Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 20 Nov 1963

Vol. 205 No. 12

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That the vote be referred back for reconsideration.

—(Deputy Donegan.)

Mr. Clinton

Before reporting progress last week, I had been discussing possible and desirable developments in the pig industry. I had shown that no progress has been made over the past couple of years and that, in fact, in certain respects the position had deteriorated.It had deteriorated in that in the areas that would benefit most from this intensive industry, the reduction in numbers has been greatest. In the west of Ireland, the number of pigs now being produced is not much more than half what it was 30 years ago. The position, fortunately, has altered and it has not altered by accident.For far too long the people engaged in the curing and processing of our bacon products have been allowed to sit back and draw the subsidy, while at the same time doing, as I believe, a very inefficient and very unsatisfactory job in both processing and marketing. This may not apply to every firm but there was a large measure of inefficiency throughout the industry. We have arrived at a position now which is fairly satisfactory, where the outlook is fairly satisfactory, and I think no efforts should be spared to secure that increase in production, that improvement in quality that we all would like to see. I have been assured the outlets are there and that the only unfortunate aspect now is that we are not in a position to meet the demand.

I understand some difficulty still exists in regard to selling, a difficulty arising out of the fact that the supplies to various areas in England where we sell bacon is not consistent. Certain areas have become accustomed to getting a particular cure from a bacon factory and as the supplies of bacon to those factories are not consistent, these people cannot get the cure they want and they are not prepared to take any other. I understand that various ways to meet this difficulty have been considered and somebody has come up with the suggestion that it will have to be met by centralised buying.

Deputy T. Lynch dealt at some length with the dangers of centralised buying and I must say that, having spent a considerable number of years producing large numbers of pigs, I have the same fears in regard to this monopolised buying, as I would call it. I have no reason to love the pig dealers because I have had my own difficulties with them. Nevertheless, competition in the buying of pigs is all important. A man producing any commodity, be it pigs, cattle, milk, should be free to sell wherever he wishes, wherever he thinks he can get the best price, and to curtail him would be absolutely wrong.

A solution to this undoubted difficulty should be sought along other lines and I think perhaps centralised selling might overcome it—centralised selling with a standard of satisfactory curing, because most people realise that there is a great deal of unsatisfactory and unsuitable curing of bacon in this country. At least we get it on the home market and I feel sure there is a considerable amount of this unsatisfactory product exported as well. A number of people do not seem to realise we are exporting all Grade A and Grade A Special, and even though we produced as many pigs in October of this year as we ever produced before, the prices are good and the bacon is scarce mainly because the product is improving.

Before I finished the other evening, I said a lady in the catering business had told me that in a single fortnight the price of gammons had gone up by 100/- a cwt. I know from my own experience that a very small fraction of that has been passed to the producer—I would say about 30/- of it. There is certainly somebody profiteering in between.

Mr. Coogan

The turnover tax.

Mr. Clinton

That is very bad for the industry and I suggest there should be some investigation into such profiteering just because bacon is scarce. The bacon I speak of is certainly not Grade A or Grade A Special. I have outlined various ways in which the industry could be assisted.

One thing I did not refer to—I have done so during the year—is the Minister's failure to provide grants for storage of grain on farms. It would be very desirable to provide grain storage on the farms. Barley growing is on the increase and there is a great deal of deterioration in the feeding value of barley, due to indifferent storage. Barley is thrown in every sort of house with resultant considerable loss in its feeding value. Sometimes there is even total loss or the grain has deteriorated to such an extent that it is dangerous to livestock. If these grants have been made available to merchants, I cannot for the life of me see why they should be denied to farmers. It is a further indication of unfair discrimination that should be removed.

At this stage I should like to correct something in the Official Report which, if I said it at all, I did not intend to say. It appears in Volume 205 at the top of Column 1679. I am quoted as saying, in relation to the heifer subsidy:

I believe the scheme will bring the increase the Minister is hoping for...

If I said that, I did not intend to say it. In fact I do not think I said it. What I said was that I did not believe it would bring about the increase in numbers the Minister hoped for, that I was satisfied it would bring about some increase and in fact I want to say that I should be glad to see it bringing about the increase the Minister is looking for. However, I am satisfied it will not and we have this sort of half-hearted incentive alongside the restriction of the milk levy.

I cannot, for the life of me, reconcile the two things and unless the milk levy is removed, it is a restriction on production and, as I have said repeatedly, all restrictions on production should be removed in order to give the farmers confidence to go ahead in the assurance that the more they produce, the better everybody will like it and in order that the price will remain constant and that an assured outlet will at all times be available.

