With Vote 38, we are discussing Motion No. 2 on the Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Vote 38—Agriculture (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following motion:
That the Vote be referred back for reconsideration.
Before reporting progress on the last occasion the Estimate was before the House, I had contributed views in relation to the very serious plight in which farmers find themselves at the present time. I now propose to refer to the motion before the House in conjunction with the Minister's Estimate. Deputies should have their attention directed to the terms of the motion:
"That in view of the most serious plight in which the farmers, and particularly the small farmers, now find themselves through no fault of their own, Dáil Éireann calls on the Government to take immediate steps to increase farmers' incomes and to reduce their costs."
That is exactly what the agricultural community require today.
Before dealing with the motion, I want to give the Minister for Agriculture a word of advice. In the past, Dáil Éireann appears to have been ignored, not only by the Minister for Agriculture, but by many of his colleagues, when it came to making important statements and pronouncements in relation to agriculture. I would advise the Minister, if he has any important statements to make or decisions to announce, Dáil Éireann is the place in which that should be done, and not at a suitably constructed conference, not at a dance, a céili, a coffee party or a dinner.
Or a tea party.
It is yourselves who are going in for coffee parties these days. I know it is not the Deputy's type of electioneering but they seem to be becoming fashionable over there.
When important announcements are made at dinners, céilithe, afternoon teas and tea parties, by Ministers, it shows complete disregard for Parliament. I would ask the Minister for Agriculture to refrain from availing of opportunities outside the House to make statements of very great national importance and of very great concern to the farming community. Let us hope that when the Minister is replying to this debate he will have reached a decision about what he proposes to give the dairy farmers who have made a just claim for a substantial increase in the price of milk.
It would be most unfortunate if the Minister ignored Dáil Éireann and showed disrespect for Parliament by making announcements outside this House in regard to Government decisions on policy. This is the place where they should be made. The attention of other Ministers has been directed to the manner in which they have ignored this House in regard to important statements of policy and I hope the Minister for Agriculture will be the first to show proper recognition of Parliament in regard to important announcements on major issues concerning his Department.
As Deputy Sweetman's motion indicates, the farming community is in a very serious plight at the moment, as I am sure every rural Deputy, whether on the Government side or in Opposition, will agree. It cannot be possible for the Minister to be so much out of touch with the people on the land that he does not realise the seriousness of their condition. This serious plight in which they now find themselves is through no fault of their own and because of that this Parliament is calling on the Government to take immediate steps. We are not calling on the Government to take steps next month or at harvest time; we are not calling on them to disclose plans for future expansion. What is required are immediate steps to increase the farmer's income. I hope the Minister will convey to the House details of the practical steps he proposes to take this very week——
Has the Deputy any suggestions which might help the Minister?
——to increase the farmers' incomes. I hope that he will take steps to see that the farmers' costs of production are reduced. These are two very important aspects of the motion. In regard to Deputy Andrews, for whom I have great respect—he is a young man of very great talents and ability—he may be an expert in many fields of public administration——
I am an expert on price increases for urban and city dwellers.
However, I do not know what qualifications he has in regard to matters affecting small farmers, big farmers, agricultural workers and the agricultural community.
He is going to reduce the agricultural subsidy.
These increases will mean increases for city and urban dwellers. This is the problem that worries me.
It will be worrying the Deputy's Front Bench if he goes too far with this.
I agree that Deputy Andrews must be worried about this, as he has admitted, and may I say that I share his worry because I am also worried and am probably more disturbed about it than he is because I am more connected with the farming community than he is? If Deputy Andrews and other Deputies are worried, surely the Minister must have some responsibility for the plight in which the agricultural community are placed at the moment? Deputy Andrews asks for suggestions as to how the farmer's income can be increased. It is as plain as ABC—just pay him for what he does and pay him sufficient so that in the autumn he will be better off leaving the lands than when he entered the lands in the spring.
That is A. Where is the money to come from?
Order.
Where did it come from for the status increases, the people who had already £120 a weel and who got £50 a week increase?
Order. That does not arise on this Estimate.
Try to keep Deputy L'Estrange in order.
Deputy L'Estrange has been helpful and I am sure the Minister will pick up many valuable hints, if he listens to him.
I am listening very carefully to him. The Deputy is the Whip and he is supposed to keep order.
The Minister knows all about whips.
I should like to hear the comments of Deputy Andrews or any other Deputy when he considers the increases given to wage earners who are in no way connected with agriculture. Take, for example, the wage earners in the transportable goods industries and in other walks of life. It has been established that there has been a very great increase per head, something like £48 per year, in the earnings of such wage earners for 1966. That is in accordance with the Government's guide-line of three per cent. However, now we find that the guide-line of three per cent has been broken by the £1 increase recommended by the Labour Court and accepted by the Government. In view of that, it will be appreciated that any increase in the price of what the farmer produces should be in excess of what has already been approved of by the Government for workers in other walks of life. The farming community can be described as the lower income group. There can be no question about that.
The Fianna Fáil Party must accept responsibility for the large numbers of people who are leaving the land, particularly small farmers, and who are seeking employment elsewhere. The flight from the land increased from 10,000 in 1964 to 14,000 in 1965 and that flight is a continuous process. You cannot have a prosperous agricultural community when you have people fleeing the land in such numbers. The reasons are clear. They are not being paid for wheat and we have a drop in the acreage of wheat. They are not being paid for beet and, as revealed by the Sugar Company, there is a drop in the acreage of beet. The numbers of cattle for export are dropping considerably. The patience of the milk producers is completely exhausted. Pig production is not in a healthy condition and neither is the poultry industry in a very sound condition. There was no rates relief in the last Budget for the agricultural community. No proper steps have been taken to provide a higher standard of housing for our farmers. There are great delays in paying grants to those who have undertaken farm improvements. The heifer grants have not been to the financial advantage of the very small farmer. That is why agriculture is in such a depressed state at present.
The serious credit restriction which is starving farmers of capital has resulted in a reduction in tillage and stock and a general decline in what is produced on the land. Farmers cannot produce unless they have the capital to do so. The great majority of our small farmers are seriously handicapped by lack of capital. The Minister may say there never has been such a flow from the funds of the Agricultural Credit Corporation as there has been in recent years, but the fact is that small farmers are still seriously handicapped by lack of working capital. This year many of them had to set their grazing because they had not the wherewithal to purchase stock to utilise it. Farmers have entered into heavy hire purchase commitments and are finding it difficult to keep up payments because of the lowering of their incomes. Many are finding it difficult to pay the instalments due to the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
If the Minister wants to do something practical, he should change his outlook in relation to agriculture. Let him give more serious thought to the small farmer. The small farmer is the backbone of this country, as has been said tens of thousands of times. The Minister may not be old enough to recall that it was the small farmers who got this country out of its difficulties during the last emergency because of the important part they played in the production of food for man and beast. The Minister will have to review the whole agricultural policy of the Fianna Fáil Party because it is driving our people from the land and driving our farmers to a state of poverty.
There is a drop in livestock and tillage and the farmer is starved for credit. This is occurring when every other section of the community seem to have succeeded in having their incomes increased. This is mainly due to the fact that an active trade union movement has focussed attention on the needs of organised wage earners. The farmers do not seem to have the same negotiating machinery or force as the industrial workers so well organised in their trade unions. It is a grand thing that we have arrived at the stage that the trade unions can ensure that their members get, and will continue to get, a fair share of the national income. But the farmers seem to be nobody's baby. They seem to be unorganised. They are put into the background.
The Minister for Agriculture is in charge of the most important Department of State. He cannot be described as one who has not been active. Perhaps he has been too active in other spheres and not active enough in looking after the interests of those whose interests he is supposed to be looking after. The farmers deserve something better than they have got. The Minister should formulate proposals for the financing on a sound basis of every farmer in this State who needs credit for increased production. While the Agricultural Credit Corporation have most certainly relieved cases of farmers who require temporary financial accommodation, they have not in the long run solved the problem of financing people on the land who require money for increased production. One of the reasons they cannot do it is that the private banks hold the title deeds of some tens of thousands of holdings. While that continues, the Credit Corporation will not take any other security in the absence of the land certificate and deeds of title. The Minister should seriously consider the thousands of small land owners who are not creditworthy. Why would he not endeavour to make those people creditworthy by redeeming their land certificates and title deeds and putting them in a position to qualify for whatever financial assistance will be available, either from private banks or the Agricultural Credit Corporation?
There is an unsecured loan scheme.
I salute it, but it is just putting another patch on an already over-patched quilt. It is not capable of solving the financial problems of the thousands of smallholders who feel they are starved of working capital.
Any one of them can get £500 unsecured.
Would the Minister clarify that because I would be very pleased to know it was that simple to obtain £500 by way of unsecured loan? Deputy Lalor and I could put our heads together, as we often did before, and we would make out a list of our constituents for the Minister so that we could get this unsecured £500.
I never have any problem.
It is there for them. The Deputy should just put them in touch with the Agricultural Credit Corporation.
And they would post them out a cheque for £500?
I should be delighted if more Deputies would encourage their constituents to avail of it.
It is the co-operative societies that come in on this?
Yes.
What about places where there are none?
The Deputy should let us know about them and we shall look after them.
These loans can be got in Laois.
I do not think it is as easy to get this £500 as the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary suggest.
I suspect the Deputy did not know about the scheme at all.
There are very few schemes I do not know about but there are a great many schemes I should like to see in operation that the Minister has not thought of.
Would the Deputy mention them?
One scheme I should like to see in operation is one that will solve the financial worries of the Irish farmers. The Minister seems to have fallen into a state of prayer right away. Let me remind him that tillage and livestock have fallen, and fallen steadily. The farmers' incomes have dropped steadily, simply because they cannot produce for the want of working capital. One of the greatest drawbacks the farmer encounters in increasing the number of livestock on his land, and in increasing agricultural produce for export—and agricultural exports represent two-thirds of our whole exports—is lack of working capital either to till or to sow. When the farmers do till and sow, the crops are not profitable. It does not pay the farmer today to produce wheat and beet. Beet is no longer a profitable crop. Because of the most unfavourable spring conditions, for which we do not blame the Minister, I venture to say that half the beet contracted for with the Sugar Company has not been sown, and next year we shall have the lowest beet acreage on record.
If the Minister maintains that the production of beet is a profitable crop, will he tell the House in the course of his reply what great profits have been made by beet growers last year, the year before and the year before that again? If beet is the very profitable crop which the Minister maintains it is, why have people stopped sowing it? The same remarks apply to wheat. To the farmers, wheat is like a red rag to a bull. After working hard sowing it, they found, because of the prices that were fixed, that it was not a profitable crop and they got out of it.
Some thousands of farmers became very depressed when they saw the outcome of the Free Trade Agreement negotiations with Britain last year. That was an agreement with some thousands of words which looked well to read and sounded very well but which did not put a penny piece in any Irish farmer's pocket. In my opinion, the only trade agreement that put anything into the farmers' pockets was the 1948 Trade Agreement. The 1948 Trade Agreement, brought about by Deputy John A. Costello and Deputy Dillon, was responsible for putting millions of pounds into Irish farmers' pockets. The very best that Fianna Fáil could do was to come back with little or no improvement on that 1948 Trade Agreement. Ministers of the Fianna Fáil Party who have gone over to negotiate with the British have come back as complete failures. On more than one occasion they came back with less than they had going over, despite the fact that they went over to negotiate for more. That occurred during Deputy Smith's term of office as Minister for Agriculture. While he was over in Britain, he allowed the Danes to wipe his eye in connection with the bacon quota. It has been recognised in this country that Fianna Fáil Ministers who go abroad to negotiate with the British always come back having lost the game.
It must be remembered that we have the advantage of close proximity to Britain and of having the great industrial population of Britain only a stone's throw from us, while we are an outstanding agricultural country. All our farmers want is a helping hand, some practical assistance. All they want is good example from the Government and to be allowed to work for a reasonable profit. For one reason or another, the Government have failed miserably in that regard.
I would say from my experience and from the very close touch I have with the agricultural community that over the next four or five years we shall see the land in this country becoming so derelict that people will be seen only from provincial town to provincial town. No young person wants to stay on the land. Everybody agrees that bankruptcy is at the threshold of every farmer. Everybody agrees that if they are engaged in milk production, in tillage or in livestock production, there is no future for them, that agriculture has gone from the top of the ladder down to the very bottom rung. Every other section of the community has had its income substantially increased while the farmer's income was allowed to drop steadily. Not alone has agriculture been allowed to take the lowest possible place but there are no prospects whatever of raising it from the deplorable state in which it is as a result of the terms of this agreement.
I highly recommend that all those rural Deputies who believe that the farmers are in a very serious plight at the moment should have sufficient courage to register their protest by calling upon the Government to take immediate and practical steps to increase farmers' incomes and, therefore, take similar practical steps to see that their costs of production are drastically reduced. One knows the high cost of fertilisers and manures. One knows that the farmers are now obliged to pay increased wages to their workers. May I say in that connection that the agricultural worker is probably the worker best entitled to an increase in wages today because he has been for too long the worst paid worker in the State? Knowing all the circumstances, one would like to see the farmers put in the position of being able to pay a substantial increase to those who work side by side with them. The only prospect for the farmers, I think, is a change of Government and the sooner that change comes, the better it will be for the farmers. That may cause laughter on the Fianna Fáil benches, but it does not cause laughter where the small farmer is concerned, the small farmer being driven to the verge of bankruptcy by Fianna Fáil.
What would the Deputy suggest?
We suggest the Deputy make a speech.
(Interruptions.)
The Minister should pick up his courage and do something for the farmers instead of merely talking about doing something.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputy Flanagan.
It is high time the Minister came down to earth and met the farmers, talked to them, listened to them and took their advice. He has not done that yet. He does not seem to be taking the steps necessary to get advice from those engaged in the industry. The time has come when the Minister must admit that he is a failure in his Department. There is a tremendous display today of no confidence in the Minister. That comes from all branches of the farming community. It might be better if the Minister would give a favourable ear to the demands of those who are on the verge of bankruptcy. Those farmers who engage in hunting, those who follow the hounds, those who rear bloodstock are not the bulk of the farming community, but those are the farmers with whom the Minister is usually to be found. These cannot be described as the backbone of the country. That description belongs to the small, hardworking farmers. Now that the Minister has sampled the rich, well-to-do farmers, I would ask him to start mixing now with the real farmers, to see what conditions are for himself and lend a sympathetic ear to their problems.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
That would help to mould him mentally to the point at which he could exercise his authority in the Cabinet in order to look after the interests of the small, bankrupt, destitute farmers.
(Interruptions.)
Order. Deputy Flanagan.
I shall not make any comment on that until after the next general election. I hope then to be in a position to answer.
(Interruptions.)
What is to be noted in this debate is that so few Fianna Fáil Deputies have spoken.
(Interruptions.)
This Estimate provides a golden opportunity for Deputy Allen, Deputy Crowley, Deputy Lalor and Deputy Crinion. One would not expect Deputy Dowling to speak on agriculture, even though he might be well qualified to do so. But one would not expect him to speak long and loudly on the problems of our bankrupt farmers. One would expect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture to convey to the House why, as a result of his Minister's activities, the people are leaving the land in thousands, why the acreage under wheat has dropped, why livestock numbers have dropped and why the acreage under beet has dropped considerably.
(Interruptions.)
Order.
If the farmers are paid a proper price for beet, they will grow beet. If they are paid a proper price for wheat, they will grow wheat. I ask that the farmers be given a fair margin of profit on everything they produce and that some institution be set up from which those requiring financial capital and credit can get it in whatever amounts they require.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Flanagan might be allowed to make his speech without all these interruptions.
(Interruptions.)
May I say I am glad I am not a farmer because, if I were, I should most certainly be, like every other farmer, on the verge of bankruptcy today.
(Interruptions.)
It is all very fine to say farmers are prosperous. Deputy Allen must admit that, as well as being a farmer, he is a very successful auctioneer and, as well as being a very successful auctioneer, he is a member of this House. If he were dependent on his farm and if he were not a successful auctioneer, he would be much poorer today than he is. I hope he is a wealthy man. If he is, he can thank his auctioneering profession. I venture to say that with his profits as an auctioneer and with his profits as a member of this House—he must have great profit as a member of this House——
We seem to be discussing Deputy Allen now and not agriculture.
I am suggesting that Deputy Allen subsidises his farming out of his auctioneering and out of his profession as a politician.
(Interruptions.)
No farmer finds farming profitable today. Deputy Allen asked me how many acres of beet and wheat I have sown. Why does he not ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture how many acres of wheat and beet he has sown? I am working with the farming community every day of the week. I sell their land. I set their land. But, despite selling the land, I am keeping many people at home on the land.
And you will charge them your percentage, will you not?
I should like to know why Deputy Allen would not ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries what his experience has been of wheat and beet production.
You are such a connoisseur, I thought you knew a lot about everything.
I am sure Deputy Allen has so much to say about wheat growers and barley growers and all the growers of Wexford that he will make a speech.
