Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Nov 1963

Vol. 205 No. 13

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

Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
—(Deputy Donegan.)

Before I moved to report progress last night, I had been saying that it is as important for us to know the genetic factors of our beef bulls as it is to know the genetic factors of our dairy bulls. In any event, the finished product, no matter what it may be, whether meat or vegetables, must be the work of a combined organisation. We must have the breed and the feed. We must have the research worker and the technician all working in a combined operation to produce the article which in the final analysis will be acceptable to the housewife and the consumer. These are the factors which will help us to sell and to hold our place for any product we have to export into a competitive market.

Deputy T. O'Donnell, when concluding here last evening, had two complaints.One was that Deputy Lemass was an urban-minded Taoiseach. I am not aware that there are set qualifications in this Parliament or in this House for the Taoiseach or his background.We need only go back and discuss Leaders of Governments from the foundation of this State. One will find very few farmers. I do not know whether Deputy Dillon would claim that he is a farmer.

The Deputy, I take it, is speaking of coming events casting their shadows before them?

I do not know whether anyone would describe Deputy Dillon in Grafton Street as a clodhopper. I do not think anyone would.

Does the Deputy describe all farmers as clodhoppers? I do not.

There was a further complaint by Deputy T. O'Donnell, that the present Minister was very unpopular with farmers' organisations. I cannot recall one instance of Deputy Dillon, when Minister for Agriculture, being chaired by the farmers' organisations. I do not know whether he can recall one instance himself. I can recall a number of occasions when I attended meetings at which Deputy Dillon was present when there were quite a few people in the audience who would have loved to go home with his scalp on their belts. He can recall those meetings himself. So, let us not talk about whether a Minister is going to be popular with agricultural organisations or not. I am sure we will wait for many a long day and will see very many Ministers for Agriculture pass through this Parliament before we find that man who will be chaired by the farmers' organisations. Deputy Dillon, from his experience, cannot deny that.

I was very happy as Minister for Agriculture.

I am glad he is in the House. Last week here, by way of interjection, Deputy Dillon described the backbenchers of Fianna Fáil as "gutties". It is on the record. Since I came into this House I have listened, two, three and four times a year, to high-powered lectures from Deputy Dillon on the dignity of Parliament.

I should like the Deputy to quote that.

I will give the quotation.It was by way of interjection.

It is there all right.

I should like the Deputy to quote.

It is at column 1577 of the Dáil Debates of 14th November, 1963, as follows:

Mr. T. Lynch: At the same time, the Minister must admit that there were then serried rows of Fianna Fáil men almost coming across the floor to assault Deputy Dillon.

Mr. Smith: I did not happen to be one of them, strange to say.

Mr. T. Lynch: I did not make the accusation. The attack was led by Fianna Fáil men.

Mr. Dillon: He had plenty of "gutties" to do it for him.

That is right. That was true.

I do not know whether, in spite of all the high-powered lectures on the dignity of Parliament given here by Deputy Dillon, any member of this House should have the right to describe another member as a "gutty". We all know that Hitler used to divide the world into two classes of people. The pro-Nazis were always virtuous and the non-Nazis were non-virtuous. As far as Deputy Dillon is concerned, all the paragons of virtue sit on the Fine Gael Benches and all the non-virtuous sit on this side of the House. That is the end result of all the high-powered lectures on the dignity of Parliament we have had from him.

I would defend any Deputy on the opposite side of the House. In the nine or ten years I have been a member of this House I have quite a few friends in the Labour Party and in Fine Gael and I would resent any member of this House, either on the Labour or Fine Gael Benches, being described as a "gutty". Yet, that is the word used by Deputy Dillon who comes in here three or four times a year to give us high-powered lectures on the dignity of Parliament.

What has this to do with the Estimate?

I am dealing with a remark made here and I am entitled to do that. I will leave it at that. I am not a Deputy who can be accused of being abusive to anybody but there are always a few plucked roosters at the other side of the House who are mad to have a go at anybody. Since I came in here the dignity of this Parliament has deteriorated for that very reason.

Deputy Dillon, in concluding his speech on the Estimate, was not very gracious to the Minister for Agriculture.He advised him to go back to the green fields of Cavan and to go out on grass. If we notice the pattern of people coming and going in this House very few of us will get a chance of going out on grass because the pattern here is immediate and sudden darkness. Since I came in here, most of the people who were called from this House were called away suddenly. Deputy Smith has reached the evening of his life and, if he has had in this House an eventful and colourful career, and if he lives long enough to go back to the green fields of Cavan, I hope a Smith in the green fields of Cavan will not be a mushroom.

I want to make a brief reference to the farm buildings scheme. A considerable amount of money has been spent on the erection, reconstruction and improvement of farm buildings but I have one complaint to make about it. The people who supervise this work are not trained to suggest to the farmer a plan for his buildings. In a well organised farmyard the buildings are planned to save labour which is a very important factor in any farmyard.The people who supervise the farm buildings scheme are not trained.

In the ultimate, most of the buildings in our farmyards are erected in a haphazard manner. An adviser who goes into a farmyard to advise on the erection of a new building, whether it be a cow byre or a fattening house, should be trained to tell the farmer to put the building in a certain spot from the point of view of labour saving and economy. He should be able to say where the fattening house should be in relation to the new cow byre or the new piggery. That is not being done. Buildings are being put up ad lib and there is no overall plan. It is now overdue that we should have at least one adviser trained and qualified to advise a farmer as to what the ultimate plan of his farmyard should be. We have not got that.

There is a social aspect in the farmyard.Slums in the animal colony are as bad as slums for human beings. We know that in some of the more advanced countries there is a tendency to provide separate living quarters for sows, even for feeding pigs, and for calf rearing. I believe that tendency will grow, because if you study the animal colonies in the average farmyard you will find the whole set-up is full of bullies and bullied. You will find that in a herd of cows there is a bully and there is consequently quite a lot of blood spilling in a badly-organised animal colony in the farmyard.

Cutting the calves' throats, maybe.

I want to refer again to a problem that has been bandied about the House during the parliamentary year, speeches repeated here ad nauseam by Deputy Dillon in relation to emigration from small farms in the west. Of course, Deputy Dillon and some of the backbenchers of the Fine Gael Party have always been saying Fianna Fáil drove them off the land——

I shall say it again in a few minutes.

——that they had to lock the doors and flee from their homes in the western countries because of the mad policy of Fianna Fáil.

Let us examine the position as I have seen it. I saw a pattern unfold itself in the years before, between and after the two wars. I saw westerners arrive in the rural parts of Northern England and Scotland as migrants going out to work. I saw that pattern grind to a halt during the first war when the people did not migrate and, I feel sure, whatever Government was in power, did not starve in the west. No one here, not even Deputy Dillon who claims a first-class knowledge of the problems of small holdings in the west, has ever attempted to produce a plan that will solve this problem, because if we are to go back and examine the problem, we shall find it is an evolution from sustenance living to living as human beings should live.

Those who were migrants in the period before the war became emigrants after the war. They did not become emigrants because they were driven out by an inter-Party Government, a Fine Gael Government, or a Fianna Fáil Government. They became emigrants because they refused to exist on a sustenance living and they got fed up of forcing a churlish soil, as Oliver Goldsmith said, for scanty bread. They changed from migrants to emigrants.

They moved into the building sites in Britain where they were able to earn £5 a day for a minimum of five days a week. There was a big difference between trying to eke out an existence on a small rundale holding in the west of Ireland and a fiver for every eight hours they worked in Britain. That was one of the main reasons. Most of them were English speaking——

That is what you think.

——so they did not suffer the disability of having to learn another language. There was also the great revolution in regard to travel: what used to be an ordeal between Ballyhaunis and Birmingham became a journey of between 10 and 12 hours. I have seen them. I have gone into public houses they frequent. A year ago last September I was invited by a young man of 22 years of age to go to an Irish pub in Arlington Road. I knew the pub and I knew Camden Town before this young fellow was born. I saw there 60 or 70 fellows, quite happy I can tell you. They did not weep as Deputy Dillon wept for the emigrants; they had plenty of money and when they got nice and merry they sang all the nostalgic songs and come-all-ye's.The funny thing was that among their number were quite a few West Indians from St. Lucia and Trinidad——

Cowboys and Indians.

——and I heard the West Indians singing: "Did your mother come from Ireland; is there something in you Irish?"

Was that from the West Indians?

Let us not try to distort the problem. These people are quite happy; they are raising families; they have plenty of money to spend; they have all modern conveniences; their wives can have washing machines and all amenities——

And no hope at home.

They could live at home if they were prepared to accept the standards which have now passed, which belong to another age——

Is this the Fianna Fáil programme for the boys and girls of this country?

No, no. It is an attempt to put before the House a picture which has been distorted month after month since I came into this House by Deputy Dillon. That is the picture I saw, and I lived among them. I doubt if there is one emigrant anywhere throughout the length or breadth of Great Britain who would deny I am telling the truth.

The Deputy is a marvellous tourist agent.

Listen to the shadow Minister for foolish affairs.

What have the hierarchy of Ireland to say about all this?

That is about all I have to say. I probably would not have risen this morning if Deputy Dillon had been in the House last night. However, having sung my song, I will sing no more.

It is strange to have a contribution on the Estimate for Agriculture ending in the Arlington Road of Camden Town.

I want to put the problems of the west of Ireland before the Minister and tell him a few home truths. In this Estimate there should be some consideration for the problems of the small farmers of the west. I emphasise small farmers because that is what we have in that area. These farmers have been the backbone of agriculture in this country. I am sorry Deputy Moher is leaving because I intended to let him have a few home truths.

I shall be back when I have had a smoke.

The Deputy will be smoking all right when I have finished with him. I am mainly concerned with the Department's lack of policy in regard to the problems of the west, with the Department's failure to remedy the appalling conditions there. The plight of western farmers can be measured by the continued mass emigration from the area, by the flocking into the towns of young men who see no future on the land. Hundreds of young men still go to Britain to spend five or six months there each year. The last speaker said there was not any such thing as migration. Does he know anything about the beet season and the hundreds who leave the west every year for England? That migration plus emigration makes inroads on the west. The fact is that the young men who are prepared to stay on the land cannot even get a wife. What future is there for young women? Will they settle down to a life of drudgery? It is not that they are afraid of drudgery if they thought there was something at the far end of the road but they realise the position is otherwise. There are fewer on the land today than ever and that is not just my opinion. That is shown in the statistics issued by a Government Department. The people are not getting an opportunity to express their views on the present situation and the sooner they wake up to that fact the better.

Apart from the human population, would the Minister explain why the pig population which in itself was a great arm of the economy in the west, has collapsed by 50 per cent in the past 30 years?

The Deputy might be able to tell me how that happened only in the west.

If the Minister bears with me I will tell him.

He knows a lot about pigs.

The gentleman from the rich grasslands of Tipperary should listen and he might learn a little bit. I issue a challenge now to the Minister to come down and hear the views of the people of the west. Will the Minister accept the challenge I issue?

I have been going down there for 40 years and their attitude towards me has always been the same.

It is all right going down to cumann meetings. The cumann meetings are a fixed group. I will invite the Minister down to hear men of diverse views and to have his eyes opened to a few facts. Will the Minister explain who has got the lion's share of the pig and who has been getting it over the past 30 years? Is it the man who rears the pig for three and a half months of the year or is it the bacon factory that brings the pig in one door and out the other, all done within three weeks? Who has the greatest profit? We have seen the racket in the west and the farmers are at the mercy of these bacon factories. One day it was a fat pig they wanted. When they had a fat pig the farmers were told it was a lean pig that was wanted. Between the ups and the downs, it was the small farmer who was down all the time. Pigs had to be sold at a loss to the producer but, of course, there was no loss to the bacon factory. There are more pig rings than the one in the pig's nose.

