Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 12 Oct 1966

Vol. 224 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Cattle and Sheep Prices.

I move:

That Dáil Éireann condemns the manner in which the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries last January misled the farmers about future prospects for cattle and sheep and calls on the Government to take urgent steps to protect those engaged in the livestock industry from the immediate disaster that faces them as a result of the serious drop in cattle and sheep prices which has occurred at the same time as the farmers are being asked to pay increased rates and find their credit restricted.

This motion standing in my name and that of other Fine Gael Deputies is tabled for the same reason as the farmers all over Ireland, even from the most distant parts of West Cork, have started marching to Dublin, to emphasise their extraordinary difficulties and to protest in the strongest possible way at the Government's failure to realise these difficulties and to recognise the hopeless state of farm incomes in the present year.

The Minister for Agriculture fails completely to appreciate that many farmers are facing disaster because of the complete collapse of cattle and sheep prices. This collapse has hit all farmers but, of course, the smaller farmer is feeling it by far the worst, and small farmers are to be found all over Ireland. The West and South-West perhaps have been worst hit because the traditional income of the farmers there depended on the rearing of young cattle until they were one or two years old, when they were sold, and also on the rearing of sheep on the hill and mountain areas.

We all know, unfortunately, what has happened. I am familiar with the position in this part of the country. I have spent many hours in cattle marts looking at the prices being offered and the prices, in many cases, having to be accepted because people must sell. I have gone to the West of Ireland, too, to investigate the position there on the spot and I have been appalled at the prices people have had to take. It is well known that cattle prices have dropped anything from £10 to £20 per head since this time last year. I have seen calves that this time last year would be selling at £15 and £20 a head selling freely at cattle marts at £5 each. That is a very serious situation. It is a serious situation for the dairy man because it represents a reduction of 6d per gallon in his milk, but more serious still for the small farmer of the West of Ireland or whatever he may be.

Let me give an example of the extreme hardship that exists. I came across one case in the West of Ireland where both a man and his wife were out trying to sell 10 young store cattle. They were Aberdeen Angus Shorthorn cross from one and a half to two years old, and the woman said: "We have got to sell today whatever happens. This is the third time we have had them out and this is the worst price we have yet been offered but we have got to sell," and she added: "Our children are going back to school." I did not catch the point immediately. I said: "I suppose you have a large family." I discovered there were nine in family, that the two eldest were at secondary school and the third at vocational school. It was quite obvious in that case that the most pressing need was clothes for the children, and school fees, and of course, the rates are coming due. Her pride and decency would not allow her to say any more. These are, in my opinion, sturdy and decent people. They do not mind hard work, even hardship, if their reward enables them to rear their family and give them a reasonable education, but they are being denied that at present.

It has been shown conclusively that there are many people who are trying to get a living from the land today earning as little as £5 per week. As long as these conditions exist the Minister has an obligation to take all the necessary steps to overcome them. I do not believe these steps have yet been taken. We are only playing at the problem and little or nothing has been done so far for these small farmers. We have a few trials in the West of Ireland on a pilot farm scale, but it does not spell relief for the majority of those people. I do not think they are going to continue to accept the position. They have seen that the way to get the position improved is by kicking up a row and that the people who make most noise get most.

This motion draws attention to the manner in which the Minister misled the farming community last January in relation to future prices and prospects for cattle and sheep. Not only did the Minister make those statements in January but he repeated them in May. It is very difficult to understand, with the information that should be at the Minister's disposal, why he himself appeared to be so misled, if he was not making political capital out of the situation at the time. It was reasonable to expect that these difficulties would arise, and the Government Party largely precipitated the crisis we have today. Cattle numbers were artificially increased through the heavy subsidy. We know the response there was to that subsidy, that it brought results and that these results were proudly boasted of on many occasions by the Minister and the members of the Government Party.

It is something to be proud of to be able to increase cattle numbers as they have been increased, but there was no preparation made to dispose of these extra cattle. There was no effort made to set up a proper marketing organisation. We on this side of the House and the farming organisations outside the House have been badgering the Minister and the Department on the necessity for setting up a meat marketing organisation and for setting up a proper promotional board for the selling of live cattle wherever we can sell them, let it be in England; let it be on the Continent.

At the present time, there are rumours abroad. Yesterday, the Minister was apparently in a very happy mood. I hope he has something worthwhile to tell the House this evening. We all will be glad to hear that outlets have been found. If outlets have been found now, it is fair to ask why it was necessary to wait so long to make this effort and why were so many poor farmers throughout the country compelled to sell their young cattle at give-away prices awaiting this effort.

There is a rumour abroad that we now have an outlet for approximately 2,000 cattle in East Germany which are to be slaughtered in West Germany. If the Minister has an announcement of that kind to make I should like that he would announce the price and, perhaps, the subsidy that will be provided by the Irish Government to enable the sale of these cattle to take place.

