Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 29 Apr 1965

Vol. 215 No. 4

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39—Agriculture (Resumed).

The rising tide of milk supplies brings with it both production and marketing problems which must be resolutely faced by all concerned. On the production side the existing creameries and dairy products factories, together with the new factories being planned, will provide for us adequate capacity for producing a diversified range of dairy products. On the marketing side An Bord Bainne, by utilising the most modern methods of market research and advanced marketing techniques, will continue to tackle the problem of export marketing in the businesslike way of which it has already shown itself capable. This vigorous and intensive approach to export marketing is now more than ever necessary because of the tendency again becoming apparent for world production of dairy produce to outpace consumption. Successful marketing cannot, however, fully succeed without continued improvement in the standards of quality of our dairy products and this in turn is dependent on the quality of the milk supplied to creameries by the milk producers. With a view to improving milk quality I have recently announced that as from 1st May, 1965, a price premium will be paid to producers of high quality milk. Details of the scheme have been circulated to creameries. The scheme provides for the payment by the Exchequer of a special milk price allowance of one penny per gallon on milk tested under the scheme and found to be of premium quality. This special milk price allowance is in addition to the existing milk price allowance of 4d per gallon which will continue to be paid on all milk supplied to creameries and used for the manufacture of dairy produce.

Government recognition of the importance of the dairying industry in the agricultural economy and indeed in our whole national economy is evidenced by the amount of State assistance which is being afforded to the milk producer through direct milk price assistance and subsidisation of our exports of dairy produce. In the year just ended the cost to the Exchequer of this assistance was about £8.2 million. In the current financial year, this figure could rise to over £10 million which is a very substantial sum indeed. Of this amount, over £3 million is expected to be required to meet export subsidies on butter and other dairy products and practically all of the balance takes the form of direct milk price allowances.

The sum of £30,000 will be paid to the National Dairy Publicity Council as a grant-in-aid to meet one-half of its proposed expenditure for the year on the promotion of increased consumption of milk and dairy products on the home market. The other half of the expenditure is contributed by the other three bodies which with my Department are represented on the Council—An Bord Bainne, the Dublin District Milk Board and the Cork District Milk Board. The Council, which was established last June, has already commenced the promotion by press, radio and television advertising of increased consumption of cheese which is the product that in our circumstances gives most scope for increased domestic consumption, but its activities will cover milk and other dairy products as well.

During the past year pig numbers have been increasing satisfactorily. The January, 1965, census showed numbers up by over 14 per cent as compared with January, 1964. A continuance of this expansion will readily enable us to achieve the production target which we set for ourselves in the Second Programme.

The Multilateral Understanding on the supply of bacon to the United Kingdom came into operation on 1st April, 1964. During the year to 31st March, 1965, Ireland supplied its full basic quota of 27,000 tons and an additional 500 tons allocated from the general "reserve" quantity provided for in the Understanding. Our basic allocation is again 27,000 tons for the year 1965-66 and we will also be entitled to our appropriate percentage share of any allocations from the reserve.

While the operation of the Understanding has had some stabilising effect on bacon prices on the British market, the actual price levels during the past year were not as high as we would have wished and a considerable measure of financial support for our exports continued to be required. Also, last year's increase in the barley price was reflected in higher guaranteed prices for good-quality pigs and this in turn increased our commitment for export support.

The Pigs and Bacon Commission has, since April, 1964, been centrally handling the export of bacon and, more recently, of pork. Progress is being made towards improving the quality of our bacon exports and strengthening the organisation of marketing arrangements in Britain. Since last autumn the Commission have been undertaking an intensified marketing campaign for our bacon in the Glasgow area and have been meeting with a considerable measure of success in establishing the identity and increasing the demand for our bacon in that area.

One of the factors which has been militating against the production of the highest quality bacon here has been the obsolete condition of plant and equipment at bacon factories, as well as the lack of modern up-to-date equipment particularly in the field of refrigeration. Unlike our fresh meat processing plants, our bacon curing industry is a long established one and inevitably a number of premises and the plant and equipment in these premises fell far short of what is required in present day conditions. To remedy this situation we introduced a few years ago a scheme for the modernisation and re-equipment of bacon factories under which very generous grants were offered for modernisation and re-equipment works. To date we have spent almost £300,000 on this scheme; in the current financial year we are providing a sum of £150,000. Excellent work is being carried out under the scheme and we are well on the way towards having a modern well-equipped and, we hope, efficiently run bacon industry.

There is one unsatisfactory element in pig production in the last 12 months to which I must refer. In the late summer and autumn of last year as a result of a buoyant demand for bacon on the home market at a time when it was necessary to maintain shipments of bacon to Britain at fairly high level to meet our obligations under the Multilateral Understanding, pig prices increased and at the same time the differential between prices for good-quality pigs and heavier pigs narrowed. This led to a deterioration in granding performance and to excessive supplies of fat bacon when normal conditions returned. Whatever short-term advantages accured to producers by producing heavy pigs and to bacon currers in offering high prices for such pigs were more than cancelled by the fall in prices for heavy pigs which subsequently took place. Pig producers and bacon curers must come to realise that the long-term wellbeing of the industry lies in the production of top-quality pigs, the production of which is insulated against loss by our system of guaranteed minimum prices. If we are to have centralised purchasing of pigs—and this is a large issue affecting many interests and requiring careful consideration—a principal objective must be to establish and maintain a stable price level which will ensure the production only of the high-quality type of lean pig which the modern bacon and pork market demands. My Department are at present examing an outline of proposals for the centralised marketing of pigs which the Pigs and Bacon Commission have prepared as a basis for discussion.

Later this year we will be increasing pig prices to compensate for this year's increase of 5/- per barrel in the barley price announced some time ago. This will further increase our commitment for export support but, because pig production is such a vital part of our farming economy, and particularly the economy of small farms, this is a situation which must be faced.

The various pig breeding and pig improvement schemes are continuing to make satisfactory progress. Special reports have been published during the past year on the two main schemes for pedigree breeding stock, i.e., the Accredited Pig Herds Scheme and the Pig Progeny Testing Scheme. The extension of the Cork Progeny Testing Station to double its existing capacity will be completed within the next three months or so. Increased numbers of proven Landrace and Large White boars were also imported from Britain during the past year and leased to breeders. These importations will be continued and we may if circumstances justify go further afield for improved breeding stock.

As regards the poultry industry, only two sectors have been showing any expansion in recent years, namely broiler production and the export trade in day-old chicks. The number of broilers consumed here has risen from less than a million in 1958 to almost 6½ million in 1964, and it seems likely that the demand for broiler meat will expand still further. So far, there have been no exports of broilers, but there are prospects of a large-scale integrated enterprise being established in the West Cork area with an initial output of 7-8 million broilers per annum—all for export. In order that our producers here should have access to the best broiler strains available, it has been the practice for my Department to import, or to permit the importation by private interests, of top-class American strains.

Exports of day-old chicks reached 3,008,000 in 1963, and 2,870,000 in 1964. This trade has been interrupted during recent months, as the discovery of Fowl Pest virus in a number of poultry flocks here and in the North, following routine tests, made it necessary to suspend cross-border trade. This has seriously limited the income of many hatching egg supply farmers attached to exporting hatcheries.

