Deputy Corry reported progress. Deputy Clinton.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 40—Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.—(Deputy Donegan.)
It is not my intention to attempt to deal in any comprehensive way——
Will Deputy Corry be allowed to speak again?
Next year.
The rule is there but it has not been strictly observed. The Deputy may speak, but every other Deputy who desires to speak has a prior right.
I think, with agreement, he might be allowed to speak.
Where is he?
If Deputy Corry is not coming, I suppose I might as well start. It is not my intention to deal in any comprehensive way with the Minister's statement or the numerous activities of the Department. I listened to most of Deputy Donegan's speech and I am satisfied that the opinions he expressed fairly represent the views of the Fine Gael Party. I was pleased to note in the Minister's statement some extremely welcome changes, particularly in the Minister's attitude to certain changes in agriculture. I am referring mainly to what we had become accustomed to, I expect, in relation to the extending of agricultural support.
It is becoming evident to all concerned that it was quite erroneus to describe this as either a subsidy or a support. I remember reading a report not long ago of a paper read by Dr. Roy Geary of the Central Statistics Office to the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society in which he made it absolutely clear that it was ridiculous to continue referring to investment in agriculture as either subsidy or support. I remember that he said £1 million invested in agriculture, or in an industry based on agriculture, increased the gross national product by £2 million and that nothing into which Irish money could be put would give the same return and the same growth to the national economy. At the same time while all that has been made evident I still think that the Government are far too shy in regard to the investment they are prepared to make in the industry. There is still an obvious lack of confidence and that lack is evident in the latest Programme for Economic Expansion for so little is expected from agriculture. The target laid down could easily be enormously increased if the Government were prepared to show their confidence by investing sufficient money in agriculture.
Some time ago, the National Farmers Association went to the trouble of investigating the capital needs of the industry during the period 1964 to 1970 and they arrived at a figure of £309 million. In their booklet, they asked the Government to contribute, as far as I can remember, £102 million. I think their estimate of the need is conservative, and if we are to realise the full potential of agriculture in the foreseeable future, we must have investment on a very large scale. There are many branches of the industry which need this investment and most of it is required in the areas where the land is poor, and where acreages are small. I am referring particularly to the west and north-west.
I have referred before to the enormous improvement that could be effected in the incomes of farmers simply by giving them decent buildings and by organising feed supplies on a regional basis, by giving a subsidy towards the cost of transport of feed grains into that area and by setting up a central provender mill in some sort of co-operative way. An effort is being made to do something along these lines but it is a feeble effort and it is going to take far too long to achieve what we would like to see in these poorer areas. In the richer areas, incomes are improving because of the position of the cattle industry which is better now than it has been for some considerable time.
The attitude of the Minister and the Department towards closer co-operation with the national farming organisations is a welcome one. Since I came into this House I have been advocating an annual agricultural review and especially an annual price review, and I hope that the review contemplated with the NFA will be comprehensive and that the considered views put forward by that organisation will be treated with some respect and sympathy. It can be said that it is a reasonable organisation that does not advance proposals unless they are well backed by sincere investigation. There is less than sufficient acknowledgment of the part played by the voluntary organisations in bringing about an improvement in agricultural conditions generally and less than sufficient acknowledgment of the contribution made to the agricultural economy by semi-State boards and by the Agricultural Institute. I referred to this last year. I said I was amazed the Minister could make a full statement without any reference to the considerable contribution which An Foras Talúntais were making to the agricultural industry. It would be normal to expect some reference in the Minister's statement to their work.
An Bord Bainne and the Pigs and Bacon Commission deserve to be complimented by us. Until these boards were set up, we were always in trouble, always in panic, and we never knew how or when any agricultural commodity would be disposed of. It may be said the marketing of milk products and of bacon and bacon products has improved because the world position has improved but that is an over-simplification. I believe a first-class job is being done by these boards and that that should be acknowledged.
There has been an enormous drop in the per unit support for the export of milk products and bacon. That, as well as the statement made frequently by the two boards in question, the Pigs and Bacon Commission and Bord Bainne that their greatest embarrassment would be if they have insufficient supplies gives us a certain confidence in increasing production. The fact that during the present year we had to restrict the export of store pigs to the continent and to put this on licence indicates the way we have neglected the pig industry over the years. It was a great pity this restriction had to be imposed. None of us could say this was going to be a permanent outlet for our pigs. Nevertheless, there is always the possibility that it could develop into such a market. Certainly if I were a small farmer with five, six or even ten sows, and if I were prevented by the action of the Minister and his Department from getting the best possible price, I would feel I had good grounds for sorely resenting it.
I know that in the circumstances of short supply and of our anxiety to fill our quotas, the restriction was probably necessary. It is unfortunate that it was necessary. It has been necessary because of our failure in the past to develop the industry along the lines on which it should have been developed. There is a welcome change and that change is obvious throughout the country. We now want increased production and we are confident we can dispose of that increased production. We are not worrying any longer about the cost of price supports we shall be called upon to provide in order to get an outlet for this product at a price that will pay the producer.
The heifer subsidy scheme has been referred to already. I have said before this is an inadequate scheme and is unlikely to get the increase in cattle numbers we all hope to see by 1970. Something more is needed. As I said before, we advocated a calf subsidy. In Northern Ireland, they were not afraid to give a calf subsidy. They were not afraid, either, to tackle the pig industry in the way we should have tackled it. They have put us to shame in the number of pigs they are able to produce during the years we have allowed the pig numbers to drop by 50 per cent. It is a measure of our failure but I am glad there is a change of attitude, that there is a loosening up in the Department. These changes are indicated by the decision to set up a quarantine station in Spike Island, and to do what the farming organisations have been pressing for over a number of years, to bring in here the best possible strains and breeds of both cattle and pigs and put our farmers in the position where they will be able to compete with the other farmers they are likely to meet wherever their produce is marketed.