This morning's paper carries a news item to the effect that we are selling 10,000 cattle to Egypt and that some of the cattle have been shipped already. Everybody will be anxious to hear how much money this sale has put or will put into the pockets of the small producer. Are dealing men to go into the markets in the West of Ireland and elsewhere and buy this limited number of cattle that perhaps we have an outlet for at the lowest price at which they can get them? Will there be nobody competing against them at realistic prices? What is the element of profit for the exporter? Is all this money finding its way into the pockets of exporters and dealers? How much of it is going back to the farmer? My opinion and the opinion of many other persons is that the headage subsidy that is already being paid is not finding its way back to the farmer. I have asked the Minister to try to find a way in which it will find its way back to the farmer. The Minister gave the impression that he was anxious to do that but so far there has been no indication that a scheme is to be brought into operation.

Having regard to the blue card system that is in operation in respect of cattle and the arrangement whereby every beast is ear-tagged, it is difficult to understand why the headage subsidy for fat cattle could not be paid from person to person when a blue card was surrendered until, eventually, it was returned at the port. It would seem not to be beyond the ability and wisdom of the Department of Agriculture to devise a scheme whereby the subsidy would go back direct to the farmer.

It is difficult to see how the small farmer who is not producing fat cattle is to be looked after. Unless there is some competition in the market in which the small farmer has to sell his cattle, or unless the Minister can take over all the Land Commission land that is available and stock that land and all the institutional farms available to the Department with that cattle, thus creating opposition to the dealers and exporters, this scheme will spell no relief for the small farmers in the West of Ireland.

In my view, the position will deteriorate now that we are coming to the end of the grass season. Cattle fed on the 11 months system will be pouring on to the market and unless sizable outlets are found immediately, there will be chaos and many farmers will go down and will not come up for a long time.

The important thing here is to pinpoint, not so much how the crisis has arisen, but how relief is to be provided. It is not easy to remedy matters when a crisis has developed. There are certain things that can be done. It is imperative that the headage subsidy paid at present should be continued until next March, perhaps to the end of next March, or that a guaranteed price for fat cattle during the spring months should be named now, in advance. In addition, the banks, the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the rate collectors should be called on and credit should be made freely available from whatever source it can be provided to enable farmers to keep their cattle or to enable the unfortunate persons who have lost heavily on their stocks and who have had to sell to get into cattle again.

The important thing is to recognise that there is a real crisis. I feel that that fact has not yet borne itself in on the Minister. It is fantastic that as late as last May the Minister, when outlining the benefits that would accrue from the Trade Agreement, should have stated at Volume 222, column 1503, of the Official Report, that there was provided:

...a solid foundation on which the profitable expansion of cattle and sheep production can be based, and livestock producers can expand output in the confident knowledge that adequate export outlets and satisfactory market prices will be available.

In the next column, he said:

...the international outlook for beef points to an assured outlet for all the cattle we can produce.

An assured outlet is not of very much use to any country unless the prices are economic. Unfortunately, we have neither a secure outlet not a sound foundation. The serious aspect of this is that the farmers have found that immediately they increase production of any commodity the price decreases and they are back in slump conditions. It would take a tremendous effort to restore confidence as far as the farmers are concerned so that they would continue to produce cattle in the numbers we all feel desirable if farming is to be. as profitable as we would like it to be. If they are to be convinced that it is a good thing for them to produce cattle there will have to be some guarantee that this type of thing will not recur and that the Minister will not let them down when anything goes wrong.

The attitude of the Minister is that he refuses to meet the representatives of the people who are in difficulty. He refuses to allow their point of view to be put before the people on Telefís Éireann. I do not think that such an attitude will help in the solution of our problem. In the unfortunate circumstances in which the farmers now find themselves the least that they expect from the Minister who represents them is that he would meet them and discuss the difficulties. I think he should apologise for his own failure and should accept from the farmers any recommendations they may have to make as to the best possible ways and means of overcoming the difficulty and restoring confidence.

There are many ways of dealing with this problem. None of them is easy. The important thing to remember is that it is the weakest of our farming people who are worst hit here. The Minister's efforts should be directed towards finding a way of getting anything in the nature of subsidies or assistance channelled back down to that unfortunate farmer whose circumstances compel him to sell. The bills of the grocer, the rate collector and all the other bills due by someone rearing a family are waiting. He must sell, whatever the price. Undoubtedly the feeder will suffer heavy losses in the present year. But he will recover. If he loses this year, he will restock at giveaway prices. Usually his credit position is better than that of the small farmer.

The Minister gave an assurance here at Question Time yesterday that he would see that any small farmer needing credit would get it from the Agricultural Credit Corporation and that that would cover 95 per cent of the farmers. I hope he is right in that. I hope the credit will come as fast as it should come in order to save these people. No words of mine or of any other Deputy could over-emphasise the difficulties the farmers are going through at present.

I formally second the motion, Sir, and reserve the right to speak later.