The Minister has been smiling at this for quite a long time. It would be very interesting to have a breakdown of the figures for the bacon at the market and when it reaches the housewife.We would see then who are making the pig profits. It would be very interesting to see the bankbooks of the bacon factory directors. I would say they would be all Grade A. These are the things that have crippled pig raising in the west and the Minister will smile at them.

The Minister is entitled to smile now and then, is he not?

Yes. The public will smile before long.

On an occasion when he had never better reason to smile, why should he not smile?

It reminds me of a boy whistling passing the graveyard to keep his heart up. Would the Minister smile coming along the Cois Fhairrge road in Connemara at seeing the number of glasshouses that have been abandoned? Would the Minister tell us what happened about the tulipgrowing scheme for the Aran Islands? Will he smile at that? Will the Minister tell us what happened the onion scheme on the Aran Islands? The Minister can sit there and smile at the unfortunate people in the west. Like the Fianna Fáil policy, in regard to the west, the Minister is a flop.

There were many harebrained schemes introduced just to fool the people. Many people fell for them and the unfortunate thing is that the people who fell for them emigrated. Then another group grew up and they, too, will be fooled and emigrate in despair. The Minister is one of the big ranchers who can sit back and smile. A few years ago it was the wheat rancher who was being pushed on. Today it is the bullock. The people have a very short memory. Not so many years ago the Minister and his Party were going around the country pawing the ground to do away with the calves.

The Deputy did not lose many of them, I would say.

I lost many customers. It was the bullock for the road and the farmer for the land.

That is all the Deputy knows about it.

Will the Deputy please cease interrupting?

If the Deputy comes down, we will show him how to work.

I am being interrupted by one of these ranchers from the rich lands.

The Deputy himself is a great man to interrupt.

I can take and give.

Deputy Coogan on the Estimate.

Getting back to the bullock country——

They are good tillage farmers.

The Deputy should let Deputy Coogan make his speech. He can contribute to the debate later.

The Minister has a target now to have more bullocks and heifers than we will have people before long in this country. There is a subsidy for heifers. I would like the Minister to tell us how many heifers the grasslands in the west can bear. Of course, that was meant for my friend the rancher above who can put five or six or even ten bullocks on the rich lands.

(Interruptions.)

The Deputy should not refer to a Deputy in that fashion.

He asked for it and I gave it to him.

The Deputy should confine himself to the Estimate.

The ranchers in the midlands will come out well in this. They will make a packet while the small men in the west can sit sucking their thumbs. I would like the Minister to tell us how many can increase their herds in the west. I would like to know what he is doing to try to make these people qualify for these subsidies, because the land is impoverished. It cannot carry extra cattle; it can barely carry what it has now. It is impoverished through a lack of drainage, lime and manures. Let us face facts. The west will remain poor because the small farmer has not got the capital to improve his land and it is only by improving the land that he can increase the number of his stock.

Fianna Fáil did away with the Dillon scheme which was the only hope for the people of the west. The land of the west could qualify to a degree if the Minister had a realistic approach to the problems of the west and if he were man enough to bring back the Dillon scheme which achieved so much in the past. One thing for which I shall congratulate the Minister — he was congratulated for this at a Fine Gael meeting in Galway city recently—is for adopting again a Dillon scheme which he had knocked on the head some time ago and that is in regard to increasing the number of agricultural advisers. I wonder who has been advising the Minister. I think from going around the countryside he has seen the need himself. As I say, the land in the west cannot bear any more heifers. Why not at least give a start by providing a calf subsidy in the west? Would that be too difficult a pill for the Government to swallow? It would help to undo the damage they did over the years when they slaughtered the calves. You will never live that down.

More than calves were slaughtered.

Unfortunately, there were not more or this country would be the better off.

Including yourself.

A lot of your people tried to do it in my town.

Were you on the wrong side?

It depends on what you call the wrong side. The Taoiseach at the Árd Fheis spoke about hypocrisy. The greatest form of hypocrisy is for Fianna Fáil to come along here and subsidies cattle after cutting their throats in the past. You will never live that down and I will remind you of it as long as I am here.

I suggest that the Deputy should address himself to the Chair.

I agree, Sir——

The Deputy agrees with everything I tell him and then proceeds to do the very opposite.

I am making the case that the Minister should give a calf subsidy to the small farmers in the west. The Minister's mentality is only for the ranchers of the midlands.

Let us turn now to the wheat ranchers and to the wheat policy. In our town during the last year we have seen two flour mills closed down. They said it was due to centralisation. Is it not a fact that because of emigration less bread is consumed in the west now and that that is why the flour mills were closed down? Is the Minister worried about the men who were thrown out of employment? Some of them received compensation but I know of one man who worked there for 15 years and never got a penny. Of course, the Minister did not lose a night's sleep over him. We hear of the ranchers and now we hear of another name, Ranks (Ireland) Limited, a subsidiary of the firm which is coming over to take control——

It was not the Minister who brought them in.

It was Cumann na nGaedheal.

I do not think the Minister is correct there. The Minister is chancing his arm.

One thing I can say is that we never got a big cheque to hand over the——

There was a time when you sought one but did not get it, but you made the approach.

It proves what they were thinking.

Deputies attacked the flourmillers because they were refused.

(Interruptions.)

I know we are hitting the Minister hard. The Fianna Fáil policy shows that there is no hope for the future of the small farmer in the west. The solution is to give the people the opportunity of voting in the coming election. I have not got much to do with the banks and neither have the small farmers of the west but I happened to be reading The Banking Review for September, 1963, and on page 19 it quotes the words of Mr. Whitaker. It says that in general it would seem that attention should be concentrated primarily on raising the efficiency and volume of production in agriculture and industries based on agriculture. It says that the net output of the agricultural sector for the last year was a little higher than in 1957. Where are the dynamic strides about which we hear so much? It also says that the output was less than 15 per cent above the abnormally low level to which it fell in 1958. That was two years after we left office.

We were trying to pay your debts and finding it very hard to get the money and everybody was depressed.

Singer got away with more and, of course, when he gave a cheque to you you did not mind—you let him out.

This is a debate by conversation. I suggest the Deputy be allowed to make this speech and make it on the Estimate.

Yes, Sir.

I have warned the Deputy many times.

In the policy outlined by the Minister I see no future for the small farmer in the west. The policy merely shows contempt for them. I challenge him to go where his colleague was not able to go because he was at the Árd Fheis and that is to Tully Cross, County Galway. Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and every other type was there and they were united on one thing and that was in regard to the reimplementation of the Dillon scheme.

I would be terribly nervous there.

You would have good reason. There were a few of your own crowd there, too.

Were the Fine Gael cumainn there?

You were not there and you were invited. You were at the Fianna Fáil Árd Fheis. They are only interested in their seats in the Dáil. To hell with the small farmer. They are more interested in the bullock rancher and the wheat rancher. These are the people who talked about the bullock for the road and the farmer for the land. It is the farmer for the mail boat now.

Listening to the debate it would appear that the really important thing is to score off your political opponent or off somebody not in the House. I intend to confine my remarks to the points which have not already been covered and to be as impersonal as possible. It seems clear from what has been happening here for some time that, although the Government are prepared to say that agriculture is the primary industry, they are, at the same time, prepared to make a Cinderella of agriculture. This was proved very clearly by the recent decision of the Taoiseach not to include agriculture in the National Industrial Economic Council. The Taoiseach said he might include them afterwards or that he would consider discussing with agricultural representatives in what way it could be brought in.

Although we are supposed to be planning to increase our gross national product, we are prepared to leave agriculture completely out of it. Anything that has been brought about in this country so far has been brought about by planning. We have the evidence of the Sugar Company, which is doing excellent work. We have the Pigs and Bacon Commission, Bord Bainne and all the other State-sponsored bodies attempting to improve the situation. But agriculture in general is apparently nobody's baby. The result is we have situations arising here which would not be allowed arise in any other country.

If we are interested in helping agriculture we have to realise that we must depend on industries based on agriculture, because the raw material produced on Irish farms and processed locally is the best bet for bringing employment and prosperity to the country. But the Government must help in marketing. When we come to that problem we find something happening which suggests they do not know what they are doing. In the Minister's own constituency some time ago a firm started the production of powdered milk from skim milk. They employ a substantial number of people and pay reasonably good wages. They have a big market for their product in the Middle and Far East. Having reorganised their factory and installed extra plant, they are now at the stage where they can take 250,000 gallons of skim milk per week and have a market for the finished product. But they are now able to get only 80,000 gallons. They approached the Minister to see if he could help them out in this matter by contacting creameries. They were told that the creameries and, through them, the suppliers would be contacted. When they asked when this would be done, they were told it would be some time next spring. Now staff are being laid off, and the Department are not prepared to do anything about it. The Minister might say: "This is a matter of a private concern. Where do we come in?"

It is a matter for the private supplier.

I do not want a question and answer debate. Next door to that factory another factory is being erected to do exactly the same type of work— to process skim milk.

There is not.

Would the Minister let me finish? Will the Minister say whether or not that factory is being financed out of Government funds? Is a Government grant being given? The manager of the existing factory has told me it is being erected and he should know.

For the processing of skim milk, no.

The Minister will have an opportunity of answering me when he replies to the debate.

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but he was saying something which was not even fair to himself.

I am saying something which may not appear to be fair to the Minister. If it is true, the Minister has certainly made a big blunder. Will the Minister say when replying whether or not those people who have a State grant for erecting this new factory will be drawing out of the same pool of milk which has proved to be entirely inadequate for the existing factory?

Whole milk and skim milk are two different propositions.

I do not want to get into a discussion with the Minister at this stage. I am sure he realises that, if skim milk is not available when this new factory is completed, it amounts to the same thing. If the whole milk, including the skim, is to be absorbed by the new factory, the problem is as I have described it here. The existing factory will be left further short of supplies and may possibly have to close down altogether. If the Department were interested in doing something for the dairy farmers, surely it would have been an excellent idea to have a factory such as the one being erected in Killeshandra erected somewhere in Meath or in the Golden Vale, where there is more milk than the creameries can handle, rather than to bring together a private enterprise and a private-cum-State enterprise and have them both drawing out of the same pool of milk? If the Minister could channel about 100,000 gallons extra of skim milk or inform the existing factory where they can get it, it would mean good employment for constituents of the Minister. If that cannot be done, they will be out of their jobs.

This is a serious matter. Possibly the Minister's information about it may not be up-to-date. If so, he should check on it and he will find the situation is as I have described. If the factory were sited anywhere else, it would be a great idea. This is the sort of factory we need, one using the products of the land. It is a great idea to start them but certainly not so that they can carry out cut-throat competition with existing industries.

A big effort is being made at present to have some sort of fruit and vegetable co-op. In 1954 I suggested to the then Minister that something should be done about this. That is on record. He did nothing about it. I appeal to the Minister now to do all he can and not just leave it to private interests, to somebody who thinks he can get a few people to put up the money. Let the State go into this and let the lead given by Major General Costello be followed up. I disagree with many things he does but in this instance I think he is right. The State should try to set up co-operatives to deal with fruit and vegetable processing because this will give employment on the land and markets should be easy to find when the goods are processed.

The numbers leaving the land are alarming, so much so that the Statistics Office in their most recent report say they cannot understand them. They say: "It does not look right but those are the figures." Surely the Minister must admit something should be done to prevent that trend continuing? Not only farm workers are leaving but members of farmers' families. I do not think Deputy Moher really meant what he said. I have great respect for him but I do not think that even in his own Party what he said would be considered as anything but completely out the window—that if people who cannot find employment here leave the country and go to another land to earn plenty of money and mix with every race in the world, have a singsong about Ireland, this will be a great country. I do not think that is what he meant. We all know that people can go abroad and earn £5 a day on certain jobs but, unfortunately, they are working themselves to death trying to keep somebody at home in Ireland. Apparently, Deputy Moher is perfectly satisfied with that situation. He suggests we should be quite satisfied provided they got employment somewhere; that it was no worry of Dáil Éireann and we should be happy if they are happy. I do not think that is the future we would like to hold out to our men and women. I should not like to see that happen in my constituency. While our people are free to roam if they wish, it is the duty of everybody here to try to provide employment for them at home.