There is evidence, too, that we are speeding up the pig progeny-testing accommodation. It took a long time to set up the Thorndale station. I understand from the Minister's statement it is doing good work and that it is intended to provide further accommodation at Ballyhaise sufficient to progeny-test whatever is needed in the foreseeable future. That will be of great assistance to the industry and will expedite the day when the numbers of our pigs falling into top grades, Grade A and Grade A Special, will very much increase.
I realise that feeding and management play a big part in the production of carcase quality and it was evident in the short period this year when we were in trouble with surplus potatoes, that the carcase quality of our bacon for the time being dropped, probably due to the excess feeding of surplus potatoes which were cheap and unsaleable. I remember Deputy Harte and Deputy Donegan expressing concern about these potato surpluses. I wonder whether it will be possible to avert a similar situation arising in the coming year.
I have referred to the changes, the setting up of these export boards, for instance, the Grain Board, and the extension of its activities. These are changes that have been advocated for years and it has taken an immense amount of pressure to get the Department to say that these were desirable changes. It is good news that these views have impressed themselves upon the responsible people and upon the Minister. I personally look forward in the future to a much greater degree of co-operation with all the people concerned. They all have a very big part to play, led and encouraged by the Minister and the Department of Agriculture. They should work in complete harmony and in complete appreciation of the contribution that each can make to the overall well-being of the industry, starting with the Department and working down through the semi-State bodies, through the agricultural organisations, through the advisory services and through the Agricultural Institute. All these organisations are essential parts of the development of agriculture.
I have referred to the hesitation on the part of the Government to invest sufficient money in the industry. This investment should and must come, and the money must be invested through, and in association with, the advice of the agricultural advisory officers throughout the country. An effort is being made to improve the advisory services and that will make its own very big contribution. There is a considerable increase in the number of advisory officers especially in areas that require them most, where farming must become more intensive if a reasonable livelihood is to be derived from the land.
In looking over the Minister's statement, I thought he had over-emphasised the improvements that had taken place and would take place in the farmer's income without making any reference to the increased cost of production. We must all realise that farmers' costs, like everybody else's, have gone up and he has been granted only very small increases—which were overdue—in respect of a few commodities. In the course of the Adjournment discussion last night, the Minister emphasised that farming organisations had opposed the ninth round. I think he was less than fair to the farming organisations in saying that. They opposed the ninth round only on the ground that they had not got the eighth round and that increases in commodities which they were producing were long overdue. I think the Minister should acknowledge that.
Incidentally, in the past few days he asked me if I had ceased to be a member of the National Farmers Association. I am glad to tell him I am still proud to be a member of the NFA. He also inferred that I had come into the House as a redhot, roaring trade unionist. I have never been a member of a trade union but I am glad to have very friendly relations with the trade union concerned.
It is always a second wagon, is it not?
The Minister referred to the bandwagon last night. He was in a bad humour but some of the comments he made were quite unworthy of a Minister and it is no harm to say so. I hope even at a very late hour he will change his mind and attitude and that he will not be suspicious of a Deputy who brings up a problem which exists in his constituency in the hope of finding a solution to it and that the Deputy will not immediately be suspected of several ugly motives but will be regarded as a person trying to work in the best interests of the people he represents.
I could deal with various other aspects of the industry but I do not propose to do so because I think they have been fairly comprehensively dealt with already and there has been an arrangement to curtail discussion on these Estimates this year. I have referred to matters which I felt were not touched upon by other Deputies who spoke.
In accordance with the arrangements made to limit speeches here, I propose to be very brief. There are just a few points not already covered by Deputy Murphy from the Labour benches I should like to mention.
Every time agriculture is mentioned in this country at a certain level, we are told it is the primary industry and I entirely agree. I ask that it should be so treated on all occasions. That does not happen. I entirely agree with those who say the farming community are entitled to a fair deal, to guaranteed markets, where those can be provided, but if we talk about guaranteed markets here and forget about them later, that is very little use to the farmer.
The advisory services have been doing good work. I am glad Deputy Clinton referred particularly to An Foras Talúntais. They have done extraordinary work for the short time they have been in existence. I hope this year the requisite provision will be made to allow them the finances necessary to carry on that good work and that they will not be, as they were in previous years, cutting back towards the end of the financial year in an effort to keep the staff going without interrupting too much the work they were doing. The Minister should appreciate that if they do not get the necessary money, they cannot do the job.
First, let me mention a matter just dealt with by Deputy Clinton. I do not want to incur the Minister's wrath or to get into a fight with him on the rights or wrongs of the present dispute with the Milk Board but let me put three facts before him. In answer to a question yesterday or the day before, he said those people were seeking arbitration and he would not agree, as they had arbitration in 1962. That is true, but it is also true that other State and semi-State employees to whose wages they were related as a result of the 1962 arbitration, have since moved forward, and there is now a gap of between £50 and £150 per annum in what they then considered comparable employment. That is a point which the Minister might consider.
A second point is that it is usual, if for no other reason than that of common courtesy, if a trade union writes to an employer, no matter how tough that employer may be, that there comes along with the acknowledgment of receipt of the demand, a letter of explanation of the employer's attitude. That was not sent. There were three simple stereotyped acknowledgments sent in reply to correspondence addressed to the Minister's Department. I think the Minister will agree that is not good enough. Thirdly, when negotiations take place, if they are supposed to be negotiations, all the talking should not be done by one side. The trade unions were allowed to make their case without a comment from the Department's side and the only comment at the end was: "Will you give us that in writing?"
That was supplied in writing and again there was no comment except a bare acknowledgment. The Minister will agree—I know him for a long time and I think he is a reasonable man in these matters—that that was not the way for a responsible Government Department to deal with a responsible trade union. That, I think, is very much the reason why this dispute took the turn it did eventually. Even at this stage, not alone in the interests of the workers concerned but in the interests of the farmers who are being badly affected as a result of the stand taken by the Department on this issue, I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the whole question.