I shall.
I assure the Deputy that my ears will be most attentive to his speech.
Thank you very much.
(Interruptions.)
I have nothing more to say beyond expressing my keen disappointment at the failure of the Fianna Fáil Party to bring agriculture up to the level at which it should be. I know very well that they must feel ashamed of their conduct in relation to agriculture. I want to express my protest in the very strongest possible manner——
A bob a gallon.
——in regard to the treatment meted out to our farmers by this Government. Our farmers deserve better. They are skilful, industrious and conscientious. The Irish farmer must be the best farmer in the world; otherwise, he would have gone out of business years ago. No farmers in any other part of the world have suffered more, economically and financially, than our Irish farmers and it is all due to bad handling and mismanagement of their affairs by Fianna Fáil Ministers for Agriculture. I shall not recite the instances which leap to all our minds as we should be here for a long time.
Our farmers are in a state of bankruptcy. Instead of assisting them, this Government seem to be driving them deeper into it. This motion calls for immediate action. I trust the Minister will take the necessary steps to remedy a very bad situation. There seems to be little hope of improvement and prospects are not too bright for the future. The spring was bad and there was a serious reduction in the amount of sowing. I fear that the worst times have not as yet come for the Irish farmers. The next harvest may indeed be disastrous.
I am glad the Deputy concedes that the weather has had something to do with it.
Everybody realises that the Minister is not responsible for the weather but he is responsible for bad farm prices and for allowing agriculture to get into a state of neglect. He is responsible for depriving our farmers of a decent standard of living. He has failed miserably in his job and he has hoist the white flag of surrender. Agriculture is now in such a sad state of neglect that people are leaving the land and the farming profession in their tens of thousands. The sooner that state of affairs is corrected the better for the country. I am satisfied that Fianna Fáil have not taken any practical steps to remedy that situation and my recommendation to the Irish people is to put them out and keep them out and then there might be some prospects for Irish agriculture.
Deputy Flanagan has told us a tale of woe about the Irish farmers and mentioned a few matters which rather surprised me. He mentioned the high price of artificial manure. In 1948, super artificial manure cost £12 10s. while we can buy it now for about £7.
Where did you get the money? Was it not by raiding Section B of the land Project?
Some of your colleagues in my county got £450 an acre for taking rocks out of a field.
In 1948, there was as much ground limestone in this country as would fill a clay pipe.
The interruptions must cease and Deputy Crinion must be allowed to make his speech.
Deputy Flanagan spoke about the 1948 Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement and said that the new Agreement has, as yet, put nothing into the farmers' pockets. How could it? It will not come into operation until 1st July next. He should have waited until next year to talk about what it is putting into our farmers' pockets. The English farmer can now go back in two months instead of three months to buy his store cattle and that is bound to have a beneficial effect on our Irish store cattle trade, plus the fact that the English prices are going up at the same time. The Government have helped out the beef and lamb trade by guaranteeing that they will back up at the same price whatever is exported to Britain over and above the quota. Any development in the cattle trade takes a while to show effect; any changes in farming patterns take years to manifest themselves. I am surprised that a responsible Deputy on the Opposition benches should talk about the failure of this new Agreement before it has even had a chance to come into operation.
I have already mentioned artificial manure. We must remember that at present it is heavily subsidised and that our farmers have taken advantage of that fact. We have seen an increase in every succeeding year in the use of artificial manure since 1959. We see an increase every year, and in going around the countryside, one can notice that the fields are greener earlier in the spring and summer than they used to be 30 years ago. There is also more realisation of the need for balanced fertiliser and of the need for the use of potash and hydrogen manures. Our manufacturers have gone to the trouble of preparing balanced fertiliser for corn crops. Years ago there was not a sufficient variety of artificial manures to cover what was needed in the different parts of the country but now there is a greater range suitable for all crops and grassland.
We have in this country one of the most varied farm systems in the world. The pattern of farming changes from one parish to another and this is the difference between us and other countries in Europe. People here quote what is done in other countries in Europe but they do not realise the variety of farming there is in this country. The reason for this variety is the differences in our soils and climate. We have a great variety of soils ranging from Donegal to Wexford and from Kerry to Monaghan and in none of these counties is there the same type of soil. The system of farming has to change with the soil pattern and the farmer realises that he has to adapt his type of farming to the type of soil in his farm.
For that reason I suggest that our agricultural instructors should lay more emphasis on farm management. There is a section of the Department of Agriculture dealing with that subject and more use should be made of it. It is easy to advise a farmer to grow one particular crop but the overall system of production is the important one as it is the one which brings in the cash return at the end of the year. It is a delicate problem because you are dealing with the individual as well as with the size of the farm. Over the years our farms have not been divided in any uniform pattern and that is one of the differences between farming in this country and in Europe. In the days of the old landlords, there was nothing uniform in the division of the land and that is one of our disadvantages at present.
Since farm accounting courses are now being taken by agricultural instructors, they will be able to lay more emphasis on farm management and the Minister would be well advised to push that particular end of farming in his Department and to get his instructors to study the different systems and the different returns on the different sized farms. In this way they should be able to give more comprehensive advice to farmers generally. In my constituency the pattern of farming has been changing. Farmers with a very small acreage and those with up to 90 and 100 acres are inclined to turn to milk production. That is what is best suited to their farms. It gives a higher yield per acre and the dairy farm can be operated by the family unit.
I welcome the fact that those with the bigger farms are going in more for beef and sheep but here there is a danger that there may be too much emphasis on sheep. There is not enough knowledge in the Department as to what the ratio should be between beef and sheep on any particular farm and in most cases capital is inclined to be the guiding factor. A farmer with limited capital is more inclined to go in for sheep because his capital requirements are less and the return greater.
That is where farm management comes in and the agricultural instructors should be able to give a definite line as to how many sheep and how many cattle the farmer should go for. The smaller man will not go in for sheep because he has a limited supply of grass and the cows look for the best of the grass and must get it if they are to give the maximum return. If we are to get the best possible return from the heifer subsidy scheme, and I understand that 390,000 extra calves have been produced under it, we must lean towards the people who will export them to Britain. Britain will be taking our cattle in greater numbers in the years ahead as a result of the Free Trade Agreement recently concluded. Therefore, we will need greater numbers of cattle and we will need to keep them at least a month longer which will be reflected in the numbers of cattle being held on our farms. Therefore, the emphasis will be on more fertiliser to enrich the grass so that the farmer can support the extra numbers. Most of those heifers will be kept in production. There will be some falling off each year naturally.
The Minister's speech has shown that it has not been all big people who got the heifer subsidy when one takes the overall average of applicants. The overall average is three per application. That is a very small number. We are told of the person who gets 100, that it would cover a whole county, but there are many people getting one or two and that would pull down the average. It takes only 30 farmers getting one to pull the 100 down to three. Smaller people have been taking advantage of this scheme. The Opposition are inclined to claim that it was the ranchers who got the benefit of it but I think the small farmers have gained more by it because the man who has increased his herd by three will send most of his milk to the creameries or dairies and will get a higher return. It is a bad cow that would bring in only £40 or £50 a year. That higher return will be evident as the years go on.
There is a good deal of unrest, particularly among dairy farmers, in connection with the present price of milk but I am sure the Minister has taken the matter to heart and that he will make some announcement shortly aimed at helping the dairy farmers.
He will: very shortly.
The Minister has realised that the gap between industry and agriculture has become very wide since last March, particularly on account of wage increases, and, naturally, farmers must be brought up with other sections of the community. In the case of farming, it is not always the price that counts; increased production is needed to make the most of any increased prices given. The Department have been basing their subsidies on increased production and they must cover a very wide field in giving those subsidies. The Minister's Estimate has gone very much higher this year than ever before in an effort to help agriculture to compete on markets abroad. Most of our produce must be exported and whatever money is given here must come from the Exchequer and, particularly in the case of the dairy end of the industry, the Minister must be very careful that the subsidy given does not affect our markets abroad. We had that trouble a few years ago. To the creameries alone we are giving £12 million in subsidy. I know other countries are doing it indirectly so that they will be able to sell in British and other markets. Fortunately, butter consumption here is far ahead of any other country per head of the population. It is £10 per head higher here than anywhere else.
Except New Zealand.
I grant that. I was referring to countries nearer to us. Our figure is particularly high and as our milk production increases, it will naturally have to be exported wherever we can find the market.
The work of An Bord Bainne has shown good results. One factor that helped was that they chose a particular brand of butter and called it Kerrygold. While we were sending our butter out in 56 lb. firkins, we were neglecting the market abroad; it was not well presented. Going under a particular trade name, it has a chance of getting into the English market and becoming known. I understand it is being directed to certain areas and that is the only way we can get back the trade we had 50 years ago when we did a good trade with England in butter. Unfortunately, when the winter came, our exports stopped and we lost the market there and a different type of butter got in. The English palates became accustomed to the type of butter made in New Zealand and Denmark. The difference is that one is made from sour cream and the other from sweet cream.
Our only hope of getting back our trade is to base our efforts on areas particularly where there is a fairly big Irish population. Kerrygold is a name easily associated with Ireland and easily remembered but it is a slow process to build up a market. When you can build it up, the price will improve also. That will be a headache for An Bord Bainne as the years go by because milk production is increasing substantially each year. We welcome this although it is costly because it will mean extra beef cattle for export. We are practically the only beef exporting country in western Europe and with rising standards in Europe and in Britain, there will be a real demand for our cattle and beef exports there.
Last year there was a gratifying increase in exports of dead meat to America. There is a seven year cycle during which prices rise from the lowest to the peak. At present, the level is at the highest. We are also exporting dead meat to the American Forces in Germany. This trade creates a good deal of employment. There are at least three meat factories in my constituency of Kildare which have been doing their share in selling their products abroad. They are exporting all over the world.
The health of the cow is a very important factor in milk production. The Department are spending a fair amount of money in the control of mastitis but it would be desirable if more money could be diverted to this purpose. If mastitis could be eliminated, it would represent a saving of £6 million in any year. Even in the best herds, under the best possible management,, the incidence of mastitis is high. It is bound to be even higher in other circumstances. The elimination of mastitis would be a great boon to farmers. There are laboratories and a special unit of the Department dealing with the problem. The control of disease depends on the amount of money devoted to it. The quicker a disease is eliminated, the greater the saving will be in the long run.
It was very appropriate that this year should be declared an animal health year. We had a wet winter and a late spring, which affected the fodder position. Such conditions always show up weaknesses and various diseases occurred which could not be ascribed to malnutrition. People now realise the importance of conserving a sufficient quantity of winter feed. The grass came late this year and there was difficulty in eking out the quantity of winter feeding available. The question of winter feeding is an important aspect of this animal health year.
A pedigree breeder told me after his bull had won some award at the RDS Show that he maintained that 95 per cent of any prizewinner was feeding and five per cent was breeding. That may be a slight exaggeration but it does illustrate the importance of feeding. The months of June and July are the months in which animal feed for the coming year is conserved.
Great importance attaches to farm buildings. The grants for this purpose have been readily availed of. There has been a very significant increase in the number of byres and silos erected.
Cattle must be taken in during the winter period, particularly if the weather is bad. If the cattle are taken in, grass will be available in the early spring. To have grass growing the whole year round would be the farmer's ideal. That is not possible but it should be feasible to narrow the gap to, say, three months so that there would be some grass growing up to December and most of the cattle could be put out in the month of March. Grass is the cheapest and best animal feed. Grass production does not entail any labour. The emphasis should be on housing animals for the winter period. Naturally, that would involve some tillage. It is a pity that the acreage under tillage has been falling. I am afraid that the extra 10/- a barrel for wheat will not achieve the desired result this year.
The beet acreage unfortunately will be down this year. I do not know whether it would be worth while considering the subsidising of beet prices in 1967. It would be a thought worth considering because it is one product the price of which up to the present has been based on the cost of production. This system has been working satisfactorily and one sees exactly what it costs to produce an acre of beet.
There is another aspect of farming on which the Department could place more emphasis because it is going to come into prominence in the years ahead, particularly for the small farmers and cottiers, that is horticulture. This year inquiries were made in regard to the supply of strawberries for the American market but we were not able to meet the demand. A few firms have contracted to supply them but the amount they will supply will not be near the American market's requirements. It is a crop that can be easily handled and a crop which provides the cottier with an increase in his income. It does provide quite a high return and the labour difficulty is not now so great in view of the modern sprays which guarantee the control of weeds. Labour is needed, of course, during the picking season but it is only short.
The flowering season covers about three weeks so that even if there is frost on several nights, it will only harm the blossoms then on the plants. Strawberries can be harvested during June and July so that there is a fair chance of getting reasonable weather during the picking season. I agree that it is a specialised crop but there is an opening for it and a ready market abroad. It would mean an extra £2 a week to a cottier to engage in this crop and that is putting it at a low estimate. The same applies on the small farms and possibly on the small holdings in the West, where there is a big future for horticulture. I have just dealt with one particular crop and possibly the same would apply to vegetables, and other soft fruits such as raspberries. These can be carted for long distances by reason of the fact that the price——
If they could be sold, it would be all right.
They could. There is a ready market for strawberries in America.
Oh, Lord!
The Deputy should have a fair idea——
I have; that is why I am commenting.
There are some growers fairly near the Deputy.
If you give them away for nothing, there is a plentiful market.
Some were exported to America last year from there. There is also a market abroad for other horticultural produce. The return per acre is very high and as I said, the advent of the new sprays has overcome the old worry of weeds. That was the worry in the midlands. With Dublin expanding there is a market from the country's point of view, we should like to see exports increasing to England and America. In regard to a crop like celery, for instance, most of the celery for the New York market comes from California. It has to be transported 3,000 miles and if we were exporting it, we would be as near to the New York market as California is.
I hope that this year, when the Agricultural Credit Corporation is getting a little more, the results of apportioning this money will be felt to a greater extent. Last year their allocation was used up inside a very short period, in the first three months, before a halt was called. This year the money if it is spread over the whole year, will have a different effect and will be spent on productive purposes. Before when it was given out ad lib, it did not have the desired effect because most of it was used to clear off bank debts. The banks will also be providing money for productive purposes.
The farming community had been slow to avail of credit over the years but now a change has taken place and they realise its value. Instructors in the Department have been largely responsible for that change. Where an instructor has got a person interested in this matter, he should keep following it up. There is a danger that instructors are inclined to wait until they are asked for advice and I feel that where they have outlined a plan for credit to a farmer, they should make frequent calls on that farmer, just dropping in to see how he is going on, and to offer advice. In most cases when an inspector calls, he will see something on which to offer advice. It is bad for the instructor and for the Department if advice on credit is not followed through. As I said, it can be followed through by the instructor calling on the man when he is passing and having a chat with the farmer about how things are going. With their trained eye, they should be able to see the danger signs and correct matters in the initial stages. I am glad to see the Minister's Estimate this year is for a higher amount. In the advice given farmers emphasis should be laid on farm management. It is the managerial end of farming that will bring real return to the farmers' pockets.
In the debate on agriculture every year, we have three or four different types of speakers. We have the group who call themselves practical farmers and who are prepared to give advice on how their farms are being run. We have the experts who have no farms or who have been wise enough to set their farms to other people while they come into this House. Then we have people like myself who are supposed to know very little about farming but who without 3,000 or 4,000 votes of farmers would never see this House. Naturally, from time to time they come to me with their difficulties and tell me what they think should be done. Having listened to them, I propose to tell the House what I believe are the solutions. However, I do not claim to be an expert: I am not a farmer.
I am sure the Minister was happy to hear that somebody was gladdened by his Estimate. Deputy Crinion, who has just left, said he was very glad at some of the things contained in the Minister's speech. I am afraid I cannot share his gladness. What surprised me was the fact that he, who also was a practical farmer before he came into this House, should contradict himself on so many things in his short speech of 40 minutes. He talked about the way artificial manures brought on feed so much faster, how green the grass was— obviously more than the grass is green —and all the rest of it. But a few minutes after that he went on to say there was a great shortage of feed early this year. We all know that. The farmers know it. The artificial manure he had such faith in a few minutes earlier did not seem to have the effect he then said it had. Not alone was grass scarce but fodder was scarce. Particularly in the northern part of the country, we had the spectacle of stock almost dying because of lack of fodder while it was being sold at 10/- a bale across the Border. I do not know whether the Minister could have done anything about that. At least some attempt should have been made to keep that fodder in the State and to ensure that the situation would not have become as bad as it did. However, that is by the way.
Another Deputy referred earlier to the fact that the workers through their trade unions had been able to get a fair deal, or maybe a little more, and when the farmers saw that, they decided that they also were entitled to a fair deal. That is right. But might I put this suggestion to the farmers as a trade union official? One of the things we learned the hard way was the slogan that in unity lies strength. If we had two or three unions battling against each other, the employer just sat back and laughed because as long as we fought between ourselves, we had no time to fight with him. I would pass that tip on, for what it is worth, to the NFA and the milk producers' association. Possibly the Minister for Agriculture would be easier to deal with if they were expending their energies trying to get the best bargain from him rather than fighting among themselves. They may consider this impertinent of me but I consider I am entitled to make that comment.
