Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 14 Nov 1963

Vol. 205 No. 11

Committee on Finance. - Vote 41 — Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Donegan.)

Sir Anthony Esmonde

I should imagine that one of the aims of the Department of Agriculture would be to produce here at home all the feeding stuffs requisite for rearing and feeding livestock. Last July, I asked the Minister for Agriculture if he would indicate the imports of feeding stuffs and the answer was that from 20th August, 1962, to 31st May, 1963, we imported 82,808 tons of maize. The question was further answered by saying that some of these imports were in relation to an agreement with the United States of America whereby they took sugar from us and we took maize from them. That may well be embodied in a trade agreement but it highlights the fact that we are importing a considerable amount of feeding grain. I should like to pose this question to the Minister: does he think it possible for us, as I am sure he must, with our climate, with the land available and the necessity for rotation of crops, and so on, to grow and produce all the feeding stuffs necessary for home requirements?

Last week Deputy Clinton asked the Minister a question somewhat on the same lines and I find there are still heavy imports of maize. Is our own home-grown stuff not adequate to feed our livestock? Is it not sufficient to make up the necessary compounds which may be manufactured by different firms to enable us to give full nutrition to our livestock? The answer is "yes" but the reason we are not getting the feeding stuffs here is that the price paid to those of us who grow feeding stuffs in the tillage counties is less today than it was three or four years ago.

I suggest to the Minister that it is not economic for farmers to grow feeding barley with a floor price of 37/- a barrel. As against that, I should like the Minister to take into account the fact that the farmers are dependent entirely on the decisions of the merchants or whoever takes in the barley —the grain dealers in this country — as to moisture content and have no redress whatsoever in that matter. The majority of farmers in my constituency in the past season got something in the neighbourhood of 32/- a barrel for feeding barley.

I asked the Minister if he could give me the prices of grain within the EEC and in other European countries as a whole. We in Ireland have the lowest price for feeding grain in Europe. The dispute within the confines of the agricultural discussions in the EEC today relates to feeding grains. It is between France which has the lowest price for grain and Germany which has a high price. The French price is considerably in excess of our price.

The old argument is produced that we must be economic, that we must be competitive, that we must have the grain at a price so that we can produce, rear and market pigs in competitive conditions with other countries. If all the other countries get a higher price for feeding grain than we do, how is it that we cannot be competitive, how is it that we cannot produce more pigs, how is it that we have not a rapid advance in pig production? How is it that we have not our barley requirements if it is economic for the farmers? The answer is that it is not economic. It is time the Minister realised that point.

It is not realistic to ask our farmers to continue to produce a commodity the price of which has not changed since the present administration came into office about five or seven years ago when they fixed it. Since then, there have been several increases in wages. The costs of machinery and transport have gone up. Rates have gone up. Every overhead charge in relation to everything the farmer produces has gone up and yet he is asked to produce barley at the same price as obtained five or seven years ago.

We have heard much talk about the balance of payments. Is the answer to all this not that we have to import grain because the Minister for Agriculture is carrying out a scheme produced by somebody on paper to give cheap and economic feeding for pigs while, in return, we pay considerably more for the compound feeding stuffs in relation to the price given to the farmer for his product?

I have studied the Minister's speech in so far as I could do so in the time at my disposal. I could not find anything in it to cover the agricultural economy as a whole in relation to the turnover tax. It may well be that the reply might be that agricultural machinery is not embodied in the tax, that foodstuffs are not embodied in the tax. At the same time, the tax will produce extra overhead charges. It will put an increased rate charge on the farmer. It will put, as obviously must come, a further increase in wages for farm labourers on those who employ farm labour. Has the Minister any answer for Dáil Éireann as to what he proposes to do in relation to that?

There has been a good deal of discussion about the heifer scheme. I must confess that I am rather confused in relation to the scheme. I understand, and I think my colleagues who have been speaking here have taken the same interpretation of it as well, that the Minister proposes to give to farmers a subsidy of £15 per heifer over and above the milking stock they already have in existence. He qualifies that by saying he expects some almost stupendous increase in livestock in this country and in agricultural production generally. That may be so.

I criticise this scheme in that you will find that the average small farmer is already carrying stock to his fullest capacity. He is already milking his four or five cows or whatever the number may be. His husbandry and economy are bound up with those few cows he is able to keep. Therefore, it is very hard to see how he can expand his economy. It may well be that when you go up the scale there are other farmers who perhaps were growing wheat — having been instigated to do so over the years by the Fianna Fáil Party who have spent a considerable amount of money in advising people to grow wheat. It may be that some of those people will divert their activities from the growing of wheat to the production of more milk in order to get the subsidy. The small farmers are the bulk and the backbone of our economy and I do not see what this subsidy will do for them.

The Minister should give further clarification to the House. He says that a person has four or five cows and if he keeps another two heifers he will get £15 when the animal has calved. Quite a few people keep heifers in the ordinary run of events. They may keep four or five cows and may rear or carry on their farms perhaps ten or 15 heifers. It is quite a usual custom with some people to allow maybe six heifers to calve on the farm. They do not necessarily retain on the farm the 10 or 15 heifers but may retain and very probably do retain the 10 or 15 calves. For the purpose of rearing these calves, of giving them necessary nourishment from whole milk, a certain number of heifers are kept. Do they qualify for the subsidy or not? Do they qualify for the 15 calves they keep or only for such heifers as they retain? If not, would the Minister indicate to the House how long these heifers have to be kept?