I do not want him to eat humble pie. Neither do I suggest the workers should eat it, but it is only reasonable that the dispute must be settled at some time and it would be much better if it were settled now round a table rather than wait until one side or the other has done irreparable damage to the other side. That is likely to happen. I do not want to cross swords with the Minister but I ask him in a reasonable way to have the matter dealt with by reasonable people in a responsible way and I give him an assurance—I do not belong to the trade union concerned—that if he is prepared to adopt a reasonable attitude, the trade union will adopt a reasonable attitude also, and the matter can be settled in 24 hours, given goodwill on both sides.
I should like to refer now to the question of wages. We have been told that the farmers' income will improve over the years. We also know from the Second Programme for Economic Expansion that there will be a big drop between now and 1970 in the numbers engaged in farm work, on the assumption, of course, that we will be in the Common Market by 1970, which I greatly doubt. Is it the intention of the Department that the increase will come about because of the reduction in the numbers employed in agriculture? Does the Minister think that the only way to increase the income of the individual is by reducing the numbers involved, thereby giving five people the income formerly spread over ten people? That is not the way it should be approached.
Deputy Corry was very noisy just before Question Time on the question of farm workers' wages. He said that ten years ago he stated here that farm workers were entitled to at least £10 per week. He probably did say that ten years ago, because that would have been 1954, and Deputy Corry would have been a member of the Opposition and the statement would have been considered a good statement to make at the time.
It all depends on the month.
If we check the Official Report, I think we will find that the month was the right month for Deputy Corry. However, what I really want to make clear is that we believe the farm workers should and must be treated as first-class citizens. They have not been so treated up to now. The Minister is, I think, aware of the disgraceful things which occurred following the ninth round of wage increases to industrial workers. I was one of the negotiating team on the trade union side and it was perfectly clear to everyone that the intention was to include all organised workers, including farm workers. Yet, when the figures were sanctioned with effect from the earliest possible date, and when even the Government agreed their direct employees would be paid from 1st February, the Agricultural Wages Board delayed by every device possible the implementation of that increase. Eventually they agreed to the balance of the £—it was a 15/- increase—being granted with effect from 4th May. I think the Minister will agree that was shameful treatment of farm workers, who are still the lowest paid workers in the State. I asked for his intervention at an early stage.
That is hardly fair to the Board now. I do not want to interrupt the Deputy, but that is hardly fair.
If the Board think what I am saying is incorrect, I will meet them publicly at any time and repeat the statements I am making here.
The Board was established by law and they have to conform with the law.
The Minister is aware or, if he is not, he should be, that, not alone did the Board conform with the law, but they deliberately delayed the calling of certain meetings so that an extra fortnight could be taken off the farm workers' increase. The Minister should appreciate that I know all there is to be known about this issue. He should also know that I asked him, through his Private Secretary, to intervene at an early date. I believed he would not be a party to what was going on and the officials I interviewed at a later date were most courteous, helpful and considerate.
I believe that, but for the fact that they were interviewed, we would be still looking forward to the farm workers' increase and not back even to the 4th May. I believe there was a deliberate attempt to hold up the increase as long as possible. If the Minister likes to check the minutes of the meetings, if he has the time, he will see some of the things which happened, devices which were used deliberately to hold back an increase to people living on the verge of starvation, because nobody could be expected in this year to live on what they were getting. About 85 per cent get £6 per week for a 50-hour week. I think the Minister will agree that was a shameful thing to do and I would ask the Minister, even at this late stage, or whenever he has the time, to look into the whole question of the fixing of farm workers' wages and devise some other method because there could not be a worse way than the way in which they are fixed at the present time. I shall not go any further.
I maintained very close contact with all the operation about which the Deputy claims to know everything and I still say he is not fair to the Board in some of the, if you like, mild allegations he has made.
The position as far as the Board are concerned is that they did not hold the meeting at the earliest possible date. That cannot be controverted. When the question of the increase came along, the Chairman of the Board refused to accept certain proposals at some of the regional board meetings. That, again, cannot be denied and, if the Minister wants to go through the files and the minutes, he will find that I am not stating anything which is not absolutely correct. It might be better possibly now if we were to forget about the matter. It is over and done with. The reason I raise it is that I believe, as I said earlier, that the Minister is a reasonable man and I believe he should look into the matter now and ensure that, whenever the next wage increase is negotiated, something similar will not happen, because this sort of thing does no good to the Department of Agriculture, which will get the blame anyway, and most certainly it does a great deal of harm to the farming community.
The Board had to follow the procedure laid down by law. The Deputy may ask why not amend the law but he must not blame the Board for following the procedure laid down.
The Minister should be aware—I am sure he is—that the procedure followed was according to the interpretation given, which was not the correct interpretation. In one instance, there was a question of a fortnight. Had a meeting been called when it could have been called, the increase could have been put into operation two weeks earlier. That was not done. To me, it appeared as if there were utter contempt for these people who, they apparently thought, were only farm workers. Now farm workers are very important people and I quite agree with Deputy Corry that they have a degree of skill which other people have not got and would never be able to acquire. I think it was shameful to treat them in that manner.
I should like to refer to one other matter. The Minister is aware of the situation with regard to broiler fowl. A number of individuals have invested very substantial sums in the industry. His colleague in the Department of Finance recently decided, for some extraordinary reason, that he would have a go at that industry, through the medium of the income tax code. On the whole he seems to have done pretty well. In addition, I understand there is a suggestion that there will be set up in this country a system of producing these fowl on a very big scale, with the aid of a very heavy State subsidy. I am told that there is a suggestion also that these will be for export only. Another Minister pointed out here the other day that these industries that are guaranteed for export only often trip up because the seconds cannot be exported and a market must be found for them. The result is that many industries producing various goods for export only finish up with a substantial amount of the produce sold on the home market.
In this case I am told there is a danger that the new industry which is suggested and which is to be financed mainly by Government funds is likely seriously to interfere with, if not entirely put out of business, existing broiler farms. I would ask the Minister to take a very long look at this before doing anything about it because it is on record that at least one similar type of farm—it was engaged in the production of chickens — which was subsidised for export only is selling its entire product on the home market.