Turkey numbers were again down at the June census and exports during the Christmas period were very low. The decline in this sector of the industry is, of course, due to the expansion of large-scale turkey production units in Britain during the past few years. These have accounted for there of some 6 million birds over the an increase in turkey production past ten years.

As already announced, the Government have decided to increase the basic price for millable wheat of the 1965 crop by 3s. per barrel, thereby bringing the price up to 77s. 6d. per barrel or £31 per ton.

The acreage sown to wheat in 1964 was lower than in previous years. The average yield per acre was again somewhat disappointing, but the harvest was good and over 98 per cent of the crop was purchased as millable. One of the main factors contributing to the reduction in acreage in recent years has been the marketing problem. Efforts to establish standards that would be acceptable to both producers and millers have been under examination for a considerable time. In an endeavour to bring these efforts to a successful conclusion, Dr. Robert Olered, Head of the Cereal Chemistry Department of the Swedish Seed Association, was invited by my predecessor last year to study the question of wheat standards and wheat marketing here. Dr. Olered's very helpful report is at present the subject of discussions with all the interests concerned, and I am hopeful that a considerable improvement in the marketing system will result from these discussions. The improvement in the marketing system, together with the increase in price, should assist in arresting the decline in the wheat acreage which has taken place in recent years.

The 1964 feeding barley acreage was the largest on record, 329,000 acres, but, as in the case of wheat, the average yield per acre was somewhat less than in previous years. The out-turn from the crop was, therefore, less than might have been expected, due mainly to adverse weather conditions during the growing season. In pursuance of its objective, as set out in the Brown Book, of increased economic production and greater utilisation of feeding barley, the Government have increased the floor price for feeding barley of the 1965 crop by 5s. per barrel, therby bringing the price up to 45s. per barrel, or £22 10s. per ton. I am confident that this will operate to ensure a further increase in the barley acreage, thereby increasing farm income and reducing our requirements of imported coarse grains.

The arrangements for the marketing of home-grown barley and for the importation of coarse grains which have been operated through An Bord Gráin during the past two years will be continued for the coming year.

I am confident that we shall be able to announce the successful completion of the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Campaign in the coming Autumn. A very substantial clearance of reactors was affected last year. In the six southern counties which are not yet attested, the incidence of disease had been reduced to 0.5 per cent at the end, in February last, of the third round of clearance testing. The fourth round was started immediately and will I trust, be satisfactorily concluded in August. I take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the way in which all the interests concerned— the country's herdowners, the veterinary profession, farmers' organisations and the livestock trade—have worked together with the Department in this great task.

We are now in a position to embark upon the eradication of brucellosis, or contagious abortion. This disease causes serious loss of calves, infertility in cows, and reduced milk yields. Its elimination from the country is the main veterinary objective in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Much preliminary work has been done by my Department in this matter, including a survey of every milk-supplying herd in the country. This has shown that while, fortunately, the incidence of the disease is very light in the counties of the North and West, it is quite a problem in the main dairying and breeding areas of the South and in the counties around Dublin.

A scheme for the vaccination of young heifer calves in the problem counties will commence in June. Vaccination at the proper time will give practically life-long immunity. Vaccination at a later stage, however, will turn the animal into a reactor and I intend, therefore, to restrict the sale and use of anti-abortion vaccine. Subject to the passage of the necessary legislation, I hope to commence the eradication programme proper in the Autumn, starting with some counties where the incidence is very low. In general, the scheme will be developed on somewhat the same lines as the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme. A scheme for the registration of certified brucellosis-free herds will also be announced shortly.

The response in the 1964 season to the intensive voluntary campaign for the eradication of the warble fly, which was initiated in the previous year, was quite encouraging. Over 2,000,000 of the country's 5,000,000 cattle were dosed with a new systemic dressing from 5th September to 30th November, 1964. Consulations are at present pending with the various interested organisations, whose help and co-operation contributed to last year's effort, with a view to the expansion of the campaign in 1965 to cover the treatment of all cattle in the country. Apart from losses due to lower milk yields and general unthriftiness, the warble fly causes up to £200,000 damage to hides each year.

With the full co-operation of stockowners, farming associations and other parties concerned, it is felt that the pest could be completely eliminated in the course of a few seasons through the use of the new dressing I have already mentioned. It is proposed that, as from a date yet to be fixed, the exhibition of warbled cattle at fairs and markets will be made illegal and the export of cattle so affected will be prohibited.

The continued incidence of sheep scab in this country constitutes a threat to the future exports of Irish sheep to Britain where the disease was eradicated some years ago. The eradication of scab can be achieved only by ensuring that a 100 per cent dipping programme is carried out over a period of two or three years and steps are being taken by my Department to implement such a programme in this and succeeding years. Action already taken by the Department in preparation for an eradication campaign includes a survey of the dipping facilities throughout the country and approaches to county councils to carry out any necessary repairs to existing facilities and to provide additional baths where necessary. A subsidy of 50 per cent of the cost of new baths will be available to local authorities from the Department's funds and grants have also been provided for the erection of private sheep dipping and handling facilities. In addition, the existing Sheep Dipping Orders will be amended at an early date to meet the needs of an eradication campaign. These amendments will provide for the use of single-dipping type dips only, the compulsory dipping of all sheep in each of two separate prescribed dipping periods each year as against one dipping period at present, and the tightening up of the arrangements relating to the certification of dipped sheep. A widespread publicity campaign in the national and local newspapers and other media is proposed in support of the eradication effort.

Proposals put forward in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion for the extension of the Department's veterinary services included provision for the establishment of a number of regional veterinary laboratories to supplement the service at present being given from the Veterinary Research Laboratory at Abbotstown. The aim is to provide an improved diagnostic, investigational and advisory service for the whole country and the siting of the laboratories was considered on the basis that they should be located in areas with a high density of livestock and in centres with good communications to facilitate the rapid transmission of perishable specimens submitted for diagnosis.

Plans are being prepared for the erection of four laboratories at Cork, Limerick, Sligo and Athlone to cater for the South, West, North-West and Midlands respectively. The Central Laboratory at Abbotstown will continue to serve the Eastern part of the country. The location of the new laboratories was decided with a view to giving an overall coverage of the country, the general idea being that each laboratory would provide a service for stockowners and veterinary practitioners within a radius of 50-60 miles. It is hoped that the first of these laboratories, that at Sligo, will be operational by the end of this year.

The provision in the estimates for An Foras Talúntas is £1,293,280. This includes, for the first time, provision, £150,000, for a grant for capital purposes, the original Capital Fund of £840,000 which was provided by the American Government having been exhausted. The proposed grant towards the non-capital expenses of the Institute is £1,143,280, which represents an increase of 12½ per cent on that for 1964/65. Research is, of course, of the utmost importance under present conditions and the Institute has in hands a very full programme of agricultural research which should help in solving many of our problems.

