Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 24 Mar 1966

Vol. 221 No. 14

Committee on Finance. - Vote 39—Agriculture.

Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries (Mr. Haughey)

I move:—

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £2,045,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries, 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 1965-66, brings the total net expenditure from the Vote for Agriculture to £33,810,000.

In case the timing of the introduction of this Supplementary Estimate may lead to some confusion I want to emphasise that it is related entirely to the current year which ends this month and I will therefore be confining my remarks to the items for which more money is necessary in this present year.

The biggest provision in this Supplementary Estimate is for subhead K.18 —Payments to the Pigs and Bacon Commission. The amount provided in the Vote for Agriculture for bacon export support in the current financial year was £1,800,000. The additional amount now required for the support for pigmeat exports is £1,300,000 which will bring total support for pigmeat this year to £3,100,000. The cost of support for pigmeat exports has been moving upwards and this year's amount is the highest ever. The Pigs and Bacon Commission gets the moneys for pigmeat export support from two sources —from the Exchequer and from a levy collected from bacon curers on each pig slaughtered for bacon. In view of the heavy burden of support this year the levy, which had been at the level of 15/- per pig, was increased to 18/-per pig on Ist January last. In the current financial year the Commission expects to collect £1 million through this levy.

There are three reasons for the additional £1,300,000 now required. Firstly, 1965 was a record year of pig deliveries to bacon factories and exports of pigmeat; secondly, the market for Irish bacon in Britain has not been as buoyant as was hoped; and thirdly, minimum pig prices payable by bacon curers and consequently guaranteed export prices for bacon had to be increased from 1st October last to compensate for the increase in the barley price.

Pig production in the past year has been at a record level. In the calendar year 1965 almost 1,800,000 pigs were delivered to bacon factories which was more than 200,000 in excess of the number delivered in 1964. Exports of bacon to Britain are governed by the Multilateral Bacon Understanding but a substantial part of our supplies is also exported in the form of pork. In this financial year total pork exports are expected to be about 15,000 tons compared with less than 9,000 tons in the year ended 31st March, 1965.

In previous years the Pigs and Bacon Commission's receipts from levies were more than enough to meet the cost of supporting pork exports; in fact, in most years, a great part of these receipts was available for bacon export support, there by reducing the demand on the Exchequer. This year, however, the Commission's levy receipts have been insufficient to meet the cost of pork exports and the amount which I am now seeking includes £350,000 for the assistance of pork exports.

The Pigs and Bacon Commission has been very active in endeavouring to develop markets outside Britain and has been conducting a sales promotion campaign for bacon on the home market. The Commission has also been endeavouring through market promotion to raise the price of Irish bacon on the British market. With a view to improving the quality of our bacon exports, I intend in the near future to have the maximum deadweight for Grade A Special and Grade A reduced from 168 lb to 160 lb. At the same time, in view of the lower weight, there will be an adjustment in the minimum length of carcase required to qualify for the higher grades at some weights. The matter has been discussed by my Department with the Commission and with producer and curer organisations and the proposed grading modifications are acceptable all-round. The overall effect of the modifications will be that pig producers' prices will not be adversely affected.

When introducing the Estimate for Agriculture in April last, I said that a scheme for the centralised purchasing of pigs seemed desirable provided it could be kept in line with a stable price level for producers and ensure the production of high-quality pigs. During the past year an outline of a scheme was prepared by the Pigs and Bacon Commission and discussed with the Commission by officials of my Department. A revised scheme has been sent to my Department recently by the Commission. This is at present being studied in my Department but before any steps are taken to implement it there would of course have to be consultation with all concerned, and legislation would also be necessary.

A sum of £956,000 is required under subhead N—Marketing of Dairy Produce. Milk production in 1965 was an all time record. Deliveries to creameries amounted to about 392 million gallons. This was 30 million gallons or 8.3 per cent over the 1964 figure, which in turn represented an increase of 7.3 per cent over the preceding year.

Our home consumption of dairy products has always been high but, with the assistance of the National Dairy Publicity Council, we are managing to raise it still more. We must face the fact, however, that the vast bulk of future increases in creamery milk production must be exported. Almost half of the milk production in 1965 had to be exported and Bord Bainne has been actively engaged in disposing of it to the best advantage abroad. In Britain, our chief market, and elsewhere, butter prices have, however, fallen considerably since the main Estimate was prepared. They are now lower than they have been at any time since the latter half of 1962. For this reason and also because the volume of Irish butter sold has been slightly higher than anticipated, our total butter export losses during the present year will be more than has been provided for. It is now estimated that an additional £430,000 will be required to meet the Exchequer's two-thirds share of the Board's bill for losses and subsidies, bringing the total for the year to £3,610,000. We have, of course, done better than we otherwise would have through the expansion in sales of the Board's packaged butter, Kerrygold. The increase in our basic quota for the British market which has resulted from the Free Trade Area Agreement will enable the Board to plan on a more reliable basis for the disposal of the increasing quantities of milk products that will be available for export in the years ahead.

In connection with the increase in our basic quota, I should also like to point out that in 1964-65 and in 1965-66, we received substantial supplementary quota allocations which helped to offset our unsatisfactory basic quota in those years. For the 1966-67 quota year which commences on 1st April, the total of supplementary allocations made by Britain has been reduced drastically and, if we had not secured the increase in our basic quota under the Free Trade Area Agreement, our exports of butter in the coming year would have been seriously restricted.

The results to date of the Creamery Milk Quality Grading Scheme introduced last May with the object of improving the quality of our dairy products have been quite promising. It had been expected that about a third of all creamery milk would reach the required standard in the first season but I am glad to say that the actual proportion qualifying has been as much as 42.5 per cent. This is most encouraging for the first season. I congratulate the producers on their very creditable performance and I am confident that the quantity of milk qualifying for the bonus payment will continue to increase. This will result in an improvement in the quality of our milk products exported and in the returns from their sales. Such an improvement is essential if we are to keep to a minimum the unit rate of loss on our dairy produce exports and, therefore, the total amount of support on our expanding milk production.

The amount needed for the penny per gallon price bonus for quality milk is estimated at £536,000 for this year, an increase of £526,000 on the token provision already made. Adding to this the grant to An Bord Bainne and the £6,550,000 required to meet the cost of the 4d per gallon production allowance paid from the Exchequer on all milk used for processing, the total sum for milk price support this year amounts to £10,696,000 or about 6.5 pence per gallon. This compares with £8,160,000 or 5.4 pence per gallon in 1964-65 and £6,037,000 or 4.3 pence per gallon in 1963-64. There could scarcely be any better evidence than this of the Government's recognition of the importance of the dairying industry in the whole economy and of their willingness to assist the industry so far as the resources available permit.

The third largest item of the Estimate is the provision of £796,000 for the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme (Subhead K.11). The main reason for this increase is the dramatic rise in our cattle population, mainly due to the remarkable response throughout the country to the Calved Heifer Subsidy Scheme. There are probably other reasons too. The BTE Scheme itself has given us a greatly improved level of health in our cattle. The official returns show that our cattle numbers have risen from 4,860,000 in June, 1963 to 5,360,000 in June, 1965, an increase of 500,000 in two years.

This, of course, is very gratifying but these higher numbers mean that we have had to pay more for testing by veterinary surgeons. The average cost of the test is now £6 a herd as compared with £5 a few years ago. Due also to the rapid increase in cattle numbers, the number of reactors taken up this year will be greater than we had originally anticipated. We had estimated for about 12,000 reactors and will in fact take up about 18,000 in the year. This includes a very large number taken up in the "mopping up" operations in the south before attestation. The prices which my Department has been paying for reactor cattle have also increased quite substantially this year. On the other hand, receipts from the salvage on these reactors also show an increase. These, at £843,000, will exceed the estimate by £479,000 thus reducing the net excess expenditure on Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication to £317,000.

The year has seen the full attestation of the country and our main jobs now are to locate and eliminate the few remaining foci of infection and to ensure that Bovine TB will not again be a problem in this country.

While dealing with the subject of cattle I should like to refer briefly to the effects which the results of the recent British Annual Review will have on our livestock and meat exports. The increase of 10/- per live cwt. in the guaranteed price for fat cattle and the increase of ¾d per lb deadweight in the guaranteed price for fat sheep and lambs will apply both to Irish stores fattened in Britain and to the quantities of Irish carcase beef and Irish carcase lamb on which British guarantee payments will be made under the terms of the Free Trade Area Agreement. The value to this country of these price increases is quite significant. The increase on cattle is equivalent to about £5 per beast and on the 638,000 stores we have undertaken to supply to Britain this would represent over £3 million. A very substantial proportion of this sum will be reflected back in the prices paid for the stores here. The total value of the price increase on the 25,000 tons of Irish carcase beef to which the British deficiency payments will be applied is about £½ million, and this additional amount will accrue in full to this country. The amounts involved in the case of sheep are smaller but the increase of ¾d per lb in the British guaranteed price will nevertheless be useful in strengthening trade here. In addition to increasing the guaranteed price for fat cattle, the British Government have given an assurance that, provided there is no significant change in circumstances, they will not reduce that price during the period of the current National Plan, that is up to 1970. This provides a further degree of security for our cattle and beef exports and is yet another benefit for Irish farmers as a result of the arrangements made under the Free Trade Area Agreement.

Two other items in the Estimate concern animal health, £43,200 being required under Subhead K. 9 (Prevention of Diseases, etc. in Livestock) and £24,700 under Subhead L.1 (Diseases of Animals Acts). The former sum is needed for purposes of the warble fly eradication scheme; £5,200 to cover the cost of dressings and the expenses of my Department's officers operating the scheme in certain areas in County Mayo and one small area in County Donegal where local veterinary practitioners are not available; and £38,000 for insurance compensation to herd owners for losses attributable to the dressings used under the scheme. This fund is being built up from the proceeds of a charge of 2d per dressing for each animal treated, which will be brought into the Vote as appropriations-in-aid and paid out of the Vote as a grant-in-aid under Subhead K.9 to a special warble fly eradication account from which compensation will be paid. Any balance remaining in this account after all valid claims have been met will be taken into consideration in assessing the rate of contribution for compensation purposes in the 1966 campaign.

Of the £24,700 needed under Subhead L.1, £21,700 is for compensation for fowl destroyed as a result of fowl pest outbreaks during 1965 and £3,000 for miscellaneous expenses including the cost of the destruction and burial of stocks, excavation of burial trenches, cleansing and disinfection of affected premises and payment of compensation in one case where infection was not confirmed—and compensation could not, therefore, be paid under the Fowl Pest Orders—but destruction of the stock was considered essential as a precautionary measure.

I feel I should say in relation to the fowl pest situation that the condition as it occurs here bears little resemblance to the classical form of the disease which involves serious loss of egg production and deaths. In fact, the only manifestation of the condition here is a positive reaction to a blood test. In agreement with the Northern Ireland authorities we will be carrying out a further survey of our supply farms this year and at the end of this survey I would hope to be in a position to declare the country free from any suspicion of fowl pest.

While on the subject of animal disease, I would again like to draw attention to the serious foot and mouth disease situation which built up on the European Continent over the past five months. Outbreaks occurred in Russia, the Netherlands, Belgium and Switzerland. There is still danger of a further spread of the disease. My Department is keenly aware of the hazards arising from this situation for our country and steps have been taken to intensify the precautionary measures against the introduction of the disease.

This country has a remarkable history of freedom from major animal disease which is of tremendous significance to our livestock export trade. It behoves us all, therefore, to strive to maintain this fortunate position and I would appeal especially to persons in the livestock trade travelling abroad and to Irish people working abroad on the land or in meat processing plants, etc., to report for disinfection to my Department's portal control staff immediately on landing in this country. The full co-operation of all concerned is vital in this regard.

A sum of £415,000 is included in the Estimate to meet the excesses on remuneration subheads due to pay increases in respect of the staff of my Department. For convenience the total estimated cost, which covers several Subheads of the Vote, is provided for under a single Subhead (A). Close on 90 per cent of this sum is required to implement awards of salary increases made under the Scheme of Conciliation and Arbitration for the Civil Service.

A sum of £136,000 is required under Subhead I.5 to meet the cost of increases in the salaries of the staff of An Foras Talúntais following the revision of the salary scales applicable to the three categories of Institute staff, namely, research, secretariat and technician. The new scales for the research and secretariat staffs were determined by the Council of the Institute in exercise of their powers under section 17 of the Agricultural (An Foras Talúntais) Act, 1958, after discussions between representatives of the Institute and officials of my Department and of the Department of Finance. In the case of the technician staff, the new scales were determined by the Labour Court. The increases are retrospective to 1st January, 1964 in the case of the research and secretariat staffs and to 1st October, 1964, in the case of the technician staff. The latter was in accordance with a Labour Court recommendation. The full amount required in the current year to meet these increases is £149,000, of which £73,000 relates to the period 1st January, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, and £76,000 to the financial year ending 31st March, 1966, but £13,000 of this amount will be met by the Institute from savings.

I propose to provide an additional sum of £58,700 for the Faculty of General Agriculture of University College, Dublin, under Subhead D.9. In the past few years, the numbers of students attending courses in that Faculty have substantially increased and greater provision has been made for specialisation of studies in response to the growing demand for the services of graduates possessing specialist knowledge and training in particular branches of agricultural science. The staff of the Faculty has had to be correspondingly enlarged, and new and additional equipment has had to be provided. The costs involved have added appreciably to the ordinary expenditure of the Faculty and, while the grants made to the Faculty out of the Vote for Agriculture have been increased from year to year, they have not kept pace with the growth of the Faculty's expenditure. In the circumstances, I consider it necessary to make this additional provision for the Faculty in the current year, in order to reduce the accumulated deficiency in its receipts and to bring its current income into line with its ordinary expenditure.