I also want to make another comment. We in the trade union movement found that a picket used properly was a very good idea in that it prevented "scabs" from going to work. If there is a picket outside a job, then the fellow who would like to sneak in and do the work while someone else is on strike would not go in. Apart from that, it had very little use. Most of us resent the use of pickets on the private houses of employers or anything like that. A picket even on this House is a complete waste of time. One day it may be news but the next day it is not such news.
In my book anyway, a picket is used simply and solely outside the place of employment to show those who would be interested in going in that there is a dispute on with the employer. Using that picket somewhere else does not have the same effect and, in my opinion, only weakens the case of the user of the picket. Therefore, I think the farmers did not do themselves or anybody else any good by picketing this House. If they had the 40,000 or 50,000 members they claim to have—and I am sure they have—and had lined them up in Kildare Street, they would have been far more effective there on one day and a lot more good would have been done than on the remainder of the days they were here, attending court and so on.
I believe the farmers are entitled to a fair deal. They are not getting that because they have not been given a lead. The Government—and by that I mean not alone this Government but a succession of Governments—have failed to realise that agriculture is the primary industry of the country and must be treated in a special way. I do not mean by that that endless money should be made available by way of subsidy in such a way that, while nominally it is going to agriculture, in fact it is being used by those who already have a lot of money and can avail of all the subsidies not available to the really small man who needs them and would make very good use of them.
It amuses me to hear the Minister, the Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy Crinion talking about the availability of credit for farmers, particularly small farmers. I do not know whether they are aware of this. They should be. I am aware of it because I am very often made aware of it. There is no credit available to the small farmers of this country. The fact that the Agricultural Credit Corporation has been left £2 million short this year of what they had last year by way of Government assistance and the fact that they had to apply to business concerns in this country for a short amount at a fairly high rate of interest to lend to farmers has proved to anybody that even the Agricultural Credit Corporation is not in a position to lend money to people who need it.
Certain people have got money from the Credit Corporation. The Minister made a comment that Deputies should expend more of their energies introducing farmers to the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I do not think I am such a bad hand at putting a case. In certain circles I have been reasonably successful. I have taken dozens of people to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and I do not know of one case in which they were in a position to lend money. Would that be extra-ordinary? Does it apply only to me? Does that apply to other Deputies? The people I introduced were not the "hard luck stories" who wanted to clear their bank overdrafts. I do not see anything wrong for a man with an overdraft trying to borrow the money somewhere else to clear his outstanding debts and make a fresh start. It may not be the ideal way but there is something to be said for it. We know the Agricultural Credit Corporation are not able to lend money mainly because they have not got it.
That is not so.
The Minister can have his own opinion of that. I am just stating mine.
It is a question of fact, not a question of opinion.
As far as I am concerned, what I am stating is a fact and I propose to prove it is so to the Minister. When the Agricultural Credit Corporation had the money, did they lend it to farmers just to buy agricultural implements, extend their farms, restock them, remanure them and so on? I am sure the Minister is aware of this. The Agricultural Credit Corporation at that time was lending money for the purchase of motor cars, lorries, agricultural tractors, all types of machinery, which were not proper to them at all, a field into which they had no right whatever to go at any time. At the present time they are cutting that out and are making an effort to make money available to certain farmers. I am glad to say I was able to recommend to the organisation of which I am secretary that they should invest money in the Agricultural Credit Corporation, and I propose to do so again on every occasion I can.
Good man.
I would recommend anybody who has money to do this for the good of the country. The Agricultural Credit Corporation are not able to carry out the functions of a credit corporation simply because they are so short of cash. There is no use in the Minister for Agriculture or any other Minister saying this money is available, that all anybody has to do is to ask for it, because if even a fraction of the farmers who need credit and who could not get it when the banks were open, not to talk of getting it now when they are closed, went to the Agricultural Credit Corporation, they would be swamped in one week.
Great play has been made here with the calved heifer subsidy, and a great deal of cod has been talked about it. The calved heifer subsidy was a gimmick, and it was a gimmick which badly misfired because even the estimate of the first Minister, Deputy Smith, of £235,000, which turned into a deficit of £3,280,000 in the first year, showed it was a gimmick that did not come off. However, what nobody seemed to realise at Government level was that you could only do this once. Deputy Crinion has been talking here about the great advantages of the calved heifer subsidy to the small farmers. We were telling all the small farmers the average was three. Does anybody imagine they could increase by three the year before last, by three last year and by three this year, because that is the only way it would be of any use to them? They had collected on the first three and that was the end of it as far as they were concerned. Part of the trouble in which the Minister is now over milk prices stems from the fact that the people who increased their herd last year found that, having got the calved heifer subsidy of £15 and having disposed of the calf, they could not sell their milk except at surplus prices. They then had to try to sell the heifer and found they lost more by what they got for the calf and the subsidy together. That is another thing that has brought the wrath of the farmers on the Minister's head. I am not saying all of it should go on his head, because he did not introduce it, but he is the person who is carrying the calf at the present time.
This year there has been the same amount calculated for subsidy as last year. The Minister must have been aware that there was not a hope of that being taken up. I should not be a bit surprised if the Minister decided that since it would not be taken up, he would cancel it and use this £3 million to help milk prices.
That I shall not do.
What will the Minister do with the £3 million?
It will be taken up by the farmers.
Not under the calved heifer scheme.
It is only £2,500,000.
Betting is not allowed here; otherwise, I would chance a bet with the Minister.
I was interested to hear the wonderful ideas Deputy Crinion has about fruit. Over the past few years, I have been attempting to help people who were not able to get economic prices for their fruit, mainly soft fruit. We found last year that fruit was being imported across the Border and from England. Nobody knew whether it was grown there or was imported from the Continent and then dumped here at prices which were considered here to be uneconomic. I wonder if after 1st July we are to have an open market for fruit, because if we are, Deputy Crinion's rosy dreams for the fruit growers will disappear overnight. We shall wait and see.
Every effort should be made—and I have said this over the years—to have fruit and vegetables processed properly here. That does not seem to have been the policy of this Government, because every year we find people with their stocks of fruit left on their hands, and nobody, certainly nobody at Government level, is terribly anxious to do anything about getting prices for them. I shall say this for the Minister, that when I asked him last year to make arrangements for a deputation to be received by his senior officials, he did so, and he succeeded in getting a reasonable solution to the problem but only at the last minute. This year the problem is worse, because, as in the case of every other line of agriculture, the weather has affected the fruit crop, particularly raspberries where there is nothing left but the canes. I do not know whether the shortage of raspberries will have the effect of pushing up fruit prices. I do not think it will if we are to have imports of fruit, but if this happens, fruit growers will be worse off than they have been over the past few years.
The acreage of tillage has been dropping year after year. Deputy Flanagan referred to beet and wheat. The question of whether or not we should grow wheat on a big scale is one that has been under discussion here over the years. The question of whether foreign wheat can be bought very much cheaper and produces a better bread is one which has been discussed up and down the country. The question of beet is different because we did seem to be doing very well with beet for a number of years. Now it seems to be dropping off again. Only a few years ago, there was a big row in this House because some Deputies claimed their constituents were not able to get a beet quota. The wheel has turned full circle and nobody seems to want to grow beet.
These are serious matters on which the Department should set a headline. The big difficulty is that from year to year farmers do not know what they are going to get for the crops they are producing. The result is if there is a shortage in a crop one year and the price goes up, the following year everybody rushes into that crop, and every second year, there is a glut and a shortage with consequent fluctuations in price, which is not good for the farmers or for the country. The Minister might very well try to do something about this. The Government must realise that as far as industry is concerned, the best chance of survival is for industry based on agriculture. There is not sufficient interest being taken in that at the moment. As a proof that the Government are not taking agriculture seriously, we have the example that the NIEC does not contain any representation from the agricultural community. That is unpardonable. There is no reason why agriculture should not be represented.
It is not the Government's fault.
It is, because the Taoiseach, sitting where the Minister is sitting now, told me several months ago that the matter was under consideration——
It is the Taoiseach's fault.
But no representative of agriculture has been invited on the NIEC.
Whose responsibility would it be?
It is the Taoiseach's fault.
We would welcome participation by farmers in any scheme.
Does the Minister now say he has invited the farming community to have representation on the NIEC?
There are problems which are not of our making.
I referred a few minutes ago to the employer who liked to have the two unions fighting with each other.
The answer is no.
The answer is no, a very definite no.
The Taoiseach issued the invitation.
The answer is that we would welcome participation by the farmers in the NIEC.
Is the Minister now inviting the farming community to offer representation on the NIEC?
Yes.
Right. They were not asked. I am aware that the trade union representatives to agriculture were not asked either. We have got that on record anyway. I believe we cannot have any advance in agriculture until we take the NIEC seriously. It is stupid and nonsensical for anyone to come in here with a report on the economy of the country and leave out of that report completely the primary industry. I hope the Minister's answer now will solve that problem.
I think it will.
There is still a division in the ranks.
The division in the ranks is not being used.
This division has not been so long in existence. The NIEC is in existence longer than the split.
It is not. Do not be foolish.
There is nothing foolish about it.
It is a complete misrepresentation of the position.
I want to make it quite clear that, if the Minister is serious in stating that the agricultural industry is welcome to send representatives on the NIEC. I am quite sure the matter can be settled within one week and I propose to deal with it myself.
Good man.
I can assure the Minister, too, that it will not be dealt with in the way in which it appears to have been dealt with, with one side being played off against the other.
One of the other matters in which I am rather interested is the new Industrial Training Bill. I understand Deputy Flanagan, the Parliamentary Secretary, is not well and I hope he will have a speedy recovery, but he waxed eloquent on all the Bill would do. Again, agriculture is out of the picture completely. Agriculture will not be represented and, in this context, agriculture represents not alone farming but forestry and turf production as well. Again, we find a kind of slant against the agricultural community. They are being kept out of something on which they are entitled to representation. The biggest trouble appears to be that, because there are so many people leaving agriculture, the board set up to deal with retraining of workers would have their biggest headache in trying to do something about agricultural workers and the Government took the easy way out by leaving agriculture out altogether. There can be no trouble if agriculture is omitted. I am aware that the Minister has the most difficult job of any Minister of State. I quite appreciate what most of his difficulties are. But I honestly believe there will have to be a different approach. One cannot go on sweeping the difficulties under the mat because, bit by bit, they will emerge. This is the place in which to bring them out.
One of the matters of greatest importance in talking about the numbers leaving agriculture is the small income. I do not think the NFA are doing themselves or the agricultural community in general any good when they try to relate the income of the small western farmer and his ability to pay wages to the situation in which farmers are in fact employing labour. I do not know why they use this. I do not know why they have continuously confused the issue by talking about the ability of the small western farmer to pay wages. My experience is that very many of them have to look for a day's work themselves to subsidise their farming and it is stupid in the extreme to use that as an argument against the payment of higher wages generally by the farming community.
The bigger farmers are doing very well, in my opinion. Despite what Deputy Crinion says, I believe that quite a number have collected handsomely on the heifer subsidy scheme. Indeed, Deputy Crinion proved the case for me when he pointed out that, if you got 15 farmers who had one heifer each and add the 15 on to the one or two with a great number, it is very easy to bring the average down to three. The big farmer who is able to collect every subsidy going and take advantage of every grant who can, if necessary, pick up a loan whenever he wants it, is the man who is making money. But he is not the man in whom the Minister should be interested, not the man whom the Minister should be helping. He is well able to help himself.
The income of the small farmer is small. In Meath, we have some of the best land in the country, and some of the best farmers. Some of them have found it extremely hard to make ends meet over the past few years. It is true that a great number are going into milk. It is rather unfortunate that milk seems to be the one thing that it is easiest to get into because the only way we can sell it is by using a very heavy subsidy. It puzzles me why some effort was not made by the Government under the recent Trade Agreement to try to avail of the British subsidy for butter and milk products.
There is none.
We are selling our butter in Britain and we are subsidising the British to eat it. Is the Minister telling me that British butter produced in Britain is able to sell at the same price as our butter without any assistance from the State?
There is no subsidy system for dairy products in Britain, none.
Now, the Minister will not slip one across.
That is a simple statement of fact.
They produce liquid milk.
They do not support liquid milk.
I do not want to enter into an argument with the Minister.
There is no argument about this. There is no subsidy for dairy products in Britain.
The answer is that they do not produce butter.
Deputy Tully suggests we should participate in the British subsidy scheme. I am telling him there is no such scheme.
The Minister is as slippery as ever.
We have been subsidising butter to the tune of 1/6 and 1/7 a lb.
I agree.
The Minister and the other people with him came back here and made a great song and dance telling us about the beef subsidy and the mutton subsidy, neither of which, in my opinion, will apply to this country at all; but no effort was made to try to get for us a price for our butter which would mean that we would not have to continue subsidising it. I do not want to put the Minister in a bad humour.
All I want is that the discussion should take place on the basis of facts. There is a subsidy scheme for beef and mutton. We are participating in that. There is none for dairy produce and we could not participate in something that does not exist.
The only dairy produce they have is liquid milk.
I know the Minister's tactic. If what was got under that Agreement was something which would mean we could sell our butter at an economic price, then we would have something to shout about. It is like the 639,000 head——
Our difficulty was not to be able to sell our butter at an economic price; it was to be able to get a quota to sell our butter at all.
The Minister did not do so well on that.
We did. We got what we looked for.
We sold the same amount last year.
We did not.
Do not try to cod us. Even though it was surplus to the quota, we sold the same amount of butter in Britain. In fact, the Minister got a guarantee that he could sell this year, without any question, on a surplus what was in fact sold within a very small amount the previous year. The Minister came back with the story that he had a guarantee that Britain would take the 639,000 head of store cattle and that was the main basis on which the Agreement was supposed to have been made.
No.
When it was examined, it was found that there was no such guarantee at all. What happened was that you had guaranteed that this country would, if Britain needed them, supply 639,000 stores and they have proved how good that is because they have been reselling them on the Continent. They have been taking them from here at the price which suits them and selling them on the Continent. As the Minister knows, there have already been protests about this from Denmark.
Farm workers seem to be referred to here as people who need to be treated in some special way. They are being treated in a special way: they have the lowest wages, the longest hours and the least number of holidays of any group of workers in this country. The Agricultural Wages Board who, in their own way, perhaps, do their best to try to improve matters, did in fact offer an increase this year. Everybody else got £1 a week, with effect as from as early as they could this year, but the farm workers got 13/-from 1st June and will get 21/- from 1st October next. That is a significant date because 1st October is the period when most farmers will be letting go the extra men they employed. That saves the farmers and, bear in mind, that the people who employ labour in this country on farms are not the small western farmers but people who are doing quite well out of agriculture. They will not be asked to pay the extra 7/- until next year because they will have let as many farm workers go as they can. But, even at that, between 12,000 and 14,000 farm workers per year are leaving agriculture.
The situation is fast coming when farmers will find it extremely difficult to get men at any price. It is said that farm workers are working longer hours. In the summer, they work 50 hours per week. We have strikes in this city, and rightly so, in order to enforce 40 hours per week but, as I say, the farm worker works 50 hours a week in the summer. We have workers looking for an extra week's holidays on top of the three weeks holidays they already have. Most farm workers have two weeks annual holidays and two bank or Church holidays, Christmas Day and Saint Patrick's Day. For the rest of the year, if they do not work, they do not get paid. Those who were in receipt of payment for Church holidays before the last Agricultural Workers (Holidays) Act became law are entitled to be paid for holidays, but, for some extraordinary reason which can only be explained away as trying to make second-class citizens of agricultural workers, a special Act was passed in this House to deal with them. All workers were dealt with under one Act except agricultural workers who were dealt with on their own in order that they would be given less than anybody else. Is it any wonder that those people will not stay in agriculture if they can possibly get out of it? Some arrangement will have to be made by which these people will be treated more as human beings than they are at the present time.
Some time ago, one heard that anyone at all could work for a farmer but the fellow working with a farmer today has to know his stuff. Apart from the rotation of crops and so on, he has to be a mechanic. He must drive agricultural machinery and be able to carry out running repairs on it—and, for that, he gets the lowest wage of anybody in the country. It is time something were done about all this. The Minister for Agriculture is about the only person at present who can stop this situation.
Mention was made of repairs to farm houses, the building of farm houses, and all the rest of it. It is quite true that some farmers have been able to get loans from the Land Commission which have helped very much in this connection. It is also quite true that those who have not applied for loans or grants until very recently now find that the money is not available. Neither the Department of Agriculture nor anybody else is able to put up the money to have this work carried out. In fact, something has been happening which should not occur. Take a man who applies for a water grant to the Department of Agriculture and to the Department of Local Government. In most cases, he can be held up for as long as three years. The two Departments come together and decide whether or not he is entitled to that grant.
