Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 24 Nov 1964

Vol. 213 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Vote 40—Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture (Mr. Haughey)

I move:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £6,666,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st March, 1965, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The net amount of this Supplementary Estimate, added to the original Estimate for 1964/65, brings to an all-time record level of £30,324,700 the expenditure from the vote for my Department. The corresponding figure ten years ago, that is, in 1954/55, was £7,250,950; five years ago, £13,478,460; and last year, that is, 1963/64, £25,262,000. This increasing expenditure reflects both the continuing development of our agriculture and the increasing measure of support and assistance which the Government are extending to it.

I do not think it would be appropriate, on a Supplementary Estimate which is confined to a specified number of subheads, to make the kind of general policy statement which is usual in introducing the main Estimate. I may say, however, that our agricultural policy in general will continue to be developed within the framework of my Department's "Brown Book"—a publication which I believe has received a considerable measure of support throughout the country.

The biggest provisions in this Supplementary Estimate are for Subhead N and Subhead K 14. Practically all the additional provision in Subhead N is required to finance the increase of 2d. per gallon of creamery milk announced in the last Budget. This increase in the allowance came into effect on 1st May, 1964, and is estimated to cost £2,800,000 in the present financial year. The cost of the increase in a full financial year on the basis of present production levels would be about £3 million.

As we all know, milk is of fundamental importance in our agricultural economy. Not only does it provide a steady source of income, especially for the small and medium-sized holdings, but it is also the foundation on which our cattle industry and, to a substantial extent, our pig industry depend. Milk production has shown a steady increase in recent years, due both to increased productivity—which has been greatly helped by lime and fertiliser subsidies and other schemes—and to the increases in price support given in the last three financial years. Total creamery milk production in 1964 is estimated at 363 million gallons, as compared with 337 million gallons in 1963, 324 million gallons in 1962 and 240 million gallons ten years ago. The total amount of the farmers' creamery cheque in 1964 is expected to be in the neighbourhood of £34 million which is about £5 million more than last year, £7 million more than 1962 and £15 million higher than ten years ago.

Exports of milk products have increased considerably in recent years. Exports of butter are expected to reach about 18,700 tons in the year ending 31st March, 1965, and there has been a notable increase in the exports of milk products other than butter, which is reflected in the increasing diversification of our milk processing industry. The production of such products as milk powder and cheese is now very much higher than it was previously, and we appear to be arriving at a healthy balance between the production of butter and of other milk products. Prices on export markets, while they have improved substantially for products such as butter and cheese, are still well below our actual cost of production. Considering the export market problems which face them I think that An Bord Bainne are doing a good job, and it is particularly gratifying to note that Irish creamery butter is selling both in Britain and in the Six Counties at prices above those paid for most other butter. Granted reasonable weather conditions, we look forward to a further increase in milk output next year.

Under Subhead K 14, we are looking for an additional sum of more than £2½ million for the calved heifer grants. Our original estimate was £405,000, but the response to the scheme has exceeded all our expectations and there is every indication that the scheme is having the desired result of increasing the number of cows in the country, and, therefore, will lead to higher cattle production in the future. By the end of October just over 73,000 herds had qualified for grant, the number of animals concerned being nearly 146,000. Herd-owners in every county are qualifying in considerable numbers for the grants. Relatively speaking—that is to say, relative to the existing number of cattle already in the country—the counties which are qualifying for a particularly large share of the grants are Roscommon, Longford, Cavan, Monaghan, Galway, Sligo, Leitrim and Donegal, but every county is, in fact, doing well. I believe that this scheme, which is quite a novel one for this country, is proving to be a considerable success, and I am very hopeful that it will enable us to effect a major break-through in cattle production.

The next Subhead in order of size is K 11—Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme—where we are asking for an additional sum of nearly £600,000. Our purchases of reactors in March last, payment for which was made in the present financial year, were particularly heavy. The rate of compensation is also higher than we had anticipated, due to the steep rise in cattle prices as compared with last year. However, even with the additional sum now sought our total expenditure on the eradication of the disease will be £3½ million less than last year. We are confident that the six counties which are not yet attested, that is, Cork, Kerry, Kilkenny, Limerick, Tipperary and Waterford, will be declared attested within about a year from now, and we shall then be able to celebrate the attestation of the entire country. Already, the incidence of bovine tuberculosis in the six counties I have mentioned has been brought down to a low figure. The present round of tests has disclosed an overall incidence of only 0.5 per cent and an incidence in cows of 0.8 per cent. In fact, therefore, tuberculosis has been largely eradicated from these counties, and what we are now undertaking is the final mopping-up operation so as to ensure that the counties will be technically ready for attestation within the next year.

As a result of the progress made in the eradication of bovine tuberculosis, we are now in a position to make effective plans for the deployment of our veterinary resources on the elimination of other animal diseases, including brucellosis. I have already announced our intentions in this regard. I am glad to say that these plans will be considerably facilitated by the fact that, with the agreement of the British veterinary authorities, it has now become possible to reduce check-testing to 50 per cent of the herds, instead of 100 per cent as previously in seven of the present attested counties, namely, Donegal, Leitrim, Mayo, Roscommon, Sligo, Cavan and Monaghan.

As will be seen from the Supplementary Estimate, our other schemes are also forging ahead. We are looking for additional money for the Land Project—Subhead K 7—and for Farm Buildings—K 6. These schemes are moving ahead very satisfactorily.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Haughey

Thank you.

Mr. Dillon

I did not hear the Minister say "thank you" to me.

Mr. Haughey

I am always grateful for any comments I can get from the Opposition benches.

We require another £400,000 under K 16—Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission. This money is required to meet the additional cost of the Exchequer payments on exports of bacon. The increased cost is due partly to the fact that the minimum guaranteed prices for pigs were increased during the financial year, as announced in the Budget, and partly to the fact that prices for bacon on export markets have recently been at a lower level than we had expected. Although the British bacon market is now controlled, under what is known as the multilateral understanding on bacon, prices for bacon are not quite as good as we hoped for: on the other hand, of course, in the absence of the present controls in Britain, bacon export prices would probably be appreciably lower than they are. We expect to fill the British bacon allocation of 27,000 tons during the present financial year and take our share of some allocations from the reserve quota, in addition to exporting a moderate quantity of pork.

I now come to an item of particular current interest—the import of cattle and sheep from continental Europe through the quarantine station we have set up on Spike Island, off the Cork coast. The relevant provisions in the Supplementary Estimate are to be found in Subheads C 2, E 1 and E 2, The cost of running the quarantine station is included in C 2; the cost of the imported Friesian bulls and heifers is in E 1; asd the cost of the Charolais bulls and heifers and the Texel rams and ewes is in E 2. The Office of Public Works gave us very good service in arranging for the construction of the quarantine station which is one of the most modern in the world. Our thanks are also due to the Army authorities for granting us a very suitable isolated site within the moat on Spike Island, and to the many other services and people who helped us in this regard.

I need hardly say that extreme veterinary precautions have been taken in regard to the animals that have now been imported, and the conditions under which imports have been permitted were, in the first place, discussed in great detail with the veterinary services of the United States and Britain. I need not, I think, go into detail on these precautions, some of which were of a very technical nature, but I can say that they were very stringent and exacting.

We are hopeful that these importations will enable us to bring about a further improvement in our dairy and beef stocks, as well as in our sheep. The performance of the imported animals will be carefully recorded and assessed, and the results made known. It is interesting to note that, as we have imported Charolais females as well as bulls and as we already have in the country a number of American Charolais females and bulls, it should be possible to establish the breed here permanently if its performance under Irish conditions gives satisfactory results.

First priority in the future use of the quarantine station will be accorded to official imports from the continent or elsewhere of selected animals of breeds of cattle, sheep or pigs that offer a prospect of effecting an improvement in our native stocks. The import of pigs from Scandinavia is at present under consideration in this connection.

The station may also be used if the need arises to quarantine breeding stock imported from Britain, whether by my Department or by private breeders. These imports are now quarantined in British stations. It is scarcely necessary for me to add that the safeguarding of animal health and avoidance of the risk of introducing animal diseases will always be a paramount consideration in the operation of this station.

Among the other subheads, there is a provision for wheat losses under K 18, which represents the final liquidation of the losses in disposal of unmillable wheat from the 1962 harvest. This proved to be a protracted operation and final assessment of the losses sustained was not possible until fairly recently.

We are also looking for an increased sum for An Foras Talúntais under Subhead I 6, part of which represents an increase in the normal grant-in-aid and arises out of the cost of the ninth round of salary and wage increases. The subhead also includes a figure of £15,000 by way of capital grant. As An Foras Talúntais has now practically used up the sum it received for capital development when it was established, it has become necessary for the State to find additional capital for further development.