The upward trend in the consumption of fertilisers continues. Since 1957/58 the use of nitrogen and phosphates has increased by 90 per cent and of potash by over 70 per cent. Under the Ground Limestone Transport Subsidy Scheme the full cost of carriage of ground limestone from the production plant to the farm is met from State funds. Thanks to the Scheme there has been a marked increase in the use of ground limestone in recent years, to a figure of 1,079,000 tons for the year ended 31st March, 1964. This figure is still not high enough, however, as it has been estimated that upwards of 1½ million tons per annum are required merely to replace current annual losses through rainfall and removal in the form of stock, crops, etc. I decided that there should be special publicity and promotional measures, aimed at securing use of 1½ million tons this year. These measures have included press and television advertising and enlistment of the support of farming organisations and of the committees of agriculture in the various counties. It is too early yet to say what will be the result of the campaign to secure greater use of lime but I hope that the measures already taken and other publicity measures contemplated for the summer and autumn will bring about a much needed increase in lime usage.

Land reclamation and improvement works are proceding at an active pace under the Land Project. During the past year 91,300 acres were reclaimed or improved by farmers with the aid of grants amounting to £1.64 million provided under the Project. This was an increase of £20,000 in grant expenditure as compared with the previous year. The number of applications received from farmers during the year was 21,700, which was the second highest figure in the past five years. Special attention continues to be given to the reduction of the backlog of uninvestigated applications in those areas where arrears are heaviest with the aim of shortening, as far as practicable, the waiting period between the date of receipt of application and the date of issue of approval for work.

Improved facilities were introduced during the past year under the fertiliser credit scheme and also under the scheme of grant aid for the fencing of mountain grazings. Demand from farmers under each of these schemes has recently been showing a welcome increase and I hope this trend will continue.

A new scheme aimed at the production of increased "keep" at critical periods from mountain grazings was also introduced and should, in conjunction with the fencing scheme, help towards better utilisation of mountain lands.

Substantial increases introduced in February, 1964, in the rates of grants for farm buildings and in the range of purposes for which they are provided, had the effect of increasing applications received, work done and expenditure under the farm buildings scheme. Grant expenditure went up from approximately £1.2 million in 1963-64 to £1.65 million in 1964-65 and as there is every indication that interest in the scheme will continue to grow, provision is made in the current year for grant expenditure of £1.8 million. The amount and number of grants for the installation of water in farmyards and fields also continue to expand.

I should now like to say a few words on the subject of agricultural education. The view was once common that one did not need any training to farm successfully. Fortunately that view is losing ground in recent years but there is still a lot to be done. A recent study in my Department showed in a very striking way that education is very closely associated with success in farming and that the possession of both post-primary and agricultural education trebled one's chances of being in the group of highly successful farmers. The Brown Book Agriculture in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion emphasises the importance of agricultural education and training and describes the facilities which are available. Work which started some time ago on two new Agricultural Schools at Athenry, County Galway and Clonakilty, County Cork, is nearing completion and the new schools will shortly be ready for opening. The two-year course of instruction hitherto provided at the Munster Institute, Cork, for young women desirous of qualifying as instructor of poultry-keeping and butter-making under a county committee of agriculture or as teacher of these subjects will be extended, as from August, 1965, to a three-year course. A three-year course of instruction in farm home management will also be introduced in August, 1965, at the Institute for the first time. A horticultural school to be conducted by my Department is to be incorporated in the Kennedy Memorial Park at Ballysop, Wexford. About 54 acres of the park land have been given over to the school purposes. The district is particularly suited to commercial horticulture and full advantage will be taken of this in the training to be given. A one-year residential course will be provided for about 30 students and it is hoped that the school will be ready for opening before the end of 1967. A scheme of farm apprenticeship, administered by a Board representative of various agricultural interests has got under way. The first apprentices were placed on farms in the Autumn of 1964. My Department will contribute towards the costs incurred by apprentices in attending short annual courses and the first course of this kind will be held in Athenry Agricultural College next October. The Department will also provide a number of awards to young men who complete the four-year apprenticeship period with special merit in the final examination.

As Deputies will be aware, negotiations with a view to improving our permanent trading relations with Britain have been in progress for some time. It is still too early to say what will emerge from these negotiations but obviously any worthwhile new agreement would have to include improvements for our agricultural exports to Britain. There is an increasing tendency towards the regulation of imports of agricultural products into Britain. It will be remembered that imports of butter and bacon into that country are already subject to quantitative regulation and that efforts were made in 1964 to introduce a market-sharing arrangement for meat, which would have affected our exports of live cattle, sheep and lambs as well as carcase beef, mutton and lamb. Having regard to the very substantial proportion of our agricultural exports which is disposed of in Britain, this trend, towards limitation of access to the market there, is a matter of serious concern to us and it is, therefore, vital to do everything possible to ensure that in the years ahead market outlets will be available for the increased production envisaged under the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

With regard to the European Economic Community, our application for membership still stands and will be actively pursued when circumstances make this course desirable in the national interest. We are continuing to maintain contact with the Community both at Ministerial and at official level. In January last I myself visited Brussels and had informal discussions with Dr. Mansholt, Vice-President of the EEC Commission who is responsible for agricultural matters in the Community, and also with Mr. Jean Ray, the member of the Commission who is responsible for external relations.

I also had very useful discussions at that time with the Belgian Minister for Agriculture, Mr. Heger, the German Minister for Agriculture, Dr. Schwarz and the British Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Mr. Peart. Both Mr. Heger and Dr. Schwarz had already visited Ireland and I am very glad that Mr. Peart found it possible to come here last week when we had the opportunity of having further valuable discussions.

Turning now to the prospects for the present year, I am confident that 1965 will prove to be another good year for agriculture. Our principal commodity is cattle and the indications are that cattle and beef prices in export markets will continue to be well maintained. Milk production has been expanding rapidly in recent years and given suitable weather conditions a further substantial improvement is expected this year. Sheep production is at a record level, and pig numbers are showing signs of rapid expansion. I have already announced increased prices for wheat and feeding barley and the prices of sugar beet and malting barley have also been raised. The recent increase in agricultural wages and the rising level of rates will add appreciably to farmers' costs but with increased and more efficient production at higher prices I have no doubt that, given a reasonable season, agricultural income should move upwards again in 1965.

In conclusion, may I add that the problems of agriculture in this country as elsewhere are numerous and complex. I do not pretend to have answers for them all. I have endeavoured in this speech and in the notes which have been circulated to give Deputies a detailed and comprehensive view of the whole position. I shall welcome their comments and any suggestions they may wish to make.

I was rather hoping that my friend, the Minister for Agriculture, would depart from the usual formula in his opening statement on the Estimate, but he did not, because his first statement was to the effect again that the aids given to agriculture had increased so far as money is concerned. Of course, he followed that up with the apologia that agricultural incomes had not as yet reached the incomes of other spheres of activity.

I want to say, as I said before, that all the money voted to the Department of Agriculture and to An Foras Tionscal cannot be regarded or accepted as aid to agriculture. The complex nature of life today means that the Government must enter into every operation and into every effort to increase production, so part of this figure must go to increased Government intervention. It does not mean that, in fact, the farmers have been receiving large sums of money by way of grant or aid directly from Government coffers.