A sum of £6,000 is sought under Subhead K. 16 for purposes of a scheme of grants and guaranteed loans for co-operative packing and grading stations for fresh horticultural produce. This scheme, which was envisaged in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, was introduced in the present financial year. A token provision only was made in this year's Vote. The scheme provides for grants of up to one-third of the approved cost of economically sound projects of this nature and for guarantee of a loan by the Agricultural Credit Corporation in a like amount. Applications made by two societies to participate in the scheme have been approved in principle and the amount of grant payable expected to be made to them in the current financial year is £6,000. The balance of grants payable would fall to be paid in the next financial year.

I am increasing by £1,000 each the grants-in-aid from my Department to the Irish Countrywomen's Association, Subhead I.3, and Macra na Feirme, Subhead I.4. In the case of the ICA, the additional £1,000, which I also propose to pay in 1966-67 and 1967-68, will enable Country Markets Ltd. an offshoot of the Association, to employ a full-time organiser to help members to develop additional co-operative markets for the sale of garden, farm and home produce, particularly in western areas. I consider this project to be a most praiseworthy one and I am satisfied that the increased provision will be very well spent. The increase in the grant to Macra na Feirme will likewise be used by this Organisation to appoint additional field organisers. Macra na Feirme has been most useful in promoting the work of my Department amongst young farmers and I am satisfied that the additional money I propose giving will, by strengthening the organisation, make it even more effective in this respect in the future.

Mr. Donegan

It is, perhaps, symptomatic of the situation in the country today that the first item in this Supplementary Estimate under subhead A should be status increases within the Department to the tune of £415,000. I do not contend that civil servants, well educated and gifted people, should not get their due reward. However, only a short fortnight ago, the Minister stood here and indicated that he hoped the balance between agricultural and other incomes would not deteriorate over the next financial year. In view of that, this calls, I think, for some comment.

We have before us a Supplementary Estimate which, despite anything the Minister may have said, will not increase the income of a farmer by one penny piece. Side by side with that, on the basis of status increases, in a year of trial and tribulation, of credit squeeze and mounting problems, there is an increase in incomes in the Department of Agriculture of £115,000. I do not grudge any man this increase, but it indicates that the rosy situation portrayed by the Minister in relation to the farmers, and the beneficent and munificent way in which he suggests there was a hand-out here and a hand-out there, are in fact quite untrue and bear no relation to reality.

As a result of this Supplementary Estimate, there will be no increase in income for the farmer. That is an indication of a trend which has troubled every part of our economy this year. When I say there is no increase in remuneration for the farmer, I wish to indicate that he has not, in fact, got any very great opportunity to increase his income in order to meet rising costs. On page 12 of the Progress Report, there is this statement: "Let us face the fact that agricultural production is down by one per cent in 1965." Those of us in this House and outside it who are interested in agriculture have been maintaining over the years that in agriculture we have an untapped mine, something we can expand and something that can provide the capital in the years ahead to enable the whole nation to prosper and grow.

Yet, at a time when a new Minister has arrived on the scene, a man in a hurry, a man portrayed as one who will make things move, we have a reduction of one per cent in agricultural production. If we were in the happy position that agricultural production had reached its optimum and that we had gone as far as we could go, then variations from year to year, a reduction in one year and an increase in another, could only be expected. But that is not the position. Agriculture must expand, not only this year and next year but in the next decade. It is a condemnation of the Minister that in 1965 agricultural production fell by one per cent.

Side by side with that, the Minister for Finance hopes that the horribly bad relationship between agricultural income and other incomes will not further disimprove. This is a condemnation and nobody can get away from that. All the glib talk about more money being poured in is just so much glib talk, and nothing else. We cannot get away from the fact that farmers have not had any increase in income, but they have had a decrease in production. Again, at page 30 of the Progress Report, I question the statement that agricultural income did increase by one per cent in 1965. If agricultural production dropped and costs increased, as we know they did over every facet of agricultural production, I cannot see how the Government can produce a situation in which they maintain agricultural income increased by one per cent. In my view, agricultural income decreased in 1965 and the Government have failed to pursue the policy, first implemented by Deputy Dillon, of agricultural expansion, at a time when we were in the very depths and when the wheels of agriculture had slowed down. Now a decrease has occurred. We are merely producing a mechanical increase in costs and this has been the lot of every operation in the country as well as agriculture.

Let us consider the situation in relation to capital. The Minister was very bland when he suggested that the recent Free Trade Agreement with Britain would create a better situation for farmers here. He even put a price on the improvement which he said would apply to 638,000 stores if we had them to send. The 1948 Trade Agreement negotiated by Deputy Dillon gave every guarantee contained in the new Agreement, the only tiny exception being in respect of a limited quantity of beef and lamb in respect of which the Government were paying the deficiency payment anyway. It amounted to only a tiny amount in any year in which it was paid. Therefore, any benefit in relation to cattle in the Free Trade Agreement accrues to the Exchequer and not to the Irish farmers. Not a shilling will go to the Irish farmers to which they were not entitled under the 1948 Agreement.

We must accept that. We agree, of course, that there was room for tidying up. That is all the present Minister for Agriculture did in London. Mind you, he is a good seller, as is his opposite number on the other side. Between them they gilded the lily. They did not gild it with gold but with gold size which is not acceptable over the counter. Before this debate is ended, it will be proved that no Irish farmer will receive a shilling more than he received under the 1948 Agreement.

The position in relation to the number of cattle in the country and the Minister's claim that it is satisfactory must receive some examination. On this side of the House we advocated a heifer subsidy scheme for years but were subjected to sneers and catcalls from the other side. At that time the present Minister for Agriculture did not display any great knowledge of or interest in agriculture. After some prodding from this side of the House, the Government decided to introduce the heifer scheme. I am quite certain nobody knows whether that scheme has succeeded. Nobody will know this until one or two years have elapsed. Under such a scheme, you must further increase your production before you draw a further subsidy and there is built into the scheme a temptation, to which I as a business man as well as a farmer would fall, to hop into the keeping of extra heifers, to calve them out and then hop out again and hop into dry stock. It is a built-in danger in the scheme which is not the kind we would have put into operation, had we been in power. Therefore, we cannot yet be certain that the scheme has been a success.

We know that the prognostications of the Government and the previous Minister for Agriculture proved entirely wrong in relation to the first year of the scheme. They passed a figure of £350,000 to finance the scheme but so many people applied that it cost £1,900,000. This explosion, while excellent in itself, may be an indication that many people who could not keep an extra heifer did so in order to gain £15 and then hopped out of the scheme. We do not know that as a fact yet but we do know that there has been a decrease of 41,400 in the number of heifer calves, or 30.3 per cent, on the previous year and this gives us a danger signal.

The livestock figures for January, 1966, do not break down the number of cattle under one year so we do not know in relation to the increase of 332,000, or 11 per cent, under the heading "Other cattle" how many are calves under one year and how many are related to the previous year. We would want to know that before we could claim that this scheme is a success.

Mr. O'Hara

It was of very little use to western farmers.

Mr. Haughey

Nonsense.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Dillon told us: "One more cow, one more sow and one more acre under the plough," and later adjusted it to: "If you have five cows, keep seven; if you have ten cows, keep 14." That is a balanced increase. It means more stalls in the cow byre.

Mr. Haughey

That is what the scheme did.

Mr. Donegan

I hope the scheme has succeeded spectacularly but I suggest the Minister will not know until at least another year is up.

Mr. Haughey

We know the average was about two heifers.

Mr. Donegan

Deputy O'Hara is correct when he indicates that it is difficult for a man in the west who has been a four or five cow man.

Mr. Haughey

Or a no cow man.

Mr. Donegan

I agree. The holdings in the west are small and Deputy O'Hara is correct when he said it was difficult for the men of the west to cooperate with this scheme as fully and profitably as they would like.

Mr. Haughey

The figures show that the small farmers in Mayo, Sligo and Roscommon availed of the scheme to the greatest possible extent.

Mr. Donegan

I shall move now to pigs. Under Subhead K.18, there is reference to increased subsidy for pig meat and exports. I believe the Minister's mishandling of the grain situation is closely related to the fact that we now have 12.4 per cent fewer sows in pig, or 8,600; that other sows for breeding are fewer by 40,100, a reduction of 23.6 per cent; that gilts in pig are 8,000 fewer or 48.1 per cent. We have a reduction even in the number of boars. The figures show that in the past, until the Minister began to make his mistakes, things were going right with pig production. The number of pigs six months or upwards has increased by 26,000, or 39.5 per cent; pigs of three months old and under six months have increased by 22,600 but the number of bonhams shows a reduction of 74,900, 14 per cent.

Nobody can deny—the Minister cannot deny—that the pig cycle has started again. We have a reduction in pigs which has hardly ever been paralleled, at a time when we were moving well and when things were going up. As long as there was profit in pigs, the men Deputy O'Hara is interested in, the men we are all interested in and particularly the men in West Cork in whom Deputy M.P. Murphy is interested, could make a livelihood. As long as that was there, losses in the production of pigs could not start again but it has now begun and we may face the fact that even though happily the Government have had to produce £1,300,000 in subsidy on the export of bacon in the financial year 1965, they will not have to do it next year because this cycle will mean there will be a big reduction in the exports of bacon.

Good work has been done in the export of bacon. We have had a shake up by the Pigs and Bacon Commission, new legislation here, and new efforts. The result of this has been evidenced in the better price we have been getting for our exports of bacon, particularly in areas in Britain. But, at the same time, if we cannot keep up supply, all the good work done by the Pigs and Bacon Commission will be wasted because continuity of supply is the most important thing, after quality. You cannot sell goods to a man unless he knows he will have that supply week after week and that it will be of a uniform and high quality. We have improved ourselves by our grading and by the operations of the Pigs and Bacon Commission.

Mr. Haughey

That is why the Coalition Government brought in the Danish butter.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister talks about Coalition Governments. Let us remember that he had the lowest number of pigs, sheep and cattle ever recorded in the history of this country. The Minister cannot refute it, and, inside three short years, an improvement was evident and the improvement was there. If we showed the Minister how and if he did the odd little thing which was good, surely then it is not for him to talk about the Coalition Government? Before the Coalition Government came into office, farming was a way of life, according to the Fianna Fáil leader at that time.

Mr. Haughey

The Coalition Government had to import Danish butter.

Mr. Donegan

However, these matters are all dead and let us leave them so.

Mr. Haughey

I remember eating Danish butter.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

The Minister was clapping his hands for Charlie Chaplin then.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister was studying and he made a good job of it.

Mr. Dillon

I do not see much evidence of study on his part. He is an ignorant man in what he is saying now.

Mr. Donegan

Let us consider this situation in relation to pigs. I want to say to the Minister—and outside this House I am up to my eyes in grain— nobody has ever made such a mess of grain farming as the present Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy resents the increase in feeding barley because it means an increase in malting barley.

Mr. Donegan

I do not think this sort of personal attack is of much consequence because my view about this is the Minister just does not know his business. I want to tell the Minister that the quantity of malting barley produced in this country——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy will appreciate that this is a Supplementary Estimate and his comments must be confined to the various subheads. There is no subhead relating to barley or malting barley.

Mr. Donegan

Yes, but the price of barley fed to the pig has created a situation whereby we have a reduction in pigs and particularly in gilts of 48.1 per cent.

Mr. Haughey

That is nonsense. We increased the price correspondingly at the same time. That is what the extra money is for here.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister has a responsibility in this production of food for pigs to create a profit situation. The Minister did not do that——

Mr. Haughey

We more than compensated.

Mr. Donegan

——and the Minister's handling of wheat in relation to this is quite improper.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

There is nothing in the subheads relating to either wheat or barley.

Mr. Dillon

With respect, Sir, there is a protracted reference in the Minister's introductory speech to the price of barley and its impact on the pig industry, if the Leas-Cheann Comhairle bothered to read it.

Mr. Haughey

I pointed out in my opening speech that we more than compensated the pig producer for the increased price of barley.

Mr. Donegan

I shall bow to the ruling of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair does not agree that he discussed barley. I do not see that it opens up a debate on barley or wheat.

Mr. Donegan

In passing, I should say that the position is that there is a right price for everything, and there are three cereals grown in this country, one of which is not regulated in price and two of which are. The Minister knows as much about this trade as the pigs we are discussing know about a holiday. I want to tell the Minister now that the price of each cereal has to be related one to the other and this has to produce a situation whereby the pig producer gets the product at the right price for his pigs. But the Minister has evolved a situation that not only has it been extremely difficult to produce these goods at that price but it will be much more difficult in the next five or ten years. I speak entirely in relation to the price of the three commodities and the relation one must bear to the other. In passing, I think I am entitled to make that observation.

Mr. Haughey

The Deputy resents any increase in the price of grain.

Mr. Donegan

The Minister now raises a matter, completely out of order, and says I am involved in grain. The higher the price of grain, the more grain I will get to buy and store and so make money. The more money on grain, the better I like it. I never even asked the Minister whether his horse lost or whether his hens are laying.

Mr. Dillon

Or whether his accountants are accounting Irish Shipping Limited.

Mr. Haughey

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Dillon

Nothing at all.

Mr. Donegan

We had better leave this situation because the Minister did bring in a personal matter but not in a very obnoxious manner. I have answered him and let there be no more about it. There is one particular item which is very obvious in its exclusion and which must be mentioned. I refer to the question of agricultural credit.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have to rule the Deputy out of order on that point. There is no subhead under which the Deputy could debate agricultural credit.