I want to say at the outset that I welcome this motion. It provides me with an opportunity of giving the House an objective appraisal of the situation with which we are confronted and of explaining my policy and my actions. It might not be any harm for me to say that I think it is in this House I should explain these policies and these actions. It is to the Deputies of this House I am responsible for the administration of our livestock industry, and indeed agricultural policy generally and not to anybody else.

Hear, hear.

I feel it necessary to say that. In some quarters there seems to be a notion that I am, or should be, responsible to or answerable to persons who, to say the least of it, do not have the same representative character as the Deputies of this House have.

Hear, hear.

I accept gladly an obligation to explain my policies and my actions to the Deputies of this House, to listen to their censure if they feel like censuring me and to accept suggestions which they may seek to put forward. But whereas I will consult with others and listen to suggestions from other quarters also, I will never regard myself as being answerable for my policies to persons outside this House. I think it would be as well if everybody concerned were quite clear on that particular issue.

In order to get a proper understanding of the present situation in the livestock industry, it is necessary for us to go back a little to have a look at the prices which obtained in recent years. In 1963, the average price obtaining for fat cattle in the Dublin Market was 122/3d. per cwt. In 1964, it climbed to an average of 148/9d. per cwt. and in 1965 rose again to 158/-per cwt. This satisfactory trend of rising cattle prices continued into 1966. The store trade generally followed the same pattern. The market for cattle and beef was strong all over Europe, prices were good and the outlook was generally regarded as satisfactory.

This situation changed in June of this year. The first thing for us to do is to examine how this change came about. One of the first factors to which we must have regard is the very late and severe spring we encountered this season. Fodder was scarce. Farmers who would normally have fattened their cattle much earlier were not able to do so and were forced to hold them over for a much longer period than they would normally do at this particular time of the year. This was followed by the seamen's strike which caused very serious disruption of the normal pattern of the livestock trade, particularly the store trade. In the export markets, two particular problems developed. The first was the restriction of credit which was imposed in Great Britain. I do not have to remind Deputies that the British feeder is by far our most important customer. The credit restrictions imposed in Great Britain affected very severely the ability of the British feeder to purchase our stock. On top of this situation, we had an aggravation of the supply position on the British market. Because of increased home slaughterings and a number of other factors, the British beef market became fairly heavily over-supplied.

But from our point of view probably the most serious factor of all was developments in the EEC countries. Protection in these EEC countries against imports of agricultural produce from outside third countries has been steadily increased in recent years. As Deputies know, there is now in force in the EEC a Common Agricultural Policy. In regard to livestock, the principal factor of that Common Agricultural Policy is the mechanism of protection against third countries. Each country fixes a guide price for beef and, according as the internal market price fluctuates in relation to that guide price, restrictions on imports from third countries are imposed. When the internal price falls to within 105 per cent of the guide price, a half levy comes on; when it falls to 100 per cent of the guide price, a full levy comes on.

In these countries, of course, the guide price has been consistently increased in recent years. For example, in Germany in 1964-65 the guide price was 203/- per cwt.; in 1965-66, it increased to 218/- per cwt.; and in 1966-67, it is 229/- per cwt. This increasing guide price has meant that a crippling protective barrier has been imposed against our exports of beef and live cattle to EEC countries. To give Deputies an idea of the size of this problem, I shall just mention that, when there are a full levy and tariffs in force in Germany, these are equivalent to about £35 per head on the average fat animal.

In 1965, we exported 160,000 head of cattle to the EEC countries. This was a very valuable export from our point of view because, by and large, these 160,000 head of cattle were a sort of cattle not particularly suitable for, or in demand in, the United Kingdom market. The export of these cattle and their absorption into the EEC markets was very valuable and important from our point of view.

The coming into force of the higher common agricultural policy prices in April of this year dealt this valuable and important trade of ours a very severe blow indeed and, as I say, probably more than any of the other factors I have mentioned was instrumental in contributing to the very severe weakening of cattle prices which took place here from June onwards. I think it important that I should say a word about this situation in regard to EEC. If anything, of course, it underlines again the correctness of the decision of the Government to seek full membership of the EEC as soon as we possibly can because this development has shown how unfavourably the working out of the Common Agricultural Policy, as against third countries, can be in our particular circumstances. I think this will be a real problem of the future and it is something that the authorities in the EEC should take note of. We are old, valuable and traditional suppliers to many of these EEC countries and we are good customers of theirs.

Very good: that is the point.

I suggest it is a very serious matter indeed suddenly to bring about a situation where this valuable export trade of ours, amounting to about £12½ million in a year, being the equivalent of about 45 per cent of our total exports to EEC, is suddenly brought to a halt. I think that the authorities of the EEC should consider whether, in the long run, the harmonious development of European trade and commerce can properly be served if this sort of situation is allowed to continue. Having said that, I want to assure the House that, from our point of view, there is one redeeming feature in the situation.