I do not want to go into greater detail in regard to this matter but I think the Minister will find from the files in his Department what the situation is. I think it is not the intention, or it should not be the intention, of any Government Department to injure existing industries by subsidising industries which are about to be started.
Again, let me say that in the normal way in any dealings I have had with the officials of the Department and the Minister concerned, I find that while we may disagree on many matters, the matters I was concerned with were dealt with in a speedy and courteous manner. I hope that will continue to be the case.
The importance of this Vote is obvious to every Deputy and for that reason, those of us who have not an opportunity of participating in many debates here feel that we should contribute in some way to the discussion.
We all appreciate the variety of categories covered by the simple title "agricultural community". It is perfectly obvious, of course, to every person, whether he is directly interested in agriculture or not, that there are very few things administered by the important Department of Agriculture that have general application to all these categories in that important community. In fact, there are few things done for the benefit of the industry which would have general application and among these few are the improvement of marketing and the relief of rates on land.
One must immediately acknowledge that these two things have had very favourable treatment in the past year. If there is one thing that we have a right to feel justified in doing, it is that during the year a considerable relief in rates on agricultural land has been provided, which is of general application to every one of the many categories in the agricultural community. Of course, the amount of extra money provided for improved marketing is also of general application to the community as a whole.
But, when one departs from these and a few other matters, there are very few things that any Minister or Department may do that will have other than a sectional interest in so far as the industry is concerned. For that reason, there is a variety of pressure groups organised in the various sectors of agriculture, each of them with, one might say, a sectional, selfish or individual interest. To co-ordinate the demands of these and to meet them on a general and equitable basis is not a simple matter, and very often the Minister is accused wrongly of not acceding to the request of a particular pressure group to do something which may indeed be at the expense or to the detriment of some other section. He may be accused if he does not wholeheartedly meet the entire demand of some particular section.
I can appreciate the difficulties the Minister has. Without falling into unpardonable plámás, I would say that the manner in which he deals with these difficulties is rather a credit to him. To pretend to placate everybody while at the same time not giving any practical assistance would be about the greatest mistake any Minister, particularly a Minister for Agriculture, could make.
Of all the varieties and brackets into which the sectors of the agricultural community fall, the one which appeals particularly to those of us who come from the western seaboard is that category sometimes known as the small farmers, sometimes referred to as the uneconomic farmers, and so forth. With respect to these farmers, there is a problem in which those of us representing the areas involved cannot fail to have an eternal interest and, furthermore, a hope that the various means suggested to solve the problem and the deep interest being taken in it will eventually result in providing, if not a panacea, at least an amelioration.
It is a social problem as much as an economic problem. People who glibly refer to the persons concerned as "the neglected small farmers" or the politicians who wish to cast aspersions on the Government's effort or on the Minister's effort, on what is being done or is not being done, go so far as to imply that the Government are not merely neglecting these people but actually hoping for their extinction. That is nonsense, of course. It does not achieve anything. We should use every possible means in the way of formulation of policy to bring about an improvement in the problem, once we acknowledge that there is a problem there.
First of all, let us be ready to admit that these people on the holdings throughout the west and north-west of Ireland do not lack anything their grandfathers had. In fact, they have much more. It must be admitted immediately that they, and particularly their sons who are growing up on these small holdings, are not prepared to accept the same low standard of living as their forefathers were compelled to accept because they had no alternative. It was absolutely a case of necessity with their forefathers when much more intensive cultivation was carried out and it was a matter of life or death on these small holdings where large families were reared. The young people of today cannot be blamed if they take advantage of the many alternatives available to them which, unfortuntely, in many cases is a matter of buying a ticket and crossing the Channel to industrial employment elsewhere.
The fact remains that, with the improvement in the standard of living, these small holdings have fallen into a state of neglect and it is obvious that the same interest is not being taken in them by those due to inherit them.
People come along with various suggestions as to how what they describe as the flight from the land on the western seaboard and from rural Ireland can be remedied. The inter-departmental Committee examined this problem thoroughly and anybody who goes to the trouble of looking up all the evidence available to them, and all the research carried out by that body, will appreciate that they left nothing undone to ascertain the full magnitude of the problem. One of the noticeable things about the report in general is that they said no single solution could be found for the problem. They suggested a number of things, each of which might be applicable to a particular area, region, or even individual farms. However, that report merely served to highlight the fact that there is no separate solution for it, but there are many things that can be done to improve the situation.
I hold, and most people agree, that the most important thing that should be done is that people should be encouraged to take a greater interest in those holdings, and make a better effort to remain on them. They should be encouraged to get their share of better output and, consequently, have a better standard of living than they have at present. That is the main problem with which any Minister is faced in the matter of what he can do for these areas.
It is not a matter of thinking about how much money can be given this way or that in order to help these farmers to bring up their families on those small holdings. It is a matter of seriously formulating a scheme whereby incentives will be given which will result in getting better effort from those whom we wish to see remaining in those areas. Those people have their pride. They have ability, and they should be assisted and advised. When I talk about advice, I am referring to the educational side of agriculture, that is, how they may better operate these holdings. Then I think we would be doing something really worth while.
In consequence of improved conditions generally and of the improved standards of living generally throughout all sections of the economy, agriculture has become a more specialised industry and one in which the people require more than ever before, better knowledge and better business outlook with regard to what they are doing. We have reached the stage at which a man engaged on a farm, be it small or large, must realise that farm management is a business which calls for just as much knowledge as, and perhaps much more than, is called for in the management of any other business or concern. Unfortunately, in most other types of business, one either succeeds or completely fails in accordance with the knowledge one possesses and the efficiency with which one operates. In the case of a farm, it is possible to limp along without any success for a considerably long time.
In the inter-departmental report on small holdings, much emphasis is laid on the importance of better agricultural education and better advisory services. I am glad we have increased advisory services on the western seaboard, but I am not satisfied they are being used to the fullest extent possible to justify the increased numbers sent to those areas. I should like to see the stage reached where every farmer would at some time or other send for the agricultural instructor in his area, sit down with him and ask his advice on the best means to operate his holding: "What should I do that I am not doing at present?"; "Can you give me a better return?"; "What am I doing that I might eliminate?" In general, farmers are prepared to co-operate with that advice in devising a scheme whereby the whole operation of the holding can be put on a more progressive, more satisfactory and more remunerative basis, with less drudgery in the operation. These are the things towards which we are moving at present.