I have not referred to sheep, and I do not think the Minister referred to them. He may have, in a passing way, and even in the Programme for Economic Expansion, only a very passing reference is made to sheep. It is very hard to understand that because we pay no subsidy towards the export of sheep. In fact the industry is not subsidised at all. The only subsidy I am aware of is the small finishing subsidy in the hill areas. I am aware also that a small amount of breeding and research is being done by the Agricultural Institute and I believe that in this branch of the agricultural industry, there is considerable room for more interest, more enthusiasm and more expansion.

I think it would benefit many areas where farmers have poor land. I know efforts are being made to improve this land but a general improvement in the industry would add a lot to our export business as a whole. In regard to encouragements, the Minister will have to face up to the fact that something must be done about prices. If we are to encourage production, to get the production we all hope for, we must be realistic about prices and in this respect we might well take an example from the British who have an annual review of prices, costs of production and increases in industrial prices generally. There is also an annual adjustment in Britain.

It would be much more satisfactory here, instead of having a flareup about different commodities at different times of the year and an unseemly and ugly clamour. It would be far better if the Minister fixed a date every year for a general review of farm prices. In every other industry, there are adjustments, year in, year out, and we are now looking forward to the ninth round increase in wages for industrial workers. There was no question about farm prices, and about the case for raising prices in agricultural production just as in every other sphere of business in the country. Still the prices of the various commodities are to be pegged down. This is an unreasonable approach, and a different attitude will have to be adopted towards it if we are to get any enthusiasm or any increased production.

Considerable improvements have come about in the marketing of both bacon products and milk products. The one thing I feel about it is that advertising is a very expensive business. It is absolutely necessary, but in a small country like this with limited resources it should be approached in a joint effort between Bord Bainne, the Pigs and Bacon Commission, the Sugar Company and the co-operatives. It is difficult to see how the same purpose could not be achieved while very considerably reducing the costs.

Agricultural education is something that we all should be interested in. I have no statistics as to the numbers going forward for agricultural degrees in the various branches of agricultural education, but one thing that strikes me is that whatever way the teaching of graduates is done there is one aspect which is sadly neglected. From time to time over the years, I have interviewed quite a number of agricultural graduates, sometimes after they have been out for some time. They are not educated up to selling their advice. They cannot even sell themselves to an interview board. That is a serious drawback. Another thing I have found is that if you put a simple question to some of those people a large percentage of them will not be able to deal with it though it is a problem with which an agricultural adviser will be confronted every day of the week.

You ask him to take an ordinary family farm of 45 or 50 acres. You tell him that it is reasonably good land and ask him if he was free to make his own decisions how he would make a maximum income from it—what lines he would consider most profitable on a farm of that size; if he kept cows how he would try to keep down the cost of milk production, and what would be the most economic ration; and the same for pigs. It would amaze and disappoint the Minister if he met some of these men and confronted them with that type of problem. The answers would be surprisingly poor. I do not know why this is so because there are a lot of very able graduates coming there. These people have just not been able to get down to making that sort of hard calculation that is so very necessary. We have so many farms throughout the country where for one reason or another the farmers are not making the incomes they should and could make. Our graduates going out to advise them should be able to look into their farms and give sensible and worthwhile advice, analyse the situation and decide what is wrong—is it finance, lack of information or following the wrong lines which is the problem? I do not think that many of our graduates are capable of doing that, and they should be educated up to it.

Something started during the year on which the Department ought to be congratulated is the home economics courses. As everybody knows, the poultry industry has flopped rather badly. Poultry instructresses certainly have nothing like the volume of work they had to do heretofore because the numbers in poultry are not there. It was a very wise move to send some of these instructresses on the home economics courses, because the type of advice that can be provided from these courses on the conditions in the home will prove very valuable, indeed, in the years to come.

There was an announcement during the year that certain changes were taking place in committees of agriculture.I have been a member of a committee of agriculture for some time and I see no change. A change is desirable because I do not think we are getting the maximum out of our committees of agriculture and our agricultural advisers. It is a very valuable service because it is organised on a national scale. There is not enough contact between the Department and the committees of agriculture regarding policy. There is a lot of routine calling done every day by agricultural advisers that is of very little value. It would be far better if the Department decided on a certain line, that they wanted to plug some particular aspect of the industry, if they were more in contact with the committees of agriculture and asked them to co-operate in plugging this particular line and drop most other things. By doing this we would get results which we are not getting now.

I will not deal with the method of electing or selecting members of these committees. It is a very difficult thing to change and improve. It is very difficult to decide who should be included or debarred, but we do not always get the best people. We do not even get the biggest percentage of the best people.