For some time, we have been pressing the German Government and the Commission in Brussels to afford us facilities for the export to Germany of a certain number of our cattle in what is commonly known as the "off the grass" season. I am glad to say that we have been met with a great deal of sympathy and understanding by the German Government and by the Commission in Brussels. It has now been agreed with the German Government to afford us facilities during the coming weeks for the export to Germany of 2,000 head of our cattle, either in the form of live cattle or beef.

Of what use is that to us? It is a mere drop in the ocean.

The Minister should be permitted to make his speech without interruption.

That many cattle are sold in Limerick every week.

If that is the good news we are waiting for, it is God help Ireland.

This is a very important, significant and useful concession, and undoubtedly——

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister but is it 2,000 a week?

Two thousand head in total.

Deputies

In total?

That many are sold at the Kilmallock mart every week, and more.

And twice that number are sold every Tuesday at Mullingar.

Acting Chairman

Order. The Minister must be permitted to speak without interruption.

So this is the sensational announcement we have been waiting for from the Minister.

Radio Telefís Éireann will have to withdraw the adjective "sensational" which they used last night in relation to the announcement of good news by the Minister to be made this evening. The Minister has not overreached himself: that is a certainty.

I did not expect any other reaction from the Deputies whose approach to this whole question is characterised by complete irresponsibility and an unworthy desire to exploit a situation in which our farmers now find themselves.

Tell them now that the British market is gone, and gone forever.

When you have not the British market, you are now howling about the German market.

Acting Chairman

Order. There must be no further interruptions from either side of the House.

That "good news" is a damp squib.

I have every confidence that the offtake of these 2,000 cattle from our markets in the coming weeks will have a very beneficial effect indeed on the whole situation. I regard this arrangement by the German Government as a significant and valuable concession and it is one for which we have no hesitation in expressing our appreciation.

Will any subsidy be paid?

The Minister should try the Dali Lama after that.

Acting Chairman

I would remind the Minister that he has only half an hour.

That is about 40 cattle a week.

To have a look at the general picture, the Second Programme recognises the important contribution which the livestock industry has to make to the general overall economic development programme and has set a target of an output of 1½ million head of cattle by 1970. The main instrument which the Government decided upon to achieve this expansion in our cattle numbers — I am glad Deputy Clinton now admits it was effective — was, of course, the heifer scheme. We are well on our way towards the achievement of that particular target of an output of 1½ million cattle by 1970.

I reject entirely the criticism which has been made that we planned for an increase in the output of livestock and livestock products, without making any provision whatever for the marketing of these products. We had many motives in entering into the Free Trade Area Agreement with the United Kingdom, but no motive was more compelling in encouraging us to enter into those discussions and to finalise that Agreement than this question of disposing of our agricultural surplus generally and, in particular, our livestock products and our dairy products.

Our first consideration in the negotiations was to secure access for our livestock production to the United Kingdom market and we did succeed in those negotiations in securing completely free and unrestricted access for our livestock and livestock products to that market. That was the first essential step. Side by side with that, we incorporated into the Agreement various arrangements, price support and otherwise, designed to ensure that the exports of livestock and livestock products to the United Kingdom market would be stabilised to the greatest possible extent. It is absurd now for anyone to suggest that we were not aware of, and were not making provision for, the increased livestock output envisaged in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion.

The main purpose of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain was to secure outlets for that increased production. At that time, and for long before it, when nobody in the Opposition and nobody in any of the farmers' organisations thought about the matter, established an export study group to go into the entire store cattle trade of this country to see in what way this store trade could be developed and how it should be promoted. At the same time, we embarked on a promotional campaign in the United Kingdom designed to draw the attention of the British feeder to the benefits he could secure from Irish stores.

He had those before the Economic War.

All those steps were taken by me and by the Government to ensure to the best of our ability that the expanded production for which we were catering in the Second Programme would have satisfactory and secure outlets. The present unfortunate decline in prices was not anticipated by anyone: I admit it was not anticipated by me. I admit that in May of this year I had no indication at all that this situation would develop, and neither had anybody else. Neither had anybody in the Fine Gael Party. Neither had anybody in the Labour Party.

It was the Minister's job to have it.

No later than June of this year——

The Minister told the farmers they would get £7 more and they are getting £20 less now.

——We were receiving inquiries to ascertain that we would be in a position to supply the numbers we had contracted for in the Free Trade Area Agreement because some authorities in the United Kingdom were at that time worried about the supply position and were anxious that we should be in a position to meet our undertaking. In June of this year, therefore, there was no anticipation whatever that this situation was about to develop.

Surely the Minister has advisers and they should have known it?

Mr. Whippy — the Fine Gael ice-cream man!

I do not think any farmer blames me or blames the Government for the decline in cattle prices.

They are plodding their weary way from Bantry tonight.