The Minister drew attention to the fact that it would appear that the farmers had a very good year. There was one improvement, the increase in cattle prices as a result of the excellent 1948 Trade Agreement. The agricultural price index increased by 17 points. If one takes that into account, one finds that agricultural output, and I believe the net profits of the farmers over the year, showed no spectacular increase. In fact, the formula used for the definition of net output in 1965 is extremely faulty because net output is defined as gross output, minus the value of feed, seeds and fertiliser used. There are many other expenses that are not in the definition such as the cost of running a tractor, so that, in fact, one cannot regard the figures indicated by the Minister as any direct pointer towards an increase in the net profit for farmers. Of course we all live on net profit. The Minister is an accountant and he must agree that we must all seek an increase in our net profit so that we can live more comfortably.

A good thing about the year was that the numbers of livestock were satisfactory. There was an increase, and a pleasurable increase, in cows and heifers in calf. High prices during 1964 resulted in very heavy exports but that trend is not proceeding in 1965. Prior to the introduction of the heifer scheme, we were not replacing our stocks in sufficient numbers to meet heavy exports such as we experienced. Those heavy exports are absolutely necessary in modern conditions to preserve our balance of payments. In fact, when they did not continue in the spring of this year our balance of payments position, on which every industrial worker depends for his employment, deteriorated to a frightening degree, and the bulwark of the industrial worker was in jeopardy.

We voiced fears about the heifer scheme because we thought it was being used by the large farmers, and that the small farmer could not increase his herd because he had not the grass, the housing or the winter feeding. We thought he could not co-operate in the heifer scheme to the same extent as the large farmer. The Minister emphatically denies that. One thing which has happened in relation to that scheme which was not intended is that it exploded in one year. In fact, the grade increase which the Minister's predecessor looked for did not happen. What happened in fact was that there was a sudden explosion in the number of heifers mated. This terrific increase is an indication to me that people have moved from traditional dry stock farming into keeping large numbers of heifers on their land.

The question which now arises is, will the people who have a certain number registered as their herd revert to dry stock farming because they cannot get another £15 unless they increase the number of their heifers and cows. This means that it is possible under the scheme to see a dropping off in the number of cows and heifers kept by those people and they may then revert to traditional dry stock farming. We will know whether that will occur within the next two years. There is no doubt that there may not be the increase in the figure by 1970 which was hoped for.

We in Fine Gael suggested a heifer mating subsidy or calf subsidy as far back as three years before the Government introduced it. It is very pleasurable in Opposition to find, as we have found before, that we have been governing from Opposition, and to see schemes introduced that we had adumbrated. It is our job to examine them clinically and in detail, and that is the point I am making when I wonder if the farmers will revert to dry stock farming.

As the Minister said, exports were satisfactory, but I think they have not continued into 1965. I hope they will continue to improve until we reach the satisfactory position of 1964. I also want to say to the Minister that the whole basis on which his agricultural price index last year has increased is the excellent permanent trading relation brought about by the inter-Party Government and by Deputy Dillon as Minister for Agriculture in 1948. It is on that framework the present Minister has been building and it is on that framework that the farmers have been succeeding. If there has been any improvement, it is in this particular sphere. In the sphere of grain production, where there was not enough opportunity for exporting, there was a grave disaster. In other agricultural spheres where export was not available and where the Trade Agreement did not have an impact, there was no apparent success.

I should like to mention the question of the Common Market and our general position in relation to the Continent of Europe and Great Britain. Before the election, a very enlightened farmer of considerable influence telephoned me and pressed me to know whether or not we would join the Common Market. He suggested that, if we did, immediately the prices for lamb, and grain would double his income. He did not care about industrial workers or anybody else. He wanted to know what we would do if we governed the country. The Minister did not answer that to-day. He has been extremely vague about it and about EFTA. He has not said anything at all about the current happenings in GATT and the current effect on this country of the Kennedy round of tariff reductions. These items are extremely important.

All the Minister said was that he made a trip to Brussels and had two conversations with people there. I think the farmers are entitled to a more definite approach than this. They are entitled to know what is in the Minister's mind and what is in the mind of the Government in relation to these three international bodies— the Common Market, EFTA and GATT. We all know that GATT is responsible for two things—limiting our butter exports to Britain and at the same time increasing the prices. I think this is the general trend all over Europe today. The trend is to try and get real prices for agricultural produce and do this in a way which will not cause unemployment or hardship to other members of the community. An industrial community will not allow such hardships but our Minister for Agriculture and our Government must be in on every negotiation and completely au fait with procedure and on the ball as far as international co-operation and the marketing of our agricultural produce is concerned, not only in Britain but on the continent of Europe as well.

Let me get back to the gentleman who telephoned me. I could not answer him and the Minister has not answered him today because there is the difficulty of the Kennedy round, the GATT and the 1948 agreement in our system of tariff preferences. Any changes here in relation to the Common Market would hurt Britain and she might decide that this important and valuable trade agreement to which I have referred was no longer binding on her. There is a whole series of delicate international agreements and negotiations on which the Minister in replying might give some of his views, in relation to the statement of the Taoiseach that we are still operating towards a 1970 entry into the Common Market.

Every farmer wants to know this. Every industrial worker must know this and everybody, no matter in what sphere of life in this country, will be affected by it. Therefore, on our side we must not do anything that will hinder the Minister and the Taoiseach in their delicate operations. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to us how things are going. We all know the Minister did not go to informal discussions in Brussels by way of holiday. He could have found a nicer place to go. Therefore, he might elucidate what the position is in relation to our 1970 entry into the Common Market and how it will affect agriculture and other industries here.

The progress that has been evident for many years in the production of dairy produce is continuing. We on our side of the House are extremely glad that this is so. But, we would point to the fact that it was the inter-Party Government here who saw a few years ago what was happening as a result of the limitation on the export of butter to Britain. In fact, butter prices in Britain were improved. As a result of this there would be a saving to the Exchequer in that particular year of £1,500,000. which should be given to the farmers in the price of milk. Six months later the Government did that and that is another indication of the Government being on the ball.

I should like to indicate another matter in relation to dairying on which the inter-Party Government showed the way. On an occasion 15 months ago I had the temerity to make a speech stating that the cleanliness of milk was not all it should be. I was immediately attacked by Deputy Corry who is not here presently. Indeed, it was an occasion of ribaldry. I have suffered many trials in politics and I suffered that one too. If the Minister refers back he will find that my suggestions were that there should be a plan in the south of Ireland for the improvement of the standard of cows, the standard of the dairies available to farmers and an increase in the number of farms on which water from deep wells was available. That is the gravamen of the whole thing. We find, nine months later, after having suffered the ribaldry of Deputy Corry and smiles from the opposition Deputies, as well as being accused of saying that every farmer's daughter was dirty, and so on that there will be a premium of 1d. a gallon for better quality milk.