As recently as a fortnight ago, I had occasion to make representations to the Minister's Department on behalf of a farmer who finished his job in December, 1964, and had been trying, since then, to get the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Local Government to decide whether or not he was entitled to a grant. When I took up the matter, I found that the Department of Agriculture were responsible. They had not done what they were asked to do. They had not cleared the file with the Department of Local Government and when they did so, a few weeks after, the grant was paid. I did not bother the Minister about it because I do not believe in bothering him about every complaint: he has enough to do. However, this sort of thing should not be allowed to happen. If there is joint application to the two Departments, then the Department of Agriculture should see to it that their share is cleared as quickly as possible because the Department of Local Government cannot pay until that end is cleared up.
Last year, sheep dipping was started far too late. I am hoping that this year arrangements will be made to have it started and finished in time. Inspectors have been appointed to see to it that sheep dipping is being carried out properly. It is rather a pity that the onus of payment has to be passed on to the rates.
It is rather a pity that there does not seem to be uniformity in the areas as regards the number of sheep for which each inspector is responsible. In one country an inspector was found to be responsible for 30,000 sheep while, elsewhere, for the same wages, an inspector was responsible for the dipping of 9,000 sheep. I am not happy that the work is being carried out as it should be. I think it is rather inclined to develop as was the case some years ago when secretaries of Fianna Fáil Cumainn were appointed warble fly inspectors and when somebody said the work was done it was certified. Most of the people who have now been appointed are doing their job properly but they are not being paid properly for it. That tendency is there. An arrangement could be made to pay the people properly and, having done that, to insist that the inspection be properly carried out because these two factors are essential if sheep scab is to be eradicated.
Deputy Crinion said that farm management is the really important factor in agriculture and I should be inclined to agree with him. Nobody seems to appreciate that the farmer himself never seems to put a value on the work he and the members of his family carry out. If that were done, I believe farm costings would be very much higher than they are at present. The only time you will get a really proper assessment of farm incomes is when some old farmer applies for the old age pension. He will then tell you what he thinks his son, or whoever else is working on the farm, is worth. I suppose that is the situation with most small farmers. They do not seem to put any proper value on the amount of work done or the amount of time spent in doing that work by their family. If farm management is to be taken seriously, then this is one aspect of it which should be stressed by those who are responsible for doing so.
I want to take up with the Minister the question of State farm employees. He may tell me there is a differential paid over the minimum rate paid in the case of other farmers in the area. I would suggest that any other people who employ farm workers, other than farmers or small farmers, should make some attempt to pay a decent wage, should make some attempt to introduce a sick pay scheme and that there should be a service pay scheme introduced for men who, over the years, built up various skills and knowledge. A pension scheme should be introduced and the Minister could do that. It would not cost an awful lot of money and the Minister should do it for his own employees when he has the power to do it.
I have heard statements made about so much employment being given in the milk industry and in the creameries and I would like to point out that here we have a situation that the wages paid in creameries are far too low. There is no reason why the joint creamery committees should stipulate a wage for their workers which is lower than that paid to any other type of worker. It makes these people wonder if they are being recognised as workers at all and I think the sooner this matter is remedied, the better for all concerned.
The Meath County Committee of Agriculture this year asked the Department of Agriculture to subsidise the purchase of 50 Merry Tillers on a £ for £ basis. The Department could not find the money to do this but they did agree that if the committee wished to do it and carry the whole cost themselves, they would not object to it. In view of the large amounts being expended in subsidies on certain aspects of agriculture, it is extraordinary that the small amount necessary for this purpose could not be provided. It looks as if there is not much future for the small farmer. Of course the Taoiseach has already stated that there is little place in the European Economic Community for the small farmer and that the tendency is in the Community to bring these small farmers together. I do not think such a policy will ever catch on in this country and I believe that the small farmer, and in particular, the small farmer with a family, will live longer than this Government and longer than the people in this House.
They will not have long to survive if they do not survive any longer than those boys over there.
The aspects of agriculture that should be subsidised in this country are those that are directed towards giving more employment. Industries based on agriculture should be encouraged and if we do that, they have a better chance of survival. I have always been interested to know what is the return from the employment subsidies of £17 per man paid to those who employ agricultural workers. Does the Minister think that this subsidy encourages farmers to retain their employees? What is the rate of this subsidy? In my opinion, it is time that it was put at a realistic figure which will encourage employment or, alternatively, it should be abandoned. It does not seem to bring much in the way of results.
It is not unusual for Deputies on this side of the House to find themselves opening a speech by saying that the position is bad. When I find my verification for saying that in the Minister's speech, I am not saying anything wrong by merely agreeing with the Minister. The Minister stated that net farm incomes were marginally up, by something under one per cent. The figure I had as indicated in the Budget figures supplied to us showed that these incomes are marginally down, by something under one per cent. So I find myself agreeing that agriculture has not moved forward in the years gone past and this is really a very bad situation.
In the Second Programme for Economic Expansion, one of the most important objectives we set ourselves was an expansion in agricultural production and in farm incomes. In the past year, we have failed to achieve this objective, notwithstanding the fact that certain prices did improve. Therefore, things are going badly with agriculture. In 1965, 14,000 people left the land and in 1965, 7,000 people extra were employed in industry. That leaves a deficit in employment of 7,000 people and it means that half the people who left the land either emigrated or are unemployed. That is the figure we have to look at and it is a realistic figure. We have not balanced the natural flight from the land caused by changing patterns in agriculture by an increase in industrial employment which would absorb the people who have left the land. That means an abysmal failure on the part of the Government at a time when their policy was one of expansion and investment, at a time when there was to be great expansion in employment to absorb the people leaving the land.
I want to refer now to what was the Government's policy and to what part of that policy was not carried out. The basis of investment in agriculture was that if you put in £1 million, you would get an increase of £2 million in the gross national product. That increase was going to pay for our imports necessary to carry on our industries and also for the setting up of new industries, if possible aligned with agriculture, which would absorb the people leaving the land. For that particular year, the Agricultural Credit Corporation announced that there would be lending in the region of £7 million but, threequarter way through the year, that was suddenly cut off and it was stated that certain lendings were to be discontinued. They could not lend any more to defray a bank debt and they could not lend any more for the purchase of land.
It was stated that for this particular year they would lend only for productive purposes and that as much money would be available as was available in the previous year. The year in which this sudden instruction was given ended up with a lending figure of £5.7 million. Out of that, a total of £3.1 million was for productive investment in expansion and it was stated that this year there would be a provisional £3.6 million, or an increase of half a million pounds. The Minister sought to insist that this indeed was the situation and that there was half a million pounds more available for productive investment than in the previous year. Nothing could be further from the truth. When calculating this figure, he gave the figure of £3.1 million as lending for investment.
Any loan which involved taking up any small bank overdraft was taken into the figure of money lent to defray bank loans and excluded. I suggest that a farmer who would, perhaps, seek £2,000 from the Agricultural Credit Corporation to capitalise on his farm, buy cattle, perhaps put up sheds or modern buildings, buy milking machines and things like that would almost certainly before he reached the decision have had a small overdraft in the bank. But an overdraft of £500 in relation to this new loan of £2,000 would leave a figure for productive investment of £1,500. What happened was that everything that defrayed any small bank lending got a label on it like a bottle of Guinness and was adjudged as lending that must be discontinued.
The figure of £3.6 million is, in fact, far less than the figure lent in the year in which the brutal instruction by the Minister for Finance was issued to the Agricultural Credit Corporation in the middle of the year. One thing I feel I did—I want to blow my own horn— that accomplished something in this House was when I asked the Minister for Finance whether or not, if from their own resources, the Agricultural Credit Corporation could not make up £3.6 million and if the £1.6 million he had included in his Budget to give them was inadequate, he would make it up so that they would have at least £3.6 million. It took approximately 26 minutes of the time allotted for the debate on the Adjournment and a Parliamentary Question to get that out of him, but it was done, and at least we have this situation that the greatly reduced figure will be available if the Minister for Finance keeps his word. Let us face the fact that it is a greatly reduced figure and that the whole basis of the future of the country is the investment in agriculture that will increase the gross national product and that will be leaving us in a position to employ new people in industry.
Let us also face the fact that in the British Budget voluntary restraint was sought from British industrialists in their investment here. When a Government in a country such as England asks industrialists for voluntary restraint, it means that if they do not exercise voluntary restraint, the Government will restrain them by legislation. Therefore, we may accept that we must find from our own resources a considerable amount of capital so that we can employ the people who will be leaving the land. I can think of no way in which you can begin at the real beginning except by investment in agriculture and proper expansion of our agricultural industry, and I submit that the great failure of the present Minister for Agriculture and of the present Minister for Finance is that they did not see this and also that they sought to relegate agriculture to a secondary place.
Let us now consider what was the position in relation to the statement of the Minister for Finance about agriculture in his Budget speech. He indicated two things that are of interest and relevance in this debate. One was that if the relation of the farmers' income to the incomes of other citizens deteriorated during the year, he would be prepared to look at that situation and correct any worsening of the farmers' position. At the same time, he indicated that the increase in incomes that could be afforded generally to the people was three per cent because the estimation of the increase in our gross national product was three per cent. Even though his mathematics were quite incorrect and the figure of increase in gross national product of three per cent has no relation mathematically to the figure that can or cannot be afforded for an increase in incomes, at least he laid down his laws.
Immediately there was trade union activity to ensure that a figure higher than three per cent was assured to the workers. I believe the galloping inflation instituted by Fianna Fáil necessitated this action by the workers. In any event, the Minister did this and it was not long until the situation developed in which the increase would become something in the order of nine per cent or £1 per week. At this time the Minister for Agriculture was negotiating with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association on milk prices and with the NFA on general commodity prices. The Minister for Finance, as I said, had given his indication in the Budget and yet the Minister for Agriculture created a situation by his own arrogance, in the first place, and by his inadequacy, in the second, that has resulted in hundreds of farmers being charged in court and in some cases brought for a night to Mountjoy Jail.
The Government, therefore, thought they could relegate agriculture to a secondary place; they thought that when they had given in on one front, they could hold out on another; and this was the very front where they needed the impetus and expansion of gross national product that could only come from investment and from fair treatment and proper increases in prices of commodities that were so necessary. On this score alone, the Government and the Minister for Agriculture stand charged with neglect, inadequacy and failure.
I want to mention something that began as an irritation but which over the years has become more than that. Every Minister for Agriculture and every Minister of State who comes in here boasts that he is spending more money this year than last. In the case of the Minister for Agriculture, over the years the position was that in answer to the claims that agricultural incomes were relatively lower than those of the rest of the State, there was printed on the back page of the current Budget Tables in each year the total sum that could, by any means, be related to agriculture. We all know that in a modern State the involvement of any major section of the community in Government movement of funds and cash is becoming more intricate and detailed every day. There was a time when one sold things and got the price for them and the Government were not involved. I am sure the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary and anyone who has any experience of government, which I have not, would agree with me that they would wish that there was not so much involvement by the State in prices and the ordinary affairs of the citizen in his buying and selling but in a modern State there is very little one can do about this.
The suggestion that a sum of £52 million is being afforded to agriculture is entirely incorrect and erroneous. May I suggest that it is not so many years ago that the present Government Party were embarking on what they considered was a very heavy capital expenditure over a period of five or six years. They produced the National Development Fund, the idea of which was to indicate that moneys that came therefrom, no matter what Department they were administered by, were, in fact, moneys for national development. It is absolutely necessary if one is to get the town dweller and the agricultural worker and the farmer all thinking along the right lines that we do not produce a mixum gatherum list and say that that is the bill against the farmer. It may get a Minister out of trouble; it may make things easier for him for an evening but it is not the proper attitude. There should be a complete breakdown of the moneys that are, in fact, subsidies towards farmers' production and those that are, in fact, prices enhanced by Government intervention and other items which have no relation to the farmers' income.
For instance, let us consider the position in relation to butter. As near as I can see, the position is that the butter subsidy will cost about £12½ million—call it £12 million. There are in this figure two major items. One is the reduction of the price of butter in this country and the other is the export subsidy that is necessary if we are to sell the amount of butter we export, largely to Britain. In round figures, as closely as I can estimate, we are spending £7 million on reducing the price of butter here and £5 million on an export subsidy.
We must now examine what this £12 million is doing. Are our farmers here getting a higher price for milk than their counterparts are getting elsewhere? The answer, of course, is that they are not getting a higher price for milk but in most cases are getting a very much lower price. Yet, a figure of £7 million, which is used to reduce the price of butter to the housewife here, and I may say very properly so, is included in the figure in Table V of the Current Budget Tables, 1966, on page 9, as money that is being paid to the farmer. Nothing can be a greater irritation to farmers and to farmers' organisations in this country than this sort of production.
I want to suggest also that the £5 million export subsidy, which is also included as a bill against the farmer, is, in fact, a subsidy towards exports, to produce a price at which money will be available to pay the farmer what is probably the lowest price for milk in Europe.
It is not our fault if the great industrial nations of the world who are also agricultural nations and who produce butter should desire to sell it at a loss on the British market because they have a surfeit of it. It is not our fault if we are largely an agricultural nation and have to bear the cost of selling our butter on the British market also. Remember that the export of milk products from this country is worth, in round figures, £20 million. Remember that cattle exports from this country, which would not be available in such numbers if it were not for milk production, are worth about £60 million. Remember that other milk products such as chocolate crumb, skimmed milk powder and everything else bring the figure up, between cattle and milk, to something in the order of £100 million. Remember that Deputy Joe Dowling's constituents as they go to the factories in the morning are entirely dependent on this £100 million of agricultural exports, and more along with it, to pay for the raw materials they will use at the work bench.
Let us get all sectors of the country moving together. Do not let us have agriculture versus industry or urban dweller versus rural dweller. Let us understand the interdependence of industry and agriculture. Let us understand how absolutely vital it is that our agricultural exports should continue and should expand.
Now I want to give a fact that may not as yet be available in the figures circulated to Deputies. It appears as if in this year, 1966, there is some reduction in the user of fertiliser, some reduction in the user of ground limestone. I want to suggest that the evidence of the economic war and of other times of weak selling has proved that there is nobody who can live off his own fat so successfully over a number of years as the Irish farmer. The Irish farmer does not like doing that but, if he has to, he can let his drains fill in and stop laying fertiliser and can have three cattle less than he had last year and can eke out a living for himself and his family, which may not be as good a living as he would have expected but which will allow him to remain on his holding. If a situation is created whereby he can do nothing else, in which the necessary amount of capital is not available to him, wherein prices that will provide an incentive are not available, then he will live on his own fat and it is an accepted fact that there is not anybody in the world who can do that as well as the Irish farmer if he has to do it.
The inevitable result of that is that there will be fewer workers going to their factories in Deputy Dowling's constituency and, if you want to take a crossbred constituency like mine, there will be fewer workers going to the factories in my constituency, because, as I have explained, it is nothing but the export of agricultural goods that is keeping our industries on their feet.
Let us now consider the position of the Minister for Agriculture who has created this most dreadful situation with the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association when there was a clear case, on the basis of a correction of incomes, for the correction of the money paid to the farmer for milk. Let us accept that this House knows, that this town knows and if there is any verification of it needed one has only to go to column 1496 of the Minister's opening speech, that the ICMSA have had a war and have won the war and that at a propitious moment, whether that is adjudged to be the end of this debate when the Minister is replying or when the Minister has got us safely away from this House, at the end of this week, or next week, in due time, propitious and well-considered, when it will do the most good in the Government's opinion for the Presidential Election, there will be announced an increase in the price of creamery milk.
Let us face the fact that the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and others in the Government have been proved as weak as water and as venal as sin and that every pressure group in this country is in the same situation, that they believe in their vested interest, whether they have right on their side or wrong on their side. In the case of the ICMSA and the National Farmers Association, I submit they have right on their side. But, whether they have or not, the belief is that there is only one way you can get anything in 1966, that is, by pressure, improper pressure, on a Minister of State and, on the basis that he likes his job, likes his position and desires to stay in it, that he will give in. That means that the slices of the national cake are being incorrectly apportioned; it means that the national cake is not increasing, which means that the Minister is a failure.
I am sorry the Minister is not here because I want to speak very seriously on this matter. I feel very deeply about it. Before I say anything about it, I think that Deputies on all sides will agree that when the differences of politics and the clashes that occur in this Chamber are all over, we like to treat one another like white men and that we find our friends from both sides, one with another, and there is no bitterness, particularly among the younger Deputies, or antipathy among us. Therefore, I do not want my statements to be misconstrued. I want it to be quite clear that I have no personal animosity towards him or personal grudge against him. I want to say that it is not so long since a Fianna Fáil Minister for Agriculture resigned and the reason for his resigning was given as the improper relationship between farmers' incomes and the incomes of the rest of the community, and the fact that the Government were not prepared to give the farmers their proper share and were prepared to give in to every pressure group that came along if there was a by-election or a general election pending.
