The Minister has referred to sundry increases in Government expenditure on agriculture in a manner indicating that the farmer got these increases in real money values and real additions to his income. Later in my contribution, I propose to deal with that aspect of the matter but at the outset I want to say that the large sums included by the Minister in his computations are not properly chargeable as such. For instance, the huge amount that has to be met in respect of the bovine TB eradication scheme now in progress is, in my view, not a charge properly to be levied on the Irish farmer but one that should be met by the whole community because it is the defence of our main export. In that defence, the woman working in a hat shop in Grafton Street is as surely in danger of losing her job as the farmer who must keep his herd free of TB. It is quite unfair politically to infer that the farmer has got in cash income all the money the Minister says he has disbursed.
On this side of the House, we should like to lend our support to, and express appreciation of such items as the £300,000 for the World Food Programme; the £10,000, our contribution towards the control of a new type of foot and mouth disease that is apparently endangering the Continent of Europe. We would also like to express our appreciation of, and agreement with the increase of £1,000 in the contribution to the IAOS and the £2,000 increase in the contribution to the Irish Countrywomen's Association. There are certain departures and precedents in the vote for the Irish Countrywomen's Association to which I do not intend to refer but we commend them and would like to be associated with the approval of them.
Deputy Dillon referred to the necessity for the reorganisation and rationalisation of the creamery industry. Without doubt, that is absolutely necessary and, not only that, but however we do it, we must be in a position to control supplies of our dairy products on the export market. We may find that very difficult to do at present but we must face it. As far back as 28th March, 1962, I asked a Parliamentary Question regarding exports of creamery butter as reported at column 682 of the Official Report, Volume 194. In 1957, the quantity exported was 306,694 cwt.; in 1958, it was 321,670; in 1959, 14,451; in 1960, 139,442, and in 1961, 295,536 cwt. This shows that in a wet year, with good grass production, you get a huge surplus of creamery butter to export. In a dry year, we have little or none.
The results of this have been quite disastrous, even as far as this Vote which we are now discussing is concerned, because when limitation of imports of creamery butter into Britain-our best and, largely, our only customer up to this year-came to be applied, Britain accepted the proposal of the Committee of General Agreements on Tariffs and Trade, commonly known as GATT, that included a specific three years and we were unlucky enough to find in those three years the dry year, 1959, when we exported only 14,451 cwt. As a result, the available quota we can secure, if the situation remains the same, in respect of the United Kingdom, our best customer, is reduced and the loss to the Exchequer considerably increased.
This all happened at a time when the Danes were endeavouring, as they had publicly stated, to seek a variation of a maximum of two per cent in their butter exports to Britain. If one looks at the figures of these exports from Denmark to Britain in the relevant period, one finds they succeeded. Whether that is a question of cold storage of butter, or whether it is a question of the amount of butter being increased, and an increase in the amount of dairy produce available, is something we have to consider. I believe that perhaps an increase in cold storage might be the best approach because butter is a "loss" product; it is one on which you lose your money. Therefore the diversification referred to by Deputy Dillon seems to be the way to do it. Whatever is the way, we must accept the fact that the Supplementary Estimate as far as the payments to Bord Bainne which we are discussing today are concerned is a major problem in the structure of the industry today and that we as legislators have a duty to see what we can do in regard to that problem.
If one looks at the price of butter during 1961-62, one sees that it was 220/- a cwt. but by 28th March, that figure had fallen to 194/- a cwt. If you take 1961, you find that in round figures there was a loss of £3 million on butter exported, but 40/- a cwt. is £600,000 and we have all got around now to marketing butter under a brand name. Immediately we have done it, we have begun to get a premium and every premium we get on selling our butter is a saving on Estimates such as this. If we are the legislators, we must accept the blame—the Government must accept the major blame, and anybody else who had anything at any time to do with it—that we did not get down to this way of doing it. The rationalisation of the creamery industry, long overdue, is probably the reason why it is quite difficult to get a trade name or a brand name for one's products, where you have a whole series of small creameries all producing butter that perhaps tastes or looks slightly different, and for that reason rationalisation is important. Do not think that we on this side of the House have not been alive to the fact that marketing under trade names was the sort of thing that could avoid the impact of Supplementary Estimates such as this.
On Thursday, 15th March, 1962, I asked the Minister for Agriculture, at Question No. 17, what pilot schemes for the marketing of agricultural produce sold under its own brand had been instituted in Britain since the announcement of Ireland's intention to join the European Economic Community. The reply I got was:
The great bulk of agricultural produce exported from this country to Britain bears an Irish mark or brand. I have no official information about pilot schemes which may have been introduced recently by manufacturers or others to promote the sale of particular branded products.
I want to say that, in my opinion, the answer on that occasion was quite untrue. The Minister for Agriculture was not present and the Minister for Finance gave the reply. He actually told me that I did not know what I was talking about. Now we are well on our way to success with Kerrygold. Our butter was sold as a bulk product and our bacon was sold as a bulk product. If we have not got continuity of supply—which I proved is not there—to supply even one city or one shire, we can pick Liverpool or some other city and keep the windows and the counters and the shelves of shops in that city constantly supplied with our branded products ensuring that the same quality, the same taste and appearance pertains once we allow the brand to go thereon.
On 20th March, 1963, I asked the Minister for Agriculture a similar question. I asked him if, since a recent reply regarding pilot schemes for the marketing of agricultural produce sold under its own brand, he had done anything to follow up the success of Kerrygold butter, by encouragement of further like ventures and if so, what action he had taken. The answer I got was:
The use of brand names in the promotion of sales abroad is primarily a matter for decision by manufacturers or exporters selling the products. I have no official information about the introduction of schemes similar to that adopted for butter. The importance of improved marketing is being increasingly appreciated and is being given a great deal of attention by exporting organisations and firms. This trend is being officially encouraged.