Mr. Donegan

That is the horror of it—at a time when the Government raided the Agricultural Credit Corporation for large sums and they are now reducing their allocation in the coming year by £2 million and, of the £3.6 million required, they will give only £1 million and the Agricultural Credit Corporation can do what they like for the rest.

The Deputy will now move straight on to the question of prevention of bovine disease. The matter was raised in this House of the losses in the dressing of animals being treated under the warble fly scheme. It now appears, taking the average price of an animal at £50 which would not be far wrong but might possibly be high, that 760 head of animals died as a result of the application of this dressing. You cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs, but the Minister's vehement denial is now exploded as he has to produce here £38,000 to pay for these at least 760 head of cattle. The Minister, of course, does not worry at all about the situation as to whether or not he is disproved.

The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme needs more. All we hope is that the heifer scheme will have succeeded and that the increase in the number of cattle will be maintained. We shall have to pay more next year, too, because this is something that must happen. We on this side of the House started it and we left it to Fianna Fáil to carry on.

The position in relation to butter has been entirely misrepresented by the Minister. He suggests that were it not for the Free Trade Agreement, we should not be able to get more butter into the British market, which remains the best buyer at this stage. The whole history of this is well known to any Deputy who has interested himself in agriculture. The British accepted the recommendation of GATT for a quota based on the years 1958, 1959 and 1960. The Minister need not look at me and shake his head. I know as much about it as he does. They did— a quota of 12,000 tons. The reason this was such a meagre allowance to us was that 1959 was a very dry year.

Mr. Haughey

It was not GATT; it was the Secretary of GATT.

Mr. Donegan

Is this not a dreadful situation? However, let us proceed about our business. As a result of that bad year of 1959, we had a quota which was well below our average sales on the British market. However, good enough, the British in each period gave us additional quotas, as other countries failed to produce their amount. We have largely been in the position of being able to sell all the butter we could export on the British market since 1960-61. There is no question of the Free Trade Agreement having anything to do with this. All that has happened is that when the British sat down with the Minister and the Taoiseach, they corrected this situation which was created by a very dry year in 1958-59 and they produced a figure in tons which was the projected amount of butter available three years hence. That was made quite clear by the British Minister for Agriculture in a statement since then and it can be read in articles in British agricultural journals by anybody who desires to read them. We must now continue to provide this butter and try to get as much as possible of it sold under the trade name of Kerrygold under the quota. The Minister need not try to get any credit from this under the Free Trade Agreement. The British have been doing this since 1960-61 and would have continued to do it. In fact, there was entry for all butter available in 1948 and right up to the time when GATT suggested this quota which was accepted by the British and which worked against us on paper but happily not in fact. The Minister need not try to decry work which was done before he took his place in this House and which continues to bear good fruit for the Irish farmer.

We welcome the contributions to the Irish Countrywomen's Association and to Macra na Feirme. They are mainly an indication of the falling value of the £. The £1,000 merely brings the position into line and I think it is a proper attitude.

An Foras Talúntais, in fact, indicates the same situation. For an expenditure of £1,293,280, in the situation of galloping inflation into which the Government have projected us, it is only natural and indeed necessary that they should have another £136,000.

The grants towards the cost of co-operative projects are to be welcomed. Once we discuss this, I suppose it is impossible to forget the work of North County Dublin growers. When we go around this town at the present moment and enter shops, and so on, we see perfectly packed agricultural produce being sold at a fair price. It is available to retailers and sold to consumers with a degree of uniformity of quality and constancy of supply that were not available before. It is true that an outlet such as the North County Dublin Growers' Co-operative in which I myself am interested, in which Deputy Clinton has been vitally interested, and the Minister, too, is something which can do a lot of good. If we can get the constancy of supply and uniformity of quality that are so necessary, then we can produce the demand and the taste for the products that will mean more prosperity for our farmers. Therefore, this idea of grants towards the cost of packing stations is one which we welcome.

There is a connection between that and the situation of pigs. We have been trying to produce a product of uniform quality, with constancy of supply. Now, even with uniform quality, we will not have consultancy of supply. It is an agricultural headline to the Minister which is all that I offer to him even though, personally, I would offer more. We must bear in mind the necessity for detailed attention to the costs of the raw materials of all agricultural activities and particularly pigs where the cost of the feed is perhaps as much as 90 per cent —if not 90, certainly 85 per cent—of the cost of the finished product.

The payment under the Diseases of Animals Act has been mentioned by the Minister. We have had payments for fowl pest. It is true that this country has been extraordinarily free from animal diseases and should remain so. I suppose this is one of the good things that come from our insular position and we should do everything we can to benefit from it.

I shall finish as I began by saying that there is no item here that will provide for the farmers who are hardpressed—and in relation to whom the Minister for Finance can only express the hope that their situation will not become relatively worse—any increase in remuneration or any improvement in their living standards.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Everybody agrees that we are in the midst of a credit squeeze and that there is an obligation on the people generally to tighten their belts and to be as careful and as cautious as possible about expenditure. We are told from Governmental sources that we must go easy on demands for funds to build houses, to improve roads, to provide hospitalisation facilities and other important services, because the money is not there. It is very difficult to relate that directive by the Government to the first item here in the Supplementary Estimate for the Department of Agriculture— an item that was referred to by the previous speaker.

A first glance at this Supplementary Estimate would lead one to think that everything was very well. It is not a healthy sign of our economy, to judge by this particular item, to see that £415,000 extra is made available to preserve the status of the staff of the Department of Agriculture. Moving down along through the Supplementary Estimate, we find, in subhead I.5, that an additional £136,000 is provided for salary increases. If we move further down to subhead K.11 we find that additional money is provided there also for salary increases. We are told in the Minister's statement that the cost of herd testing is to be increased by £1 from £5 to £6. That increase is due to the increase in payments to veterinary surgeons.

The Minister is possibly keeping in line with other Government Departments. Time and again I have tried to ascertain how much money the Government had to set aside for the payment of status increases. It was only yesterday in the Dáil, listening to the statement of the Minister for Transport and Power, that I got any factual idea of what the amount involved was. The Minister for Transport and Power indicated yesterday that while he was not sure of the exact amount, he thought it was likely that it would be in or around the £10 million mark. If we examine Government policy over a little more than the past 12 months, we find that £10 million was set aside to preserve the status of a number of our citizens who are in a favourable position so far as employment is concerned.

At the same time, if we consider the Minister's Department, we find that there is not one penny in this Estimate that will increase the incomes of the farmers, despite the fact that the value of the pound, as pointed out by Deputy Donegan, is depreciating steadily. The information given in the Dáil yesterday was that 16/2d is now the equivalent of £1 in 1962. That is a loss of 20 per cent inside the short space of a little more than four years. It seems peculiar to me that the Government who could set aside a sum of £10 million within the past 18 months to provide status increases for some of our people, could not set aside any additional sums that would benefit the farmers throughout the length and breadth of the country who represent our most important industry.

In the area from which I come, there are many farmers whose family income is much less than the amount given by way of a status increase to the people who are covered in Subhead A of this Supplementary Estimate. I must remark on this position. I have in my hand a document prepared by the Minister's advisers, and the advisers attached to the committee of agriculture so far as the pilot scheme district in County Cork is concerned. A pilot scheme was set up some years back, as the Minister knows, and what do we find in the first report submitted to the committee of agriculture? We find that there are 375 farmers in the pilot area. The average size of the farms is 60 statute acres—25 statute acres of arable and grazing land. This district is typical of many of the districts in the western part of the country. In this area we have some of the most industrious farmers in the country, notwithstanding the nature of some of the land at their disposal. The farmers in that area are the most industrious group of farmers in the country, but despite their work and their industry, their average income on a farm of 30 acres, now adjusted to 20 acres by the technical people attached to the pilot scheme, is £320. That is £6 per week. That does not represent the income of the farmer. It represents the family income.

When we come to a 50 acre farm— and for comparative purposes the adjusted acreage is 34 acres—the income from the equivalent of 30 acres of good land is £550. A small number of farms in the district are in the 70 acre group. Under the pilot scheme, the adjusted acreage of a 70 acre farm is 46 acres, and the income is £720. On the few 100 acre farms, the adjusted acreage is 65 acres, and the income is £1,000.

As I mentioned already, in all cases in the pilot area the income is not the income of the farmer but the family income. I also mentioned already that the farmers in this area are very industrious. Undoubtedly a very big problem exists so far as raising the income level of the farmers in such a district is concerned. I know it is a difficult problem for any Government or for any Minister to do that. There are many obstacles to be surmounted and, with the best will in the world, it will take some time to make the adjustments before a situation can be brought about in which the income of the farmers, who are deemed to be the backbone of the country, is made in some way commensurate with the nature of their work and industry.

The farmers have not got a five-day 40-hour week. They cannot get away with coming to work at 9.30 in the morning and leaving at 5 o'clock in the evening. They have to be there morning, noon and night to try to eke out the slender incomes I have enumerated to the Minister from this report. For your information, Sir, this is the report of the officials of the Minister's Department to the committee of agriculture in Cork.

It is completely out of place when the average family income of the farmers in this type of area—and possibly the same goes for the farmers in the other pilot districts throughout the country—is less than £10 per week, when there is a credit squeeze, when people are being told to tighten their belts, to be careful about expenditure, when the money is not there to build houses, reclaim land, pay the heifer subsidy, provide hospitalisation for our people—and we know the agitation there is in the Minister's Party about a hospital in the midlands—that we should provide over £551,000 in this Estimate for salary increases. If salary increases were to be provided, the people I represent are the people who require the money more than the people who are getting it.

I fully agree that the standards of our professional people and public employees should be maintained at the highest level possible, but I emphasise the word "possible". I do not like to see such a big differential creeping in between the income of the man who does not farm, who keeps statistics. who administers the Department, and the income of the man who has to take off his coat and go out in the wind and weather and try to make his living from farming.

That position may not obtain in a number of counties where the farmers are favourably placed, where the land is arable and productivity is high, and where the income is possibly much higher than in the 12 western counties of the country. This is a big problem. The House has addressed itself to this problem down through the years, but we must now take some firm steps and we must try to increase the incomes of these people. Otherwise, it will happen, as it is happening at the present time, that in the not too distant future, all those small farmers and their families will have left, as they are leaving rapidly now. It is very difficult to blame them when we find that an impartial milk survey sets down the family income as less than £10 weekly. This is less than the average status increase covered by Subhead A and Subhead I.5, of this Vote.

The first item here is milk. We are told in the Minister's statement that the subsidy for milk is now 6.5d per gallon. Mind you, we must take that side by side with Subhead M which deals with marketing, etc. The Minister's statement is not a very pleasant one so far as marketing is concerned. It indicates that butter prices in foreign markets have reduced and as a result our subsidy is proportionately increased. The best way to deal with that position, so far as a discussion on the Estimate is concerned, would be to take the two items together.

I am not very conversant with the position. I know very little about the personnel or the activities of our marketing boards, such as Bord Bainne and the others. We learn from Press reports and so on that they are doing the best they can and that they are doing very good work. Possibly they are. In any case, the position we find ourselves in at the present time, as indicated by the Minister's statement, is that we have to increase our subsidy here. We have to increase our subsidy for milk up to 6.5d per gallon as a result of the reduction in our markets for butter and other milk products. We have as well—I shall be dealing with this later—to increase our subsidy for bacon as a result of the reduction in bacon prices. I wonder then are our marketing boards doing as much as they could, or is it something beyond their control that the price of our products in foreign markets is reduced so much

I may as well, as I am on the subject of milk, ask the Minister, so far as the 6.5d. per gallon is concerned, how is it he did not honour his word and make a statement on this question of an island milk subsidy? We should provide equal rights for all our citizens according to the Constitution. This is not a matter to be sneered at. The people in Cape Clear, Sherkin Island, Long Island, Bere Island and all the other western islands are citizens of this country. They should receive equal rights with the rest of the citizens. They have difficulties over and above the people living on the mainland. They have had to bear those difficulties. It is not a matter for any sneering that this House is asking for some measure of justice for them.

I have addressed questions to the Minister again and again in regard to subsidy for those island people. It may be said that the actual number involved is small but at the same time the principle is big. The principle is to try to get fair play for these people. The Minister boasts that he is doing more now for the dairy farmer by giving him 6.5d. a gallon subsidy. Let me pause here for a moment and say that the subsidy is brought about, as I mentioned a while ago, by a reduction in our milk produce prices abroad. Why should the islanders not get the same facilities as the rest of the country?

Mr. Donegan

Hear, hear.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

At the present time, a pound of butter fat is paid for at the rate of 5/- to 5/4d. per 1b down in Cork. I do not know whether the rate varies very much in the rest of the country but the market price for a pound of farmer's butter produced at home is only 2/6d. There is, I understand, supposed to be 1.2 pounds of butter in a pound of butter fat. If that is so, it means that a person living on one of our islands is selling a pound of butter at less than 2/-. That is much less than the man who has creamery facilities.

I have asked the Minister time and time again to rectify the grievance which the island farmers have and to give them a subsidy the same as the other dairy farmers are getting, having regard to the fact that it is impossible for them to avail of creamery facilities. In doing so, I am acting on the recommendation of the State-sponsored body in this country dealing with dairy produce, the Dairy Disposal Board, who recommended this scheme some years ago as the only fair and feasible way of dealing with this matter as creamery facilities cannot in any circumstances, be extended to those people, having regard to cost involved. I am renewing this appeal and I expect the Minister, when replying, will give some answer. I may have got the wrong impression from the Minister's facial expression. I thought he was jeering.

Mr. Haughey

I was only amused at the Deputy's persistence.

Mr. Donegan

You told him you would do it a fortnight ago. I heard you.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

You said it would be done within a week.

Mr. Donegan

I do not know what the Minister's definition of a week is.