If people have a heifer and it calves and they sell the calf and sell that heifer and somebody else puts that heifer into his herd and milks it, who gets the grant or does anybody get the grant? The Minister should make that perfectly clear to the House as there is endless confusion on the subject generally.I do not know whether or not it will achieve the desired effect but I think that the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Finance, does know because of the reply to a question I asked him recently in relation to milk. I asked him a question in relation to the statement by the Secretary of An Bord Bainne that there may not be sufficient milk to meet the market requirements it then provided for in the United Kingdom and overseas. The reply of the Minister for Finance was that he believed that the subsidy for calves would secure sufficient milk to ensure that we would have expanding milk production. I am very dubious on that point. But, even if it does, I do not think, at the same time, on the figures I have available to me here, that the Minister's forecast is accurate. I take it that these statistics are correct, being drawn from official sources.

To put it in a nutshell, we entered this year, 1963-64, with a surplus of 35 million gallons of milk, making, with the estimated production of 331 million gallons, a total production of 366,900,000 gallons. The foreseeable markets available to us will absorb that in its entirety with the exception of about one-third of a million gallons. Does the Minister consider that that is a safe margin to carry on and if he does how is this country, if it is successful in acquiring an expanding milk production, going to meet those requirements? I am happy to say that in the secretary of Bord Bainne we have a very active man who is looking for markets and doing what everybody else in every other country is doing, travelling around and searching in the emergent countries for markets. If he is successful I do not see how our present production will be able to meet the demand in new markets.

To come back to conditions in my own area. We had a creamery working a system which they had worked since 1937. The farmers were able to send cream to the creamery; they were able to retain the milk; they were able to feed their cows and production was going up, sales were increasing and they had no surplus. There was a demand for this butter from the Inch Creamery throughout the length and breadth of the country and it was bought from them by Bord Bainne and exported with the greatest facility imaginable. I fail to understand the policy of the Minister in shutting down that creamery. First of all, we were told that there was considerable risk that the New Zealanders would get to hear of it and that nationally and politically we would be in difficulties in the world butter markets. Surely the aim above all is to keep the milk production going. In one fell swoop the Minister, by that action, reduced the developing power of this creamery to make butter and sell it on the market.

It is quite obvious that farmers who are making deliveries to creameries from a distance find it far easier to send cream than milk. They were not injuring anybody in any degree. As I say, first of all we were told that it would raise national complications in the world markets. Secondly, we were told that they were not producing clean creamery butter, that there was no proper control over it. There is not a scintilla of evidence to show that or that what they were doing was having any effect on any other creamery, nor were they in excess in that they were piling up butter that could not be sold. They were producing butter which had a free sale all the time. For that reason I cannot understand why the Minister took the action he did and disrupted the entire economy of County Wexford. Perhaps it was a decision taken on paper by somebody. Perhaps it was something that had been decided on in principle by somebody reviewing the background, but the fact remains that the Government took that decision. Apart from the harm it has done to the farmers, I venture to say it has done more harm politically to the Government than anything else they have done with the exception of the turnover tax.

I notice that the Minister devoted a good deal of his speech to the matter of the importation of Charollais cattle. I wonder what really induced the Minister to fall for the importation of Charollais cattle. Is it that he considers that the breed of cattle for beef which we have in this country is not sufficient to keep us going? Is it that he wants to do something new or that somebody sold him the idea? The Minister should tell the House is it the intention to breed pure bred Charollais cattle because if it is not the intention there is going to be nearly as high a calf mortality rate as there was in the famous years, to which we refer today with bated breath, of 1932 and 1936.

I wonder what the impact will be if the Charollais breed is crossed with shorthorn or other breeds and whether the calf is going to be in excess of the size of calves delivered here. Does the Minister consider that the mortality rate may be very high? I wonder if whoever was responsible for this notion has considered that. I wonder why these cattle are imported. Have we not got good breeds already, good dual-purpose shorthorns, which give us as good beef and stores as anywhere in the world? Why go in for an experiment such as this when we have not already got enough of our requirements for the production of milk, beef, livestock and so forth?

I often wonder what the Minister's views are in regard to the growing of wheat, the policy of Fianna Fáil has varied so much over the years. At one time we were sneered and jeered at— and some of us are very sensitive over here—that we were grass farmers but now apparently Fianna Fáil have become grass farmers and we are to rear as much livestock as we can. The British market now is the be-all and end-all on the horizon for the Minister for Agriculture and his advisers.

I want to say a few words on the subject of wheat. Last year was a bad weather year and this year was a bad weather year. Last year, there were heavy surpluses of wheat in the world and there was no market whatever for wheat. More than 50 per cent was turned down by the millers as unmillable. This year commenced very much the same as last year and wheat was surprisingly unmillable. There were farmers whose wheat went in two loads from the same field, the same type of grain. Yet half of it was millable and the other half unmillable.