I have a note here about mink, because there is no aspect of the agricultural industry that we can afford to overlook and neglect. Wherever it is possible to make money we should work to get people interested in it. I am very glad to see that in the last year or so the Department of Agriculture has taken an active interest in mink production. I recently met a Finn who came over, and I discussed the mink industry with him in his own country. Finland has a population somewhat similar to ours. Their cattle numbers are about one-third of ours and they cannot afford to export any cattle. The waters around Finland are frozen for the best part of six months of the year. They are producing 800,000 mink per annum, and in the last year, we pelted 15,000 mink.

In a country such as this where we should have a very sizeable fishing industry, where we have a considerable amount of cattle and sheep offal from the slaughtering that takes place, and where we have even a fair amount of chicken and turkey offal from the broiler business, all that raw material should be organised and sold through mink. In Finland of course, it is all an export business and it would be an export industry here, too. To them, it is worth about £5 million per annum. I believe it could be about the same in this country if it were properly organised and promoted.

I have dealt with most aspects of the Department of Agriculture that occurred to me. However, there is one other point in relation to milk production.I have a cutting here from the Irish Farmers' Journal of Saturday October 12th, 1963, where Mr. A.J. O'Reilly, Manager of An Bord Bainne says:

Unless there is a considerable rise in milk production in the coming year, certain market commitments already entered may well go unhonoured in 1964. This is something which we would wish to avoid. It is something which might allow us be labelled quite unjustly as a nation not interested in the long-term investment but preferring the short term gain. World market intelligence suggests that the existing buoyancy in dairy production may continue during 1964.

Rather than fall down on supply, it might be preferable—while, as I said, removing the milk levy and in that way giving a further incentive to milk production — to slow down on the removal of reactors from the remaining countries. The Minister said in the course of his speech that he expected to remove 100,000 cows in the coming year. Even if that were reduced by half it would mean a considerable extra quantity of milk until we get an opportunity of building up. Coupled with this there would have to be an increase in the price of milk.

In the First Programme for Economic Expansion, we expected a fairly considerable increase in cattle numbers and we did not get it. That is blamed on the eradication of bovine TB but when we made this provision, we knew we had this job of eradication to do. In the course of his speech, the Minister referred to the starting of a scheme for eradicating brucellosis. That is another problem that is likely to have the effect of removing a large number of cows from the herds in the country. In view of all these things, the Minister should given careful consideration both to the removal of the levy and even to an increase in the price of milk at an early date.

Finally, I want to ask the Minister to remove all restrictions on production and to cease talking about difficulties and uncertainties. There should be no talk about surpluses. If there are marketing difficulties, we should concentrate on finding solutions for them. The Minister should do everything possible to create a spirit of confidence and optimism in agriculture. If he decides to give the farmers a fair share of the national income, he will get the production he wants because I do not believe the farmers have ever let the country down if they have been given a fair chance themselves.

Mr. Carter

It is all right for a Deputy to call for an increase in the price of milk and milk products but when the Deputy or his Party are called upon here to vote extra money for the farmer they usually go into the wrong lobby. I do not see much point in calling on a man to increase his production if we are not prepared to pay for it. It must be remembered that, due to the factor which has entered into the marketing of milk and milk products, the price is largely regulated by the House, to that extent it is pointless to say to the Minister that he should automatically encourage an increase in the price of milk and at the same time have the Parties opposite to us in this House charging us with putting up the cost of living. We can all agree with Deputy Clinton that if we had a market which would absorb all our milk and milk products at an economic price, then we would have no difficulty whatever in meeting the farmers' demands in that regard.

I want to touch on a few of the points with which Deputy Clinton dealt. This is a very important Vote, the Vote which covers mainly the activities of the farming community, mainly the activities of our farmers producing not only for the home market but also the export market. We have included in this Vote a Supplementary Estimate for an increase of £1.35 million in aid of creamery milk prices and to that extent the Minister and, indeed, this Government can claim to have a consistent record in this regard.

The Estimate for this Department shows an increase of roughly £5 million over and above the previous Estimate and that is no mean achievement. The total amount which will be redistributed, if you like to describe it that way, in this year will amount to something in the region of £39 million. Having regard then to the extent of our national income and the amount which we may expect to earn in the years ahead from our exporting activities, it is no mean sum.

It is all very well for Deputies to talk about what Britain will do. Britain is in a totally different position from this country. The British are not able to supply the home market. We are an exporting country of primary products.Britain is an importing country and therein lies the difference. Britain has a huge industrial population on which to levy the wherewithal to pay the farmer for his production.