By better quality milk the Minister means milk that will be tested on certain days, but this is not the time nor the place to go into details. I say this is not the way it should be done. We must go into far greater detail in relation to the standard of cows in the creamery areas, give better grants than are being given now for cooling equipment and better grants for the boring of deep wells and in this way produce a better quality milk. By doing this we shall be placing the tools in the farmers' hands so that cleaner milk can be produced.

I am a dairy farmer and I have a deep well in which there is so much water that when the cows are being milked we have running water continuously passing the cooler and I have never had sour milk returned to me from Dublin city. That is so because this quantity of water is available and the equipment is available. I am aware that my neighbour may have to spend some thousands in order to have these facilities which would not have cost me more than £100.

This is something the Minister must look into. He has not attended to it. It is all very well to have interviews in the Department of Agriculture but this does not produce better quality milk. It is the Minister's job to know the dairy farmers. This is how it should be done and the Minister will not do it by his present system which is only touching on the problem. It is of course an indication again, which we are only too happy to enjoy, of this governing by Opposition. I do not mind at all if Deputy Corry decides to abuse us over here on some serious points of agricultural policy which we may put forward. We will suffer that because it may even draw the attention of the people opposite to the serious nature of some of these problems.

As I said before, this governing over there and not here suits me.

I do not believe the Minister is that lazy. I want to say a few words about pigs. The first thing I want to say is that the Minister on pages 10 and 11 of the circulated version of his speech spoke about the question of centralised pig purchasing. This is a very serious problem because when you decide on centralised pig purchasing you immediately remove competition from the pig trade. In theory at least, you regularise the whole thing. This should mean, that if it were possible for me to do so, I should have ten identical pigs, bring them to ten identical bacon factories and get the same price per lb. for all of them at each of these ten factories. There are far more serious difficulties than that. The best way I can describe the difficulty in grading is that grading is decided by the thickness of your thumbnail. The situation at the moment is that the net profit on a pig is around 30/-, but this can mean no profit at all, when the decision goes against you, if you centralise pig buying. It is a question of the man who is doing the grading, an extremely detailed work.

I would go this far and say I would be extremely chary of creating any situation whereby the question of prices and profit one way or the other would be completely in the hands of one group of people, with supply, demand and competition available to them alone. If the dealers are in competition with the grading system at factories then you have the best of both worlds, that is, centralised marketing or quality competing with what the ordinary dealer can produce for his seller by his contacts in the rest of the trade.

This is a most serious problem and I would urge the Minister to address himself to it in the most serious way. It is a situation where the farmer seems to be happier than he was when grading was introduced some years ago. There is a great trade for Grade A pigs but at the same time there should be a trade for porkers from the ordinary dealers. I know that the principal officer of the Pigs and Bacon Commission, who resigned, was in favour of centralised marketing. I do not know what the views of his successor are but if I were in the Minister's shoes, I would be very slow to put the dealers out of business. I have no love for the dealers. I would merely like to see the trade operating on a supply and demand system.

I want to draw the Minister's attention to one particular thing which seems extraordinary to me. On 2nd March, 1965, I addressed my second or third question to the Minister—the previous one I addressed to his predecessor was not answered—on the subject of Jordan pighouses. A Jordan pighouse costs £4, a Danish one £28 and a Solari one, £18 or £19. When it comes to pig production, there is not a lot between the three of them. I remember a man who had a very large amount of money invested in pig breeding and who wanted to know whether or not the Jordan pighouse was the best but nobody would tell him. About two years ago in Fermoy, I was able to get information about this from the Agricultural Institute but on 2nd March two years later, the Minister was not able to give me that advice. It seems to me that it is wrong that we cannot get advice when we need it. This seems to me to be the case of a man in a hurry. The man who is present Minister for Agriculture seems to be a man in a hurry. The figures which are being produced in the Agricultural Institute, not only on pigs but on every other feature of farming, must be translated into increased production on the farms of Ireland.

The question of small farms has been activating the Minister's and the Government's minds ever since the recent by-election in the west of Ireland. It should well do so because that is really where they got their answer. We may have got our answer in other places but there is no doubt about the fact the small farmers gave the Government their answer. We have the report of the inter-departmental committee on the problem of the small western farmer and it makes good reading. It suggests that holdings which are five years vacant should be acquired by the Land Commission for the extension of holdings which are too small. We, on this side of the House, agree entirely with that. We do not agree, perhaps, that the old person, who has not farmed his land for a decade, should be removed from it by the Land Commission just because his health or his age did not allow him to farm it and he is now keeping it for a nephew or a son who might be away. I consider the Minister, where a farm has been entirely vacant, should take it over for extending holdings in the west of Ireland.

We, on this side of the House, have been suggesting for years that low interest loans should be available for small farmers and we are glad to see that the Minister is now in favour of this. When we advocated this, we were subjected to quite a lot of derision from the other side. Low interest loans are a most necessary departure which should pay for themselves many times over. Furthermore it is not an expensive operation. I shall come to agricultural labour later, in order to prove that but at the moment I should like to suggest this. If the small farmer, through any aegis, particularly the Agriculture Credit Corporation, were allowed to get from the National Loan £1 million, the interest charged on that would be around £60,000. When those fellows had repaid a portion of their principal, it would be less, decreasing each year. Is this figure of £60,000 to give the small farmers £1 million too grandiose? Is it too extravagant? Is there anything wrong with it? I do not think there is.

Just as the Party opposite have been eviscerating as best they can any of the good schemes we put up, I foresee that, during the lifetime of the Eighteenth Dáil this Minister for Agriculture will produce a scheme of reduced or interest free loans for small farmers. I want to record that we are the people who did the investigation on it and that we are the people who will be responsible for it. The Minister may smile. He will do it, as sure as guns are made of iron. Do not worry, we have seen Fianna Fáil's technique before.

When the Minister talks about the extension of the land project and the number of applications, and so on, he is certain to leave out one particular thing and that is that Section B of the Land Project has been discontinued. The report on the small farms suggests that this section would be reinstituted. For the information of new Deputies who may not know, Section B is the section whereby the small farmer or any farmer who has not the capital to put down, who has not got what the Minister and I would call, on other occasions, "the readies", can get his land drained and the cost put on his land annuities for the next 35 to 40 years. The Party opposite are responsible for this removal and they should reinstitute it.

The question of milk production on these small farms is all-important. The extension of the dairying industry into the west of Ireland must come. We on this side of the House would urge the Minister and the Government to proceed with that with all haste because, no matter how you look at it, if you have dry stock as against milking stock on a farm the gross income from the milking stock is far higher and then you have the calves as well. The small farmer must employ labour profitably. In the looking after of milking stock, home labour can be employed. In that way, you can increase the gross income and the net income of the small farmer.

I do not want to go into complete detail on this particular report but two aspects of it must be mentioned. One is that it is recommended that the advisory services be expanded. We on this side of the House have never left the belief that not only should you have advisers from committees of agriculture but also that the Minister himself, if he seeks to get work of a specific nature done in a pilot area in the west, should be in a position to put in an adviser—a parish agent, to use our term—and directly control him and see what improvement he can get and, through him, channel specific schemes that may not even be available in the rest of the country. We believe the Minister should do it and where he has his pilot area schemes he should have his advisers and instructors to help to bring about the increased agricultural production which is the only hope for the small farmers.