Then the situation changed suddenly.The Chinese have had failures of their harvest in six successive years, and they found they had no grain. The Soviet Union, which has been concentrating on heavy industry, has failed to get any production whatever. Farmers will not produce by the whip; they prefer to produce as free men. The Soviet Union, therefore, was short of grain, too. Heavy purchases of wheat were made by the Chinese and the Soviet Union. The bulk of the Canadian crop had been bought by the Chinese the year before. They came on the market this year and bought the greater part of the Australian surplus as well as a great deal from the United States.

Therefore, wheat, far from being a surplus commodity in the world — although there is still a small surplus — hardened and began to fetch a good price. Then it transpired that the millers, who turned down everything last year because they could buy cheap wheat in the world, found wheat was becoming dear. Surprisingly, they took the Irish wheat, because it was cheaper for them to take it rather than buy it outside. Yet we are assured that there is good control and that everything is fair. Every Minister for Agriculture on those benches over there when asked a question has always assured the House that everything is all right and that the farmers are getting a fair deal.

Last week I asked the Minister for Agriculture what happened to the unmillable wheat, and was it mandatory on the millers when they turned down wheat to sell it to An Bord Gráin. The answer was "No". I pressed him in every way I could. In one supplementary, I asked him:

Am I to take it that, where wheat is rejected as unmillable, the millers are free to dispose of that wheat as they wish?

The answer I got was "Yes". In a nutshell, the position is that the millers at present have a complete monopoly. They can turn down any wheat they want to turn down, and no one can say a word to them. They can turn down this barrel of wheat today, and tomorrow they can sell it to Russia. There is no redress for the farmer. The question was answered by the Minister for Finance on behalf of the Minister for Agriculture. The millers can sell it and do what they like with it. There is no protection for the Irish farmer against this wheat racket. That is the only name I can find for it. It is not a matter of its going on this year or last year; it has been going on for years. People have been growing rich at the expense of the Irish farmer. There is only one person in Dáil Éireann and in the country who can do anything about it, that is, the Minister for Agriculture.

Every other year farmers could get their sacks from whomever they wanted. They were then free to offer their wheat to whatever buyer they wished. If they were dissatisfied with the price offered to them they were free to offer their wheat to somebody else. This year somebody introduced a regulation — I understand it was issued by someone who controls the sack output and is associated with the wheat trade itself — by which no farmer can sell his wheat to anybody except the person who gives him the sacks. I questioned the Minister on that and wrote to him about it. I warned him of what was happening. How many farmers in this country have their own sacks? This is a further monopoly.

If the sacks come originally from a particular mill, you have to sell your wheat to that mill, whether they accept it as millable or not. You have not the opportunity of offering it to somebody else and having another chance of having it judged. If that is not monopolistic control, detrimental to the interests of the farmers and to the growing of wheat and against the principles of fairplay, I do not know what is. To reiterate, there is only one person who can control that, that is, the Minister for Agriculture. Yet he has done nothing throughout the present season. I defy anybody to say that state of affairs does not exist here. It exists in my own county. I know it, and I can prove it.

I wonder if the Minister has considered the wider question of world agricultural policy, whether he has considered, in basing his policy, that there are changing conditions within the world today? Last year I heard a speech by Mr. Mansholt, the Assistant Vice-President of the EEC Commission, who is also responsible for agricultural matters within "The Six". I have rarely heard a more pessimistic speech in my life. He indicated that wheat was in surplus, that milk was in surplus, that sugar was in surplus. The only thing there was any hope for was the sale of meat generally. The policy of the present administration appears to be to expand our sales as much as possible within the confines of the British market. I welcome that. It is a welcome conversion that has come, as great events always come, gradually over the years. We cannot expect things to happen overnight. They now realise we have alongside us an export market in which we can sell. But that should not be the be all and end all of our efforts.

I wonder if the Minister has considered the potentiality for sales and the fact that there have been definite changes within the arena of world politics? We all know that, if everyone in the world today were to have full nutrition, there would not be anything like enough for everybody to eat. We all hear with regret that there are as many as one thousand million undernourished people in the world today. If you have a surplus of food within the high-cost production countries, such as the United Kingdom, Europe and North America it seems an easy thing that you should be able to sell it to the other part of the world. But we have to take a realistic view of the situation and try to meet it as it arises.

That there are definite signs of changing conditions is very evident. It is evident that, if the United Kingdom pursue their policy to get into EEC, they cannot go on with their present agricultural system. They cannot continue their deficiency payments, which they, as a rich industrial nation, can afford to pay so as to get forced production — produce far more and buy, as a result, less from the agricultural producing countries than they should. It is also true that in the great battle developing within the EEC at the moment in regard to agriculture, the Germans cannot continue the system they have. They are doing much the same thing as the other highly wealthy, industrial countries are doing, giving huge sums in subsidies, grants and subventions to get false extra production.

It, therefore, seems that the United Kingdom, if she is to change her policy, will probably produce less than heretofore and that her market will be expanding. For that reason, it is necessary that we should be alive to the fact that other countries are seeking that market and an increasing share of it. There was nothing in his speech to indicate that the Minister is alive to these conditions.