That Minister had been a Minister of State for decades in the Fianna Fáil Cabinet in different positions and he resigned on that basis. Here we have a Minister of State now who, by the definition of his Finance Minister's speech, was told at his Cabinet meeting, and subscribed to that view, that if there was a correction made in other incomes, that correction would be afforded the farmers. This same Minister has allowed farmers to parade up and down outside Leinster House, has allowed them to be arrested and locked up and has maintained silence except for an indication in his opening speech that he is going to give way. We are waiting again for this weak, venal act of giving in at the best moment to gain the votes. I want to suggest he is not going to win any votes and that the farmers in the south of Ireland, in Monaghan, and everywhere else, who supply creamery milk, realise they have a weak Minister and Cabinet and that while they may get some small material advantage at a given time from such a source, their important national industry is in the hands of those who have not got the moral fibre or moral courage to produce over the years the sort of advancement that is so necessary for them and for the country as a whole.
I prefaced my remarks by saying that I have no personal animosity towards the Minister and I want to say that the Minister should resign. I want to say that his image has been lost beyond repair. I hate the word "image"; it is a horrible, modern word. However, whether we like it or not, the image that is portrayed of us among the people whom we must represent is the thing that throws shadows around us, just as our own shadow follows us. The image of the Minister for Agriculture is of a person who is completely divorced from the needs of the ordinary small farmer and the behaviour of which he has been guilty over the past six weeks is such, in my opinion, that never again will they trust him. If that is so, I must sincerely from this side of the House, as somebody who has had the most cordial relations with him, suggest that there is nothing he can do, facing this situation, but resign.
Remember that he came to this Ministry from the Ministry of Justice. Remember that his movement from that office was coincidental with the issuing of the Succession Bill. The Succession Bill was a Bill which was introduced without scrutiny by him and the result was that he had to be moved out so that somebody else could make the corrections. These are the foibles of politics. It is our job to play anywhere on the football team that we are put. I am playing in a different position from my position of two years ago.
The Deputy was moved out, too.
The Minister was not here when I made it quite clear that I was not making a personal attack on him.
Oh, no.
I am suggesting there is nothing he can do but resign. He will never get the confidence of the farming community again. As long as he sits in the Ministry for Agriculture, he is open to pressure groups and to the charge that he is a politician first and last and never an agriculturist in between. As long as that is so, then he cannot lead because they will not follow. Whatever his ability, whatever the validity or strength of his future suggestions, if he has reached that stage, he cannot lead because they will not follow. I must suggest that the only course open to a Minister in such a position is to resign and let the wheels turn with somebody else so that there can be the change that must come if we are to see any future for agriculture.
I should like now to mention the question of pilot schemes for the small western farms which were introduced by the Minister with a great rattle of drums not so long ago. While you may have a rattle of drums, there is absolutely nothing that will make the wheels turn like a little bit of lubricant. The lubricant in this context, I suggest, is some money. The Minister has suggested that money is available for anything he wants to do, that there is no cutting down. I understand that his Parliamentary Secretary is looking after this particular facet of the matter. I have worked out the money that has been voted for this, in terms of taxation, as one-tenth of a penny on cigarettes. Therefore, I immediately picture the unfortunate small western farmer walking up the wet lane, wheeling his bicycle and smoking a cigarette—if he feels he can afford it —and as he takes the last pull on that cigarette before he throws it into the bushes, he will remember that that is what he got from the Minister for Agriculture. That is all that the Parliamentary Secretary has to administer.
What is the Deputy talking about?
That is the figure. Would the Minister like to tell me what does one penny on cigarettes get in taxation? I hope he knows—he should.
What is that?
The amount voted for small western farms is exactly one-tenth of a penny on cigarettes.
That is nonsense.
Well, look up the Estimates.
The sum of £100,000 was put in as a token estimate for new schemes. We are already spending ten times that in the pilot areas alone.
The Minister has been extremely good at interjecting this evening. He tried very ably to lead Deputy Tully astray in relation to the price of milk in Britain.
I put him right.
The Minister tried very hard to lead him astray but the Minister will not lead me astray on this. In relation to these new schemes, all that has been provided is approximately the cost in taxation of one-tenth of a penny on cigarettes.
I would like to refer to another matter on which the Minister in his speech gave us a rather disjointed contribution. This was when he said he did not want to see agriculture reaching the stage of receiving doles or being at the mercy of the Government for money. He said, and rightly so, he would prefer to give the money to increase production by way of grant and other financial assistance. I agree with that. But then he went on to mention huge subsidies such as the cost of butter. Three pages further on he referred to our entry into the Common Market. I have pointed out that the cost of butter and other such things cannot be properly related to the farmers' income. The truth is that when we get into the Common Market, all these subsidies will disappear and everything will reach its real price with a target price and an intervention price. By manipulating those, the price the farmer will receive will be the real cost of production, plus a profit. If that occurs, we must regard these subsidies the Minister deprecates so much as making the farmers beholden to the Government merely as of a temporary nature and something we may not have in decades to come.
When I was speaking about cereals on the Supplementary Estimate, the Minister intervened in a rather unfortunate way. I do not wish to deal with that. If the Minister made a mess of anything in this country, he made a mess of tillage. He knows nothing about it. His first moves were such as to guarantee failure. Any farmer who grows wheat, barley or oats does not mind very much what percentage of each he grows, so long as he can keep his rotation right and so long as his cheque is enhanced at the end of the year. The Minister when worried about wheat gave a reasonable increase in barley and left wheat as it was.
I did not. I gave an increase in wheat, too.
The Minister's increase in wheat was 3/- on 20 stone.
At least be accurate.
His increase in barley was much greater, 5/- on 16 stone. The Minister need not worry about my being factual. He may twist my words and say, as he did before, that I did not want the price of barley put up by that amount. That is not true. There is a real price for everything. The Minister in his approach to cereals has to try to get the maximum return for the farmers as well as watching the difficulties of the feeders. His relationship in this regard was wrong. The farmers did not grow wheat. As a result, there was an advantage to the millers. The Irish wheat, which is dearer, was not there to use and they could use cheaper foreign wheat. A sizeable sum of some hundreds of thousands of pounds was available. A proposal was made that there would be a contract scheme for what and that these moneys could start an insurance fund and that this, along with a small levy each year, would ensure that so long as the wheat was fit for animal consumption it could be paid for at the full milling price. In one year you might lose a lot, but in another year you might lose nothing, but the very small levy along with this fund would keep it up. The Minister did two things in relation to last harvest's wheat. The wheat that was potentially millable he did nothing about for some months.
I paid for it at the full millable price.
He did nothing about the disposal of it.
I paid for it at the full millable price. That is all that matters as far as I am concerned.
He did nothing about the disposal of it for some months. As well as that he rejected out of hand the suggestion of a contract system with no rejection for Hagberg test or anything else as long as the wheat could be dried and fit for animal food. Two things arose out of that. If you desire in any year to use a bit of substandard wheat, the sooner in the cereal year you start to use it, the more you can use. The Minister dilly-dallied for some months and left himself in the position that none of the potentially millable wheat was used. Therefore, he was losing a valuable financial opportunity. In addition, he rejected this scheme out of hand and, I understand, collected the few hundred thousand to save the Exchequer.
No, that is wrong.
In that way he took credit for doing something which has just been the subject of an intervention by him, namely, to pay the farmers the full price for it. The farmers were paid because they did not grow the wheat the previous year.
I want to tell the Minister what he could do in relation to cereals. We agreed at a recent deputation to the Minister that one of the real problems in wheat was not the price as much as the rejection of wheat and the catastrophic difference between the price of feed wheat and the price of wheat for human use. I believe this to be true. But I also believe that if you are leaving wheat on the shank for combining, which you did not do ten or 15 years ago, leaving it an extra fortnight or so for ripening, the danger of sprouting, mildew and other problems is greatly increased. Therefore, you must give the farmer absolute certainty of a quick market and adequate drying. It is quite impossible to give this if the drying facilities are situated in flourmills at ports. This kind of siting is decided by the situation of the flourmill rather than the situation of the wheat.
Our experience in Louth, where the opposite is the case, where several firms have drying and storage arrangements in the wheat area, is that the farmers in a period of sprouting succeed in getting far more of their wheat into the dryer and fit for milling than in other areas where the wheat has to be transported 30 or 40 miles to a mill. In those cases the farmer does not even know whether he will get it away quickly or not and is afraid during damp periods to cut the wheat and take the reduction for moisture, although he knows that, if he does not cut it, it is going to make the wheat unmillable.
I am sold on this. I am absolutely certain that the use of bulk combines and all that sort of thing, the availability of proper drying in the wheat growing areas, is the answer. This is something the Minister should look at seriously but it is something he has entirely neglected. If he gets that going all over Ireland, he will produce far more wheat than is useful for our own food. I want to prove this by telling you that in Louth sales of seed wheat from merchants have increased by 20 per cent, whereas in the rest of the country they are down by 20 per cent. We do not live in the Bahamas. Our weather is no better than any other part of the country. But in at least five points in Louth you can drive your wheat in bulk trailers straight from the field and tip the trailer over a hopper within three or four miles of where you are growing your wheat. This means the farmer has an instant contact with the people who are handling it. He knows what its position is and can get advice on sprouting, which means that far more of his wheat can be saved. If the Minister was right when he agreed with the deputation of which I was a member that the problem was not so much the price of milling wheat but the reduction of milling wheat, then he must surely address himself to the real heart of the problem, which is drying facilities adequately available not more than five or six miles from the heavy wheat-growing areas. If he does not do that, then whatever price is paid for wheat, the job cannot be done in the very short period that is now available with combine harvesting, and the wheat will not be grown. That is how he has to do it, and I have great pleasure in telling him.
The question of rationalisation of creameries and the handling of milk is something with which I thought the Minister would have dealt far more fully. That is one of the big problems we have. With the proper utilisation of skim milk by converting it into spray skim and the proper utilisation of it in other ways, a farmer can be paid 6d or thereabouts for his skim milk if it is kept. Then everybody will realise just what this means. It means a real increase in income for the farmer. It means something that we never dreamt about ten years ago. This is only possible in very large creameries such as Mitchelstown or Lough Eigish next door to my constituency. It is absolutely necessary that small creameries shall federate with large creameries, so that with the production of cheese for which clean milk is required and the production of spray skim whereby the farmer can be paid a decent price for his skim, the farmer will get all the benefits of the larger organisation. Any holding back on this is a mistake and a sign of failure.
I should like if the Minister would tell us how far things have gone in this regard, how successful have been the efforts at federation that are going on at the moment and how many farmers from the milk-producing areas have the opportunity of selling their skim at this very attractive price and of seeing a higher price given for their milk because of utilisation, if the milk is of a sufficiently high quality, for higher-priced products. That is something else that should be looked at.
Just as surely as I believe that there must be integration between industry and agriculture in our national effort, I also believe that there must be in the agricultural sphere integration between co-operatives and private enterprise. Nothing nauseates me as much as people who have this private enterprise bug and think that co-operatives are dreadful things and, similarly, the people who have the same ideas about private enterprise.
There is a place for everybody in this. All the knowledge, experience and opportunities that can be harnessed must be harnessed. If that is going to exclude in people's minds either the co-operative section or the private enterprise section, then we are going to have deflection and deflation of our effort. I find it extraordinary that at a committee of agriculture meeting, you will have a speech by a representative of the IAOS who would say that there is a great opportunity for a big co-operative, whereby a fattening house would be set up and small farmers would keep sows: and when that suggestion goes over to the local organisation one would imagine everybody walked around with a label on him. It is necessary for us to adjust our thinking on this. In private enterprise circles, I have found the greatest antipathy to co-operatives, and in agricultural circles, and in the highest agricultural circles, I have found the greatest antipathy to private enterprise, and the suggestion that private enterprise is getting too much profit, whereas in fact in many cases they sell their goods or buy their products at similar prices to those obtaining for the co-operatives. If the Minister can do anything to create better feelings between all these people, he will have done some good.
The Minister's intervention in regard to the £500 unsecured loan scheme was most unfortunate. Unlike Deputy Tully, within the limits that are set for them, I have nothing but good to say of the officials and the directors of the Agricultural Credit Corporation. Anything I have said here tonight is in relation to the opportunities that have been afforded them. I have found a readiness on their part to accept information from any responsible Deputy; whether or not I am one, they certainly accept anything I tell them as honest informations, and I must say I have got great satisfaction from them. However, as I understand the £500 loan scheme which was the subject of the Minister's interjection, it is available only through the co-operative creamery or a co-operative institute with which the farmer deals.
No.
That was the position.
That is not true. We published a booklet which explains the whole position.
I know, I read the booklet years before the Minister was ever interested in agriculture. The position as I understood it was that this was restricted to co-operative societies. I am glad to hear that a farmer who is supplying goods to a merchant, a miller or any other private enterprise institution and who wishes to get £500 unsecured loan, with the informations that goods will be supplied and the money paid up at harvest time, can get an advance of £500. That to me is a great step forward, but I wonder, when the details are closely examined, whether or not we have stepped forward.
There is great play with the problems of the small farmer. I have great sympathy for the small farmer and I believe that not enough is being done for him. I should like to mention something that occurred during the week in relation to a large farmer who came to me. This farmer was setting up a silage unit by which he intended to feed the 70 cows on his farm. His position was that the maximum grant he could get for this sort of operation from the Department of Agriculture was relatively very small. He pointed out to me that if he were living 20 miles further north on the other side of the Border, he would get one-third of the cost, and if he were the first of his type in the district and if he were prepared to make his installation available for demonstrations by the agricultural instructors, he would get a further large grant.
It occurs to me that our thinking needs to be adjusted as far as the farm improvements scheme level of grants is concerned. Let us remember that if this man were adopting an industry for production with a view to our going into the Common Market, he could get a grant up to 25 per cent. This man is spending £7,000 and it appears his grant will be no more than a few hundred pounds. If he were adapting his industry, he would get 25 per cent of £7,000, which is not very far removed from £2,000. These are matters we have to consider. I can see that shortage of money is one of our troubles and that shortage has, of course, been created by bad spending. Saving was defined many years ago as wise spending. I charge the Government now with unwise spending.
The results of the scarcity of capital are also evident in the prices prevailing for small cattle. These adversely affect the small farmer in the West. I refer to cattle that are not yet ready for export, cattle of six and seven cwt. The price for these cattle is the worst in the past ten to 15 years. The feeder who might buy them has not got the money; neither has he the grass.
Yesterday, the Minister for Finance admitted that the Government took too much money from the commercial banks last year. If they had to do that, that is their kettle of fish; they are the people who prepared the stew and they must now eat it. Because of the bad management on the part of the Government, one cannot even give away cattle at the moment. I do not want to overplay this. Indeed, this is the first time I have mentioned it. I remember the disreputable campaign indulged in by the present Minister for Transport and Power in 1956-57 when, on every opportunity, he came in here and asked questions about the price of cattle, following them with supplementaries, and ultimately raised the matters on the Adjournment. In doing that, he caused the price of cattle to fall still further.
Because of the credit squeeze, there is now no money to buy small cattle for further feeding. That is another reason why the people who hitherto could be led can no longer be led, why they are disappointed with the Minister. That is another reason why, in this extremely painful situation, he should resign. This situation, of course, results directly from the action of the Government—the Minister was no inactive participant—riding home by way of handouts in by-elections and in the general election.
With regard to agricultural investment and encouragement to agriculture in general, does anybody suggest now that things were as good as we were told they were before May, 1965? Does anyone suggest that, if they were so good, we could have deteriorated so much since? I do not believe anyone now thinks that he was not codded as to the financial situation prior to the last general election and it would be quite improper if we did not, on this side of the House, indicate some of the things we suggested we would do before the last general election.
Some of the things we suggested were the subject of witticisms and derision from the far side of the House. Mark you, the witticisms and the derision are gone today. All we see are solemn faces. Having ridden the storm, they must now reap the whirlwind. We suggested an increased grant to the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society so that it could proceed with its rationalisation of the creamery industry and other essential matters. We worked out the cost. We pledged we would help the small farmers by derating every small farm under £25 valuation. We suggested the subsidisation of the interest factor in the repayment of loans. That gave rise to cat-calls. We suggested there should be complete insistence on the purchase and use of Irish grain and we had evidence to prove that Deputy Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture, kept some of the wheat harvested in the very bad harvest of 1954 until the following year and succeeded in getting all the wheat grown in that extremely bad year used for human food, without loss to the Exchequer and without loss to the farmers, except on the interest factor.
We suggested the re-introduction of Section B of the Land Project, removed by Fianna Fáil. It is under that Section that the small farmer can get his land drained. If a farmer wants to get his land drained at the moment, he must take out his cheque book and must wait for the grant. Deputy Allen suggested there was wastage under Section B and that too much money per acre was spent. Wastage is something that can be corrected. Can anyone tell me now how the small farmer can find the capital to drain his land, pay the contractor and wait for the grant?
We suggested pushing ahead with the pilot scheme in the west. We also suggested the NFA scheme be pushed forward to enable the small farmers to engage in pig and poultry production to help them supplement their other work. These were the things we suggested. None of them was accepted and we have today the Minister discredited and the Government unable to pay the grants. The Government have been proved absolutely venal and ready at all times to gain votes by venality to keep themselves in office instead of looking to the future and to the furtherance of Irish agriculture and the Irish nation.