Subheads D 4, D 5 and D 9 provide for increased grants to the University Faculties of Agriculture, Dairy Science and Veterinary Medicine to meet salary increases and costs of extra staffing.

Under Subhead I 2, we are seeking an increase of £3,000 for the grant-in-aid to the IAOS. This is required to meet the cost of additional staff recruited as a result of the recommendations in the report by Dr. Knapp.

I think that this is all I need say on this Supplementary Estimate at this stage. I am fully conscious of the fact that the extra amount sought is considerable, but I ask the Dáil to approve of it in the interest of our farmers and for the benefit of our agriculture.

Mr. Donegan

I should like to say, first, that this Supplementary Estimate is not a harbinger of good news in the material sense for the farmer. There is no question of the farmer getting more money today or tomorrow because of it. The position in relation to milk is that this sum is being voted in respect of an increase in the price of milk given some months ago. It was then estimated it would cost £2,600,000. Apparently that estimate was fairly correct, because the Minister says the figure will be £200,000 more.

It should be remembered that our price to farmers for milk is the lowest in Europe. I would have hoped that the Minister would have indicated his plans for the future in regard to milk, for its better utilisation, for its better handling and its moving into products which give the best profit. On this, the first occasion he has introduced a serious motion in the House, I should have hoped that he would have told us what his hopes were for an increase in the milk price in future. I am rather disappointed that has not happened. Therefore we find that almost half of this Supplementary Estimate relates to moneys which were already voted after a long and protracted disagreement with the farmers and an increase in the price of milk given some time ago which is regarded by them as still very inadequate.

There are other subheads here which are excellent in themselves and very proper to be voted but which have no immediate or direct relation to the remuneration of the farmer. While agreeing on them, it is right to draw attention to the fact that nobody is putting £6,600,000 into the farmer's pocket today. Far is it from that situation. For instance, the two votes to University College, Dublin, and Trinity College in respect of the expenses of veterinary medicine, though excellent in themselves and in the years to come will ensure we have a supply of veterinary surgeons, will not in the next week or the next year increase the income of any farmer.

In respect of the two other subheads related to the Land Project and the subsidy on pig meat, I take it the position is the votes under these subheads were reduced in the Additional Estimate. In the Book of Estimates for 1964-65 under Subhead K 7, the amount to be spent on the Land Project was reduced to £2,170,500 from £2,232,180, a reduction of £61,680. The Minister now finds himself obliged to introduce a Supplementary Estimate for £60,000. Therefore the status quo is being preserved. That is all that is happening.

The position in relation to the estimate of payments to the Pigs and Bacon Commission was that in the 1964-65 Estimate, Subhead K 17, there was an estimated decrease in the sum required of £500,000. The Minister now finds himself obliged to introduce a Supplementary Estimate in respect of this subhead for £400,000, so that in regard to the actual amounts we are spending on these items which are not directly related to farming, in the one instance, it is the same as in the previous financial year and in another instance, it is £100,000 less. It must be remembered that the farmers do not like to see heavy expenditure because it falls on their backs to pay it. These are two items that have been restored to their previous level. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance was parsimonious in that respect but although we are spending more money on the Land Project than we did last year, we are not spending more money on the subsidising of farmers' pig prices than we did last year, and these two subheads virtually remain the same.

In respect of bovine tuberculosis, I always like to make the case that this was a national crisis and that the operation of the bovine TB eradication scheme did not put money in any farmer's pocket. It may be argued, perhaps, that if there had not been a bovine TB eradication scheme and if our cattle had been excluded from the various markets as a result, there would have been a catastrophe. The answer to that is there would have been a national catastrophe striking just as heavily on the lady working in the hat shop in Grafton Street as on the farmer who could not sell his cattle. Therefore one must take this figure for bovine TB eradication as a national charge, properly included in the Estimate for Agriculture but at the same time a national charge. It can be said that that item, which, of course, will decrease now that we have got the job done, is something that has its impact on every one of us as distinct from the farmers.

The heifer scheme has exploded in a most spectacular way and one might say it would be churlish of anybody here to criticise that situation. I do not mean to criticise that situation but it is wise to draw attention to certain points in relation to it. The first point is that the estimate of the Department of Agriculture of the expenditure on this scheme has been as far out, as we say in our part of the country, as the cow and the calf. As long as I have been here, I have never seen the figures introduced for a Department as far away from the eventual result as these.

I should like to quote the contribution of the previous Minister for Agriculture on the Estimate for Agriculture, on the heifer scheme, as reported at column 1361, volume 205, of the Official Report of 12th November, 1963:

The cost of the scheme is estimated to rise from about £300,000 in the first year — 1964-65 — to around £1,500,000 in 1966-67 and to about £1,800,000 in the later '60s.

That was the Department's figure. What are we asked to vote today? We are asked to vote today in respect of a scheme for grants for calf heifers an additional sum of £2,550,000; including the Estimate for 1964-65, which was £300,000, that is, a total sum of £2,855,000. What are we to say? Are we to say this is a wonderful scheme or are we to say there is something odd about this. I hope the scheme will succeed. I hope we shall get the cow numbers which form the whole basis of our agricultural effort. However, we must examine these things as they are here.

What do we find? We find that in respect of the crops and livestock figures for 1st June—I quote from the preliminary statement; there may have been some corrections in it since, but I would say they would be pretty slight —the number of cattle three years and upwards fell from 227,000 to 201,000 a reduction of 26,000, or 26.4 per cent. In the number of two to three-year-olds, there was a decline of 39.9 per cent, and the one-year-olds and under declined by ten per cent.

This indicates to me a worrying feature in relation to this scheme. People who have herds, graziers grazing dry stock, maybe around the number 100 or 200, suddenly realised there were 100 times or 150 times £15 to be gained and went into this scheme and had their calves single suckled on the heifers. The worry in respect of this is that these people would not have created what one would call a proper herd because they would have moved over and got £15 for each, and next year, knowing they could not get another £15, would move back again. What hope is there for the five or seven cow man? He can increase by possibly two or three if he improves his grassland.

Mr. Haughey

The average payment is for two.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister will notice I quoted the word "lie". I did not accuse the Minister. There is the old aphorism about "Lies, damn lies and statistics".

Mr. Haughey

As far as I can see from the figures, I think it is small people generally who have benefited.

Mr. Tully

That was not the answer given in the House last week.

Mr. Donegan

I am very glad of that assurance and I intend to put down a question next week to find out the average size of the herd.

Mr. Haughey

I cannot give the average size of the herd, but the average payment made is for two—two grants.

Mr. Donegan

That assurance is of very great help because the figures would indicate there had been some sort of explosion which had not been helpful.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy will see that the counties which are mainly benefiting are Roscommon, Cavan, Galway—and small farming areas.

Mr. Donegan

That assurance is valuable because I honestly believed, from the figures, that there was a sudden moving over from grazing dry stock to grazing heifers and the people who had been grazing dry stock probably had a nil, or a one or two, figure in their herd. There are flaws in the scheme inasmuch as the fellow who has being doing his job well, keeping ten or 15 cows, cannot get any £15. You may say we have been pragmatic about this; our job is to increase the numbers and, if some do not benefit, that is just bad luck. I maintain a scheme should have been devised to bring everybody in. I know excellent men in my own and neighbouring constituencies farming on optimum production, and they cannot afford, because of the price offered for milk, expensive concentrates in order to improve their feeding and increase the flow of milk. They can do a certain number of cattle, and that is all, with their own food. I am not now detracting from the heifer scheme. We are with the scheme. We were the people who first said there should be either a calf subsidy scheme or a heifer mating subsidy scheme. We considered what was the right thing to do and what we would have done, had we remained in office, unless there was strong advice to the contrary, was something very different from what this Government have done.

Mr. Meaney

You would have done worse.

Mr. Donegan

There is some evidence that this scheme can be used by people to move over from dry stock to the other and then, having got £15 per head from the Government, to move back again. My worry is that it is all very well to give a grant and establish a situation in which this movement occurs, but, remember, the farmer is restricted in his capital. Very often he has made his arrangement with the bank; he has a bit of an overdraft and he cannot get any more credit. I have drawn attention here to the numbers of other cattle. The increase in the price of heifers and cows is something for which we should be thankful, but the numbers of other cattle have decreased. Is that because of the excellent price as a result of the 1948 Trade Agreement or is it because the farmer could keep only the same number of stock, his capital being so limited?