It is also true that the expanding economy of the EEC itself will produce an ever-increasing demand for agricultural produce, much of which they themselves are producing now. To date, there is sufficient potential market there to supply meat to three million people and that market is increasing as the population of EEC is rising but meat production is not going up at the same rate. Even if it were, the rising standard of living there would ensure a greater purchasing potential.

The South American states have been large exporters of meat in the past and their population is growing perhaps faster than any other part of the world so that they will soon cease to be exporters of meat. That will give a further potential for exports of meat and probably of a dressed variety which would give greater employment to maintain people in rural Ireland. I do not know if we have made any attempt to tap the market of the Arab world. I say this because every country that has diplomatic representation there is doing all it can to gain these markets. I do not know if we are active in that respect. The potential to buy is there and increasing all the time.

Recently at the European FAO Conference, which I had the honour to attend, it was decided to remove all duty on raw materials coming from overseas and emergent countries to enable them to have greater purchasing power so that they could buy agricultural produce from the big producing countries in Europe and North America. It has recently been indicated in all the discussions taking place at international level among those concerned with international agriculture that these emergent countries are being encouraged to employ their own resources for expansion within their own countries. Again that gives a growing potential to buy. Is the Minister aware of and has he made any efforts to get these markets?

There are other changing situations. Four or five years ago, there was a huge butter surplus in Europe. We had a cold year and a dry year. Then the Italians came into the market and began to buy and there was no butter. That should have been a warning to the Minister and the Government that this situation could recur. It has recurred and there is actually a shortage of butter on the world market at present. All we can get, apparently, out of the British market is an extra 5,000 tons although we have a most favoured nation clause in our trade agreement and it would seem we are entitled to get more.

I want to emphasise that unless the Government are prepared to follow changing world conditions, prepared to go out and seek something, nobody will come and offer it to them. Everybody else is doing that. In Nigeria, with its population of 35 million and an economy just beginning to develop, there is a growing purchasing power. Beef has to be carried 500 miles ex port from Northern Nigeria to feed the populations along the coast. They are already buying meat and I understand New Zealand is exporting to them across the world. I do not think we have done anything about this market and I trust the Minister, if he troubles to reply to the points I raise, will correct me if I am wrong.

I was glad to know as a result of a question I asked yesterday that some Minister, even though it is the Minister for External Affairs and not the Minister for Agriculture, is to go abroad soon to have discussions with EEC. Perhaps it has dawned on this Government at last that EFTA countries are coming together and trading, that their purchasing power is increasing, that their trade with each other is increasing; that the EEC is growing stronger in economic virility every day and that there is purchasing power to be sought for; that the Kennedy round of negotiations for free trade is being discussed and that it means something to this country; that the old traditional measure of just exporting to your next-door neighbour with no overseas competition is gradually disappearing; that agriculture faces a new world, new markets and new conditions.

There is also the fact that horticulture has swept on to the market and created a growing purchasing power. It was practically non-existent heretofore, merely a small section in the Department of Agriculture. Are the Minister and his officials aware of this? I think these are the things we must work for, new markets, new ideas and new production. The only really live effort I see being made — and I want to pay it this tribute — is being made in the packaging and sale of Irish products abroad. Packaging is most important nowadays and that has been realised by An Bord Bainne; they put this new "Kerrygold" butter on the market and it has been selling very successfully in foreign markets.

We must be up and doing where these things are concerned and the Minister and his Government must be up and doing. If the Minister does not direct right policy and support the interests of the farmers, Irish agriculture will not expand. It is the Minister's duty to look for markets for agricultural produce. It is no use saying the markets are not there. They are there. I hazard a guess that, with the extraordinary change I have seen in the demand for agricultural produce in the past two years even, there are facing us continually improving markets for all forms of agricultural produce, as well as meat and horticultural products. These are things we can produce eminently satisfactorily. It is up to the Minister and his Government to look for markets. If they are not prepared to do so, then they should get out and let in someone who is so prepared.

Mr. Medlar

Over the years here, I have listened to the contributions to this debate from both sides of the House, one side paying the Minister compliments and the Opposition criticising him. Very seldom have I heard anything at all constructive, in the broadest sense of the word.

The last speaker blamed the Minister because we may have to import animal feeding stuffs this year. Let me give the House my experience as a practical farmer. Last year, I grew close on 20 acres of barley which produced 400 barrels. This year, the same acreage produced 300 barrels. That position obtains all over my part of the country. We are one of the biggest grain-growing areas in the Twenty-six Counties. I have heard that in some areas firms send out sacks to their suppliers. That does not obtain in my constituency.

I have heard arguments here based on statistics, the same statistics being interpreted differently according to the speaker's inclination. Practical farmers, like myself, treat these statistics almost with contempt because we know they are not in accord with the facts. I have heard prices quoted here for years past. Unfortunately, we go back to the distant past much too frequently, blaming one another for what happened at one period or another. One thing for which I condemn the Opposition is their habit of comparing wartime conditions, whether it be the Economic War or the more recent World War from 1939 to 1945, with the conditions that obtained when Cumann na nGaedheal were in power or the Coalition were in power. I do not intend to refer to these particular periods at all. I have my opinions. All the speeches of all the politicians in Ireland will not change facts. The farmers know the facts. When they hear the old trash delivered here and off platforms throughout the country, it is no wonder they become cynical about politicians.