That brings me to wages. The Minister and I have crossed swords on this on a number of occasions. It has now reached the stage where I think the Minister himself—normally I find him a reasonable man—must do something positive about it. We had a full scale debate some months back on the Agricultural Wages Board. I do not intend to go into details like that now but I should like to point out that the Central Wages Board consists of a chairman and three other people who are supposed to be neutral, four farmers' representatives, and four workers' representatives all of whom are nominated by the Government. We may be pardoned if we say it is a Government-controlled organisation. As far as I know, with the exception of the workers' representatives, everybody else is a very strong supporter of the Minister's Party. Two of the neutrals are Fianna Fáil members of local authorities. I would not hold that against them if it were the only thing wrong but one of them is a big employer of labour. I cannot see how a big employer can be neutral where wages are concerned.

There are five regional boards and recommendations are made by them which may or may not be considered by the central board. Over the past 12 months efforts were made by the workers' representatives to have some arrangement made to increase wages to meet increased costs. Remember the highest minimum rate is £6 15s. per week in No. 1 area. In No. 2 area it is £6 7s. and in No. 3, £6 less stamps. Last year when stamps went up 9d. the farm worker had 9d. less and if they go up by another 9d. on the 4th January he will be minus 1/6d.

An attempt was made early in the year by workers' representatives to have a meeting called for the purpose of increasing wages. This was vetoed by the Board. Again and again attempts were made to get an increase and eventually the Board agreed that in regard to a number of areas in the south of Ireland—Wexford in particular and East Cork and two or three others that were in a pretty good agricultural district—it was unfair to bracket them with Donegal, Mayo and Leitrim and that they should be upgraded at the next meeting where wages were increased. That would give them automatically 7/- more a week. Eventually the Board met to decide on an increase in wages. They had before them recommendations for an increase from Athlone district that workers were entitled to an extra £1; from Dublin that all workers were entitled to an increase of £1; from Limerick and Cork, an increase of 13/- and for Waterford district, an increase of 15/-.

The Central Board decided, having considered these regional recommendations, that they would upgrade the area in the south that I mentioned and give them an extra 3/- making an increase of 10/- per week. They came to Meath, Westmeath and Wicklow and said they would give them 3/- and give the rest of the country nothing, that they were entitled to no increase as there was no justification for it. One of the Minister's neutrals said on that occasion that the Board must take the Taoiseach's White Paper Closing the Gap into consideration, that it would not be right to give increases to farm workers. I do not know who he thought he was talking to or about.

Naturally, there was great dissatisfaction over this and the workers' representatives insisted on a further meeting of the Board. At that meeting a motion to rescind the original decision was carried and a motion proposed by a neutral, seconded by the farmers, provided that an increase of 5/- per week be granted with effect from 28th December to compensate farm workers for the loss they must suffer as a result of the turnover tax, increased cost of stamps and general increase in the cost of living.

Does the Minister think that is the proper way to pay farm workers, to keep people on the land and encourage them to stay there? An extraordinary thing about the discussion is that while the Board is supposed to be a private one they make a statement to the Press afterwards. I am stating deliberately here what actually happened to show the high feeling of the workers' representatives about what took place. When a suggestion was made that the increase should be greater than 5/-, and Kildare happened to be mentioned, a representative nominated by the Minister, a farmer, said that we wanted an increase there because we wanted to get more votes for Labour there. Obviously, he was not very well up in politics because the Labour candidate in Kildare has more votes than he can use. He always tops the poll. But that is the general attitude and approach.

The Minister must take a hand in this. If the Agricultural Wages Board, as at present constituted, are not prepared to give a fair deal to farm workers it is the Minister's job to see that they get, if necessary, a direct subsidy through the State to ensure that they get a living wage. It is just not good enough that people should be asked to live, or that they should attempt to live, on the miserable pittance they are getting at the present time. We have heard all the stories about the terrible pitch to which agriculture has gone. I am prepared to admit immediately that, as far as the small farmer is concerned, he is not doing well. He is getting it hard. The farmers who are alleged to live on £4 per week out of the farm are, in fact, working outside and have an income from the job or they are signing on at the labour exchange when they are out of work.

It is absurd to suggest that there are groups of farmers living on £4 a week from the land and that they are not making any attempt to better their conditions. I have no grievance where these people are concerned. If the income they get from the holding is not sufficient, then they are quite right to look for a job elsewhere to subsidise that income. It is rather ironic, however, that if land is being divided in the area the Land Commission refuse to regard these as uneconomic holders. The small farmer with 50 or 100 acres does not employ any great volume of labour.

Now, when the Wages Board set about fixing rates, to what do they refer? They refer to the rate which the poorest farmer in the country can pay to the worst man he employs. That is a very stupid approach. I suggest the Minister should have a few economists on the Board instead of these people who pose as neutral but who could not be neutral if they tried. With a few economists on the Board there would very soon be a different approach to farm workers' wages.

The big farmer who employs labour is doing quite well. We have been able to make a rough check from the statistics made available in the Government's own publications. The pattern proves that, without any doubt at all, the big farmer is well fitted to pay more wages and is, in fact, in a position to pay a decent rate to the people who are creating his wealth. Someone referred to the fact that the general output on farms is still at the 1957 level. When we talk about output on farms most people refer to it as if it were output per man and not output per acre. If you talk about output per man, the farmer who lays off two men and buys an extra machine, or two, will immediately have an increased output. but output per acre has not gone up at all. The Minister must be as well aware of this as I am. We checked then on how much the farmer got as compared with the farm worker. The result so shocked me when I read it first that I actually checked further. I found the average paid to the farm worker was less than the minimum rate of wages. This was explained by the fact that so many farmers now employ boys from 16 years onwards and pay them a lower rate. That brings down the average paid to the farm worker by quite a considerable amount.

We found the family income per head per year in Dublin was £844 and that of the farm employee £225. Can anybody say the average farmer is not doing quite well if he and his son, or two sons, working on the farm have each an average of £844 per year while the farm worker employed has only £225? The Minister is familiar with Cavan. There the farmer and his family have an average of £240, very much less than the Dublin farmer. The reason the Dublin average is so high is, I think, that there is a great deal of market gardening. The Minister may find a moral in that. If fruit and vegetables were developed much more that would result in higher incomes for the farmers themselves. The average for Cavan is £240 per year for the farmer and £194 for the farm employee. In Meath it is £605 for the farmer and each member of the family, and £227 for the farm employee.

Now, taking these figures at their face value—they come from figures supplied by the Department, Irish County Incomes 1960—you find there is a very good case to support the contention that farm workers should be getting a great deal more than they are getting now. I would ask the Minister to have this whole question of farm wages investigated to satisfy himself, once and for all, that there is no use leaving the present system of wage fixing because it is absolutely obsolete and out of date.

The Minister is a reasonable man. I will supply him with any information I have. I think he will agree there is reason why he should intervene. He has informed me through his Secretary, when I asked him to take an interest in this matter, that there was no reason why he should intervene; it was a matter for the Wages Board. I think he will agree now that, if industrial workers are looking for an increase of £2 per week on an average wage of £11 15s., it is absolutely stupid to suggest that farm workers are entitled to only 5/- on £6 to £6 15s. That goes without saying. I shall not labour the matter further.

With regard to the heifer subsidy, I wonder if the Minister has finally made up his mind yet. While it was hinted at and then rushed out in a hurry—I think because there was danger of a general election—the details do not seem to have been worked out. Will the Minister ensure, if the subsidy is proceeded with, that we do not have a repetition of what happened some years ago where wheat growing was concerned? Reference was made by a previous speaker to the rich lands and what is likely to happen in the rich lands. I assume the speaker meant the midlands. Meath happens to be part of the midlands; the land is rich all right, but the people are not. The trouble with the wheat subsidy was the appearance on the scene of wheat ranchers, who came along and paid fabulous prices per acre; some got their fingers burned but some made a quick fortune. I understand efforts are now being made by groups of people to do the same thing again— club together, buy a big number of heifers, keep them until they collect the subsidy and then sell them at a handsome profit. That is something which the Minister should examine because it would be rather a pity if that sort of thing were allowed to happen. It would completely defeat the object he is trying to achieve.

Another thing, of course, is that the small farmer who is nearly fully stocked will find it not so easy to get the money or the space for the extra heifer and, therefore, will find it difficult to avail of the subsidy scheme. The Minister and his advisers, I am sure, have considered this aspect. If not, perhaps they will.

There has been a suggestion made to me that it would be better if the Minister would introduce a subsidy on home-grown animal feed and encourage the small farmer to winterfeed fat cattle. The Minister might possibly consider that suggestion.

I should now like to deal with the question of farm income. The Minister talked about the increasing prosperity of farming. He said there was an extra £4 million last year, that farmers got an increase of £12½ million since 1957. In fact, since Fianna Fáil returned to Office farm labourers got one-twenty-fifth of the increase which was given to the farmers, by the Wages Board, so that the farm workers are now in a much worse position vis-á-vis their employers than they were in that year.

Reference has been made to the question of the farm building inspectors.I would not agree with what has been said. I think they are doing an excellent job. It is all very well to say that farmyards should be modernised, that the farmer should be able to create a properly planned farmyard. The existing farmyard may have been in use for a very long time. If the farmer wants to build an extra cowbyre or other building on it, he and the man who is advising him are the best judges rather than a person viewing it from afar who says that if he had £10,000 or £12,000 he could make a grand job. A very good job is being done. The inspectors are doing excellent work.

I shall not go into detail but I should like to make one point in reference to the question of bacon. I have had complaints from all over the place which I have heard repeated here several times, that while all sorts of graded bacon go into the bacon factories all the bacon coming out appears to be Grade A and shopkeepers charge for Grade A bacon, no matter what type you get. I have also heard the complaint that in country shops at present it is absolutely impossible to get top-class bacon. It appears as if the real Grade A bacon is for export only. It would be too bad if that were so. I would ask the Minister to comment on the matter when replying to the debate.

In the fruit growing areas a problem has arisen. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the system or not. When a number of people in an area grow fruit, one of them usually has an old lorry. The fruit is put into the lorry and taken to the market. Last year CIE and the Garda became very active and clamped down on this practice.A number of people were prosecuted and fined for marketing their neighbours' fruit. It is all very well to say that that is the law and the law must be obeyed but it resulted in a number of undesirable things happening.One was that the fruit going into the market often went in very much later than it should and the growers, therefore, did not get the price that they should get. Another result was that it became quite common practice for these people after their work —they are not all fulltime market gardeners—to pack the fruit in baskets and leave it to be collected at perhaps two or three in the morning by the neighbouring lorry owner who would take the fruit to the market in time. CIE, naturally, are not prepared to do that kind of thing, with the result that some people have complained to me that they have suffered considerable loss. I approached CIE about the matter. While they did co-operate to the fullest extent possible for them, no solution emerged. I suggest to the Minister that where there is co-operative effort such as I have described, without all of them having to buy a lorry, there could be some arrangement made whereby a man could carry fruit to the market and thereby get the best price for the fruit grown in the area. The arrangement would apply to a very limited period and there should not be any reason why it cannot be made.