I indicated on the Estimate for Agriculture last year the sort of capital investment necessary in order that what the Government indicated in their Blue Book and their Brown Book could be done. If you want to increase cow numbers to the figure indicated by the Government, one of the main problems arises in connection with the production of cattle. If you have 177,000 moneywise extra heifers this year they replace 177,000 other cattle, unless the money can be got to keep them, because the farmer must sell in order to get the wherewithal to pay school fees, rates, keep the suit on his back, and live. That is the basis of it.

I had hoped the Minister would indicate today what his plans are and I want to warn him now that, in our considered judgement, unless he follows his heifer subsidy scheme, or any other scheme, with the introduction of a better advisory service and a heavy injection of capital to the individual farmer, then one is merely robbing Peter to pay Paul. You have increased to 177,000 heifers but there is no money there to keep 177,000, or something very close to that number, extra cattle and, while in this year you have succeeded, in the following years you will fail. Remember the £15 has been paid out in respect of 177,000 and, if the farmer sees no £15 coming in next year, he may revert again to dry stock. I do not offer this criticism in an effort to damp down the scheme. My anxiety is to ensure the introduction of the capital, following on the scheme, to permit the farmer not only to keep the 177,000 extra heifers but to keep them in addition to his normal quota of dry stock and other animals.

The position in relation to butter seems to be exceptionally good. I asked a series of questions recently and elicited certain information. We can send on the basic quota plus additions to the best moneywise price market 17,205 tons of our butter. The amount available for export, I was told, would be 18,500 tons. We will be in a position, therefore, to send almost all our butter this year to the best export market available. That is an excellent step forward. Prices in Britain have improved because of the GATT arrangements limiting the introduction of butter. We have been rather well treated, though it seemed at first we might not be. Now that we have increased our production, we will be able next year to increase, if not the basic quota, certainly the additions.

A very interesting situation has developed in regard to my forecast as to what would happen. I told the Minister's predecessor he would never need the £9 million he indicated would be required. I still think I am right. There is more milk coming forward, for one thing. The planning done by the Committee on General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in Britain has helped us. It is a bad thing, of course, that we should lose completely free access but, in the event, it has actually helped us. We will have all our butter going into the best export market in future and that is a good thing.

The Minister was very brief with regard to wheat. I take it it is in order to discuss the wheat position on this. Wheat is a crop which has been charged in against the people and the industrial workers at a high price in the past, a price to which their remuneration has been negotiated freely. It is therefore a crop that pays the farmer if he can sell it for milling better than most other crops and certainly better than feeding barley or oats. We had the situation where the Fianna Fáil Government, in December, 1953, realised there was going to be a surplus of wheat and they set up an inter-departmental committee to see how much we needed and the figure they arrived at was 300,000 tons. The consumption of bread has since decreased and now the Government's Brown Book indicates that 265,000 tons is the right figure.

Last year—again this is information elicited from the Minister last week— with only 3,480 tons of wheat which was unmillable, we produced only 197,457 tons, that is, a deficit of some 67,000 tons of wheat, at a high price, wheat that can be grown here and sold to the millers and that can give the farmers a good price. It will be a great mistake if this industry is ever let go down. The whole basis of the mills here is not the employment they give, because that is very low, but really the delivery and handling of flour, which would still continue if there were imports of wheat, and the whole basis of their existence is that they could buy Irish wheat at a high price. Over the years Fianna Fáil Governments have been so dilatory in the handling of this situation that the amount of wheat produced has fallen from, at one stage, 486,000 tons to 197,000 tons, and even by the highly conservative lines taken by them in the Brown Book, that is 67,000 tons of wheat less than we need.

The Government asked Dr. Olered for his recommendations in this regard and his recommendations have been in the hands of the Minister for some weeks. Dr. Olered suggests that the fall in number test of wheat for millability should be used. The millers have refused pointblank to accept that, even though it obtains in every country. He also recommended various other things one of them being that there should be segregation of wheat at intake points. We have a progressive fall in the quantity of wheat produced over the years and it is urgently necessary that the Minister should do something about it quickly. If you want to get segregation, this brings about segregation in storage and perhaps brings about more driers, changes in the mills and various other things that have to be done.

In 1951 when this problem was first touched on, the then Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Dillon, instituted the Grain Storage (Loans) Act and provided money at four and a half per cent—and afterwards at five and three-quarters per cent—for 35 years to provide storage and drying for our own wheat. That was a great step forward but now Dr. Olered has recommended that we should pass on to the fall in number test for sprout damage and that there should be segregation. Any work that has to be done in a mill to produce this would require at least a year, and if the Minister were to make a decision now, it is doubtful if we would have one quarter ready next year.

The Minister has indicated that he has asked for advice from the interests concerned and that he proposes to await their views before taking action. May I remind him that we have 70,000 tons of wheat less in the country than we should have and if the Minister is going to wait until things happen, we will probably have less next year? This is something on which his officials are competent to advise him and he could make a decision and some action could be taken within a matter of weeks. If he does not, he will find that 1965 will be a dead letter as far as change is concerned. A new, up and coming Minister for Agriculture could be expected to be a bit of a firebrand as regards time. The word "await" and words like it do not indicate that he is chasing around the Department with any great degree of activity.

As I say there is nothing in this Supplementary Estimate that brings more money immediately to the farmers. There are a lot of items in it which relate to agricultural education, not advisory services directly for the farmers, but on a higher level. There are a lot of items in it which, in my view, are the direct result of cheeseparing by the Minister for Finance with the then Minister for Agriculture when it was time to publish the last Book of Estimates. At the same time, we on this side of the House welcome the expenditures foreshadowed or in the process of being made here and hope they will produce good. We feel the individual criticisms—I hope, constructive—that have been offered were necessary and we hope they will be valuable and helpful.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The first thing I should do is congratulate the Minister on his appointment and wish him well in office. I am rather sorry to see Deputy Haughey in front of me in place of Deputy Smith because I have had a bone of contention with the previous Minister over a number of years and I believe I had worn him down, but the next thing is I find he is gone and so I have to start all over again with the new Minister.

The matter to which I am going to refer may not seem very important to the Minister but to me it is most important. It is the plea I have been making continually for the subsidisation of milk on the islands around our coast which have not got creamery facilities. Even though the number of people involved is small, in justice they are entitled to some share of the large subventions we give towards the dairy industry each year.

In Galway during the week, I noted that Ministers were telling people that the subventions on milk during the current year would total almost £9 million. I cannot see why small farmers living on the islands should be precluded from benefiting from that large subsidy. In the course of discussions on this matter on a previous occasion, it was pointed out that in most cases it would not be economical to provide creamery facilities. In fact, the Dairy Disposal Board, a State-sponsored body, recommended that the best and most economical method of providing justice and fair play to the island farmers was to give them a subsidy on home-produced butter.

I want to confine my agitation to island dwellers because whilst a number of people on the mainland make home-produced butter just as well as the islanders, it is not the same thing because in a number of cases creamery facilities are within their reach, if they desire to sell their milk to creameries. In the case of the islanders, the Atlantic Ocean is between them and the creamery facilities, and consequently they cannot avail of the subvention given to the dairy industry. I believe it is unconstitutional on the part of the State to deny this subsidy to butter producers on the islands. I am asking the Minister as the new Minister for Agriculture impartially to examine their claim for subsidisation. If he does, he can come to only one conclusion, and that conclusion is to grant their request.

I have had a number of deputations —and I am sure my colleagues have also had deputations—from some of the islanders living on islands around the coast of West Cork, particularly Sherkin Island and Cape Clear. While the amount of milk produced on the islands may be relatively small, and the cost of the subsidy would be relatively small, in common justice they should get the subsidy. The least they should get is 6d. in the £. The farmer who sells through a creamery gets 50 per cent more than the man who sells without any State aid. Surely the Minister will see for himself that it is unfair to those smallholders, most of whom are in exceptionally poor circumstances, and trying to eke out a livelihood between fishing and farming in a small way not to grant them a subsidy. The milk they produce constitutes the main part of their income from farming.

I do not think there is any need to labour the point further. I am asking the Minister to re-open this question and to examine it in the careful diligent and fair way it merits to be examined. I hope he will grant this subsidy to these people. It is scarcely necessary to mention the fact that when this matter came to the attention of the Cork County Committee of Agriculture they unanimously recommended the payment of the subsidy to island butter producers. I hope there will not be any need to continue this agitation. I hope that before the year is out the Minister will give these people the justice for which they are looking. They are not looking for any dole or charity. Farmers who supply milk to creameries are subsidised from central funds, and why should islanders who cannot avail of the creamery facilities be denied that subsidy? That is not justice. I am sure we will not have to continue with this kind of discussion here any longer. I am sure the Minister will see the need to grant this subvention.