That to me seems a very lukewarm approach, a milk and water approach. You might almost call it a "slithery" one which might be a bit like bulk butter. I believe therein lies the hope for a reduction in Supplementary Estimates such as this and, or, alternatively, an increase in the price to the Irish farmer. That may mean certain stringent standards of quality, hygiene and all the rest. It is the duty of the Minister for Agriculture to see, and it is long overdue at this stage, that there is put in train a succession of events that will bring that about.
We have here an increased Vote for farm buildings. Not so long ago, I asked a question in regard to farm buildings for housing dairy cows and the reply I got was that general grants in regard to farm buildings were available, and indicating the grant per cow. It is not that simple. As I see it, the position is that you may have to get around to giving a premium on the basis of good housing, good management and good milk and if you are to do that, it is probable that the Minister will have to indicate housing standards as indicated in the Dublin milk district. Having done that, you will be on the road towards the standard, quality and consistency of quality that would appear to be the only hope for an increase in price and the marketing under brand names of our products at the best available prices rather than at the worst prices available, as has been the situation heretofore.
The rationalisation of the dairy industry, as Deputy Dillon pointed out, gives the diversification that is so necessary. If we can get in more money for the farmers and need to provide less in subvention from the Government by channelling more of our milk production into cheese, chocolate crumb and dried milk, should that not be our aim? Is there any indication in the Minister's speech of a progressive increase in the milk gallonage directed towards those higher-priced products? Is there any indication in it that the Minister, as the principal politician involved in the agricultural industry, has been seeking knowledge as to the markets available for chocolate crumb and dried milk?
Has the Minister investigated what areas in Africa, where the production of milk is not practicable because of the activities of the tsetse fly, are in a position to purchase dried milk from us and, if so, how is he showing the way for the dairying industry to get into those markets for the sale of that dried milk and so avoiding the necessity for Supplementary Estimates of this kind? Has the Minister investigated the question of the export of a different type of butter to the Continent? It is said in a general way that the butter we export to Britain is a slightly lactic butter, slightly fermented, even though, by comparison with farmers' butter, most of us would hardly taste it. However, we all know that for continental trade, we need a butter made directly from fresh cream. I have no special knowledge, except what I have heard in a general way, of how true all this is, but the Minister should find out whether there is a market there and, if so, at what price. If the present limitations on our butter exports to Britain continue for any considerable period, then further markets for all these products must be obtained.
Deputy Dillon remarked on this question of the minimum price of 1/-per gallon and said the comparative price today would be 1/7½d., but something that must be learned as well is that every farmer in this country believes that an increase in production ends up, willy-nilly, one way or another, in a reduction in prices, and he has largely been proved to be right. An increase in the production of wheat resulted in a levy being imposed. You had the machinery there, and you had it implemented not so long ago, whereby every increase in production which was brought about resulted in a levy. That policy is designed, apparently, as a political policy, to restrict production rather than to increase it, to level production off by a penal reduction in price because of increased volume.
We have got to meet these questions from now on. A much better method is the Danish one of levelling off at an optimum figure of exports so that you know that continuity of supply and constancy of quality at a given level are available to the purchaser. I believe in increased production on Irish farms, even though that brings with it real political problems. The difference between this side of the House and the Government is that we believe in the problems attached to increased production, that we accept those problems and believe they would be only of a very temporary nature because of the prospect of better markets, diversification and constant supplies which would get us better prices abroad, whereas the Government believe in a decrease in prices when production is increased so that you have got that limiting factor in expansion as far as the Irish farmer is concerned.
We must therefore look to an increase in cattle population and I believe the number of heifers being mated, while greatly improved, is nothing like what it should be. If you have 1¼ million cattle or more and a wastage of 250,000, there should be 500,000 heifers each year if there are 500,000 bull calves. Even if the mortality rate in calves is high, there should be 500,000 heifers available each year and the greater number of those should be mated at least once or twice. At the moment we have got as high as 200,000. It is a good step forward but at the same time, I think the potential is far greater.
As far as pigs are concerned, of course we have got round to a reorganisation of the Marketing Board and here again it is quite clear there is a great necessity for proper marketing research. The only way we will ever get that is by looking at the pig industry from two angles: first, from the point of view that the sow is the standby of the small farmer and secondly, that, without exception, the large fattening establishments find the farrowing of sows and their care and maintenance the most difficult part of their operations. I believe that the principle now operating in Northern Ireland and England, and creeping in here, of the man who fattens large numbers of pigs giving out the sows and buying back the bonhams is the principle which will guide us towards continuity of a larger supply of pigs so that we will be able to guarantee the constant supply I mentioned in connection with milk.
The cottier may have been satisfied in years gone by to keep two or three pigs and at the end of two or three months, to market them for a little profit, but in 1963, if the cottier keeps two or three pigs and makes a net profit of 30/- or £2 per pig, the woman of the house will not be satisfied. There are easier ways of making that small sum of money or, alternatively, it is so small that the game is not worth the candle. I feel that the institution of large fattening establishments with sows of a given breed, of a given quality, given out to small farmers, with, at the same time, a guarantee of the purchasing back of the bonhams, would make for the provision for the small farmer of the job he is best suited for and would enable the big operators to proceed at a much better rate than ever before.
A situation operates in regard to the marketing of pigs under which the big operator has the power because when pigs are scarce, he has pigs and when pigs are plentiful he can still go to the persons he gave the pigs to when they were scarce and dispose of his pigs.