There is a matter about which I spoke to the Minister and to which there was a sequel. The Minister gave the matter his immediate attention and dealt with it. I refer to the question of employment on State farms. There was a strike on a State farm over wages and hours. The strike lasted six weeks. I pose this question to the Minister: Is it not an extraordinary thing that when the teachers, who are entitled to good wages but who are getting very much more wages than farm workers, were made an offer and they threatened strike action the State immediately jumped to it and said conditions must be adjusted and another offer was made which is at present being considered but when the farm workers employed by the State looked for an increase in wages they were told they would not get it and they went on strike for six weeks. The reply from the Department was: "No surrender. You must go back on the same terms. If you do not, we will close down the whole job." That appears to me like discrimination against what the Minister might consider to be a less protected section of the community. Possibly, he may consider that it would not be so important if farm workers had to emigrate because there were no jobs available for them. It would be very unfair if farm workers were to continue to be treated, as they consider they are being treated, not as second-class but as fifth-or sixth-class citizens. They get the worst of everything that is going.

The Minister would be well advised to look at this whole question. The Minister should set the example on State farms. It is no answer for the Minister to say that the neighbouring farmers are a mean lot and are paying a low wage and that he cannot do very much more than he is doing. If they are a mean lot, then the Minister should be able to set a decent standard of wages. This is a matter of extreme urgency and if we are not to have another reduction of 8,000 to 10,000 in the number of farm workers and farmers' families on the land in 1964, the Minister must give this matter his immediate attention.

It is not my intention to keep the House very long. I had no intention of speaking at all until I had to listen to some Deputies here this morning who never did an hour's work on a farm advocating how farms should be run and accusing some of us of being wealthy ranchers. I represent the farmers of North Tipperary. Very few of us are wealthy ranchers. In fact, there are very few wealthy ranchers in North Tipperary.

Deputy Coogan of Galway says that there is no hope at all for the small farmers of the west. I think there is a hope and I shall make a suggestion for what it is worth. In my part of the country the Sugar Company started a central pig-fattening station. Farmers buy the sows from the station and the station buy back the progeny and fatten it. The whole litter is taken to the station and weighed. We get a price based on weight. It is a very good idea. If such a scheme were in operation in the west the position of the farmers there would be improved.

It has been said that the farmer may not have the buildings necessary to carry out such a scheme. I suggest that houses could be built by the Department through a subsidy and the farmer could keep sows. Alternatively, the central fattening station could build the piggery for the farmer. The farmer would take his litter to the station which would charge. say. £3 a litter until such time as the farmer would have the farm buildings paid for. A litter of ten bonhams at 6/- per head for some period until the loan was paid back would provide a good living for the small farmer.

I heard Deputies say that the big rancher will get all the benefit from the heifer scheme but people must realise that to qualify for the grant under that scheme a farmer must have a herd and must have passed the test. The big ranchers never went in for milking cows or for carrying a herd of cows because there is a lot of trouble with them. We can also be sure that when the Minister's scheme comes into operation he will bear these things in mind. The aim of the scheme is to increase the cattle population of the country and to do that we must increase the number of heifers on every farm.

It is bad policy for people to be coming in here and trying to score off one another. There is no sense in going back to things that happened in the past. Reference was made here to the economic war but during the economic war I was at the fair of Thurles with cattle on that very day the Government resigned. I heard the farmers all around me saying that they would go out and vote the Government back stronger than ever. There were lives lost in this country from both Parties in order to put the country where it is and at that time no count was taken of the cost. Why should we go back now to things of the past?

The previous speaker spoke about farm workers and their demand for more money. I have every sympathy with them. I work with them myself because when I go home from this House I do not sit in my armchair. I go out and work with my men and I know that they are doing a good job. We cannot meet increased wages for our farm workers by increasing the prices of our produce and I would suggest that they should be subsidised to some extent to bring up their wages. Such subsidisation would not interfere with the cost of living but would help to keep the people on the land.

Some farmers say that they cannot get labour and my experience in my own constituency, where we have Bord na Móna and the Thurles beet factory, is that there is nobody unemployed in the area for the past couple of years. How can you blame the farm worker if he goes to work in the beet factory or with Bord na Móna where he can get £9, £10 or even more every week? The farmer cannot come up to that. Some farmers only expect their workers to come in casually and some cannot afford to give them a decent week's wages at that but what is the use of a farmer employing his workers for a week or a fortnight and then throwing them on the heap? The farm workers are entitled to whatever can be got and should get it.

People accuse the Fianna Fáil Government of letting down the wheat growers. I have grown wheat since the beginning but for the first time I did not grow any wheat this year because of the awful position we found ourselves in last year. I had my wheat in the shed for a month but when I came to sell it to the merchants I found that I had to slice down 50 or 60 barrels. What happened was that anybody who got out early last year got their grain into the millers regardless of what condition it was in. Then they found out that they had a surplus of wheat and they had to take it out on somebody and the people they took it out on were the good farmers who kept their wheat and had it in good condition.That is true of many good farmers in my own area.

I stand with the small working farmer.Despite what has been said by Deputy Coogan I am not a rancher myself but it is bad when one hears that kind of talk in this House. We hear that bacon is scarce and that it cannot be got, but farmers are now getting a better price for their pigs than they have got for years. Down through the years farmers have been urged to produce certain commodities and when they went into that production they found that they were not able to sell their yield. Now we have a promise that no matter what the farmer produces he will have a market for it. The farmer can now plan for years ahead and the solution of fixed prices is the only one for the problem of production.

I am a member of the Beet Growers' Association and we have always advocated that farmers should get the best possible price for their beet. The price of beet is fixed between the council of the Association and the Sugar Company and they get on very well together. I have heard people saying they will not grow any more beet because of the trouble involved, but farmers should remember that if they do not weed their beet three or four times during the season their crop is going to be a bad one. Our economy depends to a large extent on the growing of beet. If we did not grow beet where would we get sugar and what would we pay for it?

I heard Deputy Coogan inviting the Minister to go to the west to see the condition of the small farmers there but I would invite Deputy Coogan to come down to my area and see the farmers there. We have to admit that in many cases the big farmer comes in for a large part of the grants we get but I do not know how that can be avoided. The man with 100 acres is bound to get more fertiliser than the man with the 15 or 20 acres and they also got the big end of the improvement in rates. That has to be so and I know that the people opposite only use the small farmers to catch votes at election time. Every Deputy here should be interested in the progress of our country and should help whatever Government are in office to go in the right direction.

I had no intention of intervening in this debate until I heard some of the remarks made. I am not criticising any man but some of the people who have spoken here never did an hour's work on the land. They never grew a head of cabbage in their lives and yet they come in here and abuse other people. Any Minister, whether it is Deputy Dillon or Deputy Smith, should have the interests of the people at heart. It is no use going about criticising and attacking one's opponents; it is the people who will decide, and I find that the more one attacks one's opponents the less support one will get from the people.

The Minister for Agriculture has one of the toughest jobs in the Cabinet. As I have been telling people at agricultural gatherings, we have subsidies amounting to £39 million and, mind you, that is a fair penny. I could advocate cutting a considerable amount of that money to give us a lighter Estimate, but what would happen to the agricultural services? It is like the turnover tax. There has been a lot of comment on the turnover tax and I agree that certain items have increased out of proportion because the manufacturers raised the prices before the tax was introduced. However, I have yet to meet a man who objects to paying 6d. in the £ on purchases.In my town, Thurles, there is a shop where if I buy £1 worth I pay the 6d., and so on, pro rata. In conclusion, I express the hope that the Minister will operate this heifer scheme fairly and not let the big man come in to score to the detriment of the smaller man, as has happened in the past.

Like Deputy Fanning, I come from a rural area and being a practical farmer, having associations with farmers as all belonging to me have had, I feel entitled to make a few observations on this important Estimate. It may seem funny coming from me, but the first point I wish to emphasise is the question of education for farmers. It is what a lot of our farmers lack at the moment, and I hope the farming youth of today will avail of it, unlike their predecessors.

Up to quite recently, in the farmers' homes the genius was sent away to the Civil Service or to some profession or was at least started off in college. The dud was kept on the farm. That was a very poor performance. Ever since I entered public life I have seen farmers who would have preferred to have been introduced to a mad dog than to an agricultural instructor. Thank God that day has gone. Almost all the farmers in my constituency now avail of the services of the agricultural instructors who are doing a good day's work by bringing advisory services into the farmers' yards.

I can quote a few cases which occurred since I came to the Dáil where farmers were short of credit and had not a hope in the world of getting any. They asked me for my advice as to where they should start. I told them I was not a financial expert, that I was incapable of giving them the advice they required, but I did them a good turn by advising them to consult the county agricultural officer. He helped them to draw up schemes, make approaches to the bank or to the Industrial Credit Company and I am glad to say that in most cases, where the farmers concerned proved they had the ability to repay, they met with complete success.

That is an example of the manner in which we are moving with the times in the agricultural community. Not so very long ago a small farmer had not an earthly hope of getting credit from the banks or from the Industrial Credit Corporation or any other corporation. The only way he could get anything from a bank was to go in with a mask on his face and a gun in his hand. There has been a big change for small farmers in that respect. It must bring a feeling of great relief to farmers these days to know they have security in their own country.

For one reason or another, land prices have risen by leaps and bounds recently. Some may say the cause is to be found in foreign investment, but as I see it the farmer and the farmer's son are not finished buying land. In North Longford, which I represent, small pieces of land, which could not be described as top quality, are making on the verge of £100 per acre. That in itself must give the farming community a sense of security that farmers did not have heretofore.

I should like now to make reference to what has been our greatest export for years and still is—our cattle trade. I should like the Minister to refer, when he is replying, to the point I am about to make in relation to our cattle trade. It has often seemed funny to me that while we have market research and various boards—the Pigs and Bacon Commission, Bord na gCon and others—we have no beef marketing board. I submit the Minister should introduce a beef marketing policy which would lay down clearly the quality of meat required for the export market.

I would ask the Minister now to clarify the Department's policy as to the beef breeds and crosses considered to be most suitable for export purposes.Every Deputy who knows anything about cattle will agree that the day of the three year old bullock is finished—that this type of animal is not an economic proposition for the farmer or dry stock owner. An increase in our cattle population cannot be achieved as quickly as we would wish it unless there is a firmer policy on the eradication of diseases, particularly contagious abortion. I know that a scheme in this respect has been introduced but I would ask the Minister to hurry it up because this disease could wipe out entire dairy herds.

In reference to the heifer scheme, if it never does anything else it will create a trade for young heifers which has not existed in the past 12 months. That is one great point in its favour. However, I am afraid the larger farmer will benefit most from this scheme. Small farmers, particularly, will be unable to benefit overnight from it because they certainly will not rush out bullocks in November, December, and January when there is no trade for them, and start buying heifers. Neither will the dairy farmers.

At the same time, the danger I see is that the small farmer who is stocked to capacity, especially if he is a good small farmer at all times, while he may be able to reach the capital, his land is probably not able to carry any more cattle. The larger type of farmer can switch around any time and can stock up with heifers and be provided with his £15. The only way I can see that the small farmer could benefit would be to take into consideration the farmer under £20 valuation and give him a subsidy, something like they have in Northern Ireland, say, £5 on each calf. That would be great encouragement to the small farmer and it would do away with the charge that this scheme is entirely for the rancher or for the big farmer. This scheme, to my mind, is to increase cattle production for export. I want to assure the Minister I am all for that as, I think, is every Deputy who is interested in the country. There is just that snag and I would like the Minister to take the small man into consideration.

As regards sheep production, there has been a large increase in the numbers but very little attention has been given to breeding policy or the production of suitable ewes to breed lambs for the export market. That is something that should and could be considered. We have a good export market especially in France for the past year or two and it is worth looking into because sheep can be a great asset to the farmer.

In regard to pigs, greater efforts should be made to expand the pork trade. This provides an outlet for the heavier type of pig and also for pigs that will not grade well in the factory. The trade has expanded in recent years and if it could be developed further it would be of considerable benefit to the farming community and especially to the smaller farmer. While I am on the subject of pigs I would ask the Minister to keep an eye at all times on the matter of pig feeds to see that the price does not go too high because if it does it decreases the profit for the feeder.