I said earlier that the former Minister was weakening on this question. When I questioned him about it in the summer he seemed to think they were entitled to the subvention but he seemed to prefer to provide them with creamery facilities. At least that is as well as I recollect his statement. The Minister must not have examined that proposition very closely at the time, because everyone knows it would be economically impossible to provide creamery facilities for islanders. I do not make this claim for the islanders off the coast of West Cork only. The Minister must act on a national basis, and I believe similar treatment should be given to islanders all round our coast.

We on this side of the House have put our views clearly on the question of milk prices time and again. Like every other section of the community the farmers are entitled to a fair and reasonable return for their production. Having regard to the general increase in costs in recent years, it was only natural that the price of milk should be increased. I believed the approach of the Government to increasing the price of milk was wrong. I do not believe in giving a flat rate increase of 2d. per gallon to all our milk producers. Time and again we have been told in this House that the small farmer is the backbone of the country. I believe we should give a subsidy of 4d per gallon for the first 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 or 10,000 gallons.

This is what we could do. We could give a subsidy of 4d per gallon for the first 10,000 gallons of milk supplied to the creamery in any one calendar year, and a subsidy of 2d for the next 5,000 or 10,000 gallons. Then, for milk in excess of that figure we could give a subsidy of 1d per gallon. In that way we would be helping the small farmers, and more of the money which has been passed by this House, and paid through taxation into the Central Fund, would be channelled into the pockets of the small and medium-sized farmers, who are much more entitled to it than the well-to-do farmers who are fortunate enough to have good land, and an easy means of making money at their disposal.

Surely you cannot compare a farmer in the western or southern part of the country, who has to trudge with his horse and cart, or donkey and cart, with ten or 15 gallons of milk to the creamery—and possibly at this time of the year with less than ten gallons— with the farmer in the midlands with a tractor to take more than 100 gallons daily to the creamery. There is a big distinction between the two, and the cost of delivery is much the same. For that reason I believe a flat rate increase in the price of milk was not fair to the small farmers. I think an average of 15 gallons of milk per day, winter and summer, is a reasonable average for small and medium sized farmers. That is 2/6d. per day for seven days of the week, which represents an increase of 17/6d. in his income. That is less than the flat rate of £1 which was given to workers who had an income of less than £8 per week, so it is quite evident that the small farmer is not treated fairly in regard to the subsidisation of agriculture.

Side by side with the increase in the price of milk, we had the introduction of the calved heifer scheme. There, again, the small farmer is at a loss. He is not getting his rightful share of the moneys—in the region of £2½ million I think—devoted to this scheme during the current year. Last week Deputy Pattison asked the Minister for some information as to how this money is disposed of, and he was told that seven farmers got more than £1,215 each. I do not know how much in excess of £1,215 they got, but it is evident from the Minister's reply that seven farmers got more than £1,215 each for the calved heifer scheme.

Mr. Haughey

That is not a big figure for the whole country.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The figure of £1,215 may not seem a big figure to the Minister, but this House is supposed to be vigilant in relation to the expenditure of that money. So far as I know, those may be seven of the most progressive farmers in Ireland. They may have changed from dry stock to milk production and may be going into it legitimately and lawfully and are genuinely entitled to this grant. On the other hand, there could be seven farmers, one or other of whom could take advantage of the terms of this scheme to draw this £15 per heifer and, once the money is drawn, sell his stock and go back to dry cattle. Could that not happen? There is nothing to preclude farmers from doing that. If a farmer went in for dry stock, instead of selling off his heifers in 1963, he could allow them to calve and when they are calved, apply for the calved heifer scheme grants. Then he could sell these cattle again to any farmer who would require them, or on the market, and could go back again to dry stock farming, having got his bonus from the State.

I do not think there is any regulation which would preclude him from doing that. That is one of the abuses to which this scheme is open. If a person has no intention of continuing in milk production, he can avail of this scheme in the manner I have outlined, draw his £15 per head, and then go back again to dry farming. He would have no difficulty in disposing of his heifers when it would be known that they were sold because the particular farmer was changing his system of farming and that the cattle were not being sold because of any faults or defects.

On the other side of the picture, Deputy Pattison was told that 54,664 farmers got £1,393,355, an average of £25 10s. each It is evident that the 54,664 averaged just a little more than a heifer and a half apiece.

Mr. Haughey

The whole lot is two per head.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The whole average would be two, but when you take away the top-notchers, you will find it is an average of one and a half per head. In any case, in money, it represents £25.10 per farmer. That is the subsidy which the smaller farmer got. I am sure the type of person who drew this subsidy is the more genuine type rather than the larger farmers. I cannot for the life of me see how all of a sudden these bigger farmers could bring in more than 80 heifers to calve in one year.

There is an obligation on the Minister carefully to review the expenditure of this Estimate money. I know incentives given to farmers are justified, once you are satisfied that a scheme is not abused. There is an obligation on the Minister to ensure that the scheme is not abused. If he finds abuses exist which are not covered by present legislation, these loopholes should be closed and regulations brought in to cover them. Everybody knows that in the early days of the BCG scheme, there were several loopholes and, as a result, the State had to pay money to people who were not lawfully entitled to it. I do not wish to see a repetition of that, so far as this scheme is concerned.

How could the Minister be said to keep track of all these people? Once the grant is paid, it is a matter for themselves to do what they like with their animals. It would be quite easy to ascertain, say, in 1965 or 1966, the number of people who have got big subventions on foot of the calved heifer scheme, and to see whether they have reverted to their former methods of farming. The position is, owing to the layout of the country, in several counties the people with the first-class high productivity land, are, to my mind, not the best farmers. I do not want to reflect on any group or take advantage of the privileges of this House, but they are not the best farmers, and that is putting it mildly.

I am not singling out for special mention a constituency because I represent it, but if the farmers of south-west Cork enjoyed the advantages of farmers in other parts of the country, particularly in the midlands, I feel sure, with an average holding of 40 to 50 acres, they would be quite happy and would have reasonable incomes for themselves and their families. In parts of western Ireland, and along the west coast, areas of more than 1,000 acres could be said to be the equivalent of 30 to 40 acres of good arable land.

In Cork we are pressing hard in our efforts to get the county attested. The Minister said it is likely that it will be attested, together with the other five southern counties, within the next 12 months. I hope that prophecy is correct and that the Department will cooperate with the Cork Bovine Tuberculosis Committee, which, to my mind, has done outstanding work in focussing attention on the desirability of eradicating bovine tuberculosis. I hope that the combined efforts of the Cork committee, the Department and the outdoor officers will result in the realisation of this prophecy.

It is generally agreed by all that the fact that Cork county and other counties are not attested at the present time results in a loss of not less than £5 per head of store cattle and a higher loss on other types of cattle. The Minister can rest assured that, so far as 99 per cent of the farmers in Cork are concerned, he has their full co-operation in bringing this scheme to a successful conclusion. It is no harm to bring it to an end because, undoubtedly, it has cost public funds a lot of money and it brings home to us the desirability of having herds cleared of tuberculosis. It brings home to us in another way the importance of the British market.

It is, indeed, peculiar that it was Britain who got us to eradicate tuberculosis in our cattle. It was as a result of the regulations for the importation of cattle to Britain that we decided to spend up to £30 million on the eradication scheme. I have no doubt that that money is wisely expended. There was no alternative to doing so if we were to keep our place on the British market.

Irrespective of what the previous Minister for Agriculture and other Ministers and members of the Government had to say about the British market, it is certain that it is almost our only market for agricultural produce. I do not want to go back on past times but I am quite sure that certain members of the Government, who in other days publicly decried the British market, will now change their tune.

It is significant that the action of another country caused us to embark on the scheme for the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Be that as it may, we are all pleased that the work is coming to an end. We trust that, once an area is cleared, every effort will be made to ensure that it will be kept cleared and that there will not be any outbreak in any part of the country. I have no doubt the Minister will get the co-operation of all concerned in this matter.

Pig production is very important and it is mentioned by the Minister. Our quota on the British market this year is 27,000 tons. It appears that there is also a reserve quota, in addition to exporting a moderate quantity of pork. It is quite all right to make every possible effort to increase pig production so long as we are assured of a market for our pigs. We were fearful in Cork some years ago lest we should have no market or that once supply exceeded demand, prices would go down.

There is one thing which worries me about pig production. I mentioned this matter a few years ago on the Estimate. I refer to the trend of setting up big pig farms in different parts of the country. I understand that there are farms with more than 1,000 pigs and that there are sow stations with up to 50 sows in some of them. That is quite all right so long as we have an unlimited economic market but I fear that when saturation point is reached, then what happened to the poultry industry may happen the pig industry.