In our circumstances then, we have to provide for the home market at a level which the consumer will be able to absorb and, at the same time, to provide as much of our produce as we can for the export market at a competitive price. That means that the Government have to go to the taxpayer to produce the wherewithal to make our primary produce competitive in the British market. All authorities now agree that the British market is a "dump" market and that we are in the unfortunate position, not being in the European Community or with any great prospect of getting in there in the near future, of having to sell the bulk of our produce in Britain.

To support my argument, I would go back to the Budget of this year. The proposals in the Budget made provision, subject to our ability as an importing country, to promote not merely exports of our primary produce but of industrial goods as well. I would like to go back to a little paragraph in the speech of the Minister for Finance when he said that it is clearly right that the State should directly and indirectly increase the volume of investment and do everything in its power to promote as rapidly as possible such a growth of our economy as can be sustained without undue strain on the balance of payments. That brings us back to the point that we always have to have regard to the difference between our imports and our exports.

Last week, Deputy Donegan ignored the positive side of our programme, the Government's intention to promote and encourage growth. If he wants evidence of that, we have it in this Estimate, evidence not merely of growth in output and income but of a general broadening of the methods of marketing our primary produce. Not long ago, I heard Deputy Norton referring here in a cynical manner to our sales of butter abroad. He seemed to infer in his speech that stocks of butter should be allowed to accumulate here at home regardless of the consequences.I noted, however, that one little point which Deputy Norton overlooked was that trade is not a oneway street. That clearly denotes that we have to recognise the fact that we must export goods in order to import them.

We know that in this regard in present conditions it is a battle in every market between the countries who sell milk and milk products. The battle goes on all the time to see who will secure a grip on the market and hold on to it. I submit to the House that it is gratifying enough, in our limited circumstances, to be able to record increased sales of butter and an increased price for butter in the foreign market. The price of butter rose from £262 per ton to roughly £335 a ton in the outside market last year. That figure of £335 per ton was an increase over and above that which we received the year before.

Deputy Norton, Deputy Donegan or any other Deputy may decry the aim of selling more butter, especially the aim of selling it in the export market at a better price, but will either of them find more money elsewhere? If there are other markets available, will they be able to find a better price for milk and milk products?

Mr. Coughlan

The Deputy does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. Carter

The Deputy knows well what he is talking about. I would like to ask the Labour Party why, when the question of a better price for the farmers for their milk came before this House, they did not go into the division lobby in support of a better price for the farmers. If there is any Deputy who can tell me where we can sell 21,000 tons of butter——

Mr. Coughlan

With the subsidy off?

Mr. Carter

Never mind the subsidy; I explained that already. It is a matter of 21,000 tons of butter, with an increased price, together with dried milk, chocolate crumb, cheese, condensed milk and other products. I should be glad to hear some Deputy tell us where we can sell butter in an economic way—

Mr. Coughlan

We are not talking about butter at all; we are talking about milk products. Everybody knows that butter is the greatest possible waste of milk.

Mr. Carter

Butter is not made with water.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Coughlan will be given the opportunity to make his own speech.

Mr. Coughlan

I could not listen to that nonsense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

If the Deputy cannot listen, he has a remedy.

Mr. Carter

I am afraid the Deputy will have to listen to a little more nonsense before I finish.

Mr. Coughlan

I am glad the Deputy admits it.

Mr. Carter

I sympathise with the Deputy. I was trying to develop the point that we sold a certain amount of milk and milk products, and we gained about £17 million for the national income.The Minister must be given every credit for his faith in the dairy industry, not merely now but in the past, because if we had not a past in this regard, we would have no future.

The sum of £6,018,000 marks the Government's co-operation in helping creamery milk prices, which assures a market for the farmer who knows that he may look forward to a market which will provide an outlet for at least 27,000 tons of butter. If we are up and doing as other countries are, we should be able to expand on that figure in the years ahead. In passing, it is no harm to refer to creameries because this whole matter of marketing, especially of dairy products, is based on the creamery industry. We are all well aware that a viable and efficient creamery industry is of prime importance.As far as lies in our power, we should see that the industry is supported by all the aids and techniques about which we hear so much from progressive dairying countries. The report on milk and milk products and the creamery industry generally was issued in or about 1961. The report recorded a number of shortcomings in our dairy industry. I submit that it is not much use having a committee of experts produce a report, having spent a good deal of time going into all the details, and then paying no advertence to it in our subsequent discussions.

One of the conclusions in the report was that the standards of the creameries should be raised. That of course is not solely a matter for a Government because the creameries are engaged in processing milk, which can be deemed to be a business. This is the age of what we might call cutthroat competition and it behoves the creamery industry to study the report and to conform so far as it is possible with its findings, or at least to the extent to which the limited resources of the creameries will permit. That is not asking too much.