The question the farmers ask — it is one I want to answer — is: did the Government and did I, as Minister, react sympathetically and take every measure open to me to protect the farmer to the best of my ability from this weak market? I say I did. At the earliest possible moment, I introduced the headage payment subsidy on the exports of fat cattle to the United Kingdom. The introduction of that subsidy undoubtedly had the effect of stabilising the market and there is no doubt whatever that the trade would be much weaker indeed at this point of time, and over the past month, had it not been for the prompt introduction of that headage payment subsidy. At the same time, we spared no effort to explore markets wherever we could find them. We have, as I said, successfully found an outlet for 2,000 head in the German market.

(Interruptions.)

If the Deputy does not want to listen to the facts——

(Interruptions.)

Order. The Minister is in possession and I must see that he gets an opportunity to speak without interruption. Deputy L'Estrange will either conduct himself or leave the House, one or the other. I trust he will take his choice.

It is very hard to be patient.

I want to assure the House that we have actively and comprehensively explored every possible outlet for fat cattle. I am aware that young cattle are difficult to sell and that that is causing farmers a fair amount of concern. I want to repeat what I said yesterday at Question Time: in response to an invitation by me, the Agricultural Credit Corporation have introduced a new scheme whereby any farmer who is either unable or unwilling to sell his stock at the prices now prevailing, and who wishes to hold them over, can go to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and, by a mere formality, by simply signing a promissory note, can get a loan of £500 at the normal rate of interest, a loan which will not be repayable until July next, by which time he should have had an opportunity of disposing of his cattle.

What about fodder?

Whereas there have been falls and declines in cattle prices in this country before, on no occasion have the Government ever taken such action as we have taken and been so concerned to ensure that our farmers are protected to the maximum possible extent against the situation which has developed.

I want to make this single point now: 1964 was a good year for our farmers. Farm income increased by approximately £22 million. Opposition Parties and certain vociferous farming organisations at that time were quite adamant that neither I nor the Government must claim any credit for that increase in farming income because, they alleged, it was brought about by an increase in cattle prices which, they said, was largely outside our control and for which we could claim no credit whatever.

(Interruptions.)

If, in 1964, we could not claim any credit for the increase in farm income because of the increase in cattle prices, surely the corollary must equally apply now: if there is a decline in farm income and a decline in cattle prices, it is correspondingly ridiculous to blame the Government for that position.

The Minister told the farmers they would get £5 to £7 extra.

Cattle prices are indeed very important. They are probably the one single factor that impinges most on the minds of our farmers. It is only natural that that should be so. But that is not the whole story. We are faced with a situation in which we have to export a very high percentage of our total production and, whereas we will at all times endeavour to insulate the producer to the greatest possible extent against the fluctuations of that market, there is no doubt that in the long run we will have to seek other ways of increasing the farmers' income.

I suggest that this also is being tackled energetically by the Government. We will leave no possibility unexplored for helping the livestock producer to enable him to increase his income. We have a massive campaign for the eradication of disease which, when successfully concluded, will have a very beneficial effect on his income. We are trying, through our breeding policy, to improve the quality of his cattle. Anything that can be done by the introduction of progressive policies will be done to help the livestock producer and increase his production and his output and efficiency.

I am afraid the Minister's time is up.

Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. I will just repeat that in this difficult situation, I, as Minister, and the Government have taken every step open to us and have shown a very real concern to try to the best of our ability to rectify the situation and in so far as we have not been able to do that, to see that it bears as lightly as possible on the livestock producers.

The Labour Party told you that the Trade Agreement was a fraud.

I should like to ask the Minister a question about the 2,000 cattle. Is it 2,000 in all or 2,000 per week?

It is 2,000 in all.

I wanted to clarify that point. As a Member of this House who has a good deal of respect for the Minister, and indeed he could count me among his wellwishers, I should say that if votes of sympathy were allowed in the House, I would have no hesitation in proposing such a vote here and now. I think the Minister deserves the sympathy of everybody. Yesterday the newspapers told us that here was the Minister for Agriculture with his coat off and his sleeves tucked up, contesting a very important race and, according to the newspapers, doing very well at the distance. This morning the national newspapers headlined the Minister's pronouncement that in this House tonight we were to hear from him an announcement of major importance to the farming industry. All four of our newspapers made that quite clear and every farmer and every agriculturalist, and particularly those with cattle to sell, were waiting impatiently to hear this important announcement.

I have great sympathy with the Minister. This announcement has produced nothing. I rather wonder if there is not something wrong with the Minister. All of us may not be feeling our best at times and here is what he tells us, that he had got a concession from the German Government to sell them 2,000 cattle. Everybody in this House knows that 2,000 cattle is an insignificant number so far as the total number of cattle for sale is concerned.

