fairly intimately?" Many of these farms appear to be neglected or occupied by people who will not buy a few tons of fertilisers at present prices which are the lowest in the world except Britain. Do you know that you could travel miles before you would really meet a landowner who would not have the means himself of making these purchases? Why they do not do it is something I cannot understand.
Would they have the means to buy the stock to put on the land when they had done that?
I think so. The people I have in mind would. Even if they had not, that is not an insuperable barrier. I am prepared to discuss with anybody any suggestion they can offer to break down that prejudice. This is not confined to any area. It refers to the whole country. In view of all the facilities available for improving land, when I see the amount of land that is neglected I am ashamed of my life. I travelled once by special train to the Bog of Allen to see some turf development work. I had some people with me who did not understand the country as well as I did. There were places I would have liked to prevent them seeing.
On the one hand, we talk about the freedom of movement the Common Market will bring. On the other hand, we complain because a few dozen, or perhaps a few hundred foreigners bought some poor land in various parts of the country. They bought some land in my county. If they work it and make a success of it, I wish they would buy more. I am not saying all foreigners are the best farmers in the world. History tells us that some foreigners who came here did not stay too long. If they buy land, give employment, work the land and give good example, showing us what others can do, I have no objection to that kind of development. But I do not think the opportunity should be used for making a campaign against foreigners as a plank in a political plan.
The Minister should be more helpful to the industrious farmers in Cork.
I am speaking only for my own constituency. I am willing to take the risk of incurring unpopularity by inviting in strangers. If I am misrepresenting the views of my people, they can make me pay the price. I am prepared to take that risk and say what I have said anywhere.
What plantation was that?
I am sick of people trying to exploit every situation in an unrealistic way.
I am not boasting when I say that the introduction of a substantial subsidy for phosphates was one of the best things ever done. The one thing I regret is that the consumption of phosphates, lime and potash, although it has increased, has not increased to the extent it should. Deputy Clinton mentioned the challenge I threw down at the annual meeting of his agricultural committee last year. That is the sort of thing I have in mind, that the CAO would call his assistants together and say to each of them: "Here is a map of your area and here is a list of farmers. Canvass every one of them and see if you can induce them to use more phosphates and lime and undertake a programme of that kind."
Read the report on the parish of Bansha.
I have not any doubt that if we can organise the local Committees on that basis and induce the majority of our farmers to take that simple, inexpensive step, we will increase the carrying capacity of our land tremendously. In addition, what it will carry will be worth while. The results will be evident both in milk and beef production. That has been my aim and belief for years. This Party subsidised phosphates 35 years ago. The records are there. I am not claiming this as something personal. If we could reach the stage where the County Committees of Agriculture had that one objective, it would give results. It would pin those men to do a job. They would have to cover their areas completely.
Tá
- Barron, Joseph.
- Barry, Anthony.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Jack.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Burke, James J.
- Burton, Philip.
- Clinton, Mark A.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan D.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Desmond, Dan.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Dunne, Thomas.
- Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
- Farrelly, Denis.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Gilhawley, Eugene.
- Governey, Desmond.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
- Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
- Kenny, Henry.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, Thaddeus.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McQuillan, John.
- Mullen, Michael.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Donnell, Thomas G.
- O'Higgins, Michael J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.K.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Reynolds, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Richie.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tierney, Patrick.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Kevin.
- Booth, Lionel.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Paudge.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Burke, Patrick J.
- Carroll, Jim.
- Carter, Frank.
- Carty, Michael.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Clohessy, Patrick.
- Colley, George.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Gogan, Richard P.
- Haughey, Charles.
- Hillery, Patrick.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Kitt, Michael F.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lemass, Noel T.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Leneghan, Joseph R.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lynch, Celia.
- Lynch, Jack.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- Cotter, Edward.
- Crinion, Brendan.
- Crowley, Honor M.
- Cummins, Patrick J.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Mick.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Dooley, Patrick.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Egan, Nicholas.
- Fanning, John.
- Faulkner, Padraig.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Gallagher, James.
- Galvin, John.
- Geoghegan, John.
- Gibbons, James M.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Con.
- Medlar, Martin.
- Millar, Anthony G.
- Moher, John W.
- Mooney, Patrick.
- Moran, Michael.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Malley, Donogh.
- Ryan, James.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Timmons, Eugene.