Whilst one is often disheartened by the many obviously neglected, or if I may use the pharse, semi-neglected, holdings throughout the country, one is often pleased and encouraged by the number of improved holdings. This is a sign of new thinking and very advanced effort up and down the country, and indeed on the western seaboard. The agricultural instructor might advise the farmers. I feel, too, that a little more capital would be helpful. Indeed, I meet small farmers who have applied for, and secured, loans from the Agricultural Credit Corporation which they are putting to good use in expanding production on their land, increasing their livestock and improving the general quality and operation of their holdings. These loans, which constitute a debt on the holding, if applied in the proper manner are bound to give a return which will justify the borrowing and enable the farmer to repay within the time allowed for repayment of the loan. At the same time, it will give him the necessary increase in his livestock and a cultivated improvement of his land, if applied in a judicious manner.
Sometimes farmers apply for these loans with nothing in view but getting some extra money which they may not devote directly to the improvement of their economy. The occasional applicant of that type makes it more difficult for the others who are genuinely interested in seeking a loan for the purpose of expanding their output in one way or another. By and large, the number of loans which have been granted in the past few years would seem to show a very advanced line of thought amongst the agricultural community in general. It is also an indication that they have been used properly and have given desirable results.
These small holdings to which I refer may not always be small. In my constituency sometimes they constitute a tremendous area. They may even run into 100 acres or more, but it may be 100 acres of mountain with a poor law rateable valuation equivalent to that of a few acres of good land in the midlands or the wealthier parts of the south. Each one of those may constitute a separate problem, but it should be remembered they are important units. From a social point of view, they have large families of the best type. People have been brought up on these holdings in the past, and could again, if they could only have the self determination to try to do things better and put a little extra effort into it.
When we discuss this question of large tracts of poor land, we must remember that sheep production generally can be quite a remunerative source of income, if properly applied. The Minister is not very often commended for all he is doing and has done in that respect. I just want to say, in order to give him the necessary encouragement, that the improvement in sheep breeding in those areas, as a result of the better quality rams that have been provided specially for those areas, is a tribute to the efforts which he has put into the improvement of conditions generally on the western seaboard. That fact is not always fully appreciated and I think we should say it in order to encourage him to go further in that direction.
The fertilising of hill grazing is something which is not yet very well advanced. Its importance is appreciated by many but the difficulty of carrying out the work and the cost has, in the past, been a prohibitive factor. The subsidy on fertiliser and the recent generous grants for the fencing of sheep grazing generally, have contributed very much to the better care and appreciation of the value of these pastures. Now that we have a decent fencing scheme, now that we have a subsidy for fertilisers which applies generally to certain areas in the west, I believe that if we could have some communal means by which the general spreading of fertilisers would be carried out, we would go a long way towards improving the sheep population of those areas where sheep raising is so important, if not entirely indispensable, to the economy of the smallholders.
I remember about three or five years ago—the Minister, I think, was present, too — a demonstration of rough grazing fertilising given in the south of Ireland by a fertilising company which used a helicopter as a means of spreading the fertiliser. I was particularly interested in that because if the necessary number of farmers in any townland or region could be brought together to contribute towards the cost of that system of spreading the fertiliser, it does not work out very expensive at all and an entire region could be done in one day. It is something that would go a long way towards improving the sheep population on the western seaboard — and the sheep is a very important part of the economy of those areas.
In referring to that method of fertilising. I mention the necessity for communal effort, the co-operation of all the farmers concerned, which brings me to the recent important recommendation particularly in the Knapp Report in regard to small farm co-operation generally. I would go so far as to say, in giving my personal view in regard to the future of the small holdings on the western seaboard— in Donegal, which is in the northwest of this island—that the future success of these holdings is closely associated with the possibility of having established a proper co-operative system throughout the entire area. It is not a matter that will happen spontaneously. It will require a good deal of assistance from well-trained personnel but it is well worth trying. I say in all sincerity that I am particularly glad that the Minister agrees with my opinion in that respect. It is only fair to say that he preached that idea to me years ago before I was fully conscious of its importance myself. But he, too, is conscious of the difficulties that lie in the way of proper organisation because co-operation in those areas not properly organised, and doomed to failure afterwards, is much worse than no co-operation at all.
We should be determined that any effort to get communal co-operation organised in those areas—and I think it could not be undertaken too soon— will be a genuine effort that is bound to succeed. It will get the whole-hearted support of the people, without which, of course, no scheme whatever can succeed. Those people who are not in a position to have all the things which big farmers can have for themselves will be given an opportunity, by co-operation, of having the benefit of any of the things that are available to those on the more economic, more productive and the larger holdings in other areas.
With further reference to co-operation, one of the things we lack most in those areas, and which is essential to the successful operation of any holding, is the local creamery. We had quite a few creameries in those areas at one time but in some cases they became glorified shops and the milk collection was not regarded as the most important part of their operation. The result was that eventually they faded out. Many of them failed financially and left behind them a certain stigma which discouraged people from taking part in any such co-operative effort again. I had the pleasure of spending a few days with the Minister two years ago on a tour of co-operative creameries and other branches of co-operative organisations. If I learned one thing more than another, it was that our lack of these things on the western seaboard is one of the greatest deficiencies in our whole economic set-up.
The creamery, as a local unit, connected with the co-operative system to which I have already referred, could be, can be and must be the ultimate saving of what is an uneconomic holding now and it could promote an excellent community in those areas. It gives the necessary cash payment which gives security to the farmer. He is assured that he will not go without the essentials, which is an assurance that not all farmers enjoy. It gives him an added interest in improving the type of cow on his holding, in increasing the number of cows he will keep and ultimately put him in a way of farming which, of necessity, will provide a proper balance between tillage and grass. Many of our small holdings are capable of supporting at least twice the number of cattle they carry at present and the local creamery could be the basis for an improved economy in those areas. From it could spring all the additional requirements for an improvement in the standard of living of those people.