Take the position in West Cork. Pig production there is a very important sideline of farming, as well as the production of young pigs. On an average, the majority of farmers keep two or three sows: up to five would be the limit, with a few exceptions. Then there are farmers who do not keep sows and who buy the bonhams from people who hold sows. Almost since the end of the war, the price of bonhams has been considered to be reasonably good, having regard to the general trend of agricultural prices. It is asserted—I think with some degree of truth—that the farmer who goes in for the production of bonhams does much better than the man who buys the bonhams, fattens them and sells them to the factories.

Many people feel that at present the profit on fattening pigs is not as high as it should be. As one with a reasonable knowledge of the fattening of pigs, I believe that statement to be correct. I am trying to bring home to the Minister, as a new man on the job, that there is a fear that if big combines, big farmers or big co-operative societies, or any other type of society, take over and erect big pig stations and fatten thousands of pigs, it might react very much on the price of pigs and on the incomes of the vast numbers who are making a reasonable percentage of their livelihood from pig rearing and pig production. We have enough of combines here. Unless we are satisfied that they will not interfere with the small pig producer's market, which has kept us going through the years, there should be a curtailment.

I think I mentioned in this House already that no farmer or combine should be allowed to have, say, more than seven sows. Everybody has to live. When there is a limit on our export market, there should be a limit, if at any time the situation demands it, on the erection of these big pig breeding stations. I do not see any justification for the action of the Department in making big grants available for substantial piggeries. Grants of £1,000 or more are available for the erection of piggeries.

Mr. Haughey

Pigs are very scarce. The factories cannot get enough at present.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister says the buyers cannot get enough at the moment. The obvious reason is that the margin of profit in the fattening of pigs is not adequate. It should be stepped up. I asserted that people who have sows or who engage in sow farming and sell the bonhams do better than people who buy the bonhams and fatten the pigs. If the number of pigs available is not sufficient, is it the Minister's policy to set up big combines and to allow them to fatten thousands of pigs and to keep, say, from 30 to 100 sows? If such a policy should come into operation, it will sound the deathknell of those farmers who keep, say, from ten to 20 pigs, or two or three sows. Such a step would be detrimental to the interests of the small farmers, as is clearly borne out by what happened to our poultry industry.

We were told that the main reason the poultry industry declined below the economic limit was the fact that the production of poultry had increased so much in Britain. Now, there is little or no market for our poultry or poultry products there. Up to, say, eight years ago, the poultry industry gave a good deal of self-employment in this country.

Mr. Meaney

We were to drown the British in eggs.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Would Deputy Meaney please confine himself to his own statements? I made no mention of drowning the British in eggs. It was Fianna Fáil who said that the British market was gone and gone for good, and thanks be to God for it.

Mr. Meaney

If Deputy M. P. Murphy cannot take what I said in good part, then he is a poor sport.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

If effect were given to your policy, there would be no pigs, bacon or poultry, except the limited quantities required for our own use. At the time the statement about drowning the British in eggs was made, egg production was at a very high level. It seemed that we could increase poultry and egg production.

Mr. Haughey

It shows the fallacy of making any prophecies in relation to agriculture.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The bottom fell out of the market for poultry and eggs, making production uneconomic. Now the turkey market has gone by the board and it is estimated that the turkey population of the country at the moment is only barely sufficient to meet our own requirements. With the decline of the export market, the number of turkeys available is not much more than what is required for our own use. I understand the number of turkeys in the country is between 500,000 and 550,000. The Minister made no mention of the poultry industry in his Supplementary Estimate. Am I to assume from that that he is satisfied there is no hope for the revival of the industry?

Mr. Haughey

I do very well out of hens myself.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I would like the Minister to explain to the House how he is doing so well out of hens. Several people who, I feel, are much more knowledgeable about hens than the Minister cannot make anything from them. It was only quite recently that we heard the Minister was a farmer at all. When he was appointed, it was said that he would know nothing about land. I am pleased to know that is not correct, that he is a poultry farmer as well as a dairy farmer.

Mr. Haughey

I have 2,000 hens and I made £874 net profit out of them in 12 months. I can show the Deputy the audited accounts to prove it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You must have a great time feeding them every day. The Minister says that he has 2,000 hens and that he has made 9/- profit from each of them. Down the country people who have been dealing with hens for years say that at present prices every hen dies in debt.

Mr. Haughey

Not the way I do it. Come out and have a look and I shall show you the audited figures to prove it.

Mr. Donegan

The hens are doing the laying but you are doing the bragging.

Mr. Haughey

I am entitled to do it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister says he has made a profit of £874 from 2,000 hens. I cannot understand how such figures could be correct unless he has a special secret market available to him.

Mr. Haughey

There is no secret about it. I invite the Deputy to come out and have a look.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Will the Minister tell us at what price he sells the eggs?

Mr. Haughey

I sell them in County Dublin.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Would it be a hatchery farm that you have?

Mr. Haughey

It is no hatchery farm; I sell eggs.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

For home consumption?

Mr. Haughey

I sell eggs.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Perhaps the Minister has a special contract for cakes by Gateaux. I cannot accept the Minister's statement.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy will have to.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

With all due respect to the Minister's qualifications for looking after hens, I would say that there are thousands of women in south-west Cork who will say that he knows nothing about them.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy is a bit out of date with regard to poultry. He will have to "get with it".

Mr. M.P. Murphy

If this is the case, the Minister must have some special power by which he makes them lay four or five eggs per day. In the early months of the year, when egg production was at its highest, the prices for eggs were lower than they were 15 years ago and everybody knows how money has declined in value in that time and how the cost of feeding stuffs has increased. The price this year of 1/6d. and 1/9d. a dozen for eggs was lower than it was 15 years ago.

Mr. Haughey

We will not argue about it. Come out and have a look.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I will go out and have a look. That is a bargain.

Mr. Donegan

Bring the ladies from west Cork with you and give them a lecture.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

That might not be a bad idea. It is possible that the Minister did not include anything in the Supplementary Estimate towards the further development of the poultry industry because he feels that the poultry industry is in a sound economic position; but I cannot see why he failed to include any aid to develop that industry further. I shall leave it at that.

I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the desirability of developing horticulture. We had no statement from him on such development. The reason I emphasise the desirability of that is that we are establishing in the Fastnet Co-operative Society a food processing factory in co-operation with the Irish Sugar Company in the town of Skibbereen which we all hope will be successful. I believe that the Department should make technical assistance available for the development of that industry in its infant years. It may be difficult for a company such as the Fastnet Co-operative Society to get all the technical advice needed from its own resources. Where you have infant industries based on agricultural products, there is an obligation on the Department to help in every way possible. I think the Minister should take a special interest in the development of these factories, particularly in their early years. Let us all hope that, as a result of co-operation from the Department, the county committee of agriculture and the workers and producers, the management will be successful from the beginning.

I do not wish to hold the House much longer, but I should like to re-emphasise the necessity for a more dynamic policy in respect of the small farmers along the western seaboard. This scrap here and scrap there policy will never get them anywhere. We can give the proceeds of a loan of £20 million for the development of industry. Since we can see the advantage in floating such a loan, I suggest we should consider the desirability of giving the entirely of a loan for a similar amount for the development of the western seaboard. We must have money if we are to provide any worthwhile schemes for these areas.

Nowadays, we have growing up throughout the country local voluntary organisations anxious and willing to help in every way. There is, however, an enormous shortage of money and this is without doubt our main difficulty in this branch of national development. If we are to keep our people in the west and in the other congested districts, we must be prepared to make available big sums of money such as those we are prepared to give by way of loan for development in other directions. In this way we would succeed in getting a large number of worthwhile schemes, schemes which might not be economic in their infancy——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is a Supplementary Estimate and the Deputy will appreciate that he must confine himself to the various subheads in it.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I know the Minister is interested in industries based on agriculture. We are learning now that it is only industries based on home-produced materials that are likely to succeed, not those which depend on imported materials. I should like to end as I began, by asking the Minister to review the application of island holders for butter subsidies. It may not be an economic proposition but it would help the islanders who have not creamery facilities. There are only small numbers of islanders who have not got such facilities and those of them who have not should be subsidised for their production of milk. If the Minister grants this request of mine, I assure him I shall visit his poultry farm in the near future.

Mr. Haughey

I shall give the Deputy some fresh eggs to take home.

Mr. Meaney

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the way he has presented his Supplementary Estimate. I cannot help noticing that it keeps very well in touch with the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. It covers a fairly wide field and shows that the Government were serious in the conditions they laid down and the promises they gave when initiating the Second Programme. In spite of all that, the two Deputies who have spoken tried, in the main, to belittle that effort.