Mr. Coughlan

It is a five-day week

Mr. Donegan

Deputy Murphy is right. I heard the Minister.

Mr. Haughey

Did I say a week? I thought I said a few weeks.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

In any case we will settle it now. When the Minister is replying to this discussion, he will make his announcement and I shall not labour that point any longer. Some day when the Minister might call at one of the islands——

Mr. Coughlan

He will get a pound of butter.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

This milk problem is a big one. The late Deputy Walsh, Deputy Dillon and Deputy Smith had a number of discussions here when they were Ministers about the Milk Costings Commission. That was a commission established by the late Deputy Walsh when he was Minister for Agriculture. At the time this commission was to give a wealth of information on milk costings. After a number of years, they hashed out a report. Mind you, it was a fairly big one. The best way to describe the report is that it was a document of some 1½ stones in weight. Having regard to that weight, there must be many weighty statements in it. This report, for one reason or another, was ignored. It cost thousands of pounds to produce. It was to give an idea of variations in prices throughout the country and from area to area, but it has been set aside by the Government. They have completely forgotten it. In the 1957 election campaign, it was one of the chief items used by Fianna Fáil. The Fianna Fáil paper at the time—I think it is called Gléas, the propaganda one——

Mr. Dillon

They like to forget it.

Mr. Coughlan

It was telling you how to recognise and eject skul-duggery.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I found a copy of that paper a few weeks ago and that is what brought this back to my mind. It was a 1957 paper telling the people that a Fianna Fáil Minister provided this Milk Costings Commission and now that Deputy Dillon and his inter-Party Government were in office, they had shelved it. They told us we must get back to Fianna Fáil in 1957 and we would get that milk costings report and, having got it, we would be able to pay everyone, in accordance with his right, a fair price for milk.

Unfortunately, Deputy Dillon was removed from office at that time and Fianna Fáil returned to power. The Milk Costings Commission Report did not appear for many years and when it did, it was shelved. I know the weight of it because I asked for and got a special copy. It was a very weighty document, weighing probably 1½ stone. I tried to open a page here and there and glean some information because, even though the Government disregarded it. I do not. The people who produced this document deserve compliments. They did their job as well as possible and did it honestly and fairly within the terms of reference. They showed that the cost of producing one gallon of milk in Ireland varies from somewhat more than 4d —that was about five years ago—to a little more than 2/9 per gallon, or, to be exact, 2/9¼d. That clearly indicates the variation throughout the country. Where you had first-class land and facilities, the price of producing milk was naturally at the lowest level, but when you entered mountainous regions and uneconomic holdings, the price jumped proportionately. It is just as difficult to take five churns of milk to the creamery as it is to take one. This applies where individuals travel to the creamery each with his own amount of milk which I think is wrong.

On these facts, so far as farmers in such districts are concerned, there is a definite case for an increase in the price of milk supplied to creameries. The pilot scheme figures bear that out. The Minister might argue that such a case might not exist in other places but so far as the figures submitted by the pilot scheme people are concerned, there is undoubtedly a case for a substantial increase.

I heard a very interesting lecture which has a big bearing on the milk question by one of our experts on milk in County Cork a few nights ago. He is Mr. Quirke, General Manager of Drinagh Co-Operative Society who has a comprehensive knowledge of everything connected with milk and milk supplies and who also knows a good deal about marketing. I was pleased to hear him state that the six West Cork creameries embracing a district running from Carrigaline to Glengariff had an intake of milk of 26 million gallons which is a very big intake from that region.

Mr. Dillon

Did he say what was the average price paid?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

He said 5/- per pound was paid for butter fat.

Mr. Dillon

But he did not say how much per gallon?

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I suppose about 1/8d or 1/9d. These six co-operatives have formed themselves into Carberry Creameries Federation for the handling of milk and are tied up in a financial arrangement with Express Dairies of Great Britain, a £90 million organisation. They have a land purchase scheme, a processing plant and a factory at Ballineen which is a very welcome development, giving useful employment in the area. In addition, according to Mr. Quirke's statement, farmers can benefit by up to 3d or 4d per gallon extra for whole milk. They could get that as a result of the Federation. That is very welcome news and the creamery people who have worked so long and so hard deserve great thanks for their activities if this aim is achieved of an extra 3d or 4d per gallon.

I have no doubt the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and Department will give this organisation every possible help and possible every similar organisation throughout the country and, in view of this pending revolution in creamery organisation and the amalgamation of many creameries, I should like to know from the Minister how this will affect the state subsidy. The milk price will increase, we may assume from Mr. Quirke's statement, by 3d or 4d a gallon. Will that mean the State will have to contribute less, or what will be the position? Will such developments in creamery organisation which I think are proposed or recommended by different creamery groups and which will be generally helpful in the marketing and processing of milk, result in reduced subsidisation or will subsidisation be maintained at the same level and will it result in proportionate increases in the incomes of such people?

I do not want to deal in detail with the question of salaries and so on, but before leaving the matter, I should like to make a comparison between what is in this Supplementary Estimate and the incomes of farm labourers, the few who are left in the country. It is generally recognised that the farm labourer is the most hard working and industrious man in the country. Some people feel he is an ordinary unskilled man, but that is very far from the truth. The agricultural worker today is a very skilled man, and having regard to the remuneration he is getting it is no wonder that this section is dying out. It is indeed peculiar that the agricultural industry cannot pay agricultural labourers' wages in relation to what they would get in industrial employment. That matter has been referred to time and again in this House and it deserves continued attention.

The Minister referred to the question of pigs and bacon. The question of marketing boards is involved. The Minister said:

The additional amount now required for the support of pigmeat exports is £1,300,000 which will bring total support for pigmeat this year to £3,100,000. The cost of support for pigmeat exports has been moving upwards and this year's amount is the highest ever.

The Minister also said:

In view of the heavy burden of support this year the levy, which had been at the level of 15/- per pig, was increased to 18/- per pig on 1st January last. In the current financial year the commission expects to collect £1 million through this levy.

We all know that there is no great extra profit in pig production at the present time and that, generally speaking, small producers feel that the profit margin is not sufficient to give them a fair return for their work. I should like the Minister to explain how such a big subsidy is required for pigmeat exports. The £3,100,000, made up by a contribution from the State and a a contribution from the bacon curers, is a very big amount and I should like to know are we losing ground in the export markets. I understand that 98 per cent of our pigmeat goes to Britain, and so far as markets other than Britain are concerned, the quantities exported are negligible, and that, if you like, there is no market but the one that we used to be thanking God was gone, and gone forever. As the Minister has just come in, may I repeat that I should like him to make a statement on this large subsidy of £3,100,000 on pigmeat exports? Is it caused in the same way as the subsidy on milk products is caused, by a reduction in the price we are getting for our product abroad?

The Minister has made a comprehensive statement on pigs and pig production. It is pleasing to note that the number of pigs increased by 200,000 last year. Has the Minister taken steps to ensure that the bacon factory will be erected in Drimoleague which is in the pilot area I have mentioned and will he take steps to ensure that the necessary grants will be available from An Foras Tionscal? The Minister should clarify the position so far as this factory is concerned, by telling us first, what is the position to date and, secondly, the proposed date of erection. Where there are doubts about factories, it is better that these doubts should be removed. I hope the Minister will be in a position to make a definite statement in regard to the bacon factory for West Cork when he is replying to the debate.

The bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme is costing a great deal of money. I wonder is this scheme administered other than haphazardly. We never get any detailed breakdown of the figures but we know it has been very costly to administer and we know that a number of people who are employed in the administration of the scheme did not do their work efficiently or anything near it. We know that before the heifer subsidy scheme came, in 1964, in reports to the Department on cowherds and non-cow herds, in several cases, heifers were put down as cows and, as a result, when the heifer subsidy came in 1964 a number of farmers had difficulty in getting the subsidy because, according to the 1963 returns, an animal that should be deemed to be, in the jargon of the Department, a "non-cow" was put down as a cow. It showed, to my mind, evidence of carelessness on the part of the people who submitted the returns. Of course, at that time it was not anticipated that the heifer scheme would be implemented.

I give the Minister this much credit, that in every case he did the best he could to solve these matters and was as helpful as he could be in dealing with any representations he got, as were the senior people in his office. In any case, it created difficulty for the farmers and for the Minister that the returns were not factual. There was evidence of carelessness on the part of a section of our people who are very— and I could use the word "very" ten times—well paid for doing the job. The average pay of some of these people was above that of the Taoiseach. When a person is paid for doing a job, he should do it efficiently. In some cases farmers have lost their £15 as a result of that bungling in the returns prior to 1964.

As the new financial year begins in April and money will be at the disposal of the Minister, I should like him to clear up outstanding heifer subsidy payments. Farmers would like to have that money as early as possible. They want to sow crops and buy manures and they require this money for urgent purposes in this, the period of expenditure for farmers.

I do not want to delay in dealing with the heifer subsidy but the scheme must be reviewed. A small farmer, whom the scheme was meant to benefit, with, say, eight calves, has increased his herd to 11 cows. He has three heifer subsidies. He cannot get any more because his holding will not take any more cattle. Small farmers are at the maximum and cannot benefit to any great extent, if at all, in the future. Some other system should be devided which would help them. They are the section of the community that require it most. Co-operation would be forth-coming from these people. I have always maintained that there is an obligation on people to help themselves. I do not agree with people waiting for the Government and for local authorities to do everything for them. There should be a co-operative effort. Our advisory services have not made the impact they should make.

It is very distressing to read that lectures given in rural schools by technical experts are attended by only very small numbers. I believe that such lectures and discussions are very useful. I do not know whose fault it is, whether it is the fault of the officers concerned or the fault of the rural people, that the attendances are not better. I am a firm believer in community effort and the Department should engage in a publicity campaign in an effort to get all these farmers in the different districts, as well as people interested in farming, to come together to discuss their problems. I know that this is being done through such voluntary organisations as the two mentioned here, Macra na Feirme and the Country Women's Association. I agree with the grants which are made available to these associations.

Earlier in the debate there was reference to personal questions being asked and the Minister, Deputy Dillon and Deputy Donegan had some discussion about this, but I am sure the Minister will not mind if I ask him a personal question, that is, how are the hens getting on. I was reading the report of the interdepartmental committee and the Minister is the only man who has something bright and pleasant to say about hens and poultry. I should like to know, because it would be very interesting to learn if he is still maintaining——

Acting Chairman (Mr. P. O'Donnell)

I am afraid that is not appropriate to the debate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

I see on page 8 of the Minister's speech that the Minister is carrying out a survey in regard to fowl pest and that when the survey has been completed, he hopes to be in a position to declare the country free from any suspicion of fowl pest. What I am afraid will happen is that the country will be declared free from fowl and that all the hens will have gone as well as the fowl pest. In any event, recalling the figures he gave, £874 from 2,000 hens, this is not bad going and it would be interesting to have the latest figures. The farmers in the pilot area are making much less from their 375 holdings, working from one end of the day to the other, and from one end of the week to the other, than the Minister is making from his hens. I had hoped that he would evolve some system whereby everyone keeping a number of hens and poultry would get near the income which he is making from them. However, I think the Minister's statement was misleading. Unfortunately there is no future in poultry.

Acting Chairman

There is no money provided for poultry in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. M.P. Murphy

Money is provided for the removal of fowl pest and you can speak on the wisdom of providing money for the eradication of fowl pest in an industry that is of little or no concern at present, as far as incomes are concerned. It could be relevant under that heading. However, I do not want to delay the House. I am sure the Minister will tell us how his hens are getting on.

In conclusion, I want to refer to the £551,000 provided for maintaining the status of our senior civil servants. This is something that is happening in the midst of a credit squeeze, but, mark you, these small farmers, these agricultural workers and other people engaged in pig production and herding cattle, also have a status and are entitled to some consideration. In view of the fact that the Minister was so considerate in regard to one section, he should be a little more considerate in regard to the people who matter most in agriculture, the farmers and others. In making that statement, I am not in any way reflecting on the Minister's staff. It is our duty here as public representatives to make comparisons, to speak our minds on subjects that arise for discussion. I feel that the amount of money to which the Minister for Transport and Power referred yesterday as being necessary for status increases would have been better distributed if a higher proportion of it had been channelled into the Department of Agriculture to help our small farmers provide a brighter and happier existence for themselves and their families.

Mr. Meaney

The Minister has introduced this Supplementary Estimate today and has moved that a sum of £2,045,000 be provided for his Department. The fact that he has done so shows that he has the interests of the farming community at heart. I notice that the biggest provision is for payments to the Pigs and Bacon Commission and that there was a support of over £3 million in the past year for pigmeat. I believe that that was a record. I believe that 1965 was a record year for delivery of pigs to bacon factories. At the moment something very serious is happening, that is, that the numbers of pigs supplied to bacon factories are inclined to drop.

Mr. Dillon

Hear, hear.

Mr. Coughlan

Substantially.

Mr. Meaney

This is something which we must examine. The Minister is prepared to bring in a Supplementary Estimate to cover any number of pigs that come to the factories. Last year was a record year, probably due to the fact that it was the end of a four-year cycle. As a rule, pigs go in a four-year cycle. That has been the pattern down the years. It is a pity that the record number is not to be maintained. Much of the fault lies with our curers and producers and with the whims and fancies of the pig factories. It is not unusual in my county, if pigs become scarce, to see lorries coming in from 200 miles away and being able to pay more for pigs than the local factories pay. There is something wrong when that position exists.