Milk is a very vexed question in this House and outside it but I would like the Minister to state the position for the coming year. There is a rumour —and I would like to know if it is a fact—that there is a danger of a scarcity of milk to meet the commitments of An Bord Bainne for the export market. The parts of the country I represent, Longford-Westmeath, but Westmeath predominantly, are dry stock areas and dry stock, it is well known has not yielded anything like the profit there is from milk. Therefore, any encouragement in regard to milk by way of price or other incentives would be welcome. The farmer is always inclined to follow the money and I would ask the Minister to look into that. I would also ask him to look into the comments I have made about the heifer scheme which I believe is a step in the right direction.

I do not propose to take up very much of the time of the House this morning because most aspects of Fianna Fáil agricultural policy—or I think I can describe it more accurately as a lack of agricultural policy—have been dealt with by speakers from this side of the House, including the Leader of our Party, Deputy Dillon, and there is not much point in trying to rehash the whole thing over again.

I cannot let this occasion pass, however, without protesting in the strongest possible manner at the Government's complete lack of any policy in regard to trying to keep the small farmer on the land. I expected the Minister in his opening speech to deal at some length with the report on the small western farmers and, as the Minister himself comes from a fairly congested area, County Cavan, I expected he would give us some indication at least of his desire to make it possible for those small farmers to remain on their little holdings. I could not see one hope of that from his remarks.

The Minister in his desire—and I believe it is a genuine desire—to increase agricultural production, has forgotten those small farmers completely. Being a farmer myself, I would support any scheme that would tend to increase agricultural production. However, the new heifer scheme which the Minister has introduced and the scheme for paying bigger grants towards the salaries of agricultural instructors are both designed to make the rich man richer and the poor man poorer. I was very glad to hear Deputy Sheridan from Westmeath advocating a subsidy on calves born on farms under a certain valuation. When I came in here first almost 10 years ago it was one of the first things I advocated. I did not get very far with that but I still see no reason to change my mind on it. It is the only way you will get any real increased production.

The constituency I represent, County Roscommon, is not, strictly speaking, in the congested area, but I wonder does the Minister realise that 81 per cent of the farms in County Roscommon are under £20 valuation? Recently the great majority of these small farmers have gone in for milk with the result that they are feeding as many cows and heifers as their land will feed or they have no money to buy them, either one or the other. The result of this scheme is that this 81 per cent cannot draw one shilling out of this new scheme while the 19 per cent medium and bigger farmers, even in County Roscommon, not to talk about Westmeath, get a free present from the Government of sums up to £1,000.

The second scheme the Minister introduced, and which was supposed to increase production in undeveloped areas, increased the grant towards agricultural instructors' salaries. We all realise the urgent necessity for making expert technical advice available to the farmer but I doubt very much if this recent scheme will achieve much in Roscommon. Heretofore 50 per cent of the salaries of agricultural instructors was paid out of the rates and 50 per cent was paid by Government grant. The Minister increased the State grant to 75 per cent, leaving 25 per cent to come out of the rates, provided a certain number of instructors are employed.

This is all very fine but 81 per cent of the farmers in Roscommon are under £20 valuation and what is the use of paying instructors to visit these people and to tell them how they can increase production by 30, 40 or 50 per cent when they have not got the money to avail of that advice? Over the years Fianna Fáil have adopted quite an amount of Fine Gael policy and I would ask the Minister now to go a step further and implement Deputy Dillon's policy of making interest-free loans available to those farmers. The Minister says that that cannot be done but surely it is a good proposition. What better security could you have than their little holdings?Those men will pay the money back: they will produce something that can be exported at a profit, the calf, the sheep or the pig. Is it not far better to make interest-free loans available to them than to dish out enormous sums of money, free, gratis and for nothing, to any foreign chancer who wants to start a factory here and who, when no further State aid is forthcoming, closes down and walks off?

The net result of the Minister's policy is that the small farmer is being forced out. In my constituency these people are closing their doors and walking off and it is difficult to blame them. It has become popular recently for Ministers to vie with one another in announcing increases in salaries and shorter working hours for salaries and industrial workers but those 81 per cent whose valuation is under £20 work a 12-hour day and for their own work, and in many cases for their wives' work as well, they are able to earn less than half of what a labourer gets. These people's incomes have not gone up one shilling in the past ten years whereas everybody else has had his income doubled.

The Minister seems to think that they do not have to feed and clothe themselves and their families. The Government will realise too late the minute the people close their door the only real factory there ever was has been closed down—the farm on which were produced calves, sheep, pigs and other agricultural produce. I am surprised at Deputy Moher, whom I regard as an intelligent man, saying that these people are quite satisfied to go. So far as my constituency is concerned that is completely untrue. They are only too anxious to stay. All that they want is for a Government to make it possible for them to earn a labourer's wages at home and they will be quite prepared to work a 12-hour day. It is well within the capacity of any Government with a genuine desire to do so to provide this minimum standard of life for these people. They are not asking very much.

When I say this I will be asked how it is to be done. The tragic thing is that the answer is so simple and so obvious but yet the Government will do nothing about it. The first thing to do is to implement Deputy Dillon's policy of making interest-free loans available. The Local Authorities (Works) Act should be reintroduced and also Section B of the Land Reclamation Scheme.

It does not matter what the Minister or Fianna Fáil say about these schemes; they have been tried and found successful in the west. The western farmer knows that and is asking for their reimplementation.In addition, I can see no reason why the Government would not remove the levy of 1?d. on the milk. It is only a small thing but it would satisfy the farmers. As I said before, it is essential to pay a subsidy on calves born on land under a certain valuation. That would result in some real production. At present, the genuine, honest small farmer supplying a creamery has all the cows and heifers he could feed but if he had interest free loans he could manure his land and be able to keep and feed a few extra heifers.

What is going to happen with this scheme, in the way it is drafted, as far as the big farmer with 50 or 100 bullocks is concerned? I do not agree with Deputy Sheridan that a farmer could not unload bullocks in November.What is to stop him? The price of heifers has not gone up. You can buy a Whitehead or an Aberdeen Angus heifer cheaper at the moment than two months ago. I had nine or ten heifers which I sold before this scheme was announced and I thought I had lost money but I found that you can buy them just as cheaply now. What is the big farmer going to do? He is going to sell his 50 bullocks and replace them with 50 heifers, draw £750 free grant, let the calves suck them for a while, fatten them, sell them, go back into bullocks next year and collect a nice tidy sum from the Government while the small man draws nothing. Instead of making the rich man richer and the poor man poorer, it is high time the Government introduced a scheme to pay a subsidy on calves born on farms under a certain valuation. If that is done, these men, who are creamery suppliers, will manure their land and fatten a few extra shorthorns or milking breed cattle every year. Year after year they will be breeding calves irrespective of the subsidy, while the other fellow will not increase production at all.

We should prevent our bacon factories from robbing the small farmer. That is what is happening. It is proved by the fact that a small farmer can get more for his pigs on the fair than he can at the factory, while the dealer who buys his pigs on the fair, and has a nice profit, can sell those pigs to the factory. The only explanation is that the dealer is not subjected to the same rigid type of grading as the small farmer. There is the difference only of the width of a fingernail between the different grades. Apparently, if a farmer is not well on the right side, he gets the hammer; but the factory apparently tell the dealer that they want 200 pigs on a certain date and if they are anywhere near to the grade they will do.

Deputy Moher made a good suggestion when he said the Government should establish central pig-fattening stations run by experts. As Deputy Moher pointed out, the profit on a pig is so low that, unless the job is done expertly, you will not get a proper price. They think they can do what they like with the small farmer, who has only three or four pigs, but the man with 1,000 pigs to sell gets special conditions.

Another way to help the small farmer would be this. Every farm coming on the market in congested areas should be acquired by the Government and divided amongst the small farmers. Recently at least five or six big farms came on the market in my constituency, and they have been bought by people who are not farmers at all. They are simply buying them as an investment and holding on to them. The Government have done nothing about it. The sooner they stop all this claptrap about the new Land Bill the better. They have plenty of powers under the present legislation to acquire those holdings if they are willing to do so.

They should also stop their claptrap about providing piped water supplies to every house in the congested areas at a cost of £400 or £500 per house. I have no objection to piped water in every farm house— I want to see it—but we should do first thing first. You must first give those people a means of livelihood before you start providing water supplies.If you carry on as at present and spend £100 putting water into a house, you will find the house locked the following week and the people gone to England. Unless you provide them with a basic livelihood first, there is not much use talking about water at this stage.

If the Minister wants to know what he should do, he should have a good read of the Fine Gael agricultural policy. I am sure we would make copies of it available to him at any time. He will find the answer to most of the problems I have mentioned there. In my constituency Fianna Fáil appear to be panicking badly. They have every reason to panic. They have only one seat out of four, and it looks as if they are going to lose that seat. The Parliamentary Secretary who represents that constituency is so worried that all he can do is go around the country shouting that Fine Gael are dissatisfied with the leadership of Deputy Dillon. The Parliamentary Secretary knows as well as I do that Deputy Dillon is the unanimous choice of Fine Gael.

That does not seem to be relevant to this Vote.

I only wished to say that much. We are proud to have the grandson of the man who drove Lord Lucan and his like out of this country. The Parliamentary Secretary will not get anywhere with this gimmick of his.

As far as my constituency is concerned, I should like to impress on the Minister for Agriculture the urgent necessity of making capital available to the small farmers. Otherwise, they will not be able to avail of the schemes the Minister is introducing. In my constituency at present only the big man can afford to manure his land and buy extra stock. While I do not think the Minister will say much about my comments, I am sure he will give a hearing to Deputy Sheridan. Therefore, I am glad Deputy Sheridan has suggested a subsidy scheme for calves born on farms under a certain valuation.

I come from an area generally regarded as a dairying centre. Therefore, I will not discuss the problems of the tillage and dry-stock farming areas. I have dealt in the past with the problem of overproduction of milk and I have made suggestions for the processing of milk into products other than butter. But I am afraid my suggestions have fallen on barren ground. It was a revelation to me this morning to hear that the Minister had granted two licences for the processing of milk in Cavan. Nothing could be further from sanity than the location of milk processing factories where milk is not produced. The sensible place to look for milk is where you have it readily available. That is the position in my county.

I want to refer to a situation in regard to agriculture which has arisen in the past couple of months but which has been forecast for many a long day. Last week I put down a question to the Minister. I asked him if he was aware of the present scarcity of bacon and the consequent steep increase in prices of these commodities to the consumer and if he would state the reason for the scarcity and the consequent price increases.

In reply, the Minister said he had received some representations but he was not aware of any general scarcity of bacon and hams. The Pigs and Bacon Commission had informed him that the position was constantly being kept under close review by them and that they were taking steps to prevent the possibility of a scarcity of gammons for the pre-Christmas trade. When he was asked about the steep increase in prices, he said he had no information on that. I wish to present my case as a result of the Minister's reply. I have proof of what I said, I have a notification from the Evergreen Bacon Factory, Cork, to customers which says:

We are grateful for your instruction to reserve 200 gammons for you but we regret we are completely sold out for Christmas.

Here is a reply from Edmund Burke and Sons, Ltd. bacon curers, Clonmel:

We thank you for your kind inquiry regarding 500 gammons for your pre-Christmas trade but regret that owing to short supplies we are already oversold. We have pleasure in enclosing a copy of our price list and have placed your name on our mailing list.

Claremorris Bacon Factory wrote:

We acknowledge yours of the 16th inst. and regret we are unable to let you have any gammons as our stocks are not sufficient to supply anything like the full requirements of our regular customers. Again thanking you for your inquiry and regretting any inconvenience caused which, we assure you, is a matter entirely beyond our control.

The Cooperative Wholesale Society, Rock St., Tralee, wrote on Nov. 18:

We thank you for yours of 16th inst. but regret we cannot offer you any gammons.