We all know that due to our reliance on the British market, up to a few years ago, for an outlet for milk and milk products and due to several other factors, the Government have had to take a hand in dealing with milk and milk products. Down the years it has become the fashion not to refer to inefficiency—that would be the last thing to do—but to blame the Government.The Government have wide shoulders and can bear any criticism. Without advertence to the Government, it is not beyond the ability of creameries to raise their standards a little and in that regard they might consider laying down some rules for priority of milk supply.

First, if possible, creameries might consider the introduction of a system of payment for milk on the basis of butter fat content and purity. Grading would also enter into this. A premium should be paid in respect of grade and purity. It might not be a very big thing; but if we are to continue to be producers for export of milk and milk products, there will have to be more concentration on these matters.

The basis of milk here is summer grass. The present Minister has encouraged the use of early and late grass. By subsidising fertilisers, he has also brought about a general raising of standards in grass production. Hand in hand with that should go an attempt to separate the various grades of milk. If we accept the idea of paying a premium for purity and grade, we should also be prepared to accept the idea of a reduction for bad milk. Yet we never hear about that when we talk about the price of milk, dried milk, butter, cheese, chocolate crumb and other milk products. Because the Government are so heavily involved in these matters, we blame the Government.We must get out of that idea if we are to survive as a primary producer in the English and European markets. A drive by creameries against the producers of low grade and bad milk is long overdue. They should be made realise they have an obligation to preserve the good name of Irish milk and milk products not merely on the home market but on the British market as well. I do not believe anyone could seriously disagree with that.

As a support to dairying in general, we have recently had an increase in farm building grants. Grants are now readily available for the erection of first-class shelters for cows. In addition, there are grants for the installation of water supplies. Therefore, there should be no excuse now for lowering standards.

Creameries here have been very slow to create any sort of service for the farmer. They nearly had to be pushed into the extension of services. They were slow to adopt any sort of advisory service. It is my opinion from some experience in this matter that creameries could do much more to spread the idea of water supply grants and the advantages of having good cow byres and good housing with a water supply laid on. They should also be encouraged to study methods of cooling milk. There should be no holding back in that regard because a scheme of loans is available for the installation of first-class cooling equipment.

In parts of the country, we are sticking to the outworn methods which obtained here 80 or 100 years ago. We see people jogging along the road in ass carts with one or two cans of milk. If creameries mean to stay in business, they should study multi-can haulage and, indeed, the composition of the creamery can. Bulk collection should be studied by those creameries which aspire to be central creameries. I am not talking for the creameries; in the last analysis, I am talking for the consumers. Instead of cynically criticising us for trying to find markets for butter, it would be better for the Labour Party to say to the consumer: "We can all take a hand in this matter —the farmer, the labourer and the consumer."We can only do that by encouraging creameries to have better methods of processing milk and milk products at lower costs.

To give the creameries their due, they were always faced with a problem here because of the fact that the processing of milk is largely dependent on the summer production of milk. That often causes difficulties in handling and cooling. An effort on the part of producers would help, an effort to husband and promote earlier and later grass.

It may be an abstract point but I think it bears directly on milk production: one is amazed by the lack of shelter on most dairy farms. We hear about water supplies, farm grants, grass and so on, but never about providing a shelter belt. I submit that a judicious scheme of planting——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That would be a matter for another Minister.

Mr. Carter

We are speaking of dairying and I am speaking of housing cattle in the fields.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I thought the Deputy was referring to growing trees.

Mr. Carter

Indirectly, yes. I am talking of shelter belts, which is a different matter.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Has the Minister any responsibility for shelter belts?

Mr. Carter

I am advocating it because it might save public money. We spend a lot on farm building grants and I suggest that with our climate, except in a very bad year, many animals could be kept comfortably in the open and so it is worth the while of any farmer who may be considering buildings, getting loans and seeking grants, to consider shelter belt plants for his farm.

I should say in passing that I have never felt the management of creameries concentrated their whole energies or abilities on the producer purely. I knew a number of creameries to start production and within a month instead of trying to help the producers directly, they were engaging, perhaps, in distribution.That is not the purpose for which we promote creameries. I think they could solve our problem much more quickly if they concentrated solely on production. They have an advisory service, not only from the Department but also from the IAOS, and any creamery in doubt about their ability to process milk in a first-class manner can call in a consultant, secure in the knowledge that they will get a grant for that. Creameries should not be slow to avail of that advice.