I am thankful for one thing: I welcome the change of thought that has come over the farmers and landowners of this country. I saw the day when we had two schools of thought with regard to land policy. We had the older school which believed in free trade, buying in the cheapest market and selling in the dearest one. We know what the consequences were. These people believed that what they called our verdant permanent pastures should not be ploughed; if they were, their fertility could not be restored for 100 years. Landowners held that view quite sincerely. I am not talking just about politicians. There were men of different views everywhere. Landowners were even prepared during the war to pay fines and go to jail rather than plough up their verdant pastures. They advocated walking the produce off the farms — faith in grass and maize meal. That is on record.

There was a younger school of thought, scientifically-minded people, with whom I was glad to be associated. The late Deputy Hughes was also associated with them. They stated that grass should be treated as a crop and should be re-seeded every four or five years. They maintained that the alleged best pasture land, untreated, in County Meath was 50 per cent weeds. There are people who tell us now, despite the advances that have been made, that if our productive potential from the land were brought to its optimum, this country would be capable of maintaining double its present livestock population. How is this to be brought about? That is the problem. I believe its solution is the key to success. The Leader of the Opposition has very strongly advocated and supported the idea that no land scientist or inspector should go in over a farmer's boundary until invited and, apparently, our present Minister agrees with him in that.

Mr. Donegan

He did not at one time.

Mr. Medlar

I shall refer to that in a moment. The Minister stated recently that 30 per cent of the farmers have invited inspectors in. I am assuming another 30 per cent have brought their lands up to the standard required for maximum production. I suggest that power should be given to agricultural scientists to move in on every farm in the Twenty-six Counties, make a soil survey and instruct and advise each farmer as to how his land should be treated for the purpose of increasing production. If, after a period of five years, a farmer fails to carry out the instructions—family circumstances should, of course, be taken into consideration—his name should be placed on an index and handed over to the Land Commission for that body to investigate, with a view to acquisition and the handling over of that land to someone who will play his part on a team dedicated to producing the maximum from the soil of Ireland. Until that is done, we shall be carrying too many drones.

I offer this much sympathy to the Minister. During the war years, when the Minister said he would send in an inspector to compel these bad farmers and bad citizens to do their duty and grow wheat, he was told off by the Opposition. What happened then behind the closed doors of the Fianna Fáil Party? The Minister for Agriculture was criticised by members of our organisation. They said he had not done his duty because he had not sent in his inspectors or the Land Commission inspectors to those land owners who were not farmers. It was suggested he should have sent in his inspectors to acquire those lands for division and he was severely criticised for not having done so. Therefore, the Minister was criticised from the left and from the right, and I leave it to the public to decide which side was right.

The Opposition have been crying for years that there are too many inspectors. It is a cry they should not be proud of. I am afraid I have departed from the suggestion I made earlier about soil surveys, but I have here the opportunity of suggesting that these surveys should be carried out, whether the people like it or not. The inspectors should move in on the farmers and carry out these surveys. I am afraid we are a bit too sleepy with those people. It has been suggested that the good land which is not used properly should be handed over to those who are prepared to work it, to the young, virile workers of the soil. I have no reason to disagree with that suggestion and I have no lack of confidence in the ability of those young people to compete with the best in any country in Europe.

I should like to draw attention to the philosophy of one such young person, a young man who gave a lecture recently to a meeting of farmers. I entirely agreed with him, but there were some means from the body of the hall. He said we have the best soil in Europe, the most suitable soil for high production. He said we have the most suitable climate, the most accommodating rainfall. We need not therefore offer any bouquets to our farmers for being able to compete with farmers thousands of miles away from the markets we deal in. I shall conclude by asking the Minister seriously to consider my suggestion.

Mr. Gilhawley

I admit it is the easiest thing in the world for a Deputy to get up here and criticise a Minister and his officials. While I have some hard things to say to the Minister because of the way my constituency is being treated, I believe always in giving credit where credit is due. Having done that, I shall point out what remains to be done.

I wish to say in connection with the Minister and his officials and his advisory services that I have met with nothing but courtesy and efficiency. It has always been a pleasure for me to go to them at any time. I wish to have that placed on record. This is a Department which affects my constituency quite a bit and I can say quite sincerely that it has been a pleasure to approach the officials here in Dublin and those down the country as well. Being in a congested area, we have dealings with many of the Department's schemes such as the Farm Improvement Scheme, the Bovine Tuberculosis Scheme—we have now eradicated that disease — the Land Project and so on, and I wish particularly to extend my compliments to the Department's officers in the country. They have always displayed the utmost efficiency and willingness to help.

I intend dealing today with the special problems that affect my constituency insofar as the Department is concerned. As a young boy — I was born on a small farm — I had experience of exactly how the economy of such a farm was worked out. I realise that the problems in Sligo-Leitrim may not be those of other parts of the country. In my constituency, there are 17,000 holdings, of which 13,000 are under £20 valuation. The remarks I make will be concerned mainly with those 13,000 families.