Clonmel Bacon Factory wrote:

Gammons are going to be scarce, very scarce at Christmas. Last year we were in a position to put some aside beforehand to help us fulfil our orders. This year, due to different trading conditions existing, we have been unable to carry out a similar programme. Therefore, we think it only fair to advise you of the position at this early date—

that was on Nov. 13—

We shall be reluctantly obliged to ration quantities available and consequently we shall be glad to know your requirements of gammon before Nov. 27. We shall reply by Nov. 30 letting you know the exact quantities we can supply you. This position has arisen through circumstances outside our control.

Messrs. O'Mara, Limerick, wrote on Nov. 12 saying:

We wish to acknowledge with thanks your booking for Christmas gammons and your order for same. However, owing to limited supplies at present, we regret we are unable to guarantee the full amount ordered but we will confirm same, together with prices, early in December.

There is the scarcity of gammons of which the Minister was not aware. There is the written word of the factories I have mentioned. I am not here to take part in this debate with acrimony but to put my view of this side of the industry in order to help the Minister and the people trying to live out of it and for no other reason.

I now want to put before the Minister the second part of my question in regard to the steep increase in prices. I have positive proof in price lists from bacon factories. I come from the greatest bacon-curing area in the country, an area where the Danes had to come to learn something about the trade. They went back with the knowledge they got from the people of Limerick and we can see the result in their position today.

Regarding the steep increase in prices of which the Minister says he is not aware, I shall first deal with the ordinary food which the poorer classes mostly indulge in, pig meat, the ordinary pig's head or, as the more refined people in Dublin say, pig's cheek. In Limerick up to a short time ago, pig's heads were being sold at 16/- a cwt. from the bacon factory. An average of 10 heads go to a cwt. These were retailed at anything from 2/- to 2/6 a head. There is a fair meal to be got from a pig's head, especially about 11 o'clock at night when it tastes sweetest. Today, the price of the pig's head to the people is 8/- and it has jumped from 16/- to 60/- per cwt. Yet, the Minister tells us there is no steep increase in the price of bacon.

Back rashers today cost 7d. each. Cooked ham wholesaled in April last at 4/10 a lb. During the August weekend, the peak season for cooked ham, as may easily be understood, cooked ham was sold from bacon factories in Limerick at 5/8 a lb. Today, in what might be described as a slump period, the price of a lb. of cooked ham from the factory is 7/-. Yet the Minister told me last evening that there was no steep increase in the price of bacon, but that is the position with regard to cooked hams.

I come now to Wiltshire sides. Wiltshires were sold in the month of August, 1963, at 330/- a cwt. In April, 1963, the price of the leanest Wiltshire was 350/- a cwt. The long clear for the same month, that is, the fat 12st. pig, the fellow nobody wants, was 260/- a cwt. from the factory. In November, 1963, the leanest Wiltshire bacon sold at 350/- a cwt. and the fat fellow that was 260/- a cwt. in April is now 356/- a cwt—the fat fellow, the grade C, or whatever he is, the fellow nobody wanted. He is now dearer than the Grade A, or the leanest Wiltshire. Yet, the Minister tells me there is no steep increase in the price of bacon.

On 1st April, 1963, those are the prices that prevailed and, if the Minister is unaware of the situation, I have here evidence and figures from bacon factories to prove my statements. Had these increases been evenly distributed, no one would have groused. If the supplier got his share, the curer his, and the unfortunate woman who stands outside the counter to buy a half head, or a half lb. of rashers, or a quarter lb. of cooked ham, got her share, no one would quibble. Yet, the Minister comes in here and tells us that he is unaware of the steep increase in the price of bacon. It is time someone intervened to put the facts of the situation before him. That is what I am doing now.

I come now to another situation. We return to the TV, but without Professor Williams this time, and we find that practically every week there is an advertisement on behalf of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. The Bacon Marketing Board has gone out of existence, thanks be to God. The Pigs and Bacon Commission come along and they tell the viewer: "I go for bacon" and they give recipes and expatiate on all the ways and means in which bacon can be served up on the plate—if you can get it and if you can pay for it.

Now, I have no objection to advertising.That is good business. I would prefer to see that programme handed over to English TV, or even places farther than the British market; let our bacon be advertised in these places and let the people there say they go for bacon. The present farcical situation is like looking at meat in another man's window, telling the people "I go for bacon", when the people who want that bacon badly can hardly go for a crubeen which is 2d. at the factory. You would get half a hundredweight two months ago for £2.

I have described the situation today. There must be some good reason for this position obtaining. I venture to suggest that in the dash and the rush for export markets and the hurry to get into the newspapers to tell the people we are exporting here, there, and everywhere, we should exert a little caution. Lately there were three shipments of pork to Norway, running into 15,000 carcases. Each carcase consisted of the whole pig, with the exception of the offal. We retained the offal. Everything else went—the kidneys, the liver, the head and the feet. While it was en route to Norway, in another post to the same country, there was a subsidy of 70/- per cwt. being sent after it to help the people of Norway to eat it, and our 70/- with it, while here at home unfortunate people cannot buy a rasher. Yet, the Minister tells us there is no steep increase in the price of bacon.

The bacon industry seems to me to be in a very critical condition. The fault must be laid somewhere. We appear to have taken the shirt off our own back and we are giving it away to a neighbour while we ourselves run around half naked. That is the picture as I see it. The Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission may be a very energetic man; he is completely lacking in experience. He gave up the running of the city of Cork and its public representatives, and all the problems that appertain to local government, and he is now Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. Perhaps he has done some good things, but we all do a great many damn bad things, and maybe this man in his flurry and his haste has oversold to Norway. That is my contention.

There is a move now to centralise the buying of pigs. That suggestion is not new. It has been made already. It means that the farmer has to bring his pig a mile or ten miles into the central area and has to take whatever price is arranged by the ring who present themselves as buyers that morning. This will mean the complete wiping out of the ordinary dealers who go around from fair to fair and who are at the moment practically completely wiped out by the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government in the past. Whatever few of them remain today are the only means of competition the farmer has now as against the bacon curer.

It would be a sad day for the country and for the industry if the pig dealer were completely wiped out. He deals in a competitive market. He has, first of all, the supplier to deal with at the fair. Then he has to fight with the curer with regard to the grading of the pig. The pig dealers are a section of the community for whom I have great admiration because they are men who live on their ability and their brains, who pay on their judgment. At a glance, they judge the grade of the pig in the morning and take their chance when they come to the bacon curer in the evening. They are men for whom we should have the greatest respect and who deserve every consideration from the Department.

Central buying is a problem that could lead the whole bacon industry into chaos. It would mean that the producer would no longer be a human being; he would be a cipher. He must bring his 20, 30 or 40 pigs to the factory and take whatever price the factory pay. He cannot question it. The grade is decided by the factory and must be accepted. On many occasions I have seen producers question the price and the grade in the factories in Limerick. They got no satisfaction. As a result, I have seen people who rear pigs weighing pigs in their own yards before bringing them to the factory because they could not depend on the weights they got from the factory.

I am not 100 per cent against the bacon curer because I know well, and have had experience of it in Limerick, that this industry has been left to jog along in a lackadaisical fashion, particularly insofar as curers are concerned. While they did make handsome profits for many a long day, they did not put their profits into the development of their industry. They invested it elsewhere, mostly in their own enjoyment and high living. The result is that they are today faced with a situation where they have to bring their factories up to standard.

I can say, from my experience of bacon factories—I have been in most of them all over the country; I am not confining myself to Limerick — that the standard all over the country is very poor and the conditions under which workers are obliged to work are absolutely scandalous. One sees unfortunate girls with old wooden boots on them and an oilcloth apron on them, standing in half an inch or an inch of water in winter and summer, with the wind blowing through the factory and no protection. They are standing at an old bench, scraping the guts of pigs and cleaning them as sausage casings. I am not confining myself to Limerick; this is more or less general. I cannot see what the factory inspectors are doing about this. If they had a prowl through the factory and came through the backgate instead of through the office they might have a different picture to present. I would ask the Minister and his advisers to take particular cognisance of this.

Some of these factories are going through a critical period because of the misdeeds of the people who went before them and they are now faced with a tremendous financial burden in getting their factories — I would not say up to first-class standard—but to ordinary standards by the introduction of new machinery and new methods. These people have been jogging along as if everything was going to be all right forever and a day.

I would advise the Minister that where a case is made, instead of doing what the Pigs and Bacon Commissioners are suggesting, namely to buy them out and close them up—that is their policy—these factories should be allowed to remain open, particularly the smaller type of factory that caters for nearly 100 pigs a day, that gives employment to perhaps 50 or 60 people. In Limerick the bacon factories have a big employment content. They kill an enormous number of pigs every week. There are other small factories all over the country trying to survive and they should be given loans to bring their factories up to a standard to enable them to compete with the bigger people. At present the inclination is for the creameries and the farmers to come in and some of these factories are being run on a co-operative basis, which is not a very healthy thing, particularly as working conditions and labour conditions are not understood as well in the co-operative factory as they are in the factory run by private enterprise. I hope the Minister will take cognisance of what I have said with regard to the bacon industry.

I shall conclude by asking the Minister to put a fixed selling price on the parts of the pig that are saleable. I know you cannot put a general price on bacon but there are cuts of bacon that could be controlled. The Wiltshire is cut into different parts and if the price were controlled at retail level, everything will be controlled from that back to the wholesaler, to the curer, and to the supplier. But, as it is, nobody knows what he is paying for bacon. The woman standing at the counter does not know what she will pay for a pound of bacon. The only figure that is given is the figure from the factory. I quote from a price list of 11th November, 1963. Mild-cured Wiltshires leanest: None; Select lean: None; Middles leanest: None; Lean when ready: 408/-; Long clears: 360/-; Gammons: None. That was last week. If you can get gammons this week they will be 448/-. Cooked ham is 7/- a pound. That is the situation in the bacon trade and I would ask the Minister to start immediately to control the price to the woman at the counter.

If he does that he will regularise the trade and we will not have the position in which one day there is a plentiful supply and that in three weeks' time that particular commodity will be gone off the price list altogether. That is no way to treat an industry. If there is not fixity of price we will have nothing but chaos. In the interests of the country and of the working man and the woman who has to rear a family the Minister should step in for the purpose of controlling the price of the different parts of the side of bacon. Then you will have a free market, free competition and equality of price.

I should like to contradict some of the allegations made here by my colleague, Deputy Esmonde, last week. In column 1656, volume 205, No. 11 of the Official Report, he said:

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 I have no redress whatever 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.

That is by no means correct with regard to the average feeding price of barley in my constituency.

I should like Deputy Esmonde to know that Wexford holds the world record for barley yields of 55 barrels to the Irish acre which was grown in recent years. I am not disputing the point that the farmers would like an increase in the price of their barley. The acreage of barley sown last year was a record of 432,700. That figure in itself will disprove the allegations made by Deputy Esmonde.

Another allegation he made is that merchants who have hired out sacks to the growers make it a condition that the growers will sell their wheat to them. I have a docket here which disproves that contention completely.

Tell us what is in it.

I will. You know it yourself.Two-thirds of the merchants of Wexford are members of the association which issued this docket which states in a footnote: "The object of this docket is merely to define the terms of issue of sacks and gives no undertaking that the wheat therein will be purchased by me." That disproves completely the allegation made by Deputy Esmonde. I have been in contact with the merchants of Wexford for the last week to disprove that. I made sure of doing that. If that kind of thing were carried on it would leave the farmers not knowing where they were.

In the past six months we have had some discomfort in my constituency regarding the supply of cream to the sole creamery there, Inch creamery. It was decided for the betterment of the suppliers that it should stop and, while earlier on the farmers were displeased, I am glad to see that they are now quite satisfied that it was in their best interests that it should stop. I am glad to see that they have now accepted that.