There was a suggestion in the report that we have too many small creameries. That is true. If we look to the future and want to hold on as economic producers of milk, we should do all in our power to encourage smaller creameries to combine with larger units because if the larger ones find it hard to process milk economically, the smaller unit is bound to have greater difficulty in that respect. Also, we have never tried very hard to see what we could do further to improve the flavour and texture of our butter. The Danes, the New Zealanders and the Poles all go into this aspect of butter and it is a matter of national pride for them to think their butter is the best on the market. We should like to think as Irishmen that we can sell butter as good as these people ever produced. It is up to ourselves to take action. Time is passing and the old habit of blaming the Government for every drawback and disadvantage should be ended.

The report also suggested that we should consider a brand mark for creamery butter. The report made a further point which I thought was very good, that butter sold in rolls might be cut and made up on the creamery premises. It also said, and one can endorse its findings, that the courses for teachers in University College, Cork, might be extended to include a larger range of subjects with provision for revised and short courses for creamery managers and sub-managers every three years. Education is in the news and it is my submission, as it was the submission in England not very long ago, that we need education at the lower levels just as badly as we need it at the higher levels at the present time. From that point of view, one can agree with the argument that the diploma course in dairy sciences is not broad enough. With the best will in the world, creamery managers have not the facilities they should have for a little study and research. I have done enough, I think, to show that creamery milk production is not just the song and dance Deputy Clinton, Deputy Donegan, Deputy Norton and others would have us believe. There is a little more to it than meets the eye.

Mr. Coughlan

It has not met the Deputy's eye yet.

Mr. Carter

Deputy Clinton referred to selling produce. We might, I think, consider certain aspects of that problem.I agree with Deputy Clinton that we should use the best of the personnel in the IAOS, the creameries and the semi-State boards, which we have established, to push sales of primary products abroad. We should pool the resources of these concerns and use them to ensure that they concentrate not merely on the export market but also on the home market.

We know from past experience and from more recent experience that farmers can increase production at a very rapid rate. There is no doubt about that. Production can be doubled in a short time. Production is, of course, contingent on market prospects. We should consider, therefore, all aspects of marketing. We have gone beyond the economic science of the past when supply and demand ruled the roost. Every country now has marketing boards, not merely for the export market but for the home market as well. In the past, farmers were asked to produce in the dark. Having produced, they very often found themselves caught in a glut either on the home or the export market. The bottom fell out of the market and there was despondency, indecision and fear. At other times there was a scarcity and it was scarcities which earned for us the name of marginal suppliers on the British market. That is the worst name one can get in markets now and that is why the Government use support devices to keep our products on the British market to ensure that in two or three years' time we shall not be deemed to be marginal suppliers and be the first to be kicked out of the market when goods become plentiful. I could go into this in great detail but I do not wish to delay the House.

I should like, in conclusion, to refer to the great success the Minister has had, in co-operation with the farmers, in his campaign to eliminate tuberculosis from our cattle stocks. Today, he is reporting progress to the House and that progress denotes the degree of reliance he placed in the officers under his control, officers who served him and the country very well. The scheme was very successfully operated. Reactors were removed with the minimum of dislocation. Disputes were kept at a very low level. The Minister may feel assured now that he has the thanks of the community for the way in which his Department worked hand-in-hand with the farmers in wiping out this horrible disease from our cattle stocks.

I am glad to note he intends to proceed now with the elimination of another scourge in our cattle herds. It is good to know we are keeping up with the best. It is good to know that consumers in foreign markets are learning that quality counts in the end-product, whatever it may be, we put into those markets. I am grateful that our foundation stock, our dairy shorthorns, are fit to stand beside the best cattle in Europe. Indeed, I think time will show that our shorthorn cow is the best cow in Europe. Anyone who wants to learn may do so through the medium of the beef tasting competition held in England a short time ago. It will be generally recognised ultimately that the best beef on the market is grass-fed beef. It is beginning to be recognised now that the best egg on the table is the egg of the ranch-fed hen. The consumers in the British and other markets will come around to the way of thinking that quality counts and in the long run they will be prepared to pay a little extra for good quality. I hope we shall be able to deliver the goods.

Mr. Tierney

I was amazed when I read the notes under the heading "Main Activities of the Department." I was doubly amazed by the Minister's statement that agricultural profits have gone up by roughly £4 million. I wonder in what aspect of agriculture profits have increased to that extent? My main concern is with tillage. My personal experience and that of my neighbours in north Tipperary is that tillage has declined, both in respect of acreage and price. I should be pleased to have some indication from the Minister as to the basis for his figures showing that farmers are making a vast profit. I believe that the Minister had in mind the big rancher with the huge herds and broad acres. As far as the tillage farmer is concerned, I can prove by the Minister's figures that prices for barley, wheat and oats have decreased.