I have listened for the past few days to the case for the producer. There is another side to the canvas, the consumer. It is with the consumer I am concerned. I would ask the Minister to examine the whole system of the marketing of farm produce. At the moment marketing is controlled by a highwayman or, as he is commonly called, the middleman, who picks the purse of the housewife. The middlemen have been doing that for a considerable period. I believe the farmer should be paid a fair price for his produce and for his labour but an analysis of retail prices gives a rather interesting picture. There is a case for stringent investigation. I am told the wholesale price of potatoes is £22 to £24, or £25, per ton. The Dublin housewife is paying £42 per ton in the supermarkets. There must be something radically wrong. The profits for the middleman are out of all proportion to the service, if service it is, that is rendered. I would ask the Minister to take special note of the fact that there is in this city a potato ring. That is well known. A potato ring is forcing up the price of potatoes on the unfortunate people who have to use them. At the moment, potatoes are becoming a luxury for many working-class families.
We have many other items coming in which also need to be examined. Cabbage is reaching the housewife at 1/- or 1/6 a head, and a bald head at that. In some cases, it would seem almost to be sold by the square inch. Some unscrupulous shopkeepers are selling it in such a way that their profit margin is outrageous as against the production costs of the farmer.
At the moment, lettuce is 1/6 a head. I am told that this is excessive. Again, the middleman is in for a big cut. There is something wrong with marketing arrangements when the housewives and the consumers have to pay such fantastic prices for produce which leaves the hands of the farmer for such a very small sum of money. I have every sympathy with the farmer. If the housewife is prepared to pay a certain price for his product, then the farmer should get a greater cut, but, at the same time, I believe she is paying too much.
At times, eggs have reached 7/- a dozen in the city. We have heard the story about the goose that laid the golden egg. The same can now be said of the hen which is producing eggs at 7/- a dozen. At times, the cost of eggs is 3/6 or 4/- a dozen but they can reach this fantastic price of 7/-. Surely we could have a situation in which people would get a supply of eggs at a reasonable rate all the year round? The Dublin housewife is paying through the nose.
It is very likely that there will be increases in prices in the future if farm incomes are raised. I would ask the Minister to impress one thing on his colleagues, that is, that any taxation imposed for this purpose will be borne equally and not just by a section of the people. Whatever the taxation in this connection, each and every person should pay his or her due share.
Once again, I ask the Minister to examine the question of rings in this city and the middlemen who are making so much out of the unfortunate housewives. I think some revealing information could be given to him at any time if he cares to have this matter fully and comprehensively examined.
It is refreshing to have a city Deputy like Deputy Dowling agree that farmers are certainly not overpaid for their produce and, I would say, make a very intelligent comment on the difference between the price the farmer gets and the price the consumer has to pay. It is easy to see the reason for this. There has been little or no improvement in the marketing organisation in this city in the past 70 years and it is time somebody took a serious look at it. We have the same market and the same facilities as we had 70 years ago—the same facilities in a city which has grown enormously since it was first built.
It is not easy to devise a system whereby the produce of our farms can be passed on, more directly, to the consumer. There is quite a difference, also, as regards the farmer who puts potatoes in the sack and there is a good deal of clay and some wrong potatoes, and so on. If they are sorted out for a supermarket, the loss is pretty heavy. It is something that needs a considerable amount of examination before one can say quite definitely that there is enormous profit but I come down on the side that there is certainly a gap, which it is hard to understand, between what the producer gets and what the consumer has to pay.
I was very pleased to hear Deputy Donegan emphasise at some length the interdependence of agriculture and industry. There has been a tendency here, I think, to set one section against the other. Something happened here at one stage, since I came into the House, which I think was very wrong. We had a case where the farmers got an increase in the price of milk and it was made quite obvious that, in order to pay for it, one penny would have to be put on the price of cigarettes. That is a first-class way of getting opposition to any improvement in agricultural prices and it should be avoided. The Minister and all of us should be at pains to emphasise and indicate the interdependence of agriculture and industry.
Agriculture accounts for approximately two-thirds of our exports. It is necessary to buy the raw material for industry. Many of our valuable industries are directly dependent on agriculture and get their raw materials from agriculture. Many industries in the constituency I represent depend on agricultural raw material and they give very large employment and, let me say, good employment.
I remember saying, a couple of weeks ago, when we were considering the Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce, that there was general turmoil all over the country in industry. Now, when we come to discuss agriculture, we find the same picture. We have seen the undesirable spectacle of farmers coming up from the south of Ireland and parading outside Government Buildings during the past few weeks. The Minister should take a serious look at this whole matter and give serious consideration to the situation that has driven these men away from their farms and their homes to come up to Dublin in order to make him appreciate their present position and their present plight.
I have heard the Taoiseach speak in a critical fashion of strikes of one sort or another. I have heard him point to the fact that, for both employees and employers, there is available machinery for the settlement of wage claims, and so on, which should first be used before anything of this kind is allowed to occur. Not so long ago, we had a strike in the Dublin District Milk Board and it was the Minister who refused to use the machinery and to come to grips with the problem and to get a settlement. Here, again, we have the same thing. In my view, these farmers made a sincere effort, over a long period, to get the Government and the Minister to appreciate the gravity of their situation—the fact that their income was declining, and declining so much, relative to other sections of the community.
They were forced into the situation, these responsible and hardworking men, that they had to leave their homes and farms and come to Dublin in order to get the Minister to look seriously at their problems. The Minister says that this was not necessary and his comment was that it was unfortunate that one organisation chose this particular moment to initiate a campaign which made a calm and objective assessment of the position very difficult and could only delay the implementation of possible remedial action. He said that the day had passed when it was necessary for farmers to engage in this form of agitation. Unfortunately, that day has not passed and the campaign that was carried on is proving to be successful. It has demonstrated that might is right and that only those who are organised and in a position to push their claim will be considered seriously.
If the farmers had stayed at home and tried to carry on, pretended that they had no problems, they would not get any consideration from the Minister and there would be no alleviation of their problems. It is most unfortunate that the two farming groups failed to agree on a joint approach and, in my opinion, the Minister would be perfectly justified in refusing to meet any one section unless they could first settle their own differences and come to him as a joint body. There has been a good deal of criticism of both sections and of their leadership, but I would like it to go on record as my opinion that the farmers are fortunate in having men of the character and integrity and men with such a desire to continue serving them as Mr. Feely and Mr. Deasy, and Mr. Deasy's predecessor, Dr. Greene. I think they are fortunate that they have had such men in their organisations.
It is a great pity that they cannot come together and have one representative organisation to speak for farmers as a whole. Anything the Minister can do to bring about such a position should be done. Farming is so important and means so much to the country that there should be a clear analysis of the agricultural position once a year as they have in Britain. At that time, as far as can be assessed, prices should be fixed for the year ahead at a level that will give farmers a reasonable living over and above the cost of production. That should be given not alone to the first-class farmer but to the man who is not quite as good, the man who is between the best and the worst.
The emphasis on this debate has been on the problems of the dairy farmers. There is no doubt that the dairy farmer and the livestock farmer have had a lot to contend with in the past year because of a number of factors, the first of which is that we have had a long, wet and difficult winter. Last year was an extremely bad farming year which means that the fodder conserved for the winter was poor in quality and limited in amount. We came into the winter with that handicap and with increased numbers of livestock. It has been said that a good deal of the winter's losses have been due to disease and pests of one sort or another but most of these diseases would not have occurred if we had had better quality and more winter feeding.
We hear a lot about brucellosis, fluke and other diseases. It has been my experience that losses from these diseases are much reduced if farmers are in a position to provide adequate winter keep and proper feeding for their animals. I was amazed to hear Deputy Allen say: "Why could they not go and dose them?" If it were as easy as that, we would have had no losses at all. A dose given at the right time can do a lot but it is foolish for a man of Deputy Allen's experience to ask why farmers do not dose their animals in such circumstances. The Minister says the solution to the problem is not increasing the milk price.
That is not quite correct. I said there is a limit to what can be done by way of price.
There is a passage in the Minister's speech in which he says:
It is easy to go around telling farmers that they are ignored or neglected, that everyone else's claim for better income and conditions can apparently be met but not theirs, and so on. It is not so easy to preach the obvious truth that the only sure and lasting way for the farmer to better his position and that of his family is to get more from his holding, to improve his production and efficiency and that the Government are providing assistance in almost every conceivable way to help him to do this.
In another part of his speech, the Minister says that the solution to the dairy farmers' problem is to keep more cows, to increase production and so on. I could not agree more, but has the Minister considered what that involves, the enormous outlay involved? I am a ten-cow farmer and the Minister tells me that the solution of my problem is not an increase in the price of my milk but to keep two more cows. He has suggested that keeping an extra cow can mean an extra £50 a year in income but what is involved in outlay?
I was comparing the two systems.
Yes, but they were compared in such a way as to give the impression that if a farmer keeps an extra cow, he gets an increase of £50 in his income. It is wrong to give that impression. I am a ten-cow farmer and I am asked to keep two extra cows. My cowbyre is full as it is and I have to provide accommodation for two exta cows. That means that two extra cows must be fitted in and how am I to do that? If you are to give the small farmers that sort of organisation and set-up, where is the money to come from? That is the desirable position but if a farmer is to add on a piece to his cowbyre for two extra cows, it will cost quite a lot extra and the Department will insist—and rightly—that it be up to certain standards or it will not be acceptable for grant purposes or acceptable at all for production purposes. It is not as easy as one hears to get better production from grassland or better silage facilities. He is working all the time in a smallish way and on that account every improvement he brings about will cost much more than if he were in a big way. It is extremely difficult to improve the position of the very small farmer. There is no great solution to his problems except to give him more money for the limited amount of produce he can produce or better buildings at very low cost, very high subsidies and credit at very low interest rates.
It is all right to tell people to go ahead and provide better winter keep for their cattle, more silage, better conservation. We know that is right but there are many farmers who do not know how to go about the work and the Department of Agriculture have been selling silage as long as I can remember and they have not succeeded. This was because there was no team to go out and say: "This is the way to do it. If you do not know how to build a silage set-up for yourself in your own farmyard, we will do it at such a cost. This is how the money will be provided and this is how you will have to repay it." I think that is how it must be done. I believe that more has been done in the past year or two to help silage making by grants for forage harvesters than anything that has happened for some time. Silage making has increased in the past year or so because here and there you have contractors who have equipped themselves properly to go to the small farmer and make all the silage he needs in a day or two. I know it was once considered that you could not make silage in that way, that you had to feed it slowly. That is all exploded now and we know that the best possible way to make it is the quickest way. As fast as you can get it into the pit, you have it.
What I set out to say is that it is all right to say you cannot improve farmers' incomes by giving them an increase in the price of milk—they must get that to begin with. If everything else is increased in price, why not milk? I know no product that has not increased in price and the cost of production of milk is increasing. I fail to see why on that account a substantial increase in the price of milk is not forthcoming at present. The dairy farmers have suffered fantastic losses, losses which are much greater than people imagine, through the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. The Department may feel that they paid generous prices for reactors. I have rarely come across a case where there was not a fairly substantial loss involved because invariably it was the best cow, or one of the best, that was lost through TB. You do not replace good cows easily: it takes quite a while to build up a herd again. There was very little appreciation of this fact.
The farmers at present are entitled to a fairly substantial increase in the price of milk and I think they will get it simply because they have kicked up the row they have kicked up. They have made the matter now almost a political issue. Somebody also says that we are on the brink of an election and if they are ever going to get it, they will get it now. If we are giving this price increase, let us, for goodness sake, tell the people honestly the taxation that will be involved and how it will be provided because this business of just getting popularity to meet the situation before an election is something to be deplored. It solves nothing.
The emphasis has been entirely on the dairy farmers in the south of Ireland. While I have great sympathy for them, I also have considerable sympathy for the liquid milk producers, whether they be in Dublin, Cork or elsewhere. Their costs of production have increased in greater proportion because they must keep a constant supply of milk throughout the year, and winter costs of milk production are enormous. I know there are people who are producing milk both here and in the dairying districts, not creamery areas, and I think they would prefer to be supplying milk in the creamery areas and feel they would do better than they are doing with the limited prices at present. That is something the Minister should keep before him in deciding the price. I know he has made up his mind and I hope that his decision is to pay not less than 3d per gallon.
When he announces that decision— it is a mistake to delay the announcement because you have all this ill-will and discontent building up—about the increase in the price of milk, he should also consider the position of farmers who are not in the milk business and who have to make a livelihood from other branches of farming and he should bear in mind also that farm workers have got an increase from 1st June and a further increase in October. These will all increase the farmer's costs of production and must be taken into account in any decision on farm incomes.
Whether or not there is a difference of opinion between the two farm organisations — that is regrettable— they are all as one, I think, in expressing serious concern and grave dissatisfaction about the position of farmers' incomes in relation to the income of people in other walks of life and also from the point of view of its being sufficient to provide the small farmer with the necessary means to sustain his wife and family. I should like to see the Minister, in announcing a milk price increase, as he is bound to do and as he probably will do when replying to this debate, announce these improvements in the House. He should certainly couple the milk price improvement with an income lift for those farmers who are not engaged in milk production and indicate how they can improve their incomes. It has been shown by the farmers' organisations recently that there has been a further deterioration in the relative position of the income of farmers and farm workers and that of people in industry and in other services in the country.
I should like to pass on to ways in which perhaps improvements could be brought about in incomes. I am dealing with livestock and I had better stick to that topic. The Minister's statement was very well thought out and well reasoned and, coupled with the notes on agriculture, provides a great opportunity, for anybody who has time to peruse it, to study the position. Unfortunately, recently I have barely had time to read the papers, but if one had time to go through the Notes on the Main Activities of the Department, they provide an excellent opportunity to appreciate the part being played by the Department of Agriculture in their efforts to improve agriculture and agricultural production in the country generally.
There are some matters that we do not seem to have heard anything about. One is the question of Charollais cattle. We first got an importation of American Charollais and then an importation of French Charollais cattle. There does not seem to be any reference in the Minister's statement to Charollais. These importations cost quite an amount of money and the House should hear what use is being made of the Charollais cattle and what benefit the country is getting or is likely to get and what steps are being taken to ensure that the maximum use is made of this breed, if it has something to offer the country. There has been an enormous increase in the number of Charollais cattle in England in quite a short time. Here we hear little or nothing about it.
My personal belief is that we are not taking sufficient advantage of the possibilities that exist for the improvement of milk production and beef production by means of artificial insemination. A short time ago, I read a report of a paper read by Mr. Cunningham to the Agricultural Institute in relation to what could be done through the proper use of artificial insemination, using liquid nitrogen and using only the very best bulls in the country. At present there is fairly wide use of middling and indifferent bulls. At not a very great cost we could arrive at a position where only the very best were being used. This is a means by which we could secure an enormous increase in production on a national scale. It requires no selling. It is up to the Minister and the Department to see that this course is followed and to see that we get this production at no extra cost to the farmer and as very small extra cost to the Department of Agriculture and to the country as a whole. I do not think that nearly enough effort is concentrated on this aspect of livestock production, both from the point of view of beef production and increased milk production.
Another matter associated with the income from livestock and cattle generally is fertiliser user. It is extremely unfortunate that there should be any drop in fertiliser user such as we have had in the past year. The Minister should very closely examine why that has occurred and ensure that the trend will be corrected immediately. There is no point in increasing cattle numbers by any means, unless we can feed them adequately and turn them out properly. Production from grassland is very closely associated with the amount of fertiliser and lime used and, of course, the proper conservation of the material afterwards. It is unfortunate, and a matter that requires explanation, that there should be a drop in the use of fertiliser and we have to ask ourselves is it also associated with the credit squeeze and the fact that people who normally supplied fertiliser to farmers and waited until the end of the year or until the money came in from some source to get paid for the fertiliser? Has that sort of source dried up as a result of pressure being on them, too? I know that many of the people who supplied this type of material to farmers are no longer prepared to wait for the money. It is most unfortunate that that should be the case.
Some time ago an organisation was set up, the exact name of which I do not know—a milk publicity committee or council of some description.
The National Dairy Publicity Council.
It is immaterial what it is called. As far as I know, something like £70,000 was set aside for publicising cheese, mainly, in this country and there has been no increase in the consumption of cheese. I should like to ask the Minister has the entire £70,000 been spent and, if so, has it been spent to no advantage, or how much of it has been spent, and is it not a fact that an English firm were brought in to provide an unsuitable type of publicity, that terminology was used that was alien to this country and that there has been complete failure in inducing the people of this country to consume more Irish cheese?
The matters which I have mentioned in passing are matters that perhaps the Minister should give us some information about and has not done so.