They have been promised by the creamery that they will get two separating stations in the county to take in milk in the south of the county. I understand that the creamery has applied for the licences to build these two stations and I would ask the Minister to state when he intends granting them so that they can get on with the work. The farmers are anxious that it should commence as soon as possible.

We have heard a lot in the course of the debate about the heifer scheme. That scheme will have to increase the cattle population but there is one aspect which no one seems to have dealt with and that is the provision of fodder for these animals and how we are going to increase our winter fodder and improve our grasslands. I am glad to see that we have set up the Irish Conservation Working Body to improve our grasslands and to promote silage to a greater extent. I understand a meeting was held in Cahir in the middle of November. All the elements of the agricultural industry are represented on this body including co-operatives, farmers' interests and officials of the Department.

Anybody directly concerned with agriculture, especially Deputies who are themselves farmers, will agree that during the past few years the amount of good hay made has been negligible, owing to weather conditions. Any hay produced could only be described as of poor quality. If good value is to be got from hay crops, it is necessary to have the saving done in the first fortnight or three weeks of June. If it has not been saved by the end of June, the good is gone out of it.

Consequently, the Department must consider the introduction of a policy of encouragement of silage-making. What farmers need is some type of incentive in the form of grants on tonnage.I shall quote for the House some figures from Northern Ireland in this respect. Over the past eight or nine years, farmers there have been given grants of £1 per ton on the first 100 tons and 10/- per ton on the second hundred. That is in the first year. In the second, grants of 15/- per ton on the first 100 tons and 10/- per ton on the next 400 tons are given. A scheme of that sort is necessary here if we are ever to achieve our cattle population aims.

In this respect we now have one incentive—the heifer scheme of £15 per head. A policy aimed at encouraging silage-making would add further incentive.One method of doing this would be to encourage the co-operative creameries and private contractors to hire out silage-making machinery to farmers at rates that it would be possible for the farmers to pay. Some such schemes are working successfully, I understand, in the south of Ireland. Mitchelstown Creamery operate such a scheme and have been doing so during the past number of years. Farmers themselves, particularly small farmers, could not possibly be expected to acquire the machinery necessary—the forage harvesters and the tractors and buck rakes. I repeat that unless there is some such incentive for the production of more and better feeding stuff, we will never achieve our cattle population target.

Another point with which I should like to deal is the operation of the Land Project. In my constituency there are approximately 40,000 acres of wet land, known as the Macamores, and farmers find the £30 per acre does not nearly cover two-thirds of the actual cost of draining that land. I would, therefore, ask the Minister to endeavour, if possible, to increase the maximum figure for drainage from £30 to at least £40 or £45 per acre. The actual drainage cost at the moment is approximately £60 per acre so that the maximum grant now available is not nearly two-thirds of the cost. I am aware that the number of applicants from that area for grants under this scheme is quite considerable but, on the other hand, the number of schemes carried out in proportion to the number of applicants is very small.

I do not know what the experience is in other counties in this respect. The Board of Works are at the moment endeavouring to devise a scheme to clean the Owenavaragh river which is the main source of drainage for the area, the average valuation of which is £1 per Irish acre. This land was revalued under Griffiths Valuation some years ago when labour was approximately 5/- per week and the main crops were peas, wheat and beans which were grown in ridges, the work being carried out by hand. That day has gone. Before I finish, I should like to repeat my suggestion to the Minister in regard to drainage grants and to suggest again that he increases the amount per acre from £30 to £40 or £45.

The constituency I represent comprises a large number of small farms. We have 10,900 holdings in Leitrim and of these 10,000 holdings are under £20 valuation, the remaining 900 being over £20. In Roscommon, as my colleague Deputy Burke has pointed out, the total number of holdings is 18,900, of which 15,140 are under £20 valuation and 3,760 over £20. That clearly indicates that the constituency is mainly made up of small farms.

Listening to the Minister's speech, I wondered if there was any advantage whatsoever to come from that Department this year to the small farmers. The only change we have got in the policy of the Department from last year is the introduction of the heifer scheme, an increase in the number of advisers, which I am sure resulted from the report of the Commission on Small Farms and, thirdly, the increased grants for farm buildings.Let us examine the heifer scheme for a few minutes and consider its likely effects as far as small farmers are concerned.

In my opinion, it will be of very little use to our small farmers for the reason that on a small farm of £20 valuation most of the people are at the moment carrying all the stock the farm is capable of feeding. You might occasionally meet a farmer up and down my constituency who could carry some more stock, but he has no means at his disposal of getting capital to bring about that increase. There is, therefore, not much point in telling him, if he buys a heifer at about £20, that when she calves he will get a subsidy of £15. Accordingly, I cannot see this heifer scheme being of any use to small farmers.

The scheme may have another effect this year: it will increase the price of the year and year-and-a-half heifer, but next year it may decrease the price of the yearling bullock or heifer for the simple reason that the people who normally buy their yearlings or suck calves will have themselves produced calves from the stock of heifers they will have bought. I am quite sure most of the big farmers will take advantage of this scheme. I must agree with the statement made by other speakers that it will increase the number of cattle but I doubt if it will be any real asset to the small farmer.

In regard to the increase in the number of agricultural advisers in each of the counties covered by the report on small western farms, I cannot see that they will be a great advantage. They probably will go in to the small farmer and discuss matters with him but they will find he has no capital to do the things they would require him to do. It is very hard for the small farmer to get credit of any sort. He may approach his local bank but he will not get much credit there. He may try the Credit Corporation here in Dublin but we all know how hard it is for the small farmer to get money from them. Even if he were successful in getting any finance from the Credit Corporation, the rate of interest he would have to pay on it would be very heavy, 6½ per cent at the moment, and it would be very hard for him to pay back money at that high rate of interest. If the Minister or the Government gave some thought to our policy on this side of the House of providing farmers with a loan as high as £1,000 free of interest, it would be one way of giving some little hope to the small farmer.

As I said earlier on, I was delighted to see that the Minister is prepared to give increased grants for farm buildings.Everybody knows the price of building materials has increased tremendously over the past 12 or 18 months, particularly timber, nails and galvanised iron. It is only natural, therefore, the Minister should give an increased grant for farm buildings and I hope the increase will be substantial.

There was a great deal of talk here the week before last about the ninth round of wage increases. Seemingly, every section in the community, civil servants, local government officials and everyone else will be covered. We have also had the experience a few weeks ago of the Government increasing their own income by the 2½ per cent on the goods being bought by the small farmer and others. You can rest assured the business people, the manufacturer, the wholesaler and so on will look after their own interests. They will increase their profits. Every section of the community is increasing its profits. If people are not in business, their wages are being increased but there is no word whatsoever about the income of the small farmer being increased. Yet everything he has to buy has been increased substantially.

It would be wise for the Government again to look into this question of the west of Ireland, if they are serious about doing anything there. The west is going rapidly and nothing is being done about it. Up to a few years ago, the people living on small farms had a substantial market for eggs and got a good price for them. Poultry and pigs were the same. There is now no market for eggs. As regards poultry, we know that the price being paid, particularly at the Christmas period for turkeys, is so low that they are no longer being produced in any quantity. Pig production has become a completely commercialised job and the day of the small farmer who used to feed two or three pigs has gone completely. The bigger farmer has many advantages over him. He has guaranteed prices for wheat, sugar beet and barley. Unless something is done and done very soon, the small farmer will just move out.

A number of statements are made here from time to time about emigration.I quoted figures for emigration here on this Estimate last year. I have no further figures to quote unless I requote the figures and that would not serve any purpose. However, even since this time last year, people are still going from my constituency, particularly from South Leitrim and North Roscommon. Not alone are boys and girls of 18, 19 and 20 years going but whole families are going. There is a moral obligation on this Government or any other Government to do something for them. Heretofore their income was supplemented in many ways. On top of that, they used to get work from the county councils but in recent years the plan of the Department of Local Government and that of county engineers seems to squeeze out the labouring man, not, I suppose, because it is economic but because it is the modern trend to use bulldozers, automatic rollers and so on. All these are being used at the expense of the small farmer. I never in my lifetime saw more small farmers looking for work than I did this year and I think that is the view of every member of our council.

The Leitrim Committee of Agriculture on numerous occasions asked the Department to include Hereford bulls as special term bulls but they have not met with much success. Some of the members of that committee of which I am a member asked me to mention it on this Estimate. I would be thankful if the Minister would consider giving a number of special term bulls of the Hereford type in County Leitrim.

I do not propose to delay the House very long, but as this is a very important Estimate, I wish to make a few observations on it. I was amazed to read recently that the milk yield in this country is the lowest in Europe. The Minister with the help of his Department is proposing to import Dutch and German Friesians with the object of stepping up milk production.I wonder what effect this will have on our very valuable store cattle trade which has been our saviour for many generations? We have the Hereford and the Aberdeen Angus and they have done a great deal to help the export trade but the basis of our cattle trade springs from the foundation stock of the dual-purpose shorthorn.It would be a very serious blow to our cattle trade if that breed were to lose its identity. In our haste to increase the production of milk, I fear we might lose that fine old stock and I would ask the Minister to make sure that we do not lose them. I realise that he knows as much about cattle as anybody else in this House and he knows that they were the foundation stock down through the years.

Much has been said about the heifer subsidy scheme which has been introduced with the object of increasing our cattle population. I know it will have that effect but like many other Deputies I feel it will not help the small man very much to increase his stock because generally the small man is well stocked with cows. He makes his living by supplying milk to creameries and by producing calves and I do not see how he can improve his position. We have, however, other types of farmers who will avail of the scheme and whose cattle population will rise accordingly.

Some time ago the Minister said that he would like to see a better relationship between the county committees of agriculture and the advisory services. As a member of the Meath County Committee of Agriculture, I can say that relations between our advisory services and the committee are excellent. We have a very fine staff; we have a CAO, a deputy CAO, ten agricultural instructors, four horticultural instructors and three poultry instructresses. Relations between the instructors and the farmers are very good. I understand they visit more than 50 per cent of the farmers in Meath. That speaks well for the members of the county committee of agriculture and the voluntary organisations such as the National Farmers' Association, Macra na Feirme and other bodies who have helped to put the instructors in touch with farmers.

In regard to pig production, as the Minister is aware, we have large numbers of the wrong type of sow and that is mainly responsible for all these difficulties in regard to the grading of bacon in our factories. No matter how the farmer feeds or looks after the sow it is very difficult to get it graded properly. Producers should be encouraged to get rid of that type of sow and to replace her. At the moment we have good trade for fat sows and the difference between the price for fat sows and their replacement would be small. I would ask the Minister to impress on his Department the need for changing these sows and for getting into a better class of stock.

Deputy Moher mentioned that in County Cork they had a big problem in relation to deaths of premium boars in recent years. Within the past 12 months, we have had a somewhat similar problem but not on as large a scale. We had to replace three or four premium boars. These were Landrace boars and I wonder if there is some weakness in the breed and if they are not able to stand up to the hardships they have to endure on the small farms. The reason I think it is peculiar to the Landrace breed is that we never have any complaints in regard to the Large White boar. During my time on the committee, I remember only one case. The Department should investigate this position and see if this is peculiar to the Landrace.

Last week our committee received an application for a grant towards the eradication of warble fly. It came from an organisation of which some of the members are members of the NFA. I understand it was a regional effort and while I appreciate the valuable work which voluntary organisations are doing. I would prefer to see this job tackled on a national basis. As we are all aware, the loss to the country from badly warbled hides is colossal. The Minister should get the Department interested in this and, if something is to be done, to have it done on a national basis. To tackle this job piecemeal will not solve the problem.

I have not got much more to say except that I hope the heifer scheme will have the desired effects. I favour the suggestion made by some Deputies that if we are to help the small farmer, then a subsidy should be given to farmers under a certain valuation in order that the rancher will not run away with the proposition as happened in wheat growing and other big operations.