In the year 1948, farmers in north Tipperary were paid at the rate of 44/6d. a barrel for feeding barley and 49/8d. for malting barley. In 1949, the price went down to 39/- for feeding barley and increased to 56/10d. for malting barley. In 1951, the prices were: feeding barley, 53/2d; malting barley, 78/8d.; in 1953, feeding barley, 48/4d., malting barley, 55/-; in 1954, 39/4d. for feeding barley, 61/- for malting barley; in 1955, 40/4d. for feeding barley, £3 0s. 4d. for malting barley; in 1956, 42/- for feeding barley, 59/- for malting barley; in 1957, 39/10d. for feeding barley, 59/- for malting barley; in 1958, £2 0s. 2d. for feeding barley, 53/2d. for malting barley. This year, for feeding barley, the farmers were paid 37/- and out of that there is a deduction for sack hire and haulage. Some years ago these deductions were not made from the price paid to farmers supplying millers. For malting barley this year the price is 53/-.

Despite the Minister's statement that farmers are better off to the tune of £4 million, the figures I have given show that the income of tillage farmers has dropped substantially in the period 1947 to 1963. In regard to the price paid for feeding and malting barley, the tillage farmer has experienced a drop. Therefore, such farmers must be excluded from the Minister's statement.

Farmers in north Tipperary are very concerned because they have to grow malting barley on contract and they find that the persons issuing the quotas for the contract are also the buyers of the barley not grown under contract, with the result that a farmer could have a quota for 40 to 80 barrels of malting barley and could have 20 to 30 barrels of that barley left over after filling his contract. The price paid for malting barley is 53/- a barrel and the price paid for the remainder is 37/- a barrel. I cannot prove but I have reason to believe that all the barley goes down the same chute. I should like to see some control exercised by the Minister in relation to quotas and the buying of barley.

I was not greatly surprised to see that the wheat acreage has declined substantially. The Rank organisation is closing down various flour mills of which they have gained control. They closed some mills last year. The workers were guaranteed alternative employment or a gratuity. It amazes me that people should stand up in this House and say that the reason the Rank organisation were buying those mills was that the Irish people were eating less flour.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The question of closing down flour mills would be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. Tierney

I am merely pointing out that there was a reduction in the wheat acreage of about 82,000 acres and indicating to the Minister what I believe is the cause of that reduction.

Those who say that the Irish people are eating less flour are hiding their heads in the sand. Every person who leaves this country represents one mouth less to feed and we have had this mass emigration down through the years under successive Governments. That, in turn, leaves us with fewer people to consume the flour. We have been told the reduced consumption of flour has been caused by the raising of the standard of living. I do not think I need point out that bread is the staple diet of the average working man throughout the country. The big gentry, as I might call them, are not great bread eaters because they have their big dishes, their big fries, but bread still remains the staple diet of the working people, and they are off to England to find work. That is why our flour consumption has been falling.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has told me I may not discuss this, and I intend to make only a passing reference to it, important though it may be. I believe it is wrong to give control of the wheat and the flour industry to one group of people. It is very dangerous that one group, such as the Rank group, should completely control the flourmilling industry. It could lead to a very dangerous situation.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for Agriculture is not responsible.

Mr. Tierney

No, but he could endeavour to rectify the situation by making representations to the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Industry and Commerce to stop Ranks from taking control of the industry.

I should like to draw the Minister's particular attention to the oats situation.The acreage was down by about 6,000 this year. That does not seem so much, but in relation to our average production, it is something we should try to remedy. I cannot pay any compliments to the Minister or his predecessor for the small acreage of oats we have had over the past number of years. They have been rather generous and off-handed in the matter of giving import licences for foreign oats. We have been told that it is impossible to make oatmeal from Irish oats and that a horse cannot win a race unless he is fed on foreign oats.

Mr. Smith

That is what the Tipperary trainers tell us, anyway.

Mr. Tierney

Dundrum is able to win and he is fed on Irish oats.

Mr. Smith

I feel sure the Deputy would not like to see the horses of the Tipperary trainers stopped.

Mr. Tierney

It is very hard to stop Tipperary, be it at hurling, horseracing or anything else.

Mr. Smith

I used to think that, but I have changed my mind.

Mr. Tierney

The Minister can always change it back again. This idea about foreign oats is completely wrong. You have a class or a breed of people in this country who, I am sorry to say, will not buy anything Irish if they can get along without it.

Mr. Smith

Hear, hear.

Mr. Tierney

They would not feed even their horses on Irish oats if they could get the foreign stuff. I think the Minister should come down strongly on that, that he should stop the importation of foreign oats by these horse breeders, trainers and hunt people. He would be doing a far better job of work on behalf of the tillage farmers than he has so far been doing.