What did the Minister say? He said that it was an important, significant and useful concession in the conditions that obtain. Later on he said that it was one of far-reaching importance. That, to my mind, was the sum total of the Minister's pronouncement so far as the sale of our cattle is concerned. I think I am right in saying that the Minister is now in the position, having made that empty statement, which was heralded so much yesterday and this morning, that he deserves the sympathy of us all. Seeing that he has spoken for half an hour and said nothing of any importance, it is as well to forget the remainder of his statement for the present. It is strange that on 12th October the Dáil should be discussing a motion such as that put down by the Fine Gael Deputies condemning the Minister for the misleading statements he made last January and which, unfortunately, had great repercussions on our cattle trade in recent months and caused serious losses to many farmers within the past two months. In January of this year Deputies were rushed from their homes before the Christmas period was over and we were brought in on 4th January — something which had never happened since the establishment of this House — to discuss an agreement which the Taoiseach and the Government told us would have far-reaching advantages for the agricultural community. We were asked to discuss this matter on little Christmas Day. In fact, it was the first time that this House was in session on a Church holiday and indeed, to some extent, in order to discuss this motion which was so beneficial, we went to the limit of conflicting with the laws of the Church.

At this stage I do not want to repeat statements made by the Minister for Agriculture outlining the advantages of this trade agreement to the agricultural community. I will, however, summarise one statement which the Minister made which was that in his opinion the agreement would benefit the agricultural community to the extent of £10 million per annum. That was the figure mentioned in the Minister's speech on the 5th January. At the outset, £10 million was going to be the initial advantage. Not only did he make that statement but in other incidental statements he implied that so far as sheep, bacon and other agricultural products were concerned, there would also be a benefit. We on these benches at that time felt that the Minister had not substantiated his statements and that they were grossly exaggerated. Having heard the Minister, and having heard the views expressed by different Party speakers, we felt that this Agreement was one to which we could not put our names and thus we decided to vote against the Agreement. The views which we expressed at that time were deemed to be pessimistic and we were told by other Members that we were painting a very gloomy picture. Unfortunately, however — and nobody regrets this more than the Members on these benches — our prophecies and views have now proved correct.

We have reached the stage now, on 12th October, within three months of this Agreement coming into operation, at which cattle prices, as has been pointed out by the previous speaker, are depressed to the extent of at least £15 per head, on average. Everybody knows what £15 per head means to the farmers, whether they are big farmers, or small farmers. Some of us, going back to the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement debate, felt at that time that the Minister's statement on the advantages that would accrue to the agricultural community was made without taking into account possible market fluctuations.

We are all old and wise enough to know that cattle prices at our fairs and markets are, to a great extent, determined by prices in outside markets. No member of the Government, and no Member on the other benches, for one reason or another, foresaw that a contraction in our prices in foreign markets, and particularly the British market, would take place. Now, unfortunately, export prices have contracted in our main market. We now find that the Minister for Agriculture is driving around the world, as far as Egypt, I understand, trying to get markets for our cattle. His latest venture was to Germany who agreed to take the miserable amount of 2,000 head of cattle, without any tariff restrictions.

We were told in the debate last January that we could expect a guaranteed market in Britain for 635,000 head of cattle. It should have been known at that time, despite how great our cattle increases were likely to be, that we were unlikely to achieve that figure this year. We did not achieve it last year, either. It is no wonder then, having regard to those statements, and having regard to the impressions which have been created, that at the time we are discussing this motion, many of my neighbours and friends in West Cork are travelling up to Dublin. They are marching to indicate their serious plight to the Minister, the Government and the country at large. They will be joined by marchers from every county in the west of Ireland from Kerry to Donegal. Surely those people are not walking up — some of them more than 200 miles — for fun? They are walking up here to indicate to the country at large the fact that their annual income has been depressed very much during the current year.

I entirely agree they are fully justified in holding that view. This is the year in which people have got increases in their salaries. The ordinary wage earners, the white collar workers, the executives and so on, have got large increases over the past 18 months or so. Some of those people have got four-figure increases. During that same period, the farming community have suffered a big reduction in their incomes. Take the position of a small farmer who has ten head of cattle to sell during the current six or seven months. The price he receives for those cattle means that his income has declined by about £150, or almost £3 per week. He is not likely to get more than £15 or £16 per head. Surely that man has a grievance and surely he is right in complaining to the Minister and the Government who lauded this Trade Agreement some nine months ago. They said at that time that a golden age for the farming community was around the corner.

The position, as I have stated, is very critical for the farming community and very critical for the economy because, whilst the numbers of our cattle have increased, I believe, despite the increase in numbers, that the actual value of the cattle has not increased. I believe this is borne out by the latest statistics given to us by the Minister. A couple of weeks ago, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, he told us that the figures for the two months, July and August, were less than for July and August, 1965, despite his boast that cattle prices would increase very greatly indeed.

The Minister, in his statement this afternoon, made certain apologies. He said you cannot see into the future. I appreciate that. He more or less asked the people to forgive him in regard to the statements he made here last January, because it was impossible to foresee that prices would fall in our export market and that it was impossible to foresee that the EEC countries would give us no concessions to sell our cattle in their countries. All this should have been in the mind of a responsible Minister for Agriculture. It should also have been in the mind of the Government when they were making those statements last January. At that time they should have taken into account that there was a likelihood — they should have looked on the gloomy side as well as on the optimistic side — that those promises could not be fulfilled if our export markets declined.