The Minister mentioned that the farmers got £4 million more in profit in the past year than in the previous year when there had also been an increase. They say that figures can be produced to sustain any contention.I wonder if any farmer would agree with the Minister that he got his share of the £4 million which the Minister said was earned by the farmers during the past year. I doubt it. I come from as good an agricultural county as there is in the country and farmers' prices have not increased over the past ten or 12 years. As a matter of fact, if anything, there has been a reduction in the actual price paid for farm produce over the past ten years.

Take wheat, which is the principal cash crop for any farmer. Ten years ago, the farmers were receiving up to 10/- per barrel more for wheat than at present. Not this year, but for the past two years, it was practically impossible for any farmer to secure the top price for his wheat. Everybody knows the hardships endured by the farmers in the harvesting and marketing of their corn. Nobody can blame the Government for bad weather, but the Government must take the responsibility for the treatment meted out to the growers when the harvest comes for sale. In both 1961 and 1962, few farmers realised the full price for wheat. In most cases, it was 44/- or 45/- a barrel instead of 75/-. When the millers felt they had sufficient wheat for the grist, there was a complete closedown.

I remember in 1961 when farmers who had very good wheat could not get it accepted if it was produced after a certain date. Instead of getting the full price, to which they were entitled, they got from 40/- to 45/-. When a motion was tabled here asking the Government to take action to give the farmers fair play in the grading of wheat, what happened? First, it was said that the introduction of the motion at that time was an Opposition gimmick and they refused completely to accept it. The Taoiseach intervened in the debate at that time to say:

During the past ten or twelve years, since the termination of war-time scarcities, the main problem in this country in relation to wheat has been we are getting too much of it, and nobody knows that better than Deputy Dillon because, when he was Minister for Agriculture, he tried to cope with that problem.

During his term of office, Deputy Dillon had to cope with the problem of surpluses. He was prepared to face that problem and not leave it to the millers to make conditions impossible for the farmer. I remember the occasion when wheat was rejected out of hand at the Waterford flour mills. I phoned Deputy Dillon and told him the position in Waterford. The very next morning an official of the Department was sent by the Minister to see that the farmers got reasonable treatment at the mills. As a result of his information, the farmers did get a fair deal. Deputy Dillon did not hand over his responsibilities to a third party. He did not hand them over to the millers. He dealt with the surplus by reducing the price at that time in order to bring down the production of wheat. How did the present Government handle the problem of a surplus? Instead of facing up to their responsibilities, they handed them over to the millers. The farmers became so harrassed that they did not know until they had their crop growing, and had it in and graded, what price they would get.

The result of that policy is that we have had a substantial reduction in the acreage of wheat. It is very easy for a Government to hand over their troubles to a third party in order to avoid doing the straight and honest thing in regard to surpluses. Wheat has been reduced so far this year, and, in addition, there has been a reduction in the yield per acre. The result is that any wheat presented to the millers this year after the first week or so has been accepted for milling. The amount of Irish wheat in the grist at present is only 55 per cent. It could be up to 70 or 75 per cent in the case of bakers' flour, and still produce good bread, and up to 90 per cent in the case of household flour. How many millions have been lost to the farmers by the policy of the Government in reducing the production of wheat to the point where there is only 55 per cent of it in the grist?

In his intervention in that debate, the Taoiseach mentioned that the farmers were taking an undue risk. I know the Taoiseach is a Dublin man and has no contact with the country. If he had, he would know that every day a farmer has to take risks, whether it be in the case of livestock, crops or anything else. Millions of pounds are going into the pockets of the foreign producers of wheat which should go into the pockets of the Irish farmer. Our balance of payments position was never as bad as it is at present with a gap of £90 million a year. What effect will the import of millions of pounds worth of wheat have on that position in the coming year? That is the result of the Government policy of not paying heed to the farmers, not giving them sympathy and not co-operating with them.

I know that when Deputy Dillon was Minister for Agriculture he had a sympathetic Government to deal with. I appreciate the position of the present Minister. It is a very tough position having to deal with a Government led by the Taoiseach. The Taoiseach says: "We will promote industry but let the farmers carry on as they have always carried on. When we are pressed, we may give them some money for the reduction of rates or bring in a heifer scheme but we will not investigate the possibility of improving their conditions."Deputy Dillon appreciated the position of the farmers and was prepared in a bad harvest to stretch the regulations to the limit to facilitate the greatest number in the harvesting and marketing of wheat.

Barley is in much the same position as wheat. When in office, Deputy Dillon arranged for imports of feeding barley seed and gave a guaranteed price of 48/- a barrel. That was a great help to the farmer for it gave him a new crop which was very light on the land and gave a good yield. When the present Government came into office they reduced the price of feeding barley to 38/- a barrel and even at that, tillage farmers due to the harrassing they got with the wheat crop said that the least they could get was that when they produced a crop of feeding barley, they would be able to sell it according to moisture content. They might lose 1/- or two between top and bottom grades but not 25/- or 35/- a barrel.

Another reason is that farmers have turned in a big way from wheat growing this year to barley growing. It is not a wonderful price: it is very small compared with what Deputy Dillon was prepared to offer. Oats is almost a thing of the past. Practically no protection and no encouragement is given to those who grow oats. I have not heard of anybody growing oats in my county to any great extent. It is hard for the ordinary layman to understand the Government's corn policy. At present we are importing thousands of tons of maize, coarse grains and pollard, commodities which, with a little encouragement from the Government, could easily be produced here. There is no reason why we could not produce practically 95 per cent of the grain required for animal feeding and 75 per cent for human food in this country. Would that not be much better policy, if the Government provided a market for the growers in their own country for corn rather than import thousands of tons of it?

There may be something in the point, as regards maize, that America has agreed to take a certain share of our sugar in return for maize contracts.That does not hold in regard to pollard or bran. The inter-Party Government had production for home requirements as the main part of their policy and up to the time of the disposal of the barley crop in January or February, no maize imports were allowed. The then Minister wanted to produce at home all that could possibly be produced. Is it any wonder that we have the NFA protesting against the increase in the cost of living in the past ten or 12 years, with no compensating increase in the prices they get for their produce? No wonder they have protested very strongly.

In Kilkenny this year, the NFA said that as a protest against rising costs without compensation, they would refuse to pay an increase in the rates. They agreed to pay the same rate as in 1961 because they felt they were not in a position to meet the increased rate and they wanted to bring home to the Government their responsibility for allowing prices to rise so steeply and consequently general costs, while there was no compensating increase for the farmers. At the October meeting of our county council, we had a report on the rates position because several farmers told the rate collector who called on them that they were prepared to pay the 1962 rate but not the extra 2/- in the £ imposed this year. It was a protest against the inactivity of the Government in not providing increased incomes for farmers.

At that meeting, Deputy Medlar, a member of the Fianna Fáil Party, said in the discussion which followed the report on the rates that the farmers had got no increase over the past ten or 12 years. I am sure every member of the council agreed with him. The Deputy contributed to this debate and I expected that he would bring to the Minister's notice his view on Government policy regarding prices. I heard some of his speech when dealing with another matter and then I read his speech in case I was doing him an injustice but there is no word in that speech about farm prices not being increased. At the county council meeting, we were all there as county councillors, with the county secretary and the county manager and we could not affect farm prices. We were doing our best to give good value to the ratepayers for their rates. I felt that when Deputy Medlar joined in this debate he would bring to the Minister's notice his point of view that farmers had got no increase in prices over the past ten or 12 years. Possibly the best of us when we sit down feel we have missed something——

You would not expect him to tell an untruth.

The Deputy made a very spirited speech to the effect that farmers had got no increases over the past ten or 12 years when he spoke at the county council meeting. If that was true there, would it not be true in the Dáil? Does the Minister suggest that if Deputy Medlar said it at the county council meeting, it was true but if he said it here, it would be untrue? I agreed with Deputy Medlar that farmers have not got increases in prices for the past ten or 12 years. The Deputy is well versed in these matters. We know that during the beet crisis in 1956 the Government promised that if returned to office they would bring back the price to what it was earlier, which would represent a 10/- increase.

As my name has been mentioned so often, may I say I did point out to the NFA the millions of money by way of grants poured into agriculture.

I may have mentioned the Deputy's name but I certainly said nothing derogatory. The Deputy did mention in Kilkenny County Council that farm prices had not been increased.

Grain prices.

And the Minister would say the Deputy is telling an untruth.

There are more prices than grain prices.

I am dealing with grain prices and Deputy Medlar has borne me out now. Deputy Medlar has agreed grain and corn prices have not increased. The Minister has agreed they have not increased over the past ten or 12 years.

Furthermore, the farmers in Kilkenny have as much confidence in me as in any other man.

I am sure they have, but I represent the farmers, too. I am proud to represent them and, so long as they return me to this House, I will bring their point of view before the Minister.

With regard to the heifer subsidy scheme, it may be good as far as it goes, but the ordinary small farmer will get very little material benefit out of it. He is already carrying all the stock he can, if he wants to live. With a great stretch of his resources, he may be able to increase by one, but that will only be £15 a year. I read the report of the meeting of the Kilkenny Committee of Agriculture. The County Council of Kilkenny is fairly well balanced, but there is a Fianna Fáil majority. There are very few Fine Gael men on any of the sub-committees.I will quote three men on the Kilkenny Committee of Agriculture, two Fianna Fáil councillors and a nominated member by Fianna Fáil. I am sure they would not wish to harm the Government especially at this critical time in the Government's life. I am sure they would not want to embarrass the Government.

Mr. John Murphy said it was a good scheme but it is only going to be a benefit to the big man. Mr. Donnelly asked can a rancher buy in a lot of heifers and have them suckled and get all this money. Mr. Murphy replied that, of course, he can. There is the point I am getting at. Mr. P. Walsh thought the scheme could be abused and that it could be worked the wrong way. The small farmer had very little room for more heifers and he had kept any dairy stock he could and consequently there was no room for him in the scheme at all. Apparently it was all beef the Government wanted.

I do not doubt that any man welcomes the scheme, but the scheme is not the end-all. It will not bring prosperity to the small farmers who are at their wits' end to carry on because of the high cost of living, which will become higher still now with the turnover tax and the further increase in wages. It cannot be said that I am giving the Fine Gael view. I am giving the view of people who are anxious to support the Government.

During the past year we have had suggestions and recommendations about amalgamation. It has been suggested that there should be one large creamery in each county. I suppose that would be the first step and we would move from that to one large creamery in each region. It has been said that we want to streamline the production of bacon and bacon costs. We will have one large bacon factory. I suppose that will be a factory in each region, not in each county, and the farmers will subsidise the erection of this large factory through the medium of a 5/- levy per pig.

We have had the first touch of this rationalisation, as it is called, in the flour milling industry in my constituency.Two flour mills have shut down. The Minister for Agriculture and the Minister for Industry and Commerce agreed to the proposals of the Flour Millers Association relative to a reduction of production in the flour milling industry. Substantial sums were to be paid for extinguishing quotas. The workers were to be compensated.All very fine, but I wonder what will happen when we have two or three large mills serving the whole country? What will be the result? Will we get cheaper flour? Will we get a better quality flour? Will we get a better service? I doubt it. I doubt if we will get a cheaper flour, a better flour or better service.

The industry is being removed from the ordinary people. The flour mills in the various districts serve a very useful purpose. They are prepared to meet competition and they give a very fine service to the farmers. Farmers could get seed and manures on credit until the harvest was brought in. The closing down of the mills in Thomastown and Muinebeag has proved a very big loss to the farmers in the area. Hitherto they had an easy delivery. The cost of delivery was negligible. They had credit facilities.

In the same way they had facilities in the bacon industry. They could deliver their pigs to the local factory. If the policy of the Government is implemented, all these industries will be wiped out. There was recent amalgamation in the fertiliser industry and the depot in Kilkenny goes in that amalgamation. A monopoly was created and that depot is now closed. We seem to have suffered very heavily at the hands of the present Government.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Top
Share