Last April the Minister said that there was a scheme for the centralised purchasing of pigs but that scheme has not yet been put into operation. Whatever scheme comes in, I should like to see the producers and factories operating on much the same lines as the Beet Growers' Association and the Sugar Company do, where the Beet Growers' Association have their own representatives to see that the testing of their beet for sugar is properly carried out. In the grading of pigs also, there are borderline cases where the difference can be brought down to millimeters and a small bit one way or the other would make a great difference to the producer or the factory. Last year people in the bacon industry would tell you it was a "fattener's" year; now this is to be a sow-man's year. With central purchasing coming in, I hope the producer will get a fair crack of the whip.

On the question of milk, in 1965 there was an increase of 30 million gallons on the 1964 figure. We are delighted with that. It is our duty to keep up the subsidy on the increased production. However, there is one man who does not gain from that increase. He is the highly-efficient small farmer with ten or 11 cows. He is already in full production. His cows are producing the maximum and he cannot add on one or two as other people can in order to earn extra money. I believe we will have to bring in the two-tier price to help out the small man.

Last year was the first complete year of the creamery milk quality grading scheme. We note that the proportion qualifying has been as high as 42.5 per cent. That is very encouraging. I do not think it would be 42.5 per cent of the suppliers, but of the all-round intake of milk. Going through the country, we can see the creameries where most people qualify. They are the creameries—mostly coops—which already are go-ahead and have can-washers installed. There is a good grant for the installation of can-washers, and I believe they are vital. When the supplier puts in his milk, the can is turned upside down, detergents are put through it, it goes through heat above boiling out and comes out scalded at the other end. The farmers cannot do that at home. Can-washers do not cost the societies a great amount. There should be more publicity about the advantages of these can-washers so that more coops and Dairy Disposal Board creameries would instal these very good machines.

While on that subject, I see the farmers are about to gain representation on the Dairy Disposal Board creameries. It is about time. There should be at least one on each creamery who would sit on the committee attached to the central creamery. There is growing up in this country an awful lot of distrust between suppliers and creamery managers. The only way of getting over that is to have the creamery managers and suppliers representatives meet at the table and discuss their problems. They are all there to help each other. If this distrust is allowed to grow, it can do nothing but harm to the industry.

The bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme is almost completed in the country, but there are still isolated cases of disease. When the scheme was in operation, we must admit that it kept back the average output of milk per cow, for the simple reason that if a good cow failed the test, there was nothing to be done but dispose of her, whereas a bad cow who passed the test was kept in the herd. Now that the scheme is almost completed, the farmers will be weeding out the bad from the good and probably raising the yearly output per cow.

There is also money here for the eradication of disease of animals and money is provided for losses under the warble fly scheme. We have not got many hours in order to notify to qualify for payment. Have we had all the figures for that at all? I think there is an appeals committee for those who did not get anything, who were late applying or whose animal died the second day afterwards. It is only fair that people should have a fair hearing and we should not hesitate to provide extra money for this purpose, if it is required.

I should like to bring to the Minister's attention that in the dairy herds of the south, there is a serious outbreak of contagious abortion at present. This is very serious for us. I do not know how it is to be prevented. We have this Strain 19 and all that. Very often in the marts you have to buy an in-calf heifer in the same ring as a cow which had aborted was sold two hours previously. I know it is illegal to offer the animal for sale, but who is going to stop it going into the mart when it is offered for sale as a canning cow? Then you bring in your fine young heifer into the same ring where the disease is rampant.

Acting Chairman

I am afraid we will have to leave her there because no money is provided here for abortion.

Mr. Meaney

I bow to your ruling, Sir. There is a note of warning here about foot and mouth disease. This is something on which we shall have to back the Minister and ensure it does not come into our country. We all want the country to be free from this dread disease. Maybe inconvenience will be caused at our ports. However, we should not grumble but should do our best to keep out this dread disease.

Money is also provided here for the Irish Countrywomen's Association and Macra na Feirme. We should be delighted at this. Many of our farmers' sons and daughters, owing to domestic circumstances, cannot spend a year or two at an agricultural school. It is good therefore that they can join the ICA or Macra and learn more about the facts of farming and housekeeping. It is also good to be in a rural area on the evening of a Macra field day and see the sons and daughters of the land coming there to enjoy themselves. It is still one of the things we have left in the rural areas.

However, there is one thing about which I should like to sound a note of warning. Each year there is a competition for the best farmer of the year. I am all behind that; it is a good thing. But when you have groups putting up the case that farmers have to work 365 days of the year for very little and when somebody is presented with a prize for having a large output, it looks bad to those in the cities who think that these people are coining. It is profit should decide the winner and not output.

We should not hesitate to agree to this Estimate. The Opposition constantly complain there is not enough being provided for milk or for anything else. Yet when we propose taxes for those things, they will always vote against them. We must be honest and vote for the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy who has just sat down has made a good speech and I do not intend to go after him. There is a matter in connection with this Supplementary Estimate on which I should like to hear the Minister when he is concluding, and it relates to the strange pattern which is emerging in connection with the livestock population. With the introduction of the heifer subsidy scheme, the January enumeration of cattle appears to me to show a very strange distortion. The number of cows has increased by 130,000, which is an increase of 9.3 percent, and the number of heifers in-calf has declined by 41,000, which is a decrease of 13.3 per cent. It appears to me there is a pattern here emerging in which people are retaining old cows for the purpose of preserving their basic numbers in order to qualify for the heifer grant. Whether that is a healthy development or not is something which is open to grave doubt. At the same time as that is happening, I think anyone with any knowledge of the situation would agree that the quality of the heifers being retained is not discriminating, to say the least of it. I wonder what we shall end up with if this trend continues.

Heretofore the established pattern was that we hoped to see the numbers of heifers and calves rising steeply, with the number of cows retaining their proportion, a constant renewal of the herd and a steady elimination of the old cows whose output of milk and whose proclivity to calve were tending to decline. I am afraid we are passing through a phase in which cows are now being kept the economy of which is open to doubt. There is nothing more uneconomic to retain, particularly on a small farm, than an old cow. This is a trend we ought to watch and is one which I note in the January returns with some alarm.

I often listen to Deputies talking here of the increase in the price of milk, and we look now at the Supplementary Estimate in respect of the marketing of dairy produce for which we require now an additional £956,000. I take it that the average price payable for creamery milk down the country is of the order of 1/9d a gallon. I wonder how many Deputies have adverted to the fact that the purchasing power of the £ today is about 10/4d. in terms of 1948 prices. Therefore, the price farmers are getting for milk today at 1/9d a gallon has the purchasing power of approximately 11d.

As Deputy Murphy reminded the House, we are living in an atmosphere of the five-day week and the 40-hour week and the firm expectation that if there is an hour's work over 40 hours done within the five days, it must be paid for at a supplementary rate. Every farmer is working seven days a week, more especially the farmers who are living on family farms, and they are working, I would say on an average, 70 to 80 hours a week. The purchasing power of the price they are being paid for their creamery milk today is less than that of the price they were getting in 1948.

I sat on a platform recently in Boyle, County Roscommon, and I met a chap of 18 years of age leaving for Birmingham. I asked him had he ever been there before and he said: "No." I asked him how many boys were at home, and he said he was the last of them, and he was leaving a farm of between 40 and 50 acres. When I asked him who was going to get the place, he said he did not care. His brother was already in Birmingham and he was earning £18 a week and he did not see why he should work seven days a week at home in County Roscommon in order to inherit 40 to 50 acres of land subject to a charge to the dowry of his two sisters.

I found myself in some difficulty in finding a convincing argument to persuade him that he was taking the wrong course. Looking at it from the point of view of a middle-aged man, you could make the case to a young fellow of that kind that if he were a philosopher in search of the happy life, he would probably be better off to stay at home and live the life of a reasonably comfortable farmer of 40 or 50 acres in County Roscommon than to go and become a factory operative in Birmingham. However, when you are 18 years of age, it is not easy to see that. If we are to persuade them to stay, better inducements will have to be found to make them realise the long-term advantage of the life of an independent, self-supporting farmer as compared with that of an ageing factory worker in Great Britain. When you bear in mind the welfare state, the case becomes harder and harder to make. Yet I believe that the average chap who has 40 or 50 acres in rural Ireland has a happier life in the long run if he gets married and stays at home, but that case will have to be brought home and I shall say a word about it before I finish.

Deputy Murphy is, I think, mistaken when he says that the fowl trade in this country is dead, or disappearing. It is not. But it has radically changed. It is a very large industry and it is a growing industry, but it has assumed a character which is strange and foreign to those of us who remember the industry 20 years ago. But it is an immense industry. It is a source of astonishment to me where all the chickens go.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid there is nothing relating to poultry and chickens in this Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

Oh, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, mo ghrá, you have not been doing your homework. There is a long dissertation on fowl pest and, in your absence, Deputy Murphy was putting it to the Minister that, instead of eliminating fowl pest, he had eliminated fowl.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I understand the Chair informed Deputy Murphy his comments were irrelevant.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Murphy is, as you know, a very versatile gentleman and he was moving into a very wide sphere. He seemed to be labouring under the delusion that the fowl industry had ceased to exist. It has not, but it has assumed a new character, a character which makes the elimination of fowl pest no less urgent today than when we were dealing with the old industry. What is astonishing is that the industry is expanding in the most phenomenal way. What the impact of the Free Trade, so-called, Agreement will be upon this industry is another story because, as I understand the terms of the recent Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, the British will have free access to this country for intensivelyproduced fowl in exchange for our having the right to send our fowl to Great Britain. I apprehend that, under the full impact of that provision, our new fowl industry of an intensive character, the broiler industry, may be very seriously interfered with; ad interim, however, I must say that I find myself in agreement with the proposal to take whatever precautions may be necessary to protect us against fowl pest in any of its manifestations.

There is a provision here under Subhead K. 18 for "Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission". I see in the Minister's speech a reference to this: he says at page 2;

In previous years the Pigs and Bacon Commission's receipts from levies were more than enough to meet the cost of supporting pork exports; in fact, in most years, a great part of these receipts was available for bacon export support, thereby reducing the demand on the Exchequer. This year, however, the Commission's levy receipts have been insufficient to meet the cost of pork exports and the amount which I am now seeking includes £350,000 for the assistance of pork exports.

Pork exports to where?

Mr. Haughey

The UK.

Mr. Dillon

I am told, to my astonishment, that there is a considerable market for pork carcass exports to the USA.

Mr. Haughey

A small, experimental one.

Mr. Dillon

It is not so small. Here is something the House ought to know. It is a matter of consequence. It has been alleged to me— I shall go no further than that; I shall await the Minister's confirmation or correction—that bacon factories which wanted to ship pork to the United States of America, without subsidy, and which were in a position to make a profit on that export, were told they must not ship to the USA as pork but must convert it into bacon to ship it to the United Kingdom, and the Government would subsidise them, because the Government were apprehensive that this year they would be unable to fulfil the bacon quotas they secured under the recent Trade Agreement.

Really, now, we are getting ourselves into a most fantastic mess if we make arrangements with Great Britain which impose upon us the necessity to withhold exports from a profitable market in order to supply exports of bacon to the British market, a market that apparently does not want them inasmuch as they require us to pay a fantastic export subsidy before they will accept them from us. This is a matter on which I should like to hear the Minister. If it is true, it is, I think, a deplorable by-product of the Agreement and, if it is not true, then I shall be glad to hear the Minister's version of the facts.

I want to repeat in connection with this matter that the Minister spoke of the potentialities of the Trade Agreement in regard to export of livestock to Great Britain. I beg of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries not to try to fool the people about the true nature of trade agreements with Great Britain. It raises false hopes and serves no useful purpose. The Trade Agreement with Great Britain, in so far as it relates to cattle exports, is the purest eyewash. We have retained the link with the British price that was secured under the 1948 Trade Agreement. We have acceded to the two-month period provided under the 1948 Trade Agreement but all this blatherskite about having unlimited access for store cattle to the British market is pure cod and eyewash. We never had any restrictions other than the willingness of the British farmer to buy our store cattle and there is no use getting unlimited access for store cattle to the British market if the British market is not prepared to buy them, unless you are going to race them around Epsom racecourse or put them over the fences in Aintree. The only purpose in sending store cattle to Britain is to sell them to the British farmer. Talking about unlimited access secured under the Trade Agreement is pure cod, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Donegan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Dillon

I heard someone who was talking about the grading of pigs at the factories say today that there is an inherent danger in this whole procedure. We are not introducing a new category of measurement for pigs. I am only too familiar with how this business builds up. I remember well the institution of the grading of pigs. There were three grades—A, B and C. I myself was responsible for adding a grade—Grade A.1.—where a pig missed making Grade A by a fraction and it was agreed we would give such a pig the Grade A price approximately, and without reducing it to Grade B.

Now we have about seven grades and we have a note on the delivery docket cordially inviting the farmer to come and watch the grading of his pig. The thing has become so complicated that nobody can check the grading of his own pig, and we heard Deputy Meaney today speaking about a growing sense of apprehension amongst pig producers that there is some queer business going on in the factories which results in the consumer failing to get his due. Deputy Meaney says that he sees fat pigs being carried 200 miles to factories in Cork. If the same type of pig were presented to the factory by a local producer, it would be graded B or C. He cannot understand the position.

I recognise the problem the Minister has to deal with here. I think on balance we will get just as good results if in the early future our scheme of grading is examined with a view to simplification for the purpose of making it again possible for an intelligent farmer or group of farmers to appoint somebody to check all their grading at the factory. This is needed to restore public confidence in the grading system. It seems to me this is becoming urgently necessary.

The supply of pigs is dwindling. I do not know why but it is going down, and from the story I have just recited about the direction to a factory to send bacon at a profit to the United States, I apprehend the Minister is finding himself in a cleft stick: he is under contract to send bacon under subsidy to the United Kingdom and he now apprehends he will not be able to produce it. I agree with him that there could not be any more catastrophic consequence to our Trade Agreement with Britain than that, having fought energetically for increased quotas for bacon and butter, we should find ourselves unable to fill them. We have got to face the fact.