I know the Minister has a difficult task and I know the Government and the Minister are as anxious as anybody that cattle prices should be as high as possible in the export market. I agree that this reduction in price is not attributable to any move the Minister made to have cattle prices depressed. I am not trying to have any cheap slap at the Minister. I know he is not responsible for the prices obtaining for cattle in other countries and I know that our exporters of live cattle try to get the best price possible, being businessmen of long standing.

The newspapers today said the Minister intended setting up a marketing board and that this was a very good thing. I hope this will help to sell our carcase meat at a more profitable price than we are obtaining at the present time. There is one thing I want to say to the Minister in regard to this board. I do not intend delaying the House in referring to it but I would like to say that when the Minister is appointing the personnel of that board, for heaven's sake, let him not think whether they are good Party supporters or not. They could be good Party supporters but they might have no knowledge whatsoever in regard to the position they might hold on the board.

I have tried to be as reasonable as I possibly could in assessing our present market position. I said I removed the blame, as far as I reasonably could, from the Minister that his prophecies are not being justified. At the same time, I want to make it quite clear that I cannot remove blame from the people who made statements in this House last January that they were competence to hold the important offices they hold in this State. They were incompetent to do so and that incompetence has now been proved by the fact that all their promises have now gone by the board. We have a similar position obtaining so far as the sheep market is concerned. The numbers of our sheep, we are told, have increased very much and we have now a sheep population in this country of some five million. Naturally with that number of sheep, there are bound to be big sales throughout the country. Many sheep owners, particularly mountain sheep owners, are in a position similar to that of the cattle owners. They are complaining that so far as sheep prices are concerned, they too have been misled. I agree that sheep prices during the past few months have been well below normal.

I had hopes that when the Minister got in to speak in this debate after Deputy Clinton he would have made a statement, having regard to the nature of the advance notice we got, and that I would be able to stand up as the next speaker and offer him my congratulations on having achieved some outstanding increases for the farming community. I regret it is not possible for me to do so. So far as Deputies sitting on these benches are concerned and so far as this Party are concerned, we do not want to make cheap politics out of the agricultural crisis. We do not want to get cheap votes for anything the Government may do by way of achieving better prices. We have a duty and an obligation to voice our criticism of the policies that have been implemented which brought about such a position during the past year.

We have at the moment an uproar in the country. I happened to pass through Bantry fair, last Friday evening, the day the West Cork marchers left the county. What was the position there? The Minister knows the answer quite well. He was down there before the election and he got a great reception. He gave great assurances and got a great welcome. I should like to welcome the Minister to West Cork but the welcome in future will not be quite the same as it has been.

That is typical of fairs and marts throughout the country. To give an instance, a small farmer with four cattle at that fair expected a minimum price of £33 per head for the four cattle. He was conversant with market fluctuations, or thought he was, but new prices were prevailing and he had to sell at a price of £25 per head, or a grand total of £32 less than his minimum expectations for the four cattle. This is the type of thing you will find in fairs and in marts all over the country. That is why we have this uproar about cattle prices. This has nothing to do with personalities. The poor consumer is gaining nothing. He still has to pay the same price for his beef as he did last year. I think it will be no harm for the Minister for Agriculture to have a word with his colleague on that score because he might get sympathy from the consuming public if that were to happen.

I am grateful for the assistance you have given me, Sir, and happy that I have not aroused your wrath, because I would dislike to do so. I would like to conclude by offering the Minister a little advice. There are farming Deputies in this House and I think the Minister should consult with them about the present crisis. He should also meet the farming organisations and hear their views. They have a grievance and there is no use at the present time in the Minister getting on his high horse and ignoring these people.

I note from previous experience that the Minister will avail of audiences, more often than not outside this House, to make statements and I would ask him to meet these weary farmers when they arrive. Some of them have travelled 200 miles and others from 100 miles to 180 miles. It will be appreciated that they are not, as I have said, walking that long distance for fun; they are doing it to focus attention on their plight and it is the Minister's responsibility to meet them and discuss their problem. I hope that when the Minister meets them and discusses their problem he will be able to hammer out an amicable agreement that will be satisfactory to the Department and to these people. It may cost money to do that. Mind you, the Minister may get away from the House, due to the procedure obtaining here, with the statement he made today but he must have a little more to tell the House. The Minister should meet representatives of the farming organisations because in all justice and in all fair play, his case today was very poor. I had sympathy for the Minister. No matter what may be said, we know that Ministers in the Government, as they have a right to do and as all ambitious men have a right to do, are contesting a very difficult situation at the present time. I for one have a certain feeling that one from the Front Bench will win——

Has the Deputy any tips?

——and I am disposed towards you.