I can remember the time when the housewife's budget on such a farm centred around the basket of eggs she was able to take to the travelling shop or the local shop. Groceries were bought with the proceeds of these eggs, and perhaps there would be a few shillings to spare. I can also recall the Christmas budget, when the housewife had a flock of turkeys out of which she provided the Christmas fare and perhaps had a few pounds to spare. These things are gone now. In the west of Ireland today — the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach will appreciate this — the income that was lost in that way is recouped through remittances from emigrants in England and America.

In order to develop agriculture in my area, we must take into consideration the fact that we get more than average rainfall.

Mr. J. Brennan

You get a number of windfalls, too.

Mr. Gilhawley

And some landslides.In order to develop agriculture there in a way that will be of use to us economically, some provision must be made to get rid of that surplus water. In South Sligo, where I live, there are 117,000 acres of agricultural land subject to flooding. These are not my figures: they are taken from statistical abstracts quoted here in the House. Sixty years ago, that area was far down in the priority list. It was No. 7.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid the Minister for Agriculture is not responsible for drainage.

Mr. J. Brennan

It would arise on another Estimate.

Mr. Gilhawley

I realise that. I merely wished to point out in passing our position in that respect in South Sligo. I had not intended to develop it. The application of fertilisers and lime to the land there is useless because of lack of drainage. I know increased production is required if we are to enter the European Economic Community with a chance. It is all very well to talk of 13,000 small holdings but quite a lot of those are subject to flooding. The people on these holdings cannot increase production or cannot avail of the lime or fertiliser schemes to any appreciable extent. It would be a waste of time and, instead of getting increased returns, they are getting decline returns, due to waterlogged lands.

The problem in the west of Ireland in respect of agriculture cannot and will not be solved within the framework of existing legislation which is formulated for the country as a whole. Our problems in the west of Ireland are special problems and what applies to the farming community in the midlands and the south bears very little relation to what applies in the west. I would suggest to the Minister that he set up for the west of Ireland and other congested areas a special committee with representatives from the Land Project office, the Land Commission, the bovine TB eradication section, the Office of Public Works and the county committees of agriculture. I suggest that such a committee be set up as a State body, financed by State funds, and that it be authorised to spend money on schemes which it would formulate and send to the Government for sanction before Budget time.

As far as I am aware, the Department of Agriculture have no authority to deal with special problems. Their hands are tied and we have special problems that arise and need to be dealt with week after week. A committee such as I suggest could plan 12 months ahead and, having formulated their plans, could send them to the Government for sanction. Agriculture in the west is largely affected by apathy. Time was when the sons of small farmers were competing with one another as to who would get the farm. Today it is a fact that none of the farmer's sons wants to succeed to it. They ask you: "What would we be doing here? What good is it to us? We would never make a living here."

That apathy of mind should be dispelled.There is a living to be made on small farms if the people are properly encouraged by the Department.I welcome the extension of the advisory services in this connection and I hope they will be some help in dispelling the apathy that appears to exist among those people. To operate those small farms properly, you need intensive planning, intensive study and intensive encouragement. An effort should be made to get those people to realise that there is a living on their farms, if they are properly worked.

A lot of lip service has been paid to the west of Ireland but lip service is not a good incentive to work. We want a little action and encouragement in the form of something concrete being offered to us by the Department. It is hard to realise that the Government are prepared to take a chance and spend millions of money on projects like the Verolme Dockyard in Cork or the Avoca mines. If any Government are prepared to take a chance and spend millions of money on doubtful projects like that and even if they regard the development of the west of Ireland as a doubtful project, would it not be as well to spend some millions in developing the west rather than on the projects I have mentioned?

I understand the Department is contemplating the development of veterinary research stations. If such a project is envisaged, I suggest that Sligo should get a station for the west. In spite of our small farm difficulties, we are the biggest cattle exporting area in the west and our sheep stocks are increasing. An attempt is being made in Sligo to go in for intensive dairying and if the Department is establishing veterinary research stations, I would suggest that one be set up in Sligo as it is the centre of the north-west. If the Land Commission take over the Lisadell estate, there are beautiful buildings on it which would be suitable for such a station.

Another matter which I think comes within the jurisdiction of the Minister is the cattle boats which go across-channel from Sligo. They have been turned down as being unsuitable and a big effort is being made to provide a modern type of boat for the export of cattle from Sligo port. I hope the Minister will do everything in his power to facilitate that.

One of the greatest difficulties for the small farmer in the west in trying to develop agricultural output is lack of capital. From the number of cases with which I deal week after week in relation to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, I know for a fact they have no capital. The Agricultural Credit Corporation might be a little more flexible. I do appreciate they are tied up with regulations. I know of a case where a farmer applied for a long-term loan which involved buildings.I understand that for stock it is a short-term loan, seven or eight years. When the money was obtained, the first part of it was spent on cattle and the second part was not made available because he had not carried out the building end of the contract. There should be some liaison between the Agricultural Credit Corporation and, say, the county committees of agriculture to satisfy themselves that this money is being spent to the best advantage of farming.