One of the things I said from the Boyle platform that the boy was flying from was the obligation to feed pigs seven days a week. I had high hopes of the establishment here of a pig fattening unit, associated with the distribution of good quality sows to farmers from whom the fattening unit would purchase the ten-week-old bonhams at a remunerative uniform price. I think there is a great potential in planning along those lines but apparently it is not operating in the west.

I detect a growing reluctance on the part of small farmers to breed pigs. There may be some physiological explanation for it but it may be that it is because seven sows out of ten elect to have their bonhams at two o'clock in the morning. I do not know why but they do. There is nothing you can do about it but sit up and it is useless telling a farmer that it is not necessary to sit up when a sow is farrowing. He is most resolute in saying that it is and you may have five or six sows which make up their minds to have their bonhams at two o'clock in the morning and when you realise that it takes from two to ten hours for a sow to farrow, it becomes rather a burden and in these modern days it is difficult to get a man to do it. Women used to lend a hand in the old days but they would laugh at you now if you asked them. I see a problem developing, the only possible remedy for which is the pig fattening unit which will be prepared to take the bonhams from the farmers at ten weeks at a level price. If you have sat up with a farrowing sow all night to find that the bottom has fallen out of the bonham market, it breaks your heart altogether. We all know that bonham markets fluctuate even more violently than the pig market.

I should be glad to hear from the Minister what his judgment is as to the future of pig supplies, as to whether we shall be able to meet the quotas we have secured on the British market, and if we are not, shall we prohibit the export of pork to a profitable market in order to jack up supplies of bacon, under heavy subsidy, to the United Kingdom? I hear favourable reference to the Bord Bainne package butter, Kerrygold. I must say Bord Bainne have been making a most admirable effort to promote the export of butter, but I cannot help, in this respect, being reminded of an old friend of 34 years ago whom I met in the Department of Agriculture when I went there as a young Deputy in the middle of the Economic War. I stopped him—he is long since dead, poor man—and he had a sheet of paper in his hand: "Mr. Stephens," I said to him, "You look very worried today.""I am not too worried, Mr. Dillon," he said to me. "If you really want to know, I am worrying about looking for alternative markets that I know do not exist." Those were the days when the British market "was gone forever, thanks be to God." Now, Bord Bainne are all business seeking markets for butter. As far as I can see the only market available at reasonable prices is the United Kingdom market.

Let us be clear on that. We can sell all the butter we have if we are prepared to accept the price the people are prepared to offer. We can sell it in Arabia, in the Middle East, in the Mediterranean, if we are prepared to accept the price they offer. The reason we send it to England is that, bad and all as their price is, it is better than we could get anywhere else. I see a significant question on the Order Paper today about Kerrygold. Deputy Cosgrave asks the Minister the date last year when Kerrygold butter was put on sale in Harrods of London, the date on which it was subsequently removed from sale, the amount sold in the store during the period and the circumstances leading to its removal from the store.

Mr. Haughey

The answer is that it is still being sold there.

Mr. Dillon

I am glad to hear it, but have we any estimate of the promotional cost of the sale of Kerrygold butter in Great Britain and are we satisfied we are getting enough to show a satisfactory return? I think the product is excellent, I think the operation is excellent and I am glad the effort was made, whatever the outcome, but I think we should have an interim assessment of our success or failure in this promotional effort. While I recognise that in a large commercial enterprise of that kind, we must be prepared to face substantial development costs, we should make from time to time a reasonable assessment as to whether we are getting anything like reasonable value.

Why is it, I wonder, that the price of butter is falling on the British market? The Minister, when trying to put a cheap point over on Deputy Donegan, said that the quotas were not fixed by GATT. They were not officially fixed by GATT but the British Government were afraid to kick up a row with their suppliers and they went to GATT to do the dirty work for them.

Mr. Haughey

They asked the Secretary.

Mr. Dillon

They went to the Secretary of GATT and they gave themselves an alibi so that in future they could say: "We did not make the quota; it was the Secretary of GATT." It was like what a Fianna Fáil Government would do. The soothsayers and the astrologers have simply passed the buck. It is the traditional operation. But what interests me is that I understood the purpose of this whole operation was to establish a reasonable level of prices for butter imported into Great Britain. What has happened? Is the consumption falling off in Great Britain, because, mind you, some of the countries which got small quotas have failed to take them up, or is the production of butter in Great Britain expanding? There is a marginal production of butter in Great Britain and I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether or not he can give us any information as to why the price of butter is falling in Great Britain and how far does he expect it to fall.

I notice with interest that 42.5 per cent of the milk produced in the country has qualified for the penny quality subsidy. I do not know whether or not these figures are correct. I think that it is a good scheme and the reason I think it is a good scheme is that I proposed it to the IAOS in 1957 and I declare to God, I thought they would take the roof off the building. They were old warriors like Deputy Corry and ex-Deputy Meaney, God bless him, and they were rising like volcanoes all over Mills Hall saying this was the most terrible affront to the dairy farmers of Ireland, to suggest that the milk of Ireland was inferior. Deputy Corry went into a passion then in 1956 just as he did when Deputy Donegan suggested that there was such a thing as dirty milk in this country. Deputy Corry nearly faded away. Deputy Donegan pointed out there was a problem in this country of second-grade milk, dirt in it, and Deputy Corry became faint and we had to rush out and get oxygen to restore him at the thought of there being any dirty milk in this country.

Then his own Party bring in a scheme to eliminate dirty milk and his own Minister gets up and says it is a triumph that 42.5 per cent of the milk has attained the grade to which Deputy Donegan aspired and Deputy Corry is drawing in oxygen and nitrogen here beside me as fresh as a daisy. But I am interested to notice that the Minister has accepted the advice of Deputy Donegan and is prepared to certify that 42.5 per cent of the total milk output reaches the standard set down by the Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture as qualifying for the quality payment.

Mr. Haughey

It must be all clean milk all the same. All the milk received must be clean milk.

Mr. Dillon

There is an exquisite distinction, but it is an interesting fact that when the quality of the milk is being judged, it is passed through a filter.

Mr. Haughey

It is a methylene blue test.

Mr. Dillon

If the Minister would care to visit any creamery, he will see that, and if he consults the astrologers and soothsayers in his Department, they will tell him all about it.

There is a very important matter here on which I should like some advice from the Minister as to what is happening. I do not know if it is one of the consequences of the tailing-off of the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme but there is some reason for it. We built up in the United States of America an immensely valuable trade in box-frozen beef. I very well remember when that trade was opened. I remember sending out to New York the principal members of the veterinary staff on the meat side and we were then exporting carcase meat and box-frozen beef to the United States of America. I then expressed the view, which I now reaffirm, that there is no market in the United States of America for carcase beef from this country, and anyone who ever stood in the stockyards of Oklahoma, Arkansas or Kansas recognises that fact, but there is an immense market for box-frozen beef as an industrial raw material. That trade built up to £10 million per annum and as far as I can see, it has disappeared.

Mr. Haughey

It is beginning to come back again.

Mr. Dillon

I hope it does. It is associated with two factors. One is the decline under the bovine tuberculosis eradication scheme, and the other is the heifer subsidy scheme which has a lot of farmers in the country retaining on their land old cows, which ought to be sent to the factory, in order to qualify for the £15 heifer subsidy scheme. It was a valuable trade which was conducted at a profit and which, mind you, we could lose. If we lost it and let somebody else get it, we might find it very difficult to get it back again. But £10 million worth of exports is not to be sneezed at when we have an adverse balance of trade in the kind of figures with which we are grappling at the present time.

On page 7, the Minister says:

In addition to increasing the guaranteed price for fat cattle, the British Government have given an assurance that, provided there is no significant change in circumstances, they will not reduce that price during the period of the current National Plan, that is up to 1970.

Dear me, were we not very far seeing in 1948? It was not astrologers or soothsayers we had then; it was competent Ministers supported by sensible advisers. We did not need any first plan or second plan for economic expansion to tell us in 1948 that the British Government would be paying prices for cattle in 1970 from which we would benefit by tagging our store prices on to their fat prices. However, I rejoice that the British Government have increased the guaranteed price of fat cattle by 10/- a cwt. and I have no doubt that that will react to the advantage of the store cattle trade in this country.

As Deputy Donegan pointed out, the subsidy on beef exports does nothing for the farmers of this country. It simply relieves the Irish Exchequer of a burden which it was already carrying. So far as it has done that, anything is welcome. At the moment, since Deputy P.J. Burke wants us all to stand in the streets of New York shaking a tin-can collecting nickels and dimes, I suppose a few pounds from the British Treasury in relief of the burden we have to carry will be peculiarly welcome.

I notice that Deputy Murphy, rather to my surprise, was very eloquent about Subhead A which relates to status increases for civil servants. I have said all I want to say about that but I want to sound a note of warning. When I was speaking on the Budget, I said a time had come when we had all better start abandoning the practice of giving advice to one another unless somebody was prepared to set a good example. I am not quite sure that we here in Dáil Éireann are in any position to lecture civil servants about their status increases. Now, a nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse. I shall return to that topic if anybody wants me to do so, and in greater detail.

However, I do think there is a matter here to which I should invite the special attention of the Minister for Agriculture and it is this. While we are making provision for salaries, wages and allowances of public servants, have we forgotten the men who gave invaluable service in the past? I would invite the Minister, when he is considering subheads of this character, to discuss with the Minister for Finance the oft-repeated promise of his predecessor that, if any increases of this kind were provided for serving staff, a corresponding provision would be made for the retired members of the staff of his Department who bore the heat and the burden of the day and who are now finding their pensions whittled away as the cost of living grows and, being human beings, they watch their successors having their remuneration adjusted regularly to meet the situation while they are left, as they feel, out in the cold.

I am glad to see that additional provision is being made for the Faculty of Agriculture. I am glad to see that the grant I originally made to the Irish Countrywomen's Association is being further increased. I want to sound a note of warning here. I observe that the increase in the grant to Macra na Feirme is stated to be for the purpose of appointing additional field organisers. What I want to direct to the Minister's attention is this. It may be that that is put in merely for our information. However, when that grant was originally made to the Irish Countrywomen's Association, I remember sending for them and saying to them: "Listen to me. As a completely voluntary organisation, you are of incalculable value to this country. Once you become or seek to come under Government control, you are only a bloody nuisance—just another bunch of bureaucrats. But you are finding it difficult, out of your resources, to pay organisers. If you are prepared to say to me that, given the means to put organisers in the field, you foresee you will be able to finance yourselves out of your members' subscriptions, I will give you an annual sum of money and ask you for no other assurance or no accounting of it, because I do not want it to come under the control of the Department directly or indirectly, except an annual certificate to the effect that that money has been spent for the purposes of the organisation." There should be no further interference by the Department in their operations.

Mr. Haughey

That situation is still the same.

Mr. Dillon

So long as they are a purely voluntary organisation, they are of incalculable value. Once they become an annex of the Department of Agriculture, they become merely an inefficient section of a Department which does not readily entertain inefficiency in its circle.

I see a further sum under Subhead K.16—grants towards the cost of co-operative packing and grading stations for horticultural produce. I take it that this is a development of the scheme inaugurated in Kerry for the production of onions under which we provided them with packing facilities and the establishment of a co-operative society there for the improvement of the sales machinery for their operations. In so far as that is done, it is a good thing. In so far as they expect to get advice and encouragement in the initial stages, I think it is an admirable thing. It is a very dangerous thing, however, if we establish the principle that they would become a kind of an annual charge on the Exchequer. I do not think that has happened in regard to Castle-gregory onions or to Dungarvan apples. Both of them had difficulties in the earlier stages and the Department of Agriculture helped them then, but I think they are now viable themselves. It is of immense importance that we should concentrate on helping them in the early difficult stages for the purpose of establishing their independence and getting them out of the Department at the earliest possible date, standing on their own feet and independent of interference from outside.

The last question I want to ask the Minister is this: What is the reason, or has anybody discovered the reason, for the steep decline in the beet acreage?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am afraid that does not arise.

Mr. Dillon

Does it not? Is there no provision here for beet?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It arises on the main Estimate.

Mr. Dillon

I shall not press it now, in that event. However, it is an interesting feature that it is the one crop in respect of which there is agreement, apparently, between the producers and the factory that the price is related strictly to the cost of production.

Mr. Corry

Read your own speech on it.

Mr. Dillon

My speeches do not relate——

Mr. Corry

I hate quoting you too often.

Mr. Dillon

My speeches do not relate to facts as they exist today. I have an extraordinary capacity for foreseeing what will happen and, selectively used, that gift can be of great value.

Major de Valera

The Deputy has the modesty to match it.

Mr. Dillon

The gift of Cassandra is not a gift that one needs to be modest about. One of the most trying burdens a human can bear is to see the future pretty clearly. To fain persuade one's neighbours of it in time is nothing to boast about. It is a very——

Major de Valera

A prophet of no account in his own country.

Mr. Dillon

It is a failure and so it is nothing to boast of. However, I think the Deputy will agree that I have foreseen a good many unfortunate developments. I warned the Deputy's Party of them before they came to pass. It is a matter of regret to me that they did not foresee them, for the reason that Deputy Corry has frequently boasted in this House that here is a case where the price paid was acceptable because it was negotiated on the basis of cost of production, and not on the basis of world prices or any other arbitrary standard of measurement. Perhaps it is a phenomenon but frankly I do not understand it. When you take it in the context referred to in the Minister's speech, where he made some reference to barley and other cereals, is there a trend against tillage? If there is, where is it going to end? How far is it desirable?