Will the Deputy please use the third person? Will he address the Chair?

I conclude by wishing the Minister well in his meeting with the farmers and by wishing him well in his other race. That is from the heart.

(Cavan): I think this side of the House is entitled to speak.

So far, a member of each Party has spoken.

(Cavan): It was opened by Fianna Fáil, then passed on to Labour, and I expected it to come back here.

It is a Fine Gael motion, on which any Deputy may speak.

(Cavan): It started here with Deputy Clinton, then passed to the Minister and then to the Labour benches. It should, in the ordinary rotational procedure come back to the Fine Gael benches.

To save an argument, will you let me come in?

I think it is very unfair discrimination against us.

There are three hours for the motion.

It does not matter.

A member of Fine Gael has spoken, a Deputy from the Government side and one from Labour.

In that order.

On a point of order, I formally seconded the motion and I reserved the right to speak later in view of the fact that the Minister spoke.

No; I waited for the Deputy before I started to speak.

(Cavan): Irrespective of that altogether, surely we are entitled, having put down the motion, to speak again before the Government?

No; the Deputy is not so entitled. It is the duty of the Chair to balance the debate and I am now calling on Deputy Crinion.

I have been very concerned about the serious drop in cattle prices.

Hear, hear.

I have been keeping in touch with all the interests concerned. The position has been bad but I am quite satisfied that had it not been for the arrangement under the Free Trade Agreement for British support payments on 25,000 tons of our beef exported annually to Britain and the Government's decision to make equivalent payments on quantities in excess of 25,000 tons, plus the reduction in the qualifying period for our stores in Britain from three months to two——

Worth £20 less to the farmers.

——also negotiated under the Agreement, the position would have been infinitely worse.

It could not be worse.

The factors which have led to the present unsatisfactory condition in the cattle trade, the virtual closing of the Common Market to imports of cattle and beef as a result of the heavier domestic supplies — and I am glad the Minister has made a statement today that he has broken through there, with 2,000 head in the next few weeks — heavier marketing of fat cattle in Britain, increased supplies of Argentine beef on the British market, the shipping strike which left us with a backlog of cattle to market at a time when the beef martua ket in Britain was beginning to weaken, the credit squeeze in Britain which has affected demand for our stores, were all outside the control of the Minister, and the suggestions which have been made that there was some ready-made mechanism by which we could sustain cattle prices are, quite obviously, nonsense.

Over a month ago, the Minister did take one practical step to help to restore confidence in the industry when he decided to get Government authority for a temporary scheme of subsidy payments on exports of fat bullocks and heifers to Britain.

The farmers are not getting it.

I shall explain that when I come to it. It seems that this measure has already had the effect of arresting the decline in cattle prices.

Let us look at cattle prices at the present time, analyse them and compare them with those of this time last year. Shipments of fat cattle in the month of September, 1965, to Britain numbered 7,000. In September, 1966, they were roughly 20,000. Will anybody say that the subsidy the Minister provided did not effect that increase?

Tell us the number of stores they shipped?

And the price per head.

In September, 1965, It was about 40,000 stores. It has come down to about 20,000 this year. There has been a complete change from store cattle. The number of beef cattle has come up and that has been brought about by the subsidy which the Government put on the export of fat cattle from this country.

Good man, Brendan.

Sound man, Brendan.

The factories are killing at capacity at the present time, which is another proof that the subsidy and the support payment which the Government have put on beef cattle or dead meat going out of this country has changed the emphasis away from store cattle. If it were not for beef export, where would we be today?

(Cavan): It took the Government a long time to learn that.

The British market is gone forever, thank God.

The Minister must be complimented on getting the support of the Government to pay out this amount of money because a fantastic amount will have to be paid during those months of the support payment. Never before have any Government backed the price of live cattle being exported from this country.

We had practically the same thing happening in 1955 and in 1956.

And you black-guarded the Government.

(Cavan): He was a member of the Fine Gael Party then.

The Government of that day let the farmer accept a low price and did nothing, did not even try to back exports of beef cattle from this country to relieve the farmer of some of the hardship arising from the fall in prices in the autumn of both those years as can be seen from the market returns.

Hear, hear, Brendan.

The drop in prices from the second quarter, which is usually the start of the decline, to the last quarter, the autumn of 1955, was a drop from 152/- down to 119/- and in 1956, the drop was even worse. It went down as low as 93/- a cwt. in 1956.

(Cavan): Could the Deputy tell us what the cost of production was in 1956?

The price of cattle——

The Deputy is like a lot of the dealers who are trying to deflate the price of cattle by quoting prices completely out of line with market trends. I had one case recently where a person quoted me a price just like what Deputy L'Estrange would like to say but when I questioned him fully on it, he admitted that the cattle were thin and horny. You cannot expect fancy prices for thin, horny cattle.

The heifer subsidy.

The Opposition have been quoting figures like that which are far away from the actual market prices.

Debate adjourned.
Top
Share