I have said nothing so far about the situation in relation to pigs. There has been a serious drop in in-pig gilts and sow numbers generally and the indications are that there will be fewer and fewer pigs. There is only one reason why that happens, that is, that the profits are just non-existent. People give up producing pigs only when there is little or no profit in it. There are considerable losses in pigs, especially when fairly large numbers are involved. There is a considerable amount of disease in pigs and, I am sorry to say, not much assistance towards diagnosis. Serious losses occur in this way. Last year there was an enormous increase in the cost of compounds. I give it as my view that the profit was very small.
One of the ways by which the income of a small farmer could be increased is by enabling him to turn out a fairly large number of pigs at a profit. The possibility of doing that should be demonstrated and, in the case of the West of Ireland, it should be demonstrated how it is possible to show a profit at prevailing prices. No attempt whatever has been made to organise the provision of feedingstuffs for pigs and poultry. There is not much money in poultry now. We all know that. The provision of feedingstuffs for pigs in the west of Ireland should be organised, where a man may have to travel a long distance to buy, say, two bags of meal, where there is no such thing as a centre around which a pig-producing enterprise could be encouraged, where raw material would be available at the lowest possible cost, where it could be proved to the farmers in the area that it was possible to produce pigs at a profit. If it can be brought home to the farmers in a convincing manner that there is money in it, they will work harder and longer than any other section of the community to get money from any enterprise.
The price of feedingstuffs should be examined. The situation whereby last year we imported £20 million worth of feedingstuff of one sort or another also needs close examination. We would require to find out the quality of that feedingstuff, whether we are not importing too much low-quality pollard, for instance, and whether the quality of the rations being sold to the farmers at a very high price is poor. It is poor in some cases but not in all cases. I think we are importing bad value in pollard and that situation should be examined. We should substitute some other feedingstuff of better quality which I believe we can buy at a lower price. It is a serious situation which confronts the Pigs and Bacon Commission if they are not able to supply our quota on the British market and if we are very much below that quota, and all indications are that we are definitely heading in that direction.
The drop in the tillage acreage was referred to by Deputy Foley and I find myself in agreement with some of the criticisms he expressed. There was a serious drop in the wheat acreage last year and I believe there will be a further drop this year, despite the fact that there was a price increase of 10/-a barrel or thereabouts—I forget the exact figure. Since I came in here, I have asked a number of questions every year as to why is it necessary to wait until the spring, and often late in the spring, to announce cereal prices for the coming year, when the farmers have to organise their work and start ploughing long before that. There is no reason unless it is that we do not want tillage. If we are going to increase the price, why do we not make the announcement in time to get wheat? No farmer could reorganise his whole production scheme for the following year overnight, especially in the circumstances of the present spring when it was almost impossible to get the normal acreage ploughed in any sort of reasonable condition. I could never get a reason from a Minister as to why it was necessary to postpone the announcement in regard to prices for the year ahead until a man had his ploughing done.
Deputy Foley also cricitised the various restrictions on the carrying of wheat to the mills and the disposal of it. I agree with this. These restrictions are ridiculous and should be removed. In addition, serious consideration should be given in the future to the provision of suitable facilities for the bulk handling of grain to cut out the costs and handling of sacks. Quite a simple arrangement could be made in most farms for the bulk collection and delivery of grain, because combines of that type are becoming more numerous. If we want wheat and grain production, we have got to streamline because we have reached the stage where you will not get men to handle heavy sacks of corn, and I think they are right, because they can get easier work elsewhere. We know that farmwork is hard work, that long hours are involved and that more and more people are leaving it, and the unfortunate situation is we are not providing opportunities for them to find employment elsewhere.
There has been an overall drop in the tillage acreage of 44,000 acres. That is a serious situation. It is not helping farm incomes and neither is it helping the balance of payments. It is all wrong that we should have imported more than £20 million worth of coarse grains and other feedingstuffs in 1965 and that fact needs some explanation. I was rather amused when I heard Deputy Dowling talking about the price of eggs being 7/- a dozen. Obviously, he is not aware of the fact that many poultry producers have gone out of business, for the simple reason that it was not paying them to be in it, certainly as regards egg production. For long periods during the year, they were selling eggs at under the cost of production. Only somebody in a very big way in the business can afford to stay in it, somebody who is able to cut the cost of production beyond anything that the small man could stand.
Earlier, I was talking about the reliefs which could and should be provided for farmers. I expressed the hope that these reliefs will apply to all farmers, regardless of whether they are milk producers or otherwise. I have been a critic of the heifer scheme. Undoubtedly it did increase the number of cattle but it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that only a small percentage of the farmers benefited from it. It was one of those schemes that brought a considerable advantage to a limited number. Some £5½ million has been spent on the heifer subsidy scheme and only 50 per cent of the farmers got anything from it. If we are providing that sort of benefit, which is obviously directed to a certain section, there should be a compensatory benefit provided at the same time for the other sections of the farming community.
Another matter about which we did not hear much, and to which I should like the Minister to refer when he is replying, is in regard to the prospects for the intensive vegetable production which we all hoped might be possible and in regard to which there were experiments in Glencolumbkille and elsewhere. How are sales going? How is the disposal of this canned and dried material going and what are the future prospects? Is it something to look forward to as something than can be developed with advantage? Have we an outlet for these products and is it the intention to expand or curtail these lines? The Minister should have told us a little more about these things and I hope that, when he is concluding, he will tell us some more about this project.
The Minister might also tell us something about the prospects for the co-operative society which it is proposed to set up in North Leinster, the type of production they intend to engage in and the advantages they hope to bring to the farming community throughout this very wide area. To have this widespread co-operation and an organised setting out to ensure that the farmer gets his raw materials as he is entitled to and as the industrialist does at the lowest possible price, and to help him increase his production and find an outlet for it, those are the lines on which we should be endeavouring to help the farmer.
Whatever we do in the long run to reduce costs of production in agriculture, whatever we do to increase productivity on the land, all this requires enormous investment. In 1964, an estimate was made of the capital investment needed to reap the potential of the land of this country. It was estimated to require somewhere in the region of £300 million between 1964 and 1970 and of that sum £100 million is being asked of the Government. In order to get increased production on the land, enormous investment is called for in building, equipment, drainage and fertilisers. That is the serious snag. It is easy to tell the farmers to be more productive, to grow more, that that is the way to solve their problems, but not to increase prices. It has been demonstrated beyond doubt that prices in this country are low by comparison with the prices available generally to farmers in Western Europe. There is a good case to be made here now for an increase in prices, leading to some little surplus that can be reinvested in the land. It has been shown that during the past few years farmers have reinvested in their farms a large proportion of their incomes to try to increase productivity. Productivity has been increasing in agriculture faster than in industry. At the same time, the gap between the two incomes has been widening. There is obviously a case for an improvement in farm prices and the Minister should announce it without further delay.
I do not intend at this stage to make a comprehensive speech on agriculture because I confess it is something I possibly could not do. However, in the recent debate on the Supplementary Estimate, I made an attempt to explain some of my views on agriculture and some of the conclusions I had arrived at. On that occasion I was continuously interrupted and it was difficult for me to make the case I wanted to make. Having said that, I do not intend to go over the same ground again.
The scheme in which I have been mostly interested and on which I have got information by way of Parliamentary Question and a study of statistics is the calved heifer scheme. I have made certain observations which could be regarded as a warning regarding how this scheme was developing and the effect it was having on cattle prices and other aspects of the trade. I want to point out again that this scheme without doubt benefits the big farmer to a much greater extent than the medium or small farmer. I have figures supplied to me by the Minister in reply to Parliamentary Questions which bear out this contention.
I notice in the Minister's speech on this Estimate a kind of playing down of this scheme. I read into it a hint that some change is about to be made in the scheme. Maybe the Minister will tell me whether my expectations are valid or not? I feel he is getting in a gentle hint to the farmers that, if the scheme is not changed altogether, at least there will be a change in some aspects of it. I quote from page 9 of his opening statement:
As our herds approach the optimum carrying capacity of our farms and with the increasing numbers of calved heifers going towards normal herd replacements, it is to be expected that the volume of participation in the Scheme will abate somewhat, although it should be still quite considerable. A slackening in the inflow of new applications is already noticeable, and the estimate of £2,500,000 shows a substantial decrease on the £3,400,000 provided in 1965-66.
Of course, up to quite recently, the Minister would have denied that the scheme would have this effect or that there was a slowing down.
The increase in numbers reached has not been altogether due to the £15 grant. All but one of the points I made in the last debate were not contested by the Minister in his reply. However, he did take up Deputy Dillon and myself on the accusation regarding the slowing down of the culling rate. I have studied this matter further since and I find what I said on that occasion is still true. If we use the Minister's method of reckoning the culling rate, we find the average rate in the five years 1958 to 1963, before this scheme was introduced, was 12.51 per cent. In the first year of the scheme, there was a slight decrease of 12.39 per cent and in the following year, 1964-65, the culling rate dropped to 9.64 per cent.
These figures speak for themselves.
They are based on figures issued by the Central Statistics Office, and if we could introduce into the House a blackboard and chalk, I would work it out before the Minister's eyes. If we had to continue that normal culling rate of 12.51 per cent since the scheme was introduced, the cow numbers would not now be as great as they are. The total increase in the cow numbers since the calved heifer scheme was introduced was 220,000. If culling had to be maintained at the same rate as it was in the five years, 1958 to 1963, the increase would have been 173,000. Therefore, this scheme has encouraged that kind of practice. It has slowed down the culling rate. Cattle prices are also down and I hold that that scheme has adversely affected those prices.
I agree wholeheartedly with the £5,750,000 being given to agriculture in this scheme, but the scheme, as we have seen it to apply, has benefited only about half the farming community, and the average grant works out at about £43 per applicant. The publication issued by the Minister's Department on its activities says that the average grant per applicant was £48. I do not agree with this because a small number of farmers got away with large sums of money in this scheme, and this is the information which the Minister has given me. Less than one per cent of all the applicants since this scheme was initiated have taken ten per cent of the money that has been disbursed to date. That in itself proves how unfairly and how unequally this money is being disbursed. About 50 per cent of the farmers have got about 90 per cent of the money disbursed. The biggest black mark against the scheme is the fact that .86 per cent, to be exact, of the applicants ran away with ten per cent of this £5,750,000.
If the Minister can devise a scheme whereby the farmers will benefit equally and the scheme will benefit directly and indirectly the whole cattle trade, it will be more satisfactory. I maintain it is now affecting prices, that the increase will now level off within the next six to 12 months and that there will be a decrease in numbers in about nine or 12 months time. From the statements which I have quoted the Minister as making, I think he suspects the scheme will have this effect.
The last time I spoke on the Agriculture Estimate, I referred to the fact that by comparison with the corresponding months of the previous year, that butter was down by two per cent in every month from September, 1965, to February, 1966. Since that time I have checked on the figures and I find that the March, 1966, figure is slightly higher than that for the corresponding month last year. This increase should not give us anything to enthuse about, because I believe it is due to a directive which was given to manufacturers to reduce outputs of products other than butter and that Bord Bainne issued this directive when they saw the way the butter production figures were going.
Milk supplies this year are less than three per cent above last year's level, although our cow numbers are ten per cent higher than last year. There is something wrong here. If milk supplies are up just three per cent and cow numbers are up ten per cent in the same period, it is reasonable to suggest that there is a decline in milk yields or that farmers are no longer increasing dairy herds. I suppose the decline in milk yields is to be expected, in view of the inadequate culling rate last year.
It is no surprise that farmers, as of old, should not be increasing dairy herds in the light of recent trends, especially in calf prices. I was speaking to a farmer from my constituency quite recently and he said that calf prices this year are about half last year's level. A correspondent in The Farmer's Journal had the same story to tell recently. He said they were down about £8 a head. This is something of which notice should be taken and the causes eliminated. The prospect of an increase in the price of calves and young cattle is unlikely to improve and prices are likely to fall further in the year ahead. A clear indication of this is the fact that fertiliser consumption has declined for the second year running, and this will lead to a slackening in the demand for calves and young cattle. Any further slackening in demand will also affect prices.
I do not maintain that there will be an actual decrease in cow numbers this year because changes in plans as a result of the current poor prices for calves will not be reflected fully before next year. Nevertheless, in the livestock figures which will be published in June, I expect to see a sharp decline in the number of heifers in calf and a much slower increase in cow numbers. I forecast an increase of possibly three per cent as compared with about ten per cent last year.
The justification for the calved heifer subsidy scheme is that it will increase cow numbers. I maintain it will do this only in the short term. In the long term it will not increase cow numbers and that will affect cattle prices. The scheme will continue to cost money but the objective, a continued increase in numbers, will not be achieved. It will require only a majority of farmers to reduce their herds in order to bring about a reduction in total cow numbers. It will be possible for a minority to increase their herds while a reduction in the overall national herd actually takes place. For example, suppose there are ten farmers with ten cows each, giving a total of 100 cows, and six decide to reduce their herds to eight cows—that is, a reduction of 48 cows—and four expand their herds to 11 cows each, giving a total increase of 44, there is then an overall reduction of eight cows but the grants will amount to £60 and they will be paid to the farmers in this group of ten who increased their herds. I believe this kind of situation will develop in the next few years. The scheme will continue to cost money even when cow numbers are declining.
It was a pity last year that I was not allowed to express my views on this scheme without interruption. I did not have that facility. I was continually interrupted from the time I started until I sat down. I hope now that the few observations I have made tonight will help in guiding the expenditure of this sum of almost £6 million more evenly and more equally, especially from the point of view of the small farmers. As I said, it merely benefits the large farmer and quite a number of presumably large farmers have taken more than their fair share of the scheme. I should like to see the scheme revised on lines designed to give equal benefits to all farmers.
It is no good the Minister saying that the average grant per applicant was £48 and the average increase about three to four heifers. He should have explained that a great many people have got very large sums. It is not right that Deputies should have to drag this information from the Minister by way of Parliamentary Question. The details of the scheme are very briefly outlined in the publication dealing with the activities of the Department. All the embarrassing factors are left out. That is not a good idea. It is not a good idea to gloss over the disadvantages and try to pretend that the scheme is a very good one and one from which all farmers benefit equally. The drawbacks and the disadvantages should also be outlined.
I would advocate now the establishment of a veterinary laboratory in Kilkenny. The Minister proposes to set up regional laboratories throughout the country. Veterinary surgeons in Kilkenny, Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford and Wicklow have to send samples to Abbotstown for examination. On average, the journey is about 100 miles. If a laboratory were established in Kilkenny or in some adjoining area, it would be within 50 miles of Tipperary, Waterford, Wexford, Wicklow, Kildare, Carlow and Laois. A very good service could be provided. At the moment veterinary surgeons have to wait two days for the results of sample tests in order to diagnose ailments. This is certainly not giving the best service possible to the farming community and I am glad that there is at last a first step taken in the expansion of the services.
Sites for such facilities have been obtained in Cork, Limerick and Athlone. I hope that as the scheme develops, further regions will be considered and that a place like Kilkenny, which is very central and around which there is a great deal of agricultural activity, probably more than in any other region, will be favourably considered. I hope the Minister will consider the appeal I am making tonight on behalf of the Kilkenny region. I do not propose to deal with any other items of the Estimate. I have dealt with these few because I was in a position to do so. I raised these matters before and did not get full satisfaction from the Minister of the pleas and arguments I put before him. I hope he will take more heed of them at this stage and that we will shortly have results.
For many years we in this country have been proclaiming the fact that our farming community is the backbone and bulwark of the community and the nation. That claim is borne out by even a casual glance at the sustained and continuing contribution made by our agricultural population to our exports, a contribution which creates buoyancy and expansion of our economy. That contribution of the agricultural community enhances our whole economic development. When we examine the export and import figures for the calendar year 1965, we find that agricultural imports to the value of £18 million were offset by agricultural exports to the value of £120 million. We find that our industrial imports for further processing amounted to £200 million, while our industrial exports were of the nature of £80 million.
It is an obvious conclusion to draw from these figures that the health and vigour of our whole economy depends to a great degree on the agricultural sector. Provided that the agricultural sector is sustained and maintained, the health and virility of our whole economy is on a sound basis. Listening to some of the speakers from the other side of the House, one would think that agriculture was not an important part of the national economy and I was amazed to hear Deputy Flanagan describe it as a second-class industry.
During the past ten years, under a Fianna Fáil Government, the subsidisation of agriculture has increased by over 30 per cent. It increased from £17,232,000 in 1956-57 to £52,482,000. That can be broken up: in 1956-57, the subsidy for dairy production was £2,700,000 and in 1966-67, it is £12,640,000, an increase of almost six times over. In 1956-57 the subsidy for bacon was £20,000 and for 1966-67, it is £2,350,000. The subsidy for fertilisers in 1956-57 was £690,000 and in 1966-67, it is £4,860,000. One could go on down the list and mention that the relief in rates has increased from £4 million in 1956-57 to £13 million in 1966-67. In the face of these figures, I do not think anyone can accuse Fianna Fáil of neglecting the farmers or of being ignorant of the vital part which agriculture plays in our economy.