One of the first points of Deputy Donegan's speech was an effort to make the case that the increase in the number of calved heifers which qualified for the calved heifer scheme was infinitesimal, that it really did not matter very much to the economy of the agricultural community. He went further, if my memory serves me right, and tried to make the case that none, or very little, of this money was finding its way into the pockets of the agricultural community. He tried to show that the increase in the number of calved heifers under the grant scheme was brought about by a certain amount of manipulation. Judging from his expression, he seemed to suggest that beyond a certain point that scheme could not expand any further.

Deputy Murphy made a different case—that only one section should be entitled to help by way of grant or other form of encouragement. That was the keynote of his speech from beginning to end. Apparently he wants nobody to live but his friends. I have spent my life farming and all farmers, big and small, are farmers to me. Each section of the community, each one of each section, has constitutional rights which have been won by the struggles of our people in past generations, which are enshrined in our Constitution and upheld by our courts. One would imagine that a scheme such as the calved heifer scheme had been introduced for the sole purpose of helping only one section of the agricultural community. In fact, it was a real attempt by the Government to increase our cattle numbers to such an extent that our cattle and carcase exports will in future contribute considerably to our balance of payments position.

One could not help noticing the doleful manner in which some of to-day's criticisms were made. I suppose every country has its quota of doleful Jimmys but unfortunately this country has them. Nothing good can come from Nazareth. According to some people, nothing good can come from the Government benches.

Mr. A. Barry

What an extraordinary comparison to make!

Mr. Meaney

If the cap fits, I wish you luck. That is the line of argument being followed. One Opposition speaker suggested that the target for increased cattle numbers could not be reached unless our cows started to farrow instead of calving or had multiple calves each time they calved. Probably that statement has been agitating the minds of the previous critics.

One of the items in this Supplementary Estimate is a payment to the Pigs and Bacon Commission. Deputy Murphy dealt at length with the pigs and bacon industry. I would much prefer if the small and middle farmers raised and fattened sufficient pigs to supply our bacon factories with enough material for the export trade, but, seeing that for some reason or another they have not been able to rise to the occasion, it is in the public interest that the industry has been organised on another basis.

I hope the farming community will continue the breeding of pigs, will continue to sell them at economic prices to those who fatten them, who will, in turn, sell to the factories. This is an industry in which more than one section of the community is concerned. There is the breeder, the fattener and the curer. Each section should make every effort and give full co-operation for the purpose of improving that industry.

I am glad to note that recently the Pigs and Bacon Commission have broken new ground in regard to markets. I congratulate them on having done so and wish them every success in obtaining further and better markets. Without export markets, there is no point in our farmers producing beef, mutton, bacon, poultry, milk or anything else. I note that the sale of our dairy produce has now reached the high figure of £8,911,000. I am not suggesting that, because of this, the Irish farmer is rolling in riches. He is not. Unfortunately, farmers all over the world are the social dray horses for other industries. The farmer is getting —or almost getting—only that which he is entitled to. He should be getting much more than he is getting now if he is to keep pace with the standards laid down by industry, not alone here but everywhere else.

There is a sum in the Estimate for the disposal of wheat. I agree that the wheat question is a very complex one. It is very hard for the wheat grower to see how much wheat he should or should not grow in a given year in order to meet the requirements of the millers. It would be an ideal position if all the wheat grown in this country were millable and accepted by the millers as such, but that is not so. Due to adverse weather and so on, the acreage under wheat has definitely fallen. I remember—and I would like others to remember—that there was a time in the history of this State when the people who are now loudest about the losses on wheat did their utmost to try to prevent our people from growing wheat. We cannot forget those things. If the wheat policy had not been adopted away back in the thirties, our people would have been in a bad way for bread when their supplies of wheat were practically cut off during the last World War.

I am glad to note that the Farm Buildings Scheme and the Land Project schemes are being availed of more and more by farmers. The sum for farm building and water supply schemes is up by £100,000. The more I see such schemes availed of, the more I regard it as a sign of progress and increased production. We must all agree that one of the essentials in a rural community is water—on tap if possible—in every house. Definitely this Government have done their share to encourage that. They have done their share in giving better facilities to the farmer, in the farmyard, in the household and in the byre. It is essential for all stock that farms should have a reliable water supply for the 52 weeks of the year. I appreciate the grants that have been given down the years to encourage this, not alone by one Government, but by a number of Governments. There has been a transformation in farm life where water and electricity have been installed. I am pleased to note that the demand is still there and that the Government in their wisdom are still giving grants for this very praiseworthy object.

I have noticed here also that there is an extra £60,000 for lime fertiliser grants for farmers. One of the previous speakers said that at the moment we can carry only so much stock in the country. I do not share that view. I believe that our present herds and flocks could be considerably increased by the more widespread use of fertilisers on land. It could become a great national asset and a great source of wealth for our people as a whole as well as for individuals, if everybody having land made better use of the advisory services afforded them and availed of the opportunities offered from Government sources for providing the essentials for farmers as far as the Government can go.

Deputy Murphy tried to make a case against a flat price for milk. He says the flat rate is not fair to one section. I wonder does he forget the parable about the workers in the vineyard. It does no harm to anyone that all should get the same price for the produce. Deputy Murphy says that because a man has a small bit of and, he should not get an economic price. Does it not boil down to that? I am sorry he is not here.

He referred also to the people who may have single sucklers from their heifers. He said they should be prevented by law from doing this. He forgets that we all have our constitutional rights. It is a different thing if somebody is trying to carry out an act which is illegal. I cannot understand the mentality of anyone who states in our national Parliament that such-and-such a section should be denied the right to get so-and-so. As I said earlier, farmers, whether big or small, are all farmers to me. My interest is in the farming community as a whole.

I have taken up the time of the House for a little while now and I conclude by wishing the Minister success in the office he has come into so recently.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

In view of the fact that the Minister did not consider it appropriate to make a general statement on agricultural policy when introducing this Supplementary Estimate, there is not very much we can say by way of a discussion of general agricultural policy. The best one can do is to make a few comments on the headings in this Supplementary Estimate, in which one is particularly interested.

On page 2 of the Minister's statement, there is a remark I welcome. The Minister states that milk is of fundamental importance to our agricultural economy. I agree with that wholeheartedly. It is something to which I have referred on numerous occasions in this House. The Minister mentioned the 2d. per gallon which was granted earlier this year. There has been quite a lot of propaganda and talk regarding this 2d. However, it seems an extraordinary state of affairs —and I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the situation— that very few creameries have found it possible to pay the full 2d increase. There is a considerable difference in the proportions of the 2d. which have been given. Some creameries have given as low as 1½d. while others have given up to 1¾d. As far as I am aware, most creameries have found it impossible to pay the 2d. per gallon increase.

This is a serious matter and something that should be looked into. It bears out what other Deputies have said relating to this Estimate, that not all the millions that have been devoted to agriculture are finding their way into the pockets of the farmers. The dairying industry is the branch of agriculture in which I am most interested. I represent a constituency where dairying is the main enterprise on the family farm. It is an industry which provides a considerable amount of employment, not alone in County Limerick but even in Limerick city. It is for that reason I welcome the Minister's recognition of the fact that milk is of fundamental importance to our agricultural economy.

I want to repeat what I said here on numerous occasions and, in fact on every occasion on which I have spoken on agriculture, that I believe the dairying industry has a colossal potential for development. The 2d. per gallon for milk and the £15 heifer subsidy are entirely inadequate, in my opinion, from the point of view of putting this industry in the position in which it will be able to make its full contribution to both the agricultural and the national economy. The first essential is the payment of an economic basic price to our dairy farmers. While I welcome the increase given in the last Budget, I do not accept, and most people in the dairying industry do not accept, that the present price is an economic one. The Minister must face that fact and he must not be surprised if there are demands for further increases.

There is another aspect of milk prices to which I have referred on numerous occasions. I appeal to the Minister now to give it very careful consideration. I refer to the payment of some type of bonus for quality. Quality is of vital importance to the whole dairying industry. Now that we have succeeded in diversifying not alone our markets but also our production from milk, the question of quality assumes tremendous importance. I believe the only way in which we will achieve this high quality milk is by the payment of some type of bonus for the production of high quality milk.

I understand that Mitchelstown Creameries have in operation some form of quality payment. This is of vital importance. I know farmers who have gone to considerable expense to modernise their milking equipment, who have installed coolers, and so on, in order to ensure cleaner milk of better quality, and they are paid the same price per gallon as that received by the farmer still operating the old, antiquated, not always hygienic methods. Quality is of vital importance. If an economic basic price is paid and, in addition, some form of bonus for quality, then our dairy farmers have the ability to produce all the milk necessary to meet our market commitments.