In regard to the heifer subsidy. I do not think it will be much use in the west at all. The small farmer in the west has his farm fully stocked. This heifer scheme was a well conceived scheme but I would suggest that alterations should be made. The average farmer in my constituency has four or five cows at the most. If a farmer has one bad cow which is certified by a veterinary surgeon as a loss to the farmer and to the country, giving a bad yield of milk and so on, this scheme should apply to the replacement of such an animal.

It appears to me this scheme was conceived in respect of the Midlands and especially the south of Ireland where the incidence of bovine tuberculosis was very heavy. I do not know the details of the scheme but I thought that if reactors were got rid of there, this subsidy must go to the replacement of a cow in a case like that. I would like to believe otherwise but I do not think this scheme will affect my county very much at all.

I should like to impress upon the Minister that we have a special problem in the west which is not a problem in other parts of the country. I hope the food processing factory envisaged for my county will be a success. I believe this is one of the ways in which we can help ourselves when we do not get the help we expect from Government sources.

I wish to make one final suggestion. If the Irish Land Commission took over the Lissadell estate — I have already mentioned veterinary advisory services but if that fails — I suggest the Minister for Agriculture should seriously consider the establishment of an agricultural school there. The buildings are there and all the facilities that would be required are on the spot. There is no agricultural school, so far as I am aware in Cavan, Monaghan or Galway. There is a wide open gap there with big possibilities for an agricultural school.

Mr. Clinton

The Minister for Agriculture is a seasoned and capable speaker and he is only too well able to make the best use of any material at his disposal. On this occasion he must have had very little material. I listened to his speech in introducing the token estimate for his Department and also the Supplementary Estimate. I never heard a more doleful or disappointing speech. He spoke here like a broken man because all his efforts had failed, because he was now Minister in a Government who never had any faith or interest in agriculture, that had never done anything for agriculture and had no intention of doing anything for agriculture in the future.

He told us he was now engaged in trying to help this community of lame dogs who had failed him over various stiles and that it was a very expensive business. In fact, he felt the only thing to do now with this tottering industry was to prop it up in any way and in every way we could. He almost apologised to the rest of the community for having to impose this enormous expense on them. It did not appear to occur to the Minister that the farmers themselves as taxpayers provide a considerable amount of this money and that in every country in Europe and, indeed, certain countries outside Europe they have farm supports and farm subsidies to the same extent and even to a greater extent than we have in Ireland. That is the proper way to look at it.

We do not hear the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, bewailing here the fact that so much subsidy and so much assistance has to be provided for industry. Rather is he inclined to regret the fact that more industrialists are not availing themselves of the various schemes. I said that this was a depressing and an uninspiring speech. It is an open confession of failure, coming at a time when a Government who were in office in this country for over 25 years should have had the agricultural industry at the peak of its productiveness and competitiveness.

Most of the Minister's speech was devoted, first of all, to decrying the credit policy of the Fine Gael Party. He said this question of a £1,000 interest-free loan to the small farmer was quite a ridiculous idea. The people concerned are small farmers unable to make their units economic without it or unable to avail themselves of the agricultural advisory services provided for them. I want strongly to disagree with that view.

There is little use in going into a small farm and advising the farmer to carry out all the improvements to his holding that would provide him with a decent livelihood if he just has not got the wherewithal to do it. Even if credit is provided through other channels— and it is very difficult to get it through other channels — in such a case it will be too costly for the man to start to get his feet off the ground. The Fine Gael proposal is an excellent way of giving this man the start he requires. He is below rock-bottom at the moment and it will take a lift to bring him up to the surface.

The other prominent element of the Minister's speech was I think his telling us that now, after 30 years' persuasion, the Government have at last come round to seeing that grass and more grass is the salvation of Irish agriculture and that the British market is the only outlet for our production. It has taken a long time for that to happen. In the meantime, it has cost this country a lot of money.

There is something ironical about the fact that the same man who, as Minister for Agriculture here 30 odd years ago, slaughtered the calves is now providing a grant to encourage the production of more calves so that we may have more cattle for export. The conversion that has taken place is really unbelievable. In the Irish Independent of Thursday, 5th September, 1963, the Taoiseach is quoted as saying: “Grassland products — sheet anchor of the export trade.” There is no doubt about it: even the Taoiseach now believes that there is something in grass and that there is something in livestock. Even a death-bed repentance is worth while.

Last year, speaking on this Estimate, I pointed out that cows were being removed artificially through the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis and that it would require some artificial assistance if these cows were to be replaced and if we were to have any appreciable increase in the number of cows in the country. I think that the same advice was given by the Leader of this Party and by Deputy Donegan. I am glad to see a scheme has been introduced: it is a step in the right direction. However, I fear that that step is just not sufficient. If the Minister is to realise the target he aims at he will have to do a good deal more. In the first year, he will get a response which he certainly will not get in the second year. As Deputies from the west of Ireland generally have said, the scheme will not be of any great assistance to them, unfortunately, because I think the scheme is a good national move.