The Minister for Finance, in his Budget speech, said that any diminution in farmers' incomes in the current year would be taken into account and that if such a diminution took place, a review of the whole situation would also take place. The time has now come for that review and it is heartening for us to realise that the Minister is so sympathetic and understanding about the plight of the farmers, even though relief measures may mean an increase in taxation. In order to have farmers' incomes righted, we must accept the fact that further taxation may be necessary. None of us likes the word "taxation". It is a word that hits us very hard, but if we are to expand and develop, we must have increased taxation.
I would like to say a few words about the heifer subsidy scheme. I was amazed that Deputies came into the House to criticise that scheme. The plea at all times has been for comprehensive assistance to farmers by way of grants and subsidies and I cannot see how the heifer subsidy scheme could have aroused the criticism of some of the Deputies. There is no foundation for the statement that only the ranchers and the broadly-based farmers benefited from the scheme. In the year ended 31st March, 1966, grants totalling almost £3 million were paid in respect of 181,929 additional calved heifers. From 1st June, 1964 to 31st March, 1966, the number of grants paid was in respect of 384,354 heifers and the total was £5,765,310 the number of applicants being 120,256, giving an average of £48 per applicant. Those figures seem to contradict the claim that it is only the ranchers who are benefiting from this scheme. One has only to look at these figures to come to the compelling conclusion that the scheme was not only justified but surpassed the most ardent expectations of the Department. I am forced to the conclusion that the heifer subsidy scheme has been too successful to suit some Members of the House. That is the only reason I can give for the criticism that has been levelled at it.
In recent years, of course, there has been a revolution in efficient and modern techniques which farmers have applied to their farming methods. Through prudence and wise husbandry, farmers have increased the number of their herds per acre and we have the concept of a cattle population substantially in excess of 1½ million. The figure in excess of 1½ million is now a realistic figure. This, again, is due, I think, in no small way to the success of the calved heifer subsidy scheme.
I should like to say a few words about the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society who, annually, are allocated £30,000 by the Government. I feel that this is not a generous enough allowance. If the IAOS are to equip and modernise themselves and play the role that Dr. Knapp, in his report, would have them play, then I would urge that this sum be increased.
There is a need for the IAOS to have a thorough and soul-searching re-appraisal of some of their operations—the same can be said for some of the agencies serving the farmers— to see whether they are performing at maximum efficiency and to determine how this efficiency can be improved. The first of these organisations serving the farmers is the IAOS which has been the acknowledged centre of Irish agricultural co-operation since 1894.
We must pose ourselves the same question as Dr. Knapp asked in his report: is the IAOS in a position now to provide the co-operative leadership that the present time demands? It is very difficult for me to be able to give a direct answer to that question. I do not think they are in a position, either financially or organisationally, to meet their responsibilities without a lot of reorganisation. The present Government grant is not sufficient and should be increased in keeping with the tasks and responsibilities of this organisation. It may well enjoy at the moment the goodwill of the co-operatives and of the farm organisation agencies with which it comes in contact but I think the real answer to improve it is to give an extra boost financially.
To give the leadership and the assistance required to the farming community in general, it is inevitable that there will have to be a very severe reshuffle and re-organisation of the IAOS. The first thing would be the enlargement of its rules and many structural changes and of course a substantial growth in its personnel. I have no doubt that a strong and vigorously reorganised IAOS would have an immediate and invigorating effect on the Irish co-operative movement. It would be in a position to bring about great improvement in the efficiency of all agricultural co-operative organisations and, since the strength and buoyancy of the economy depends to a very large degree on our agricultural community, a healthy and a vigorous IAOS would be an outstanding injection of growth into the agricultural section of our community.
I should like to urge the Minister to take all the steps he considers necessary in fully implementing the recommendations of Dr. Knapp in this area of farming organisation. Dr. Knapp's recommendations were eagerly endorsed by both the IAOS itself and our leading co-operative throughout the country. I hesitate to mention finance again but I think a substantial increase in the grant towards the IAOS would go a big way towards meeting the recommendations and attaining the type of efficiency which Dr. Knapp envisaged for the IAOS. We on this side of the House are very proud of the part we have played in invigorating our agricultural community. There are many co-operatives which render invaluable service to the rural community as a whole.
I should like to put forward a few suggestions on how I think the task of reorganisation could be undertaken by co-operatives. First of all, there should be an accurate compiling of all the statistics available to them on their operations at their central creameries and all their branch creameries. I think I can speak with a reasonable amount of authority about the co-operatives in the country because I had occasion to work in several of them from time to time in the installation of accounting equipment and systems in general. Indeed, some of the managers I spoke with since the installation of modern accounting techniques in these co-operatives have been very satisfied with the results. They have been very satisfied that the whole clerical operation has been brought to its most efficient conclusion.
I think the most important aspect from any co-operative point of view is to have available statistics and operating costs and other financial aspects of the co-operative. This can lead to increased production and, by so doing, they are operating at optimum efficiency. Such a system should be the very core of every co-operative. I think it was one of Dr. Knapp's main criticisms of co-operatives in this country that they could do with much better accounting standards and costings and these should be an integral part of every co-operative.
I should also like to suggest the encouragement as far as possible of the setting up of junior committees in conjunction with some of the senior committees. Macra na Feirme could possibly go about the job of training youth in the principles of organisation and the social implications of the co-operative movement. The educational needs of the members as regards co-operation have been sadly neglected. That is one of the fundamental requirements of the realisation of the benefit it can be to the community and the individual. There are exceptions to this rule notably in Ballyclough and Imokilly which have junior committees already. No co-operative could undertake more rewarding and remunerative work than this promotional work through youth, gaining their interest and telling them what co-operation is all about.
In addition, we have in UCC Dairy Science Faculty a series of seminars for creamery managers on the principles and social implications of the co-operative movement. These have been an unqualified success. One of the things that strike one about the co-operative movement is the desire of members to learn. If we give these members facilities to improve their knowledge and their farming generally, they are only too anxious to accept them and get down to it.
I read recently in an agricultural publication that the IAOS have increased the number of men in the field in the past year. This is to be commended. It is a logical step and a vital one from the co-operative point of view. Co-operatives are now offering service to farmers in various forms of agriculture and the need for personnel to pass on this information is constantly increasing. Co-operatives that are offering this service to members are benefiting tremendously. I was speaking to one member last week and he told me he experienced the greatest sense of participation and awareness he had ever experienced since he came into the co-operative movement and he had been in it over 30 years.
Dr. Knapp was right when he said that one of the inherent factors in our co-operative movement was the lack of participation in the movement by many members. Every effort is being and will be made to increase and invigorate member participation in all aspects of the co-operative system. This can only produce greater education of members in co-operation and in what the co-operative movement can do for them.
Most complaints by members of co-operatives concern availability of credit and credit operations generally. There should be a re-investigation and a firm basis and policy should be laid down for the credit operations of every co-operative so that some of the abuses would be eliminated. Deputy Jones, I think asked, when the new system of rationalisation in creameries takes effect, how can managers assess the creditworthiness of a farmer who lives perhaps 25 miles away. We must have a broadening of the rules to meet eventualities such as Deputy Jones envisaged. The IAOS should continue to play a leading role in promoting efficiency and viability of co-operatives. To achieve this, we must have a growth in the personnel which should be matched by a corresponding increase in co-operation between the IAOS and the Agricultural Research Institute.
Several farmers complain of the poor attendances at some of the co-operative meetings. To some extent that is true. Imokilly Co-operative have set a headline in this also by preparing a set of accounts on the working of the co-op which can easily be understood by the members. Every member should be presented with this report at least a fortnight before the annual general meeting and should then be free to discuss every aspect of the society's work for the year. It must be presented in a readable form. In co-ops such as Imokilly where the right spirit prevails, the benefits accruing have been immense. The manager and the committee work as one unit for the promotion of members' welfare. Springing from that, I think every co-operative should set up a series of advisory committees comprised of members who, by contributing advice or suggestion, will become a more integral part of the co-operative movement and not mere spectators.
One aspect of co-operation which should be emphasised is free and open discussion without secrecy in the operation and administration of the co-operative itself. If there is secrecy and lack of co-operation, the management and the members will suffer ultimately. Then we come to the very tricky question of shares in a co-op. There should be an easier system for the transfer of shares. The present legal system is responsible for the widespread use of the out-dated shares ledger. It should be improved and brought up to date. Indeed, you get the position where some farmers do not know whether they are members or shareholders of a co-op or whether they are entitled to be because of their position as suppliers. These doubts should be cleared up and set right. The co-op should bring together the various agencies which operate within its orbit such as credit unions and various advisory services.
I should like to say a word about the credit union system as applied to the urban dweller. I wonder would it be possible for farmers to start a type of credit union system whereby they could pay in so much per annum and eventually, when the scheme had grown sufficiently big, could borrow from it? This would be a help in overcoming some of the credit restrictions which may be imposed from time to time. It is a very broad question and would need a great deal of examination. I throw the idea out here for what it is worth.
This brings me to the point where I should like to ask the Minister does not he think that the stage has arrived where the Agricultural Credit Corporation should be farmer-owned and should be operated in exactly the same way as a co-op. It could be called a co-operative credit institution. In 1961, the Minister for Finance said that the Government's aim was to enable the Agricultural Credit Corporation to play a leading part in the financing and development of agriculture and creating conditions in which arrangements could be worked out for the participation by farmers in the ownership and control of the corporation. The time is probably fast arriving when the farmers must have control of their own credit facilities. The NFA report on agricultural credit says that from a survey carried out in 14 branches of the organisation this policy of turning the Agricultural Credit Corporation over to the farming and co-operative community should be vigorously pursued without delay. I should like to hear from the Minister if he has any views on that suggestion.
Again, co-operation is a tremendously broad word. Co-operatives could be broadened and made more flexible to embrace purchasing activities through a central agency. I know the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society and the Irish Co-operative Agency are already making contributions in this field but there is real scope for further expansion in this area of co-operative purchasing activities and a great deal more can be done in extending this service. Indeed, in this respect I view with gratification the upsurge in services offered to farmers by many co-operatives over the past years.
Last year, over 57 co-operative societies were licensed for the manufacture of animal feedingstuffs and their manufactured output represents about 12 per cent of the national total. More significantly, the co-ops retailed to their members about one-third of the total animal feedingstuffs consumed in this country. This development of the manufacture and sale of feedingstuffs by co-operatives is based on the provision of quality product, publication of the ingredients and identification by means of a common brand. I hope that in the near future the balance of feedingstuffs will be manufactured on a national scale and that those co-operatives who have yet to undertake the manufacture of feedingstuffs will start to do so. The overall effect of this type of operation would be to enable farmers to purchase quality feedingstuffs at the most competitive prices.
Finally, where the IAOS is concerned, I should like to state that its vigour and growth was due in no small way to the informed policy of its instigators and of those who continue the policy that its role should be that of a fully-fledged partner. Miss Margaret Digby in her book Co-operation in Ireland has this to say of the IAOS:
The future of this body is a question of the first importance to the Irish co-operative movement. Any agency which destroyed the unity and centralised authority of the movement or anything which brought to an end the traditionalism and idealism and social service in which the IAOS was founded and for which a national opinion has always stood would be a heavy blow to the co-operatives in Ireland.
I fully endorse that view. We have an example at the moment of the effect of the split in the two farmers' organisations, the NFA and the ICMSA. The only person who will suffer from this sort of split ultimately is the farmer. The two groups should pay heed to what was said in that book on agricultural co-operation in Ireland, that all should get together and work for the common benefit of the farmer.
We hope in mid-Cork to see in the near future the establishment of a new factory for the processing of mutton and lamb. We are pressing very hard for it because such a factory would provide a ready and convenient outlet for the increased sheep and lamb production which farmers in Cork and Kerry are now undertaking. There are several towns in the constituency of mid-Cork which would be suitable for this type of processing.
You will have to wait for another election.
There is one coming.
Deputy Corish has a habit of interrupting me every time I speak.
The Deputy does not get annoyed.
We are getting a baby beef factory in Kerry.
Of course, there are farming districts in Kerry—Glenflesk, Kilgarvan, Kenmare—but we in Bandon would be in a very strong position to put forward a claim for a processing factory there. We are near an airport and very near a port; we have good roads and a labour force, as Deputy Flanagan would say, second to none.
What about the factory that has been abandoned in Bandon?
Which one is that?
The last election one.
There were two at the last election.
It has not been abandoned.
The Deputy's hearing must be defective. The Minister made it very clear last week that it was.
Such a factory set up in Bandon would prosper and thrive, being operated by the skilled manpower in that area.
I have no objection to the setting up of ten factories in Bandon, if you can get them.
I know the Deputy would help me. There is an expanding market under the Free Trade Area Agreement for carcase mutton and lamb. We could utilise this factory for the export of mutton and lamb. There is a very rapidly expanding demand for mutton and lamb in France. I think we should be able to cash in on that.
I am sorry the Minister is not here because I should like to pay tribute to him for the manner in which he received a deputation from the Dairy Farmers Association which included Deputy Meaney, Deputy Creed and myself. The deputation was in regard to butter fat testing and we were very pleased with the sympathetic hearing we received. I am sure he will—
Did you get anything?
I think we are going to get what we want. Today I saw a question on the Order Paper in the names of Deputy McAuliffe and Deputy Mrs. Desmond about this matter. In fact, Questions Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 dealt with it and I cannot understand why these questions were asked.
Why?
Because it is alleged in the questions that there was some adulterated milk being sold by the farmers but of course there was no proof of this whatever.
There was no allegation of that sort.
Did the Deputy read the question?
I did.
Would you like me to read it for you? It reads as follows:
To ask the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries whether, at the time when two investigations into sampling were being carried out by his Department at a co-operative creamery (name supplied), as a result of complaint by a small number of milk producers, samples were taken from the milk of the complaining suppliers on 11th July, 1961, and 21st June, 1965; whether these samples contained 2.9 per cent and 2.85 per cent butter fat respectively; and whether this percentage of butter fat at that season of the year indicated that butter fat had been abstracted or that the milk had been adulterated in some manner.
Where is the allegation?
There is no allegation.
I am not going to translate English for you. All I can say from having met the members of the Dairy Farmers Association——
The Deputy was a member himself.
Yes, the three of us were members. From having met these members, I think their claims and grievances seem to be legitimate. All they needed was to be treated in a proper manner and to be given facilities which should be given to any commercial concern if it is selling a product. We asked the Minister to make an order that the butter fat test should be marked on the supplier's pass card within two days of the test being carried out by the creamery. These tests are carried out twice monthly. The association also wanted the right to get samples out of the weigh pan in the creamery for independent tests and to have an independent test centre established where samples could be tested for suppliers. Every milk supplier has a case in requesting that he should be at least entitled to take a sample of the milk he is supplying. As far as I can see, all that is involved for any creamery manager is a small amount of public relations. If there had been better public relations, this case would never have arisen.
The Minister in his brief referred to Gorta. We in Bandon are proud of the fact that the Indian Ambassador saw fit to come and thank the people of Bandon for the tremendous contribution which they had made to the Freedom From Hunger Campaign. Today, when we have so many claims for more of this and more of that, it would do no harm at times to think of those parts of the world where people are dying of starvation. I completely endorse the Department of Agriculture view in regard to continuing this contribution to this very worthy cause. I should like to thank the Minister for receiving the deputation from the Dairy Farmers Association and listening attentively to what was a long and complicated case. I am sure he will take some action in this matter and we look forward in the near future to all farmers being allowed to take samples from the butter fat test.
I have been listening for some time to Deputy Crowley who is from the same constituency as myself. He referred to the deputation from the Dairy Farmers Association which is comprised of farmers from our constituency. I was sorry he did not tell us that the deputation was in vain.
Who said it was in vain?
I did not interrupt the Deputy.
I knew you got nothing.
The Minister did receive this deputation very kindly and courteously but that was no good. We approached the Minister about a problem related to butter fat testing. There were 12 or 14 farmers on the deputation, some of whom had driven from Cork and it was a very expensive journey for them. We discussed at length the problems facing these farmers and now I understand the Minister has informed them that he has no authority to intervene in this matter. I am sure the Minister was well aware of what those farmers wanted and could have informed them before they left Cork that he had no authority to deal with this problem. That is the position.
That is not true.
If the Deputy likes, I will give him written proof of it. In reply to a supplementary question here, the Minister for Agriculture did say that I was on the deputation to his office and that they expressed satisfaction with the present price of milk. That was published in a paper and it irritated the farmers. The price of milk was never discussed on that occasion and it was most unfair of the Minister to make that statement. It was clear that the Minister wanted to play one farmers' organisation against another. I am disgusted with the way in which the Minister has played the game of cat and mouse with the farmers——
The price of milk was discussed.
If it was discussed, did the deputation express satisfaction at the price of milk? That is a fair question.
The Deputy said it was not discussed.
The price of milk was not the problem that brought the deputation to the Minister. The Minister stated that the deputation of which Deputies Crowley and Meaney and I were members expressed satisfaction with the price of milk.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.