It may be, as the Leas-Cheann Comhairle said, that this topic is too wide for an exhaustive discussion on a Supplementary Estimate, and that we should postpone it to the main Estimate. However, I will avail of this occasion to say to the Minister that this is an aspect of the present situation which is causing very grave concern to those interested in the long-term prospects of agriculture as a whole, and when the general Estimate comes up for discussion, this is a matter to which he might with great advantage turn his mind in an exhaustive way.

I do not oppose this Supplementary Estimate. The money has to be provided. I would be grateful if when the Minister comes to reply, he could find the time and opportunity to deal with the specific matters to which I have directed his attention.

Mr. Coughlan

We are somewhat limited in this debate on agriculture because of the supplementary character of the Vote. We have to confine ourselves more or less to the programme which is laid before us by the Minister. I do not wish to digress in any way, if at all possible, but I want to make some cogent remarks which this Supplementary Estimate calls to mind.

I come from an area which is more agricultural than industrial. There are some figures in this Supplementary Estimate with which we agree and to which we might encourage the Minister to make additions. I refer particularly to the additional grant of £58,000 this year to University Colleges. I consider that for an industry such as this, particularly judging by 1966 standards, an extra £58,000 is not nearly sufficient to meet the demands and requirements for the fulfillment, projection, operation and bringing up to date of this important industry. I believe that 90 per cent of the farmers have little or no post-primary education. We have to make some substitution for that, and the only way to do that is by having advisory committees and qualified graduates who specialised in some particular line in agriculture, be it dairy science, agricultural science, or some other agricultural field.

I believe that we must improve the agricultural industry. When I talk about the agricultural industry, I am talking about the £sd and the economics of the industry. I consider that the extra sum of £58,000 on £160,000 is not anything like what is necessary if we are to put this industry on a competitive basis. For that reason I would ask the Minister to have another look to see whether he can scrape the pot or Deputy Burke's tin can to increase that amount.

The contribution to Macra na Feirme is an excellent idea but there again I do not think the Minister has gone far enough. These are young farmers who want to carry on farming and develop along the lines I have referred to in the agricultural industry, and to make a decent living, and to be competitive and up to date.

The contribution to the Irish Countrywomen's Association is strewn with difficulties. At a later date it may cause some trouble, particularly in the towns and cities. The ICA are excellent in their motives, and are doing excellent work, but there is a danger that they may be going a little too far in one particular line. Moves have been made in my city for the opening by the ICA of shops and markets for direct sales of goods from the producer to the consumer. I foresee a danger there, bearing in mind that our estimated rate from 1st April next will be one of the highest in the country, something over £4 in the £. We have to consider the ratepayers and the shopkeepers who are large employers and large ratepayers.

If the ICA are encouraged to open stalls in the city streets, or in halls which were originally intended as cultural gathering places, and are allowed to sell their goods there, I think we are leaving ourselves open to a grave danger. I advise the Minister to tread cautiously. I know he has more or less let the ICA off on a free line, but there is danger in too much freedom. I believe that there should be some check on the manner in which public money is spent. I do not agree with what Deputy Dillon said about the ICA. You cannot give money to people and say: "There is public money. Go away and do what you like with it. You do not have to report to me or to anyone else." I believe that public money must be accounted for. I do not agree with what Deputy Dillon has said, that we should give them this money and away they go. I believe that is stupid. It is false economics and no sane man in the world could afford to do that in his private or business capacity. I do not see why it should be done nationally. Now I come to the most important part of my contribution on this Estimate, that is, with regard to K.18, Payments to Pigs and Bacon Commission. I come from an area where we have three bacon factories and where, in the past, pork butchers exported their total trade in pork butchering to Russia and to Denmark. That is on the record of the Pork Butchers' Society. This is a traditional industry in Limerick. It is an industry which gives, or should give, good employment. It is our duty as Limerick representatives, and my duty, to see that everything possible will be done to protect the pig and bacon industry.

At the moment the industry is in a chaotic condition. The crisis has arisen because of an accumulation of events in the past. First of all, we cannot have a bacon industry or a bacon factory without pigs. Tragically, there is a substantial fall in pig output at the moment. I saw one day last week that in one of our bacon factories, they had 80 pigs for killing in one day. The average killing in any bacon factory is three pigs a minute. That is only the average killing. It is fair working and nobody kills himself just working the normal practice of three pigs a minute. There were only 80 pigs killed in that one bacon factory the week before last. That is an unusual occurrence, but gradually the killings are falling off every day as far as Limerick is concerned. I cannot understand the economics of a bacon factory from Cavan coming all the way down to 40, 50 or 60 miles beyond Limerick to Abbeyfeale or Castleisland, which is 11 miles from two bacon factories in Tralee. They come all the way from Cavan with double-decker lorries with trailers. They load them up with pigs and bring them back to Cavan for slaughter. They buy up the pigs at a higher price against the buyers who come 11 miles from two factories in Tralee, to show there is competition.

There must be something wrong in this. Those people are passing through my city every day in the week and they go as far back as Castleisland, which is 52 miles from Limerick and eight miles from two factories in Tralee. They load up their double-decker lorries and trailers with pigs and bring them back to Cavan. I cannot understand this. It is the same pig. I would like the Minister to take note and to check on how those prices can be paid.

Prices are issued on Thursday morning for the following week's pigs. You can take any paper on a Saturday morning, when the prices are published, and I do not think you will get any two bacon factories in Ireland to agree on a price, let it be Grades A, B or C or Grades S, Y or Z, sows or pork, so there must be something wrong. Why is it that one bacon curer can give 10/- or £1 a cwt. more than the other fellow for the same pig? I cannot understand this but it is a fact. I want to bring this matter, particularly in the interests of the producers, forcibly before the Minister and to ask what he can do about stabilising a price, whether it be in Cavan or Castleisland. It is the same pig anyway.

Mr. O'Hara

Or Castlebar.

Mr. Coughlan

Or Castlebar or Ballaghaderreen.

Mr. Corry

They have good memories in Castlebar.

Mr. Coughlan

Be that as it may, the first thing we must concern ourselves with is the production of pigs. I want to bring forcibly before the Minister this morning the necessity for saving this industry, even at this late stage.

I believe the Minister, from his answer yesterday, is under some misapprehension with regard to the pig population. I want to clear his mind on that matter. I refer him to an article in The Farmers' Journal of 19th March, 1966. On the front page it says: “Fall in Pig Output on the Way”. Here is the article:

Early indications of the January sow count point to drastic reductions in Irish pig productions in the current year. The fall is likely to exceed 15 per cent bringing production for the year back to the level for 1964 or possibly even lower. The numbers of in-pig gilts show a particularly serious drop and are down by over 40 per cent. The figure for gilts has always been considered critical in influencing future pig output. Already the falling numbers is having its effect on bonham prices in the southern marts. For instance, bonhams of 40 lb to 60 lb weight of reasonable quality have been making 2/2d to 2/4d per lb, the highest price for over 12 months.

Moreover, the entries at the popular pig marts in Carrick-on-Suir, Clonmel and Tipperary are about half those of this time last year. In bacon pigs numbers delivered up to early March were actually above last year's level but in the past week indications of a decline became apparent when numbers were down by about 1,400 on the previous week. This week one of the Limerick factories has given a further indication with an advertised price showing an increase of 20/- per cwt. for B1, B. and C pigs. It is hoped in all sections of the bacon industry that as the shortage of pigs develops factories will not encourage a depression in grading standards through increased liveweight buying —such as occurred in 1964. They say: "If there is to be competition among factories, let it be for graded pigs for a price premium for top grades." The expected fall in bacon pig production could lead to some difficulty in fulfilling our British bacon quota, particularly if grading or factory quality should go low. Certainly, our pork trade with Britain and the US will suffer. This matter brings into fresh focus the low quality level of bacon produced by a limited number of factories as revealed by Michael Delahunty of the Pigs and Bacon Commission two weeks ago. Following the statement by Michael Delahunty the Management Committee of the Bacon Curers' Association has decided to ask the Commission to reprimand Mr. Delahunty for his action while the veterinary section of the Department of Agriculture has said that the quality problems mentioned are due to delays in transport that have developed since centralised transport arrangements were introduced by the Commission. In actual fact, however, The Farmers' Journal has established that the transport of bacon to Britain is now more hygienic and more rapid than ever it has been.

Who is telling the truth? Here is a journal catering for all our agricultural needs and all aspects of agriculture, and this is what it has to say about pig production, despite what the Minister said yesterday in reply to a question. I would impress on the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary that they should have a quick look at The Farmers' Journal of 19th March, because I found in that issue another article on the decline in pig production. This is not an isolated instance; it is generally accepted that there is a substantial decline in pig production, despite what the Minister said yesterday. He cannot be doing his home work. I wonder does the Parliamentary Secretary do it? Does he read The Farmers' Journal?

However, I read another article in the same issue on the decline in pig production which said the decline in pig production we are meeting this year is coming more or less as forecast. So it is not a surprise. Cassandra here, as he says himself, anticipated and forecast it. I wonder with all his forecasting could he tell us anything about next Saturday and what will win the National? The article goes on to say that feed prices may have had some bearing on the decline, but that by far the biggest cause was the disastrous prices obtained by bonham producers from last May onwards. It continues:

In a glutted market the bonham feeder without fattening space—and capital—is in a very vulnerable position. The pig price guarantees are no help to him.

There is a very good case for developing pig fattening on farms where previously bonhams only were sold—that is unless the farmer has the guarantee that comes with membership of a pig co-op.

Home fattening does mean, however, the provision of capital and housing. The new grants announced by Mr. Haughey last week should encourage the erection of fattening houses with a capacity of up to 50 pigs—much less is not any great benefit to farm profits. For a job of this type we would hope that the Credit Corporation in the new financial year will show greater willingness to lend.

The Chairman of Cork Macra, Michael Buckley, said last week that over 70 per cent of farmers rarely consulted their agricultural adviser and over 70 per cent had no post-primary education.

His conclusion was that there was a positive need for a comprehensive scheme of agricultural education where farmers' sons could get the kind of knowledge that was essential to good farming and, at the same time, develop the kind of outlook that would lead them to look for expert advice on one's problems. Quite by coincidence, The Farmers' Journal has been assessing the effectiveness of agricultural education as provided by one of our prominent Agricultural Colleges. The resultant article, published last week, indicates that Michael Buckley is posing a bigger problem than most people like to admit.

The colleges are, largely, fulfilling the function of educating technicians. They are doing a good job in this but they are still not educating farmers.

We must think of agricultural technicians as one valuable force of men and farmers as another. If there are 300 or so young men in these colleges we cannot complacently say that 300 men are being equiped to farm better.

That is where I disagree with the additional grants to University Colleges.

On this Estimate I want to go further and say that the advisory services provided by the Department of Agriculture are only a drop in the ocean in regard to this major industry. Most farmers do not know of the existence of advisory committees. This article says that 70 per cent or 80 per cent of the people have not seen post-primary education or received any new advisory service from the Department. That is a tragic state of affairs. We have been listening to ráiméis and fables in the past in regard to agriculture. We heard them at every election and outside every chapel gate. The farmers are told what great people they are and that we would be lost without them, but that is the beginning and end of it so far as the farmers are concerned.

If we are to be competitive, as we must be if we are to survive, we must at least send advisers and technicians from the Department into every school and every parish and hold night classes there for the whole of the winter from 1st October until 1st May, or perhaps up to mid-April, four nights a week. If we are only turning out 300 persons per year to do that work we are only wasting our time and only scratching the surface of the problem. If we want the people to survive and remain on the land, we must come back to pig production, particularly in the west of Ireland. The bacon industry is one of the oldest the country knows. Our experts from Limerick trained the Russians to cure bacon. They also went to Denmark where our pork butchers taught them the trade. That is in the records of the Pork Butchers Association.

The decline in pig production means that men will be unemployed, that factories will have to declare redundancy. I come here in no critical manner, but in a helpful way to place my experience and knowledge of the pig trade before the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary. People who were in the habit of keeping three, four or six pigs went to the factory every couple of months and got a few pounds. At Christmas time, they sent five or six pigs to the factory and the Christmas was made happy and comfortable for all. That type of pig rearing has disappeared. We have resorted to creamery milk pig production. The pig reared at the creamery is reared on whey and produces soft, flabby bacon. Certainly, by this method, pigs can be produced in larger numbers but the quality bears no relation to the pig fed in the ordinary pigsty on barley and other feeding stuffs. There are creameries in Limerick and North Cork where there are thousands of pigs.

Mr. O'Hara

Have they central heating?

Mr. Coughlan

No; they have electric blankets. They are more economical. Thousands of pigs are being produced and we get the figure from the Department in respect of it but the finished article bears no comparison with the finished article from barley and feeding stuffs, on which five, six or 12 pigs were reared in the pigsty by the farmer's wife and then brought to the factory. Some member of the family was employed in feeding the pigs. Most of the production in the creameries is not helping the bacon industry.

The standard of bacon must be maintained. Creamery quality bacon is second or third grade because of the manner in which the pig is fed. In order to produce top quality bacon, the production of pigs must be profitable. The decline in pig production in the West of Ireland is due to the high price of feeding stuffs in relation to the price obtainable for the finished article. If the Minister desires to bring back this trade to its former position and to produce the type of bacon for which this country was noted, he should make barley available to pig producers in the west of Ireland and in the other undeveloped areas free of the £8 or £10 levy per ton. That is the only way to encourage pig rearing in these areas.

In the west of Ireland, the land is not capable of producing the quantity of barley or other feeding stuffs required. Consequently, everything has to be brought home in the bag and there is an import levy of £8 to £10 a ton on it. The Minister should seriously consider abolishing that levy in respect of these people.