They can bring about one great essential, a new outlook on life in rural areas, a new attitude towards those holdings and a new belief that certain comforts, security and happiness can be found on these holdings that are not procurable in industrial activity elsewhere. I well remember when the rot with regard to the decline in population set in in those areas. It was not last year or ten years ago. I am not going back to the time of the Famine. We have heard talk about eight million people living in this country in 1847 but I am always inclined to say that there were eight million people dying in this country, the standard of living was so low.
It was immediately following the Civil War that there was a tremendous flood of emigration that hit those rural areas. The people who would now constitute the foundation of our population in those areas went then. Turn over the figures of emigration to the United States from Donegal between 1923 and 1930 and you will see what happened. That was emigration of the permanent type; it was not migration. Most of them never came back. In the lean years between then and 1933, they were the main support of those who remained at home. It was in later years that emigration to England became a feature of rural Ireland. It was only after the first War budget in England in 1939 that the farmers' sons found that by buying a ticket at the railway station, they could be in industrial employment in Coventry and Birmingham the next day.
The greatest emigration from the west took place after the Treaty. A great many people were disillusioned because they had a belief that prosperity would grow under a native Government. That does not become a fact in any country. It takes time to get matters properly organised and that was true here also. We have now come to the turn of the tide with regard to that whole question and the number of people who are now prepared to offer solutions for any and every problem is indicative of the desire to make progress. There is such a thing as hitting the bottom where all these problems are concerned and I believe we have gone the complete circle with regard to the flight from the rural areas.
I believe we have again reached the stage when a man will cherish the ownership of 60 acres of land on the mountain, or 40 acres of land by the coast, or 20 acres of land in the glen which he can call his own, with better standards of living than those which his forefathers had to accept when they brought up large families in those areas 40 years ago. Part of the solution of the problem has been the provision of a better house, with electric light and water laid on, better roads leading to it and all the modern amenities and comforts which include a television set and his own motor car, or perhaps two motor cars. These are the things the new generation are seeking, and must have, and are having, and good luck to them. We have to face the fact that we must provide the necessary incentives to bring about the metamorphosis necessary to resurrect the proper spirit of living in those areas.
We have many people suggesting many solutions to many problems and that goes to prove that the people have become conscious of the possibility of doing something, that many solutions are possible and that no single solution is the answer. I hope when the report on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion is published shortly that we will all be agreed at least that our movement for the rehabilitation, or the resuscitation, or whatever you like to call it, of the western seaboard and the success attending the efforts already being made, is being intensified. I hope also that the necessary co-operation will be forthcoming to ensure the success of the drive being made to sustain as many families as were supported heretofore and that the necessary effort will be forthcoming from the areas concerned.
I thoroughly agree with that part of the report of the inter-departmental Committee on small holdings which states that nothing the Government, or any other organised body can do can have any success unless it gets the co-operation of the people directly concerned. I want to say this much for the Minister — although he does not need anybody to say anything for him —that I fully approve of his thinking in regard to what can and must be done for these people when he says that anything that is given to them must only encourage them to help themselves and provide the necessary incentive to organise and operate their holdings on a better scale, to improve their standards and enable them to enjoy a better place in the country.
The Minister's report this morning can best be judged by its reception in the House. There has been a certain amount of criticism, as there will always be because it is the Opposition's job to criticise, but in all the criticism, there was an acknowledgment that very definite progress has been made. That acknowledgment always comes from the Opposition in an indirect way when they say that there are good markets available but no thanks are due to the Minister for that. The acknowledgment is there that definite progress is being made in very many directions and on the whole the Minister's speech today was a very bright and encouraging one of which we should all be proud and I congratulate him on it.
I shall not delay the House. Suffice it to say the Vote shows very clearly that progress has been made in the Department and the reception it has got in the House cleary underlines that also. One cannot help having some sympathy with any Minister dealing with an industry so complex as agriculture, an industry with a volume of production somewhere in the region of £250 millions produced by some 100,000 producers and made up of a wide variety of products. To manage and guide so complex an industry, depending as it does, as to 50 per cent of its products, on an export market is a formidable job indeed. Despite that, the Minister has been able to record substantial progress during the year, which is no mean achievement. The last speaker remarked on the indirect acknowledgment which the Minister's speech had received, that the type of acknowledgment was that the progress was achieved only because market trends are in our favour. There is a shortage of beef abroad but surely this is the luck of the draw. This is a condition always maintained in agriculture and we welcome any trend that makes selling abroad easier. When they are taking your products from you, it is easy to sell.
A previous speaker spoke on the Knapp Report and the need for co-operation and I will not go into that again, but I will say that there certainly is a great need for an examination, not only at departmental and ministerial level, but in the field and on the farm itself, of methods and production.
There is no doubt that many of these 100,000 producers will have to look again at their methods, the implements they use, the type of product they produce and the capital they employ. This will put them in a position to ascertain what they can produce and sell in competitive world markets. If they are to exist on the land, they must sell and in an industry where it is necessary to export 50 per cent of the products, one can easily see the necessity for great efficiency. This cannot be achieved without adequate marketing which is of vital importance in this industry today when there is a demand for food which must be of a high quality.
It is encouraging to see that considerable progress has been made by An Bord Bainne in the selling of milk products generally and that they have had regard during the past few years to packaging and an improved system of distribution. I commend them to greater research abroad: find out what your customer wants and give him what he wants in the manner in which he wants it and give him the quality he wants. If all those factors are present, you have an equal chance of holding your place on that market and, if the quality is good, of getting a somewhat better price for it. I notice, too, that the Pigs and Bacon Commission are pushing ahead and are developing and increasing markets abroad. There is no doubt that the right quality bacon has a ready market but one must always bear in mind that there is another hazard, that is, that a country may exercise its own unilateral action in regard to the imports of some commodities, irrespective of quality or price. That presents the Minister and his Department with a very difficult problem which will require careful examination.