It would not be realistic to talk about the small farmer at all if one were not to say that there must be a high income from his farmyard if he is to survive. The Minister himself had quite an income from egg production. In fact, when examined in relation to the capital expenditure thereon, I think I agreed with him one night that it was not anything very wonderful at all, that, in fact, the Minister's figure for his own poultry farm was quite a realistic one. There was nothing at all wrong with the figures. So long as he had the market for the end product, which he had, that profit was there.

If it is possible to do that in Raheny it is possible to do it in the west. However, it means considerable capital expenditure. Not only that, it means that that capital expenditure must be well employed. It means that the buildings, or whatever they are, that are placed on that farm shall be approved as economic and efficient and as buildings that will give that net profit that will keep the people there on the land.

Pig and poultry production on these small farms in the west are two of the particular things that will keep the people there. You cannot expect to get a good gross income from perhaps 20 acres of rocks but you can expect to get an income supplemented by a very good income earned within the farmyard and that is one of the things that must happen. I would urge on the Minister that he proceed along specific lines, and these he must do. I intend to indicate some specific lines on which he might proceed.

During the last election, we produced some points on agricultural policy. One was that the income of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society should be expanded. The Minister has expanded it slightly this year. We added another codicil to this suggestion of ours on agricultural policy and that is that anywhere that the farmers would invest sums of money in their co-operative society for any particular project then, up to a limit of £50,000, the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society would be in a position to put up £ for £ of investment with them. I think the Minister should go that far: you have not gone that far. You have not got as far as £50,000. You have gone to £30,000.

Does the Deputy mean £50,000 for any one project?

No. It is merely a suggestion. I do not think there is a lot between us. I am suggesting that the farmer should know that if, in his co-operative effort, he is prepared to gather within his parish a figure of £1,000 there will be another £1,000 coming from the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society towards his capital project. The Minister may not agree with that, but it is no harm to mention it.

We must also make things easier for the small farmer. The small farmer gets it hard twice a year to pay his rates. The fellow with a valuation of about £23 or £24 can find himself, particularly in the west, even with the present agricultural rebate, with something in the order of £18 to £20 rates, to pay twice a year. That, to him, is two or three weeks' earnings. That, to him, is five or six weeks' hard work per year. On this side of the House, we have examined the exact cost of removing that burden from the farmer of £25 valuation and under. I am in a position today to give the figures to the House and to the Minister. To completely derate farms with a valuation of £25 and under would cost £1.3 million.

Derate their land or land and buildings?

Land and buildings. The Minister will agree that four-fifths of the first £20 are gone already. It is the fellow with the valuation of from £20 to £25 who finds it extremely difficult. That is one step we could take.

I did not like to appear too fractious during the general election campaign. Did the Deputy mean to derate the first £25 of everybody's valuation.

No, to derate farms of valuations of £25 or under; I have the figures.

In other words, to leave the man with a valuation of, say, £26 out of it altogether?

Yes. He would enjoy his present allowances—four-fifths of the first £20 plus employment allowances.

But all other farms of £25 valuation and under would be completely derated on everything: is that the suggestion?

Yes. We on this side of the House think it worth it and we make the suggestion to the present administration. The Minister has taken some steps in relation to grain growing. largely an increase in grain prices next year. There is no doubt about the fact that the increase in wheat prices is too little. I shall not be naive when I say that the increase in barley prices is, I think, fair.

However, I want to say that the production of wheat in this country has fallen catastrophically. If one takes the millable and unmillable wheat on the basis that everybody who grows wheat would like it to be millable, in 1962 the total production was 405,200 tons. In 1963 it was 374,000, in 1964, 241,000 tons. That is the total of millable and unmillable wheat. If that trend continues there will not be nearly enough wheat for inclusion in the grist in Ireland. It is agreed that the amount of Irish wheat which can be assimilated in the grist is 260,000 tons. When we started on this in 1953, before the Minister arrived, the Fianna Fáil Party organised a Departmental Committee who produced a figure of 300,000 tons as being the maximum for inclusion in the grist. A further figure of 285,000 tons was produced. There is an end to the falling graph and I do not think we are far from it now.

Last year there was a considerable fall in the amount of millable wheat and the quantity of unmillable wheat was 17,000 tons, Had we had a large quantity of unmillable wheat we would have been very short of the amount required for the grist. The national policy in this country has been to include in the bread of every wage earner, of every self-employed person and of us all 75 per cent Irish wheat and that this should be done at a fair price to the grower. That is highly important for our farmers in respect of the 260,000 tons of wheat necessary for our grist. It adds up to a fair amount of money. It is a cash market where cash markets are scarce.

I suggest that the Minister should increase the price of wheat further, that his increase of 3/- per barrel is not sufficient in 1965. I believe wheat production may be down again this year and I further believe that the only area holding its wheat production will be that from which I come. Why, I cannot tell you. If the Minister does not do better than this, wheat production will drop. My remedy is that the Minister increase the figure now. The sowings for this year have now been done but such a move would build up the figure the following year. My suggestion is that the figure of 3/- should be doubled.

There are other matters in this connection which must be considered. While the increase in feeding barley is very creditable, the position is that the import of coarse grains is still far too high. Our imports of wheat amount to £5 million, imports of maize amount to £2 million and other cereals account for £1,564,000. I am aware that under the trade agreement with Britain we must import some seed, even where we are able to grow it ourselves. It is a small matter which should not be used against the Minister.

Grain production must be looked after and it is not being looked after. Our aim should be to increase the production of both wheat and barley. The Minister has done his job in relation to barley. If we were to have more than 260,000 tons of wheat I believe the matter of a small levy would not dissuade farmers too much. If prices are fair production will not drop. It would be a tragedy, if grain production were destroyed. The Minister has some responsibility in the matter of wheat not only in relation to price. One of his duties is in relation to the Olered Report. There was also a report from the survey team on flour milling. The President of the Flour Millers Association addressed a symposium organised by the NFA. He said:

Let me say here and now that the IFMA accepts Dr. Olered's recommendations, but it must be made quite clear that his recommendations are made and are acceptable to us in the context of a system of marketing which is quite different to ours.

If one goes into the recommendations of Dr. Olered one finds the system is one of purchasing by dealers and of sale to the flour millers. There is nothing wrong with that. However, a physical matter arises and it should have been dealt with months ago. It is a matter of segregation. Under the Olered recommendation there would be grades of wheat and flour millers would not be coerced into using any grain. There would be an intake of three or four grades.

Anybody who has anything to do with grain knows that is a highly difficult technical problem. You must have driers and storage facilities all of which would cost a lot of money. If wheat production is not to deteriorate, if the quantity is not to contract and if this report is to be accepted, we should have begun to get down to the task of making these segregations, of providing the driers in the grain growing areas. The Minister has not moved on it and in his last public statement touching the question he said it was under consideration. This is not the time for consideration but for movement. We have now reached a stage where we can do nothing in respect of the harvest to come but the Minister should be engaged in the task of doing something about the harvest that follows. He has got to consider this matter very quickly and very completely. He must complete his plans and agreements with the various people involved—farmers, millers and everybody else—for implementation as quickly as possible.