With regard to the marketing of dairy produce, all down through the years there has been a latent fear of marketing, a fear that production will outstrip markets, that supply will outstrip demand. Thanks to the efforts of An Bord Bainne and the dynamic efforts of Mr. O'Reilly, the question of markets need not in the forseeable future cause us any great concern and we should now aim, therefore at getting increased production, particularly of this high quality milk, to enable us to diversify still further our milk industry.

In one way I am sorry the Minister did not make a more general statement on the dairying industry remembering that such a large proportion of this subvention is devoted to it. Dairy farmers and others connected with the dairying industry are awaiting a definite statement with regard to the implementation of the recommendations in the report of the survey team which examined the industry and also with regard to the Knapp report. I see here an item relating to the IAOS which seems to indicate that a start has been made in implementing some of the recommendations of the Knapp report. I asked the Minister some questions relating to the latter report and also to the report of the Survey Team because I know that people in the dairying areas are wondering how soon something concrete will be done to implement the provisions in these documents.

I was unavoidably absent at Question Time today but I see in a reply given by the Minister to a question of mine an announcement that the Department are arranging the establishment of regional dairy laboratories at Cork and Limerick and that the Department's butter testing station in Dublin is being extended. That is a very welcome development because it indicates that steps are now being taken to implement one of the main recommendations of the survey team in relation to the establishment of research and laboratory facilities. In particular, I welcome the establishment of one of these laboratories at Limerick. When we come to debate the next Estimate for the Department of Agriculture, I hope the Minister will give practical proof of his belief in the importance of the dairying industry.

A great deal of the discussion today has centred on the heifer subsidy scheme. I have never approved of that scheme and I said so cleary on its introduction. It is my belief, as it is the belief of the vast majority of the farmers in my constituency, that a much better approach would be a calf subsidy scheme. Most people, unfamiliar with the environment, seem to think of Limerick in terms of the Golden Vale and the big grass rancher. That is far from being the true picture. There are very small farmers there, farmers with ten or 15 cows. The heifer subsidy scheme has not been of any great advantage to them. The figure given by the Minister for County Limerick was £150,000. With 10,000 dairy farmers, that works out on average at one £15 per farmer. I know that average does not give the true picture. I know people who have had substantial amounts paid to them and, therefore, there must be others who have not received anything at all under this scheme.

A calf subsidy would have been a much better approach. Many small farmers rear their calves until this time of the year. Because their holdings are small and they have only enough fodder for their cows during the winter months, having taken the risk of rearing their calves, they now have to sell them. A system could be devised whereby a person who rears the calf and keeps it for six to 12 months would get, say £7, get half, the balance to be paid when the heifer calved. I recommend that suggestion to the Minister; at least it is worth looking into.

In regard to pigs and bacon, the bacon industry is of very great importance in my constituency because Limerick has been traditionally associated with bacon production. There has been one development in recent years, and quite frankly I think it is the only hope for the future of the pig and bacon industry, and that has been the development of large scale fattening units. A good number of co-operative creameries are going in for this type of business and it is a good thing. I am fully in favour of it. The system seems to work and generally it varies from one place to another, but the general arrangement seems to be that the creamery lets out the sows to the farmers and the creamery will then buy the bonhams at a certain age. This is a very good development because the fattening of pigs, except in large numbers, is not an economic proposition at present. Having seen the scheme in operation both in Limerick and in other counties, I am all in favour of it.

In regard to the increased subvention for An Foras Talúntais, I may say that I have had a good deal of contact with this body. I read all the documents they issue but I must confess that I am not satisfied that the results of the research work done by the Agricultural Institute are being passed on to the farmer. There seems to be some bottleneck in the flow of information from the Institute to the farmer. That should now be reviewed. I am not in any way trying to detract from the tremendous work which the Institute is doing but there should be some better means of channelling the information from the Institute down to the farmer.

Another matter which is a pet subject of mine is the question of co-operation at farm level. I have criticised the Agricultural Institute on previous occasions for not paying sufficient attention to this problem and I am not aware of any recent research into this question of co-operation, and I am referring now to co-operation such as in the operation of machinery pools and so on. The Institute is the proper body to examine this problem and it should take a greater interest in it.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Brennan)

I want to say a few words on this important Supplementary Estimate which affects the interests of every Deputy but particularly those of us from the rural areas. I am particularly glad to note that the Estimate mainly concerns educational matters generally and veterinary research, which people in recent years have rapidly come to realise are of fundamental importance to any advance in agriculture whether in relation to the small farm areas, to the larger farms, or to any other type of farm. Incidentally, people sometimes talk here as if the word "farmer" covered a specific category of people. The term is so wide that it is almost impossible to consider as one class the different categories coming within any particular heading.

Those of us mainly concerned with the problems of the western seaboard realise that the term "small farmer" is not applicable to the area as a whole at all because we have many cases where physically a farm is not small but the income is small, if you are to look at it that way. The term "uneconomic holding" is probably more apt in relation to these holdings. There is no place where the necessary educational facilities are more necessary than on the western seaboard where the system of husbandry has not kept pace in recent times with the general advancement in agriculture as a whole under the various categories to which I have referred.

One of the most heartening signs— and I have said this quite often and it cannot be repeated too often—in recent years has been the number of organisations that come forward to offer all sorts of solutions for a problem which is as old as the west itself. Many of these organisations are simply nothing more than pressure groups which come together to criticise the Government for not doing something, or who come together simply to get money for these people in some way or other. You have the occasional group of people coming together to do something and those people who referred to what is being done for the western seaboard, and what can be done, should appreciate that the group responsible for the Glencolumbcille effort, which is so much talked about by people who know little about it, is quite different from many of the pressure groups or agitation groups we get throughout the country inasmuch as they did something first and asked for something afterwards. They have got down to doing something for themselves and that must commend itself to anyone interested in this problem on the western seaboard.

We are not looking for social services as such on the western seaboard. Sometimes the type of campaign which is conducted would lead one to believe —and I am not sure that some people in this House do not think it—that we are merely looking for social services. We have good, active and progressive farmers on the western seaboard all of whom could probably do better but we have many whose incomes are very much below what might be regarded as sufficient to maintain the standard of living people have become accustomed to at present. A mere subsistence from the land is not sufficient to justify any member of the family considering that he is going to continue on the farm. The problem is to enable these people, by better methods and more up-to-date mechanical appliances, to obtain from their holdings a better income than they have been capable of getting in the past.

There was a time when work in these congested areas was sheer manual labour, and the people got a mere existence. There was a time when they had very little choice other than to try to eke out from the little land they had some form of existence to keep body and soul together. They were probably more content then than they are now, because in those days there was no other outlet, no labour market in England. The only emigration there was from places like Donegal was to potato picking, known as "tatty-hoking", in Scotland. That was migratory and the people shuttled back and forth seasonally. We have now reached the stage when a young man can buy a ticket at a railway station or bus station and find himself in one of the highly industrialised centres in England, able to earn from £12 to £20 a week, according to the overtime he is prepared to work. It is easily appreciated how difficult it has become to keep people living on subsistence farms when that labour outlet is available to them just across the Channel. What annoys me is that people talk as if some Government had created a situation in which they were driving these people into this position.

Our emigration in the past was mainly to the United States of America. That emigration was costly and selective. People had to pass tests, medical and otherwise, in order to qualify to go. They had to find a reasonable amount of money to go. That was our main source of emigration and huge numbers of people went. Most Donegal families can boast that they have more relatives living in Boston, New York or Chicago, than they have at home. That type of emigration was not so frequent and it was not taken in the same trivial way as emigration to England. A young man can make up his mind in a matter of hours and he can go to England in the morning. That is the problem that faces us in regard to depopulation and trying to keep young people at home.

There is no man on these farms on the western seaboard who has not got more today than ever before, and the problem is in regard to what he wishes to have, and to create a situation whereby he will feel more content to remain. We must face the facts as they are. There is no use in using the west as a means of propaganda to denigrate the genuine efforts of the Government to try to do something to ameliorate the position there. Time and again I have read reports of groups coming together, and nothing more constructive emerged from the proceedings than condemnations of the Government for not pumping enough money into this, that or the other area, to assist those people. We do not want gifts, or doles, or social services. What we want is sustenance in any responsible effort which will give a better way of manipulating, operating and working the holdings in a business-like way, which will create good family units, holdings that will give a reasonably happy existence to the family or to the young married couple who wish to settle down, and re-orientate our whole outlook in regard to living in those areas.