During the year, the Minister has given close to £6 million by way of increases along the line. Of this, quite a considerable sum has gone into the dairying industry. From the statistics published, there is no doubt that the volume of milk production is increasing and that milk production is accepted by farmers not alone in the eastern parts of Ireland but also in the western parts as a good form of production for a small farm. This, coupled with the present satisfactory trend in beef and sheep production is bringing to the small farms of the west a degree of hope. However, one must remember that they are small farms which have not the facilities often available in other parts of the country and that they are always, as it were, up against it. I know the Minister is well aware of the problems of the small farm and I would ask him to help along the small farmer.
There are different interpretations of a small farmer. Some people consider a man with 100 acres to be a small farmer. There are not many 100-acre farms in the west of Ireland. When we in the west talk about a small farmer, we mean a man with about 20 acres. That man is up against real problems, and if he continues to depend on products such as milk, beef and sheep, he may run into difficulties at times. Even so, I would still ask the Minister to encourage such production among them.
Progress is being recorded in the production of pigs. I was surprised to hear a Deputy from Cork warn the House against mass production of pigs, that this would in some way militate against the small producer. He argued that seconds or poorer quality produce might be released on the home market. Whether we like it or not, any economy that finds itself having to export 50 per cent of its production must use every means it can to achieve those export markets, and if this involves a change in the traditional methods of production, then these changes must ultimately come about.
I should like to see a scheme designed to encourage increased consumption of meat and beef in this country. I should also like the Minister and his Department, having regard to the ever-increasing standard of living, to give some estimates of the growing consumption of agricultural produce in Ireland, especially butter, milk and beef. We must keep a careful eye on what is happening and what will happen in the future. There is no doubt that our population is growing and will continue to grow, that our standard of living has improved and will continue to improve. We can anticipate that more people will enjoy a better standard of living, that more butter, meat, eggs, etc., will be consumed. These figures must be watched carefully.
I was pleased to note the Minister is watching carefully the need to fill our export markets. Heretofore, if there was any shortage at all, our export markets were neglected. We have often eaten the butter that could have been sent abroad to maintain a market and keep it supplied. We have often eaten the bacon that could have been exported to keep a market open for us. We cannot abuse markets we have won. We must make sacrifices if we hope to keep these markets. If we do that, we can safely rely not only on holding those markets but on expanding them in the future.
The notes on the main activities of the Department which have been circulated are well worth reading. The activities of the Department are wide and I have not had an opportunity of looking through these notes wholly. The advice and help the Department gives cover a multitude of services. I often wonder whether in the field of advisory services, the method of appointment of these advisory officers is always the best, or whether the degree of supervision over their activities is adequate. I often feel that the creameries or the co-operative societies might be a better medium of control inasmuch as they buy in a large quantity of the farmers' produce. It is very difficult for anybody to know what is the best medium or whether we are getting the return we should get from our advisory service.
There is no doubt, however, that the advisory officers are making themselves felt. In my county of Sligo, I am well aware their services are welcomed, and I should like to see more farmers inviting them to give them advice. The day of distrust of the advisory officers is gone and there are farmers, and the number is growing every day, who realise they can be advised as to better methods of production on their land.
There is also in the report a brief account of the activities of the Sugar Company and one is glad to see that the farmer is not neglected in regard to the price for his beet crop, that there has been an increase of 11/1d. per ton. One also sees that the exports of refined sugar during 1963 amounted to 18,370 tons, of which 10,000 tons were exported to the Six Counties and 8,370 tons to the United States. It would be interesting to note at what price these exports were sold. In addition, some 27,000 tons of sugar were exported in manufactured condition for conversion into other goods. It would be interesting to know the comparison between the two export figures as a guide to which is the better medium to follow.
It is also noted that the agreement with England provides for an increase of £11.10 per ton over the negotiated price. I welcome this. I should also like to know how other activities of the Sugar Company are progressing. A year ago, we heard of many new ventures into which the company was going and I should like to know how the accelerated freeze drying plant is going and how Erin products are doing, if it is possible to get a report on them.
It is regrettable that earlier this year a new trend occurred in the company and there was some redundancy in Carlow. That problem would appear to have been dealt with. In other years, I understand off-season redundancy problems were handled by processing cane and other goods. One wishes these occasions did not arise and that managements, by foresight and planning, could eliminate this type of upset.
One also gathers from the report that the advisory services, especially those undertaken by An Foras Talúntais, continue to give us the type of progeny necessary to provide the foundation of a good type of farm livestock. I am certain this activity will improve in the future and add considerably to the success of the industry. There is little doubt that with a greater effort by all sections of the community, even at parish level, with greater co-operation, a greater volume of production can be achieved, and better marketing will ultimately follow.
I ask the Minister to continue his good work but his work will be entirely useless if he cannot get the co-operation of those engaged in this vital industry. Subsidisation and payment of grants are of little use if there is not a real willingness on the part of the farmers to take full advantage of them. The farm building scheme and the grants associated with it are a step in the right direction. I ask more farmers to modernise their buildings, to put in piped water supplies and to increase the standards of hygiene in handling food, milk and farm produce and generally to do everything possible to improve the quality of their goods. Careful husbandry will bring its own rewards and it is no use to say these things will come without good planning and management; they will not. It is no use thinking they will come without hard work and effort because all these things are necessary.
The farmer who takes a real interest in his farm is assured of a good standard of living, although he will work and plan hard for it and it will demand a seven-day week, but, whether we like or not, these are factors associated with this industry, which, if you like, is a vocation that suits some but not others. Those who hope to live on the land and rear families must be the type of person we knew in the past who did a magnificent job in rearing large families on small holdings, working hard and well. If they are not of that type and not prepared to work, if they stay on the land, they will merely subsist. The alternative for them is to leave the land to those who have a determination to work and the foresight to produce the best from the land. There is no future in it for those who hope to walk in and live as gentlemen farmers. There is little scope for that in Ireland today as generally the average farm is between 20 and 50 acres, and a farmer can hope to get a reasonable living on it only by hard work and careful planning.