The question of farm buildings is one on which I have touched not in any detail. It has activated this Party and our thinking during the past number of years. Particularly in the dairying areas, the standard of farm buildings leaves much to be desired. The problem must be tackled in a detailed and specific way. I want to state our proposals in this regard. Our proposals are that there should be a farm buildings agency run on the same lines as the National Building Agency is run for the provision of houses for individuals. This farm building agency, by contracting with the local contractors, would set up on the farms buildings of approved specifications which will be economic and efficient. Surely with the Agricultural Institute now running for some years it should be possible to get a plan for a 50-pig house for the man who wants a house for 50 pigs, or a plan for the ten-cow man or the 50-cow man. These buildings, because of the fact that they would be erected by the same contractor, perhaps over a wide area, would be far cheaper than if the farmer had to erect them himself. As well as this advantage, there would be the advantage of the proper specifications being followed and we would produce buildings that, by experiment in the Institute, had proved to be economic and efficient.

This can be related to the policy we adumbrate here on the extension of credit facilities to farmers. It could be incorporated in a farm plan and the whole basis of agricultural advancement is a farm plan. I want to say, and I never did this before, because I think our Department of Agriculture is an excellent one and that our officers are men of great integrity and ability, that I have been examining the detailed nature of the farm buildings proposals of the Northern Ireland Government which, of course, are duplicated in Britain. The farm improvement scheme and the leaflets in relation to it, and the specifications of the buildings and the specifications for the different improvements they want to see carried out on the farm, are far more detailed and are more helpful. It is necessary that we should go into this detail and integrate the whole affair with our agricultural instructors' effort to increase production and get the whole vehicle moving at the same time towards the same objective.

I believe this is absolutely necessary. An agency of this kind could work with the Agricultural Credit Corporation. The scheme of reduced interest free loans that we adumbrate could be integrated also. You could have this section of agricultural credit bringing the specific result that is so desired not only by the people but by the Government and the Opposition. The Minister gave no indication in his speech of any detailed plan of this type. He gave no indication that there was any serious thinking of a change in this regard and no indication that there would be such an agency as a farm building agency that would produce these buildings with the speed and urgency that would be required.

Would it?

I should like to discuss that with the Minister now that he has mentioned it. One of the great successes of the Fianna Fáil Government, perhaps in a relatively small way, has been the National Building Agency. There is no doubt about that. I like to be honest and I have built a house through it myself for an executive. You walk into the office and a man asks you what do you want and then says that the architects are upstairs and he brings in four plans and asks you "Will you have this one, or this one, or this one?" He then says: "I am building 16 of those in such and such a town, eight of those somewhere else, and two elsewhere and if you will say that you will have this one I will ask the contractor to make it not 16 but 17." That has been my experience and that is why I am sold on the farm building agency. It would be possible for it, working through the Department and the Institute, to produce for Deputy Lalor, if he wanted it, a pighouse for 50 pigs to a suitable design and price and it would be far easier than if we gave Deputy Lalor a leaflet and left him to do it himself. Have I convinced the Minister that there is anything in the idea? If there is he will steal it.

Without the slightest hesitation.

Then I will have done some good, will I not? However, this is my view and I think I can convince the House there is something in it. The National Building Agency is only getting under way. The Minister for Local Government was discussing with me the question of swimming pools and indicated that there would be cheaper rates if they could get half a dozen pools built by one contractor to a specified design. It might be said that this is spoon-feeding the people but I intend no insult when I say that a lot of people need to be spoon-fed. If you can set it up so that Deputy Lalor can have a 50-pig house for £X per year and that from that he can make his principal or principal plus interest repayments and have more net profit for himself, you have done something at that stage. If I have sold the Minister that idea I am happy. The Minister told me that he was going to deal with fishing, is it a fishy subject today?

Fishing does not arise on this Estimate.

Is the Deputy about to offer me a day's fishing somewhere?

I will, but it will be for mackerel and it might make the Minister sick. We on this side of the House have worked extremely hard in the production of detailed plans for agriculture. We have not had the facilities which the Government have, but we have addressed our minds to the problem and there were occasions when what we did produce was filched by the Government and is now being used by them. On one occasion I mentioned the question of giving a penny premium for clean milk and said it was something that had only been half-done and that the first thing necessary was to institute this detailed plan for farm buildings, the provision of cooling equipment and all that sort of thing. I was going to say that there is no good putting the cart before the horse but I will say instead that there is no use taking out the horse when you have not yoked him to the cart, unless you are going to the hunt. In the last election, in the small farm areas, we gained votes on the basis of the work we had done. We will not have an opportunity of testing that again for a while but we are not ungenerous and I am sure that the Minister will steal from us what has been made public in our plans in detail.

The general attitude of our Party to Government policy on agriculture is that while there has been rather generous State aid we think it might be more specifically directed towards the small and medium sized farmer, rather than as in the past where the main profit went to the larger farmer. No matter how bright and comprehensive a document may be provided here on agriculture, the truth to my mind is that for the agricultural community—and I refer mainly to the small and medium sized farmer—a great element of confusion exists generally. Things are not as bright as the Government might have us believe. The greatest indication, to my mind, that something was wrong in the past or is wrong now is that many years ago it was found possible to pay farmers 84/- per barrel for barley while beer, which I might call the finished product, could be sold at 10d. a pint. If we examine the position now we find that barley is something under 30/- less per barrel and the finished product sells at from 1/8d. to 2/- a pint, the price varying between the country and cities.

Our main concern as a Party with agriculture is the shameful reward it provides for those engaged in it as agricultural labourers. Those working as agricultural labourers are in fact living under conditions more befitting the time of Cromwell than a time when a native Government is in control. Anybody looking at schoolchildren going to school in rural Ireland will know immediately by the pinched face of the child, the heel out of the stocking, the general delicate appearance, and bad clothes, that the child is the child of an agricultural labourer. That is an appalling situation. No blame for that can be directed towards the parents of the child, or to the father in particular, because I know of nobody who gives a greater contribution physically to the national well-being than he does but the reward is not there, even though we consider agriculture to be the premier industry. It is appalling that such conditions could be related to agriculture and the people engaged in it.

If it is true that agriculture is our premier industry, it is amazing that those engaged in it are able to acquire by their efforts only half of what may be obtained by workers in a shirt factory or boot factory. I do not think it is the intention of the Government or of any decent-thinking Irishman that those engaged in the premier industry should exist in these terrible conditions. It is also true that those engaged in agriculture have large families that are hungry. That is a statement of fact. Whether the industry is doing well or not—and we are told it is doing well—you can best gauge the position by what can be got out of agriculture and I suggest that the only people who are doing well out of it are those who are buying the farmers' produce.