Some years ago, I was a very strong believer in farm mechanisation, whether in the form of tractors or combines. As a younger man, I never believed that more machinery on the farms would mean fewer workers. Time has taught me to reverse my views on that. I realise now that for every machine we put on a farm, we send away not one but two or three men to the country from which the machine has come. The majority of the 74,000 people leaving the land in this country come from the tillage areas because we all know that very few are employed by the grassland ranchers. All they employ is a man and a dog each, and more often than not, the dog is not even licensed. It is the tillage farmers who give the employment, and consequently when the price of our tillage produce falls, the rate of emigration from the tillage areas mounts. It is this that is leaving us with fewer agricultural labourers and farmers' sons.

When it was first announced, I was most interested in the Minister's heifer scheme, but since I have studied the scheme more closely, I find that though it may be of some small assistance to small farmers, it will also do them some harm. When I heard the scheme announced on the radio, I wondered if it were not aimed solely at the big cattle man. The average small farmer has not got the land to carry a big surplus of stock. All he can afford to keep are two or three cows for their milk. He may keep their calves until they are yearlings. He might be able to keep on two or three heifers for replacement of his herd, but that would be the very most. After doing that, they still must have the ways and means of carrying them, if it is only for the £15 grant.

When a cow drops a calf, the Minister will be actually giving to a certain type of farmer £15. The dropped calf will be another £15 and if he puts the cow on the market straight away, he can get away with it. The Minister tells us that these additional heifers have been added but what he means by that I do not know. I still say that this is a good scheme but I hope it is not allowed to get into the wrong hands. A certain number of the big ranching people will cash in on it, with the result that the small farmer, as in everything else, will get a very small share of it.

I will refer very briefly to pigs because other speakers have referred to them in more detail. To name local towns, you go into Borrisokane and pigs are £7.15.0. a cwt. In Nenagh they are £8.5/- on the same day. You go back to Templemore and they are £7.12/- maybe with buyers from the same factory. You cannot expect the Minister to send inspectors around finding out the prices, but it would be good if a fixed standard price could be arranged or notified in the papers. I know that prices are notified in the papers but they are deadweight prices and the average country person is selling by live weight. The Minister can do very little about this and possibly the farmers themselves are to blame. There should be some small control so that the average farmer will know exactly what the prices will be on different weeks.

I have mentioned that tillage prices have been getting worse and we are getting smaller prices today than for a number of years. The silver lining to that dark cloud is beet. I would like to pay tribute to Lt.-General Costello for the way he is managing, working and meeting the farmers' representatives. The tillage farmers would be in a very bad way but for the beet crop. Our tillage acreage of wheat, barley and oats would be very low but for the way the average farmer is now getting into the beet, because beet, even though you have to work very hard at it and you earn every penny you get from it, is the crop that is paying the farmer better than any other tillage crop. The result is that a vast number of people are growing beet and it is only natural that they have to sow in rotation other grain crops of oats, barley and wheat. But for the prices we have been getting for beet for a good few years, the acreage under wheat or barley would be down much more than it is.

I do not think the Minister has any control of this, but the growers of beet are entitled to a substantial increase per ton on the price at the present time. The time has come when they are entitled to a fair return. Lt.-General Costello is meeting the farmers' representatives very well and I hope that when the Beet Growers' Association make their case to him, he will find that it is a good one.

Regarding land reclamation, we find in north Tipperary, and apparently it is happening all over the country, that when you make an application for land reclamation, you are more or less put on a waiting list. You may plan only to clear a couple of acres and get them ready by a particular time to plough, till and so on, but by the time you are reached on the waiting list, it has gone beyond that. I should like to see a reversion to the arrangement of some years ago, whereby, if a contractor were doing reclamation work in your area, you could get him to do your work as well. That worked very satisfactorily. I do not know whether the idea of the waiting list was that too many people were looking for land reclamation and the Department wanted to slow it down.

There is one other point in this connection. I do not know whether the Minister can rectify it. There are some places in my area where a number of farmers were very anxious to carry out land reclamation in the cleaning up of a river but found that one person, perhaps living at the very far end, at the outlet, could hold up the whole scheme. It is very hard to overrule any objection straight off but it is wrong if 100 or 200 acres of land are to go bad through swamping for the sake of perhaps a small garden that would be flooded. I am not saying that the Minister should have power to compel the scheme to be done but perhaps he could look into the matter.

There is another question which I am sure other speakers will go into very fully, that is, the question of the Agricultural Wages Boards. There is great dissatisfaction with the way they are operating. It is ridiculous in 1963 to expect agricultural workers to try to exist and rear a family in any decency on the wages allowed to them.

We have had circulars regarding the eradication of warble fly. We in north Tipperary are wondering if the Minister could give us a headline on that.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.