Despite the benefit of a good climate, we must face the reality that we must continue to export 50 per cent or more of our agricultural produce, and so long as that necessity exists, we must accept that the limiting factor in prices will be the prices obtained abroad and not those which can be supported at home by subsidy. Subsidy in this form can be used only as a balancing factor between one crop and another at home.
I conclude by saying that the Minister and the Department deserve high credit and praise, and that has been forthcoming here today.
It must be very embarrassing for some Fianna Fáil Deputies behind the Minister to speak on this Estimate and especially on the state of agriculture at present. Apparently, the thing to do is to tell the people that no matter how good the Minister is, they will have to work harder. As Deputy Gallagher says, the day of the gentleman farmer is gone, the man who could dress up one day a week and walk around. They must get down to hard work.
Daniel O'Connell told them the same thing.
I suppose it is no harm to tell them again but Daniel O'Connell was talking in different days. The other great sheet-anchor for Fianna Fáil speakers today is co-operation: everything will be right if we all co-operate. The last thing they want to talk about is the Minister and the Department. I suppose if I were on that side of the House, I should make a similar effort.
The Deputy could not resist me, if he were over here.
I could, but I suppose I should try to work on the same lines. When they finish with co-operation, they take an odd shot at the millers but they never advise the Minister as to anything that could be improved. Look at the lovely brown folio we got this morning setting out all the activities of the Department. It would lull anybody to sleep.
It is not that I want to have a crack at the Minister but I should like to give him a little advice. What I should like to see is the Department bending their energies to the maintenance of the small farmer. If the small farmer is preserved and has a reasonable way of life, the larger farmer will naturally, without any extra effort, be able to live, too. What I fear is that very little encouragement will be given to the small farmer. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach said, there was a time when people thought hard of emigration but they are now so close to England, and the fare is so cheap, that no farmer's son will stay on the farm if he cannot look forward to getting a reasonable standard of living. I would advise the Minister and the Department to bend their energies to helping out the small farmer.
The Minister quoted the improved incomes of farmers. We welcome any improvement, even if it is very small, like the 2d per gallon for milk. A certan amount of levy reduces that, of course.
I thought it was very good.
I am sure the Minister did. It was an effort but not a particularly big effort. Then there is the ninth round increase in the creameries. That takes a certain percentage of the 2d also. When all commitments are met, there is very little left.
It is still 2d.
There is not even 1d left.
And we did not put it on to the butter. We put it on the backs of the taxpayers.
No, no. We were very fortunate to have an increase in the price of butter and a reduction in the subsidy on butter going into England. That carried most of it.
The Deputy is not right in his figures.
There was an increase in the price of pigs. That was a nominal increase, just as the increase in the price of feeding barley was a nominal increase. The price of feeding barley was increased this year from 38/- to 40/-. We are feeding the same type of barley as was sold years ago for 48/- when costs of production were less.
That was agreed by the Joint Committee of the Committees of Agriculture.
Possibly, but 2/- a barrel is a very small increase. Farmers' incomes have increased by five per cent but the costs have gone up by at least 15 per cent, and even 15 per cent is a conservative figure.
The Deputy was listening to one of his colleagues last night trying to put these costs up higher.
I think he was trying to make an honest effort to settle a strike in his constituency, and I pat him on the back for it. Would we not all make an effort and give our services to settle a strike in our constituencies?
The Deputy is like Lanamachree's dog: he goes a bit of the way with everyone.
It was late in the night and we all get a bit hot under the collar when it gets late. The Minister said many things last night, but the hour was late.
There is then the relief in rates. Whom are we to thank for that? The farmers?
Of Kilkenny.
Absolutely. We had a strike last year against increased rates. The farmers said they would not pay the increased rates and quite a number of them did not pay up to the end of the year. The President of the National Farmers Association had an interview with the Taoiseach and, as a result of that interview, he came down and told the farmers: "If you agree to pay your rates this year, I am guaranteed that a substantial amount will be given by way of relief of rates in the coming Budget."
Was the Deputy present?
No, but I heard it.
That has been repudiated here in this House. Did the Deputy hear that repudiation?
Of course I did, but I also heard what was heard in Kilkenny, and the proof was that the farmers paid their rates.
I was shaking in my brogues in dread of them. I thought they would come rushing up from Kilkenny and sweep me out of existence.
The Minister will not lose votes quite so easily. The Minister is quite confident of being returned in Cavan. He has never had any trouble and he will have none so long as he contests the seat. There are other members of the Government Party not so confident of their seats.
We went out before, and we came back.
I know you did, and you went out before and did not come back. I remember how upset the Minister was in 1948 when he did not come back.
We are still here.
For a while.
For a while, exactly. I believe in giving credit where credit is due and the credit for the relief of rates is not due to the Government.
We had to get the money all the same and the Deputy and his Party did not want us to get it. This is Lanamachree's dog again.
No. We are all very pleased about the cattle industry.
(Interruptions.)
Sir, I have not very many minutes left and I think I should get an opportunity of speaking.
Deputy Crotty has only two minutes left.
I think I should be allowed to speak without interruption. The Minister is trying to put me off.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister cannot claim credit for the cattle industry. The improvement there is due to the unfortunate position in the Argentine. It is an ill wind that blows no one good.
(Interruptions.)
I love a bit of praise from Fine Gael.
Deputy Crotty is not getting much opportunity to praise anybody.
I remember the old Cumann na nGaedheal Party; you could not get a "bob" out of them, any more than you could get it off the head of a pin.
You did not have everyone flying off the land as they are now.
They were not flying off it. They were dying on it.
More small farmers have cleared off the land in the past eight years since this Government came back again.
(Interruptions.)
Thirty-eight thousand in the past two years. It is in their own book on economics.
Will the House allow Deputy Crotty to speak?
(Interruptions.)
I am a quiet man anyway.
Will the Deputy move to report progress?
I move to report progress.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.