I refer particularly—and I take responsibility for saying it—to the millers, the maltsters, the bacon and beet factories which I am satisfied under consecutive Governments have been given a licence to rob the farmers. It is the people who buy the farmer's produce who do well and I make that statement fully conscious of what I am saying. These people seem to drive much better cars than the farmers do. All this matter should be examined. The big discrepancy might exist in regard to the barley prices. At one stage—I am not ashamed to say it—I worked in a malthouse and at the wrong end of it, because I worked with a shovel—and I know that barley was bought at varying prices, some of it, when the contract was filled was bought at varying prices, some of it, when the contract was filled was bought for 10/-, 15/- or perhaps £1 less than the contract price—but I was one of the people who started that barley into the same hopper; it was used for the same purpose and eventually sent away in the same container as the barley bought at the contract price. Therefore, that licence to rob is there and I think the Government should as far as possible take steps to arrest that plundering and eventually eliminate it.

I think no worker would leave the land if his work there was rewarded but if the present system of reward to agricultural workers is to continue— indeed if the amount of reward obtained by the small or medium farmer is to continue—I am certain that in ten years rural Ireland will be as dead as O'Connell.

Dead as what?

O'Connell. He is dead, is he not? Something must be done to put the farmers in a position to pay wages if we are to save rural Ireland. One way of doing this would be by interest-free loans. It is true that small farmers who have endeavoured to equip themselves and their holdings find themselves now the playthings of the moneylenders and many of them find themselves in a precarious financial position. They have to work hard and their efforts are directed to paying off the interest on the money they have borrowed because they are being fleeced by the moneylenders.

I speak as one who comes from one of the greatest tillage areas in the country. I know the feelings of the people there; I know the farmers' sons with whom I mingle and I can say it is a very happy farmer's son who has 10/- on a Saturday night. That is an appalling situation in a country basically dependent on agriculture.

I have listened to the pervious speaker referring to the situation down the country and I would not like to make remarks like his that it is easy to know the child of the farmer by the way they are dressed and their poor appearance. I do not think that situation exists down the country; I think these are the best-dressed people and that is as it should be.

Will you tell me how it is done?

Perhaps I might know a little more about how it was done than the Deputy.

How is it done on less than £7 per week?

I am not going to stand up here and disparage my own constituency, even though it seems that is the policy in the Deputy's case. I would not like to see anybody running down my constituency. I say that the children going to school were never as well dressed as at present. The Deputy spoke about the price of malting barley and compared it with the price paid some years ago. I know the big price is not there now but what I should like to know is why it was raised to 84/- at that time. I think it was a move that put small brewers out of existence. That was the motive behind it.

It took a lot of them out of the bank.

When Deputy Donegan, who began the debate on the other side, was speaking and when he spoke of all the prices he wanted I wonder why his Party are on that side of the House especially when the people had a chance of reversing the position and putting him over here only a few weeks ago. He spoke of more money for every item going into the farm: but this Estimate has increased out of bounds. He said we should have more money for cow byres and for installation of water supplies and so on but for every up-and-doing farmer the money is available and I do not see why he does not avail of it.

He said that the Department was trying to encourage the farmers to have cleaner milk. That may be all right, but to earn the penny a gallon would cost the farmer a great deal before he would get any benefit. When you go to the creamery you must pass a test for three weeks or so and if you are down one week there is no penny a gallon. There is a good deal to be considered there.

Deputy Donegan mentioned the price of wheat and said it should have been further increased. I have no doubt if the Minister had increased it Deputy Donegan would have said it should have been more still. It is not the price of wheat so much as the method of handling it adopted by the millers that matters. The farmers thought the increase of 3/- was fair enough but now between the bad harvest which we must risk and the manner of delivering it to the mills, the farmer finds he is at the wrong end. It is not the price that has kept down the acreage; it is the way the wheat is being treated.

The Deputy from Laois spoke on the question of malting barley. He said that Guinness buy it on contract and if you have a surplus over the contract, it all goes down the one chute. That would be wrong if it happened. I do not know how you can prevent it because it is all delivered to the mill. If they are refusing it, they refuse at that point down the country; they do not take it up here. I know farmers living around me and their surplus was not taken.

During the general election campaign, there were people who said that they could not see any signs of progress or prosperity. I wonder are they blind or deaf or both? One has not to go very far in any part of the country to see evidence of prosperity.

The case of the small farmer has been raised. It is all very well to suggest to the Minister that some scheme should be adopted. We have a Minister who is pursuing a good policy, based on sound foundation. I read a rather amusing statement the other day by a very intelligent man who asked how a small farmer with ten sows and ten cows could exist. Is he a small farmer if he has ten good sows and ten good cows? I doubt it very much. Yet that remark was published in the paper for anyone to read.

We on this side of the House are very pleased with the Minister for Agriculture. He has done a great deal of good for the farmers in a short space of time. As I have said outside the House, he has done more good in six months than Deputy Dillon did in six years or, indeed, in his lifetime.

The question of supplies of milk to the creameries has been raised and it has been suggested that farmers should be encouraged to produce milk. There was not very much encouragement to do that a few years ago when the best price was 1/- per gallon. How were the milk suppliers to exist in those circumstances? That price was to obtain for a period of five years.

Prices of cattle are very good. Some people seem to think that they are nearly too good, that it would be better to have a slump so that the Government could be blamed. I do not think that those people are serious who would attempt to criticise this Estimate, having regard to the big increases farmers have got.

I want to raise a matter that is worrying me in connection with the greyhound industry which I understand comes under this Estimate. Since Bord na gCon was established, the number of greyhounds has increased enormously. This has brought about a situation which needs to be investigated. In the old days, it was impossible to get a sufficient number of dogs to enter for the main competitions held throughout the country. By having nominators, it was ensured that all these competitions were filled. Now the position is that there are more dogs available to go into these competitions than there are nominators to nominate them.

I understand that for the Irish Cup, for instance, for which the prize is £1,000, the nominator puts up £25 when he nominates the dog and, if the dog wins, collects £100 of that £1,000 prize. This was fair enough but now I understand that a situation can arise, and has arisen, that owners trying to get nominations have been known to offer up to £500, plus the entry fee, in order to get a nomination, so the system is open to abuse. The matter was discussed in connection with the Bill which established Bord na gCon and I thought I would avail of this opportunity to speak briefly on it.

One other thing is that the status of the trainers seems not to be the same as in horse racing. It may be possible to consider whether these people can have a somewhat higher status. I do not think there is anyone running about with a pocketful of dope.

I do not think I have a great deal to say at this stage. I welcome the generally constructive approach of Deputy Donegan, the main speaker for the Opposition Party on this Estimate. I think that I can treat with some levity his attempts to claim the credit for practically everything that has been achieved in agriculture by the Fianna Fáil administration. However, I will certainly pay him the compliment of considering carefully the suggestions he has put forward. I know he has put them forward in an attempt to be constructive and I shall certainly treat them as such.

I shall also consider the matters which have been mentioned by Deputy N. Lemass with regard to the greyhound industry.

I have nothing further to add, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, except to thank the Deputies who have spoken for their contributions.

Vote put and agreed to.
The Dáil adjourned at 4.30 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 4th May, 1965.
Top
Share