I can appreciate the position of the small farmers in this country being unable to avail themselves of the opportunity to get this extra £15 for each extra heifer they keep. Most of them are carrying cows at the present time to the limit of their capacity in sheds and perhaps in other surroundings. The question of capital enters as well. I believe the scheme will bring the increase the Minister is hoping for but it will bring an increase mainly in suck calfs.

One thing that was not quite clear from the Minister's statement was this. He said that when a heifer calved and was taken into the herd the owner would then get the £15. I know quite a few people who keep a number of heifers, calve them down and then sell the heifer. I do not know who, in that case, would get the grant. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, might tell us something about it.

More was expected from the Minister when he was speaking. There was nothing in his speech to give our farmers confidence, hope and stimulation.In the course of his speech, there were very many notable omissions. For instance, there was no mention at all of the Agricultural Institute. The Agricultural Institute is doing excellent work under difficult conditions. It has not all the space it requires. It has not, in fact, I think, sufficient money to do all the work it would like to do. However, I have seen the results of some of its work and I was very impressed.I visited some of the Institute's farms during the year. They deserve great credit for the work they are doing. If the results of the research they are carrying out could be brought down properly to the farmers and if they could be induced and assisted to make use of the information disclosed through these research centres, it would be of wonderful assistance. Perhaps I shall come back to that later but I now go on to deal with the omissions.

The Sugar Company has not been mentioned nor the wonderful developments in production and processing about which we heard some time ago. Something seems to have gone wrong in so far as the people in Glencolumbkille and other places were promised that if they got decent subscriptions from the farmers, they would get £ for £ and would join with them in developing these growing and processing centres. It is well over 12 months since we heard that this was going ahead and that the farmers in that poor area had subscribed a large sum of money. I understand that the position is that the Government have not come forward with their part of the capital and that an Foras Tionscal have given no grant. If that is so, it is regrettable. The Minister should use his influence to see that this goes ahead because it is at least one attempt to do something for the poorer parts of the country instead of paying mere lip service to them.

I know there are many other areas in which it was proposed to set up these centres. In County Dublin, we were trying to organise a grading and packing centre. We received every assistance and advice that we could hope for, both from the Department of Agriculture and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. We got very little promise of financial assistance but I think that is hoped for and it is something that should be encouraged. It is an area where traditionally the people's livelihood comes from market gardening and this type of crop growing could be extended considerably if some encouragement and some financial assistance were made available to them.

Grain has not been mentioned either. In fact we have reached the stage that while in the past wheat figured very largely in the Government's policy, now it is nearly regarded as a dirty word. I do not know what the Department's policy about wheat is for the future. We should always aim at having a small surplus of wheat. It is still a very valuable crop and even in a bad year, a valuable food, if not exported at an uneconomic price as has been done in the past.

Pigs have not been mentioned except in so far as there was a reference to the negotiations — let me say, reasonably successful negotiations — which have taken place recently with the United Kingdom. We are in the position now so far as pigs are concerned that we know we have a market. The reorganisation of the Pigs and Bacon Commission has been a successful operation and we have put in a first-class manager. Already the signs of his work are evident but in what position are we in relation to pigs? We are at present producing fewer pigs than we were producing in 1929. This indicates beyond yea or nay the fact that we have failed absolutely to do anything for the pig industry over the years.

I remember when speaking here before about the lack of effort which was put into the development of this branch of farming over the years, I said we were producing approximately 1½ million pigs, while in Denmark, which is a little more than the size of Munster, they were producing 12 million pigs and were planning to produce more. Deputy Gilhawley said that there was a lot of lip service paid to the congested areas. This is one obvious way, properly organised, by which many farmers in the congested areas could be made economic holders in the morning. There has never been an organised effort. How are we to work it? I have always thought it was quite simple and now I am convinced that it is quite simple, but it will never be brought about until we improve housing, tell these people how to build their houses and the type of house and give them generous grants. The present grants are not bad but this must be done on a regional basis.

Feed must be provided in sufficient quantities and at wholesale prices. I always insist that farmers are entitled to get their raw materials for their industry at wholesale prices. In most parts of the west of Ireland, if a farmer wants a few bags of meal to feed pigs, he has to travel 20 or 30 miles and pay two prices. There is no reason in the world why this could not be organised on a regional basis with the processing centre and a sufficient number of producers brought into the scheme to keep the centre in full production and make it a viable unit.

I went to some trouble to look at the Jordan piggery and I believe it has a wonderful future in this country. When we realise that one man in the north of Ireland produces annually 28,000 pigs in a very simple type of piggery, a very cheap piggery to construct, you can imagine how many farmers would get an economic livelihood from pig production in the congested areas. Straight away I see there is a living there for at least 60 farmers, small uneconomic holders. If this centre were set up with sufficient storage, sufficient advice and sufficient veterinary services, it must succeed. We are in the position that we can sell more pigs than we can produce. It is a sign of the success of the reorganisation of the Pigs and Bacon Commission that this has become possible.

In October this year, we had as many, if not more, pigs than we ever had in October before. At the same time, the price of pigs was never so high. Speaking to a lady in the catering business in a very big way, she told me that in a fortnight the price of gammons went up to her by 100/- a cwt.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.