There are quite a number of heartening signs in regard to the whole matter. I have scarcely met—and I have met enough of them—one of those people who went away and returned, as they frequently do, who would not stay at home when he has become more mature and has had an opportunity of comparing life in different places, if he were satisfied he could move into a better way of living, with some security for the future. For that reason the huge amount of money which is earmarked in this Supplementary Estimate for educational services is most heartening. It is easy to see that it will not be hailed by many people as a great panacea for many of the problems which we know exist, because money is not put directly into someone's pockets. Without an educational foundation it would not be possible to make the progress that is essential.

The previous speaker—and I have heard this from that side of the House before—said he did not approve of the heifer scheme. As we know, the bulk of the money in this Supplementary Estimate is for the heifer scheme. It is over £2½ million extra. That is a colossal amount of money, and it is a great tribute to a scheme which is one of the most beneficial schemes we have seen. I do not regard it as something for which we can take a lot of credit but in actual fact it is the best scheme the agricultural community have experienced for a long time, particularly in those areas where there was a depleted dairy stock. In many small holdings, or uneconomic holdings, one or two heifers had to be sold as dry in order to get a little extra money. When I see that they can now be retained in order to get the £30 or £45 which would accrue from the scheme I think this is a tremendous scheme. The fact that it is given for cows additional to the herd is in itself indicative of the huge increase in the cattle population which it has definitely brought about.

As has been pointed out before from this side of the House on many other occasions, the scheme was not just to give a subsidy for having cows or extra calves, but it was primarily organised to increase the cattle population. For that reason it was channelled towards additional cattle in the herd. While the primary purpose of the scheme was to increase the cattle population, it has been of tremendous assistance to a great many people who lacked the necessary capital to retain in their herds those dry heifers, and were compelled to sell them at certain times. It has resulted in a tremendous increase in those areas where because of lack of capital or for some other reason they had not the necessary additional stock. In some areas, particularly in the west, where people are living on farms and getting £X per year return from their efforts they could all do better. It is an important point that we could do better by using the proper system.

This is not an appropriate time to go into a detailed debate on matters pertaining to agriculture but, in passing, I should say that I have absolute confidence in the co-operative schemes. I think every parish on the western seaboard should have a co-operative scheme, and I do not mean a glorified grocery shop which is sometimes referred to as a co-operative, but a co-operative which will work in co-operation with a committee of intelligent farmers, with the guidance of an agricultural graduate or two, and which will keep a pool of necessary modern machinery which can be hired out to the small farmers, if they need it, which will bring into the area the proper types of fertilisers which can be obtained on a long or on a short-term credit system; which will have an exchange system for seeds, and so on. In that system lies 95 per cent of the solution to what is necessary to bring up those holdings on the western seaboard to the full economic level of which they are capable, thereby giving those who live on them a decent standard of living—and they have much to offer otherwise that one cannot get elsewhere.

While we moan and groan at times outside chapel gates about houses closing—and nobody likes to see houses closing anywhere—we must take particular courage and pride in the fact that modern housing is going up in hundreds in these areas, properly equipped with water, sewerage, electric light and the rest. They are being built in every district one travels through. Therefore those who want people to believe that hope is gone and that effort is lacking should visit the areas I speak of and see for themselves that there is yet there a very strong nucleus of good motive power, capable of expanding and giving to those areas the fertility which they are capable of achieving, thus making them places where good, comfortable family farms are bound to become a feature in the very near future.

All the signs are for the better. Consider even those pressure groups and agitation committees, in themselves indicative of a new thinking and a feeling that something can be done and has to be done. While they may not properly be directed towards doing anything that might be worthwhile, some of them, like our Glencolumbcille effort, led by Father McDyer, are giving a lead in that they are doing something and have done something. It is not merely a question of saying: "Give us money and we will get on better." Rather is it the position: "Give us money and we will prove that we can uplift our whole economy by doing certain things."

I do not believe in free grants for everything. There is a lot to be said for the interest-free loan or the low-interest loan.

Mr. Donegan

Hear, hear.

Mr. J. Brennan

The farmer who applies for a loan in the knowledge that he will have to pay it back is generally a man who has faith in what he proposes to do. I believe that a gift of £1,000 each to small farmers would, in the first instance, be applied for by the people who would make the least effort——

Mr. Donegan

It is an interest-free loan, not a grant.

Mr. J. Brennan

You have changed it: I thought it was a gift.

Mr. Donegan

You have not been reading your politics.

Mr. J. Brennan

I am not able to keep up with you because you have changed it so often.

Mr. Haughey

Does Deputy D. Costello approve of it?

Mr. Donegan

Yes.

Mr. J. Brennan

I do not think any small farmer would be refused the necessary capital for the development of his farm. We have come a long way when we have reached that stage. As an old man I knew used to say: "I mind the day ..."

I avail of this opportunity of saying publicly to the Minister what I have said privately to him on many occasions, that I am glad he has such a keen awareness of the problems which beset the western seaboard. I am perfectly happy and confident that he will tackle them in the way we know will ultimately provide the solution to those problems.

Mr. Browne

We hope he will do more than his predecessor.

Mr. J. Brennan

He did a fair amount, too.

Mr. Browne

You do not believe that.

Mr. Tully

Agriculture can generally be described as the primary industry. I am sure the Minister will not have any fear about getting his Estimate through this House in a reasonable time. Analysing the figures he gave us, it would appear that there are three headings under which this Estimate is produced. The first heading is the heifer scheme, which takes up by far the greater portion of it; the second is the ninth round wage increase; and the third is the main part of this year's Budget—the items his predecessor should have included in this year's Budget except that, trying to keep down the amount to a reasonable sum, he felt it would be safer to introduce a Supplementary Estimate at a later stage.

It seems extraordinary that the Government, having decided that £300,000 was the necessary amount of money for the heifer scheme this year, now find that £2,500,000 is required. Can the Minister say if in fact the increase in stocks which was required, or that the Government thought was required, would be represented by the estimate his predecessor made when introducing the scheme? If so, has it gone miles out of hands already?

Mr. Haughey

No. It was far more successful than we ever thought it would be.

Mr. Tully

"Successful": let us follow that up. If, in fact, we have satisfied ourselves that the amount being spent is not more than the Government anticipated or is not more than the Government would like to see spent, does the Minister imagine we shall have the same situation coming along year after year? Is it not a fact that the people who could afford to increase their herds this year did so, seeing that it could happen only once? With the amount of land available, particularly to the smaller farmer, the Minister says that there were about two heifers each to 54,664 of them. If that is so, does it mean that, with what we have spent in one year, the increase which has taken place this year is not likely to recur? Either that will happen or what some of the Fine Gael Deputies said earlier is the truth, namely, that the speculator increases his herd in one year and goes back to dry stock next year.

Mr. Haughey

We have the extra cattle.

Mr. Donegan

You sold the bullocks.

Mr. Tully

Can the Minister anticipate that, next year, in the existing set-up, there will be room for a further substantial increase? Is it not true that if the people who have got the extra heifers this year hold on to them, there is not much likelihood of a very big increase next year? Is that not a fair assumption?

Mr. J. Brennan

There will be an increase just the same.

Mr. Tully

I have only two minutes. Let me develop this.

Mr. J. Brennan

The Deputy has all night.

Mr. Tully

I have not; I have to work for a living.

The next item is the question of the milk. Would it not have been better if the Department had made some effort to find a market for milk and milk products, which are bound to increase tremendously as a result of the increase in the cow stock? Does it not follow that we will have, inside the next year or two, a tremendous increase? Does it mean that we will have to find an extra subsidy for the purpose of dealing with the butter, in particular? Would it not have been a far better thing if this matter had been planned on a long-term basis? I do not believe that giving an extra £20 or £25 to the small farmer for one year will make his life completely successful. It is like thinking that if you give an extra few pounds to an agricultural grant, it will result in more men employed——

Mr. Haughey

If he is carrying more cows, his cattle are increasing year by year.

Mr. Tully

What about his milk output? Is there a heavy subsidy?

Mr. Haughey

The grant is only to encourage the carrying——

Mr. Tully

For one year. After that, he either has to decide that he will change his method——

Mr. Haughey

He can increase his carrying capacity.

Mr. Tully

He cannot. How will he?

Mr. Haughey

Better grass, for one thing.

Mr. Tully

How will he increase his carrying capacity? The Minister would want to have a look at that and see how the grass can be increased.

Mr. Haughey

There is nothing in this country for which there is greater scope than grass.

Mr. Tully

You will not increase the grass by simply giving £25 to a farmer or by writing something into a Bill in this House. The Minister is as well aware of that as I am.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.