Mr. O'Hara

Hear, hear.

Mr. Coughlan

In that case, the figures will show what has been wrong with pig production in the past. I want to impress on the Minister some facts that I have ascertained with regard to pig production. Under the Free Trade Area Agreement we are allowed to send an extra 1,000 tons of bacon into Britain. We are already paying the British consumer almost 1/- per lb to eat our bacon. That is a simple mathematical calculation based on replies to Parliamentary Questions and on my knowledge of the bacon industry. In the event of our sending another 1,000 tons of bacon to Britain, we will have to dip deeper into the taxpayer's pocket to help to feed the people in England. Thanks be to God, most of them are our own. That is the only consolation I see in that, poor though it may be. The British consumer, in addition to that subsidy of 1/- per lb, is getting Grade A bacon; the Gaels are left at home to pay 1/- extra per lb for XYZ grades and the stuff that has as much fat on it as you have on your jowls is left for home consumption. We must get down to fundamentals, if we want to rectify this chaotic situation.

Acting Chairman (Mr. James Tully)

Could we get down to the Estimate for a while?

Mr. Coughlan

I am on the Estimate, with all due respect to you. I am on Subhead K. 18. I want to find a solution for the problem. There is a solution to every problem ever posed by a human brain and there must be a solution to this problem. I am trying to be helpful to the Minister in trying to save at this late stage an industry that is in a chaotic situation.

The Minister has told us that payments to the Pigs and Bacon Commission in respect of bacon export support show an increase of £1,300,000 —from £1,800,000 to £3,100,000. In this respect some questions must be asked. We must accept the fact, first of all, that you cannot come into the bacon industry overnight. This is an industry which has a tradition and yet people have been appointed to the Pigs and Bacon Commission who did not know the crubeen from the pig's head.

Mr. Geoghegan

The same as the Deputy.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy was speaking about milking pigs a few minutes ago.

Mr. Coughlan

I spoke about milkfed pigs. I referred to the whey. The Parliamentary Secretary knows the difference between whey and milk. He goes to the factory every morning with his milk, too. The fact remains that we have a Pigs and Bacon Commission, God help us. We appointed a man to it a couple of years ago and he packed his bags and ran back to where he came from—he had been County Manager in Cork—because he did not know where he was going. He was superseded by another man who is playing blind man's buff with the industry as well. Here is the cause of our trouble, the constitution of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. This is the responsibility of the Minister and action must be taken.

I have good reason for believing that the Commission, fundamentally and basically, is the cause of the chaotic condition in which the pig industry is today and the reason people are getting out of pigs. The curers are represented on it and the civil servants, with biro pens, and the nearest they ever got to rearing pigs was when they saw a slice of bacon on their plates at breakfast——

Mr. Geoghegan

They probably came from the land, too.

Mr. Coughlan

They ran from the land, some of them——

Mr. Geoghegan

No.

Mr. Coughlan

——because they saw how their parents had to work to rear pigs, feed them twice a day, and clean out the pigsty.

Mr. Allen

There is no cleaning out nowadays.

Mr. J. Gibbons

They should have got a grant for a new piggery.

Mr. Coughlan

What is the use of having a piggery if you cannot afford to feed a pig? It is all right to joke and make a circus of this but there is a tragic situation in regard to this industry. I know because I am closely related to this industry.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The pigs?

Mr. Coughlan

Who made that interjection? Does the Parliamentary Secretary know anything about pig curing?

Mr. J. Gibbons

You were talking about your relations.

Mr. Coughlan

There are three major bacon factories in Limerick giving considerable employment to people, both male and female, and in view of the handling of the position, and with a continuation of the policy adopted by the Commission, I would say that we will have one of them for sale within a very short time. This is what I want to avoid, besides helping the small farmer who turns out half a dozen pigs, perhaps three times a year.

I would impress on the Minister the urgency of this matter and the Pigs and Bacon Commission have got to be taken to task. I want to illustrate the stupidity of the Department of Agriculture in regard to appointments they have made to the Commission. The man who was appointed Chairman of the Commission relinquished his position as County Manager in Cork to take up the position and he set about putting a highly competitive article before the people, which was also for export. What in the name of goodness did he know about pigs or bacon? Then, to show his brilliance, he put up with the job for a wet weekend and went back to his job in Cork.

Mr. Donegan

He is a brilliant man.

Mr. Lalor

I do not think personalities should be brought into this.

Mr. Coughlan

I am sorry; I did not mean to do that. He is a personal friend of mine.

Mr. Donegan

And of mine.

Mr. Coughlan

I am dealing with him as Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission and nothing else. I want to show how stupid are the appointments that are being made to this commission. If necessary, I will give more examples. The appointments which were made were of hacks of that Party, and they are in the bacon factories and they are all broken down Fianna Fáil thugs, or most of them.

Mr. Donegan

Not Michael Conlon.

Mr. Coughlan

I am not including him. He is a decent honorable man. If the Minister wants any facts about the appointments to the commission, or the history of any of the appointments, I am his man. They are round pegs in square holes the whole way through. That is why we are faced with this critical and chaotic condition in regard to the bacon industry. I hope I have impressed the Minister in regard to the speedy action that must be taken if we are to save this industry. If I have not impressed him, I will give him all the facts he wants. I will give him the figures for the killings and the workings and tell him how bacon is cured and how it is bought and sold. I do not pride myself on being a Cassandra like Deputy Dillon; I am only facing what I see coming towards me, just as you will see a shower coming over the mountain towards you. That is what is happening here.

I will turn now to Subhead N.— Marketing etc. of Dairy Produce. Here we have a situation in which again promises were made. Proportionately speaking, I come from the greatest milk producing county in the country. We might not have the bulk as compared with County Cork but we are in the top three as far as milk production is concerned. Here again there is need for a reorganisation and, further, a tearing asunder of the whole structure of milk production.

I want to refer to the provision for University Colleges. We have not got the necessary advisory services for milk production and grass growing, if we are to be competitive and give the farmer a decent living. I do not mean a 40-hour week with five days. I know he has to work for seven days of the week 365 days of the year, with Christmas and Easter thrown in for good measure. He also has his hours of leisure, of course, but he has to be there all around the year.

However, I think we can make things easier for him by cutting out a lot of the routine, monotonous work that has been going on for generations. Without automating everything to the last degree, we can make things easier. We must try to keep the handful of advisers we have. Winter classes in the parish schools and halls should be encouraged and, in fact, insisted upon. Let them come in there at nights and be advised with regard to labour-saving ways of creating greater production. You see the same old pony and car jogging to the creamery or factory every morning. Perhaps an hour or two are wasted reading the paper or talking to the lads waiting for the separated milk. Time means money. That is all wasted time. We have to get away from all that if we want to be competitive. That is where the services of the advisory committee will come into play, telling us how to do our work with the least amount of wasted time and labour in order to keep up with our competitors.

I am told by an expert in the field that there has been an inclination over the past two or three years for cows to be culled in their third or fourth lactation. It is only a fool who will not listen and learn—and I am not in that category yet, although I may be, please God, in my sensibility. Whether the Minister is aware of it or not, I have been told by a man qualified in agriculture that no cow, unless for other reasons, should be culled until the sixth lactation.

Mr. Allen

It all depends on the reason for which they are culling them.

Mr. Coughlan

I said "Unless for other reasons." I heard that from a man qualified in every way and employed accordingly. I have discussed the matter with him. If it is so, it is tragic and should be stopped. If it is so, it means that our whole breeding policy is wrong. It has no economic value. If we are to get the last out of an article and take it before it has reached finality, we are not treating it in an economic manner. I am sure the Minister, with his economic turn of mind, will agree with me on this.

I turn now to the £15 heifer grant. It looked great and we all lauded it, even though it compared more than favourably with the maternity grant we gave the unfortunate woman for the quads. She got £4 only for the four of them.

Mr. Corry

She is getting £8 now.

Mr. Coughlan

She is getting £16 now, thanks to my Limerick colleague. As I said, while the heifer grant looked all right as a means of attaining the production target of 1,700,000, the calves now on the market as a result of this £15 grant are no better than oversized whippets.

Mr. Geoghegan

Nonsense.

Mr. Coughlan

Do you know what a whippet is? That is the comparison I make with the calves produced as a result of this £15 grant. The drop in the price of calves last week was 35 per cent compared with the same week last year. At Kanturk mart on Tuesday, calves were bid at £2 or £3 per head. I am not saying that was the general figure, but calves were sold for that in Kanturk.

Mr. Geoghegan

Did you buy them?

Mr. Coughlan

Listen, my name is not John Brown, nor is it the name of any relation of mine, either. We do not jump in like that. I want to impress on the Minister that if this is allowed to continue, as has been pointed out, it is the rancher who makes well on it. The farmer with 30 or 40 acres can go so far but no further. It is about time the whole situation was reviewed. The ranchers have got enough. If it is not reviewed, one need not be a prophet to say we are on our way back to the production of beef again.

I would impress upon the Minister the necessity for reviewing bacon and milk prices. The creamery milk suppliers have been fighting for many a long day for an increase in milk prices. They have been on deputations every now and again and have declared their future action in no uncertain terms at a meeting in Limerick last week. I want to ask the Minister this question: in the event of the creamery milk suppliers carrying out the resolution passed in Limerick last week, will the Offences against the State Act be invoked to put these men in Mountjoy?

Acting Chairman (Mr. James Tully)

That is going very wide of the matter under discussion.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister can think about it, anyway. Let me quote a paragraph from a journal I have here.

Mr. Allen

The Deputy read that last night.

Mr. Coughlan

The Minister for Agriculture was not here and the Deputy will hear it again.

Mr. Allen

The Minister read it long ago.

Acting Chairman

Deputy Coughlan should be allowed to make his speech.

Mr. Coughlan

I did not come in here to be critical but to be helpful. I know the Minister is receptive to suggestions. I want to quote for him from an article which appeared on 11th February, 1966, in the British Farmers Weekly. Under the heading “Irish Boomerang”, it says:

We have discovered an intriguing effect of the new Anglo-Irish agreement so far as it affects carcass meat and store stock imports. The Irish side appears to believe it scored a great diplomatic victory when they obtained the agreement of the British Government to pay the equivalent of the average fatstock guarantee payment on 25,000 tons of carcass beef and 5,000 tons of lamb. But in fact the more money Ireland draws under that scheme, the worse it will be for Ireland's economy.

This is because of the effect of low fatstock prices on the market for store stock. With the introduction of the Ministry's new "Graduated Deficiency Payments Scheme" two years ago, with its incentives and disincentives, the buyer of store stock must now have regard to probable movement of fatstock prices in relation to the seasonal standard price scale. A proper assessment of store stock values would make store cattle anything up to £5 a head cheaper when the fatstock market prospects look bad, compared with their value when fatstock prospects are good.

Bearing in mind that the Irish Republic promises a minimum of over 600,000 store cattle a year to Britain, but only 25,000 tons of carcass beef (equal to 100,000 cattle), we reckon that a guarantee payment to Ireland on the carcass beef of £2 million in one year would depress prices of the store cattle they send in that same year by well over £3 million. We doubt if the average Irish farmer has realised this boomerang effect of the guarantee they sought.

Mr. Haughey

I know the ass who wrote that.

Mr. Donegan

It is not fair to call a member of the Press an ass. The Press must surely take note that a member of the Press is being called an ass.

Mr. Haughey

How does the Deputy know he is a member of the Press?

Mr. Donegan

He is a contributor.

Mr. Haughey

That is different.

Mr. Coughlan

I do not know who he is, only what he wrote.

Mr. J. Gibbons

The Deputy accepts it?

Mr. Coughlan

I must accept that a paper of this reputation would not accept the writings of a pompous donkey. Is that what the Minister said?

Mr. Donegan

An ass.

Mr. Haughey

The same journal has published exactly the opposite about the Trade Agreement.

Mr. Coughlan

If the Minister produces that, he will convince me.

Mr. Haughey

I read it every week.

Mr. Coughlan

I want to be helpful here. If this fellow is pompous donkey, we shall treat him accordingly but if there is substance in what he has written, it is time to take note of the red light. There is no use in coming along in 12 months' time and realising the whole thing is banjaxed. We must look ahead. I have given my suggestions to the Minister. While I am a great believer in wit and humour, I am also a great believer in being factual, and the combination of both will bring a man a long way through life. Maybe I shall be in a position some fine day to qualify for the dollar a week the Minister for Social Welfare is giving to the destitutes by going the easy way.

Mr. Corry

I should like, first of all, to deal with the statement made by Deputy Coughlan in regard to the Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission. The Chairman of that Commission was the county manager for Cork and I, as Chairman of the county council, gave him six months' leave of absence from his job as manager to act as Chairman of the Pigs and Bacon Commission and straighten out matters there, on condition that he would return to his duties when the job was done. He did a good job. He came back and I am very glad to have him back. There is no justification for the remarks made by Deputy Coughlan.

In relation to the complaint, also made by Deputy Coughlan, about money being given to the ICA, I can assure him that none of that money will be spent in putting up any offices in competition with Deputy Coughlan in his job.

We had another instance and I do not know which of the two gentlemen will claim to be right. We had a statement from Deputy Dillon that the farmers were keeping the old cows in order to bring up the number and get the heifer grant, and we had a statement from Deputy Coughlan that the farmers were selling the cows at the fourth lactation and therefore selling them too young. I do not know which of the two will claim that he is right, but I would say that, as usual, Deputy Dillon was wrong anyway. All he wanted to do was to put the farmer in a bad light. That is something to which we are well accustomed here.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Will the Deputy move to report progress?

Mr. Corry

I move to report progress.

Mr. Dillon

If progress one can call it.

Progress reported: Committee to sit again.