Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 23 Apr 1968

Vol. 234 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Wool Marketing Bill, 1968: Second Stage.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill gives effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Wool Improvements, whose Report was presented to this House in July, 1966. The Terms of Reference of the Committee were:

To consider and recommend desirable improvements in the quality, handling and marketing of Irish wool, including the question of grading.

The Committee consisted of twelve members representing producers, traders, manufacturers, the Agricultural Institute and my Department. It was, therefore, fully representative of the interests concerned. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation of the very thorough job which the Committee performed in examining all aspects of this complicated subject and in making recommendations of a very practical kind.

While our sheep industry is geared basically to the production of high-quality meat, for which we have an assured export market at good prices, the production of wool is also of considerable importance. About 16½ million lb. of shorn wool is produced here annually, of which 80 per cent is exported, and the value of exports of wool in 1967 was almost £3½ million. In recent years, the world market for wool has been affected by competition from man-made fibres, the variety and quality of which have improved as a result of technical progress in this field. Wool prices, therefore, declined. Nevertheless, there is a future for our wool, but only provided it is of good quality and is graded, presented and marketed efficiently. There is no doubt that, in the past, the manner in which our wool was presented and marketed left much to be desired and that this was reflected in the prices obtained for it. The purpose of the Bill is to remedy these defects.

The main recommendations of the Committee, as incorporated in the Bill, fall broadly under four main headings:

(1) wool to be bought from producers on a graded basis;

(2) buyers of wool to be registered with my Department;

(3) exporters of wool to be licensed by my Department;

(4) a council—called An Chomhairle Olla in the Bill—to be established, on which producers and traders will be represented and which will have functions relating to the grading of wool, the standards for registration, the standards to be observed by wool exporters, as well as the promotion of wool exports and the securing of the maximum use of home-produced wool by Irish manufacturers.

To bring about an improvement in the presentation of Irish wool on both the home and export markets, the grading of wool is clearly vital. As the Committee on Wool Improvements say:

There is no escape from the conclusion that the proper method of purchasing wool right back to the producer is on a graded basis. The Committee accepts this as a prerequisite for a rational system of wool marketing. It is of course equally essential that pricing arrangements should be appropriately and effectively related to the grading system. The grading system for purchases from producers should be as simple as possible so as to be understood without too much difficulty and to command producers' confidence.

The Bill, therefore, provides in section 11 for the making of regulations for the purchase of wool on a graded basis, and, where such regulations apply, purchases in contravention of them will be an offence. I endorse the Committee's view that the grading system should be simple and easily understood. It is intended that the regulations will provide for price premiums where wool is of good quality, and for deductions where it has defects, but the basic price of wool will not be fixed. It will also be obligatory for buyers to give producers statements giving prescribed details of purchases.

I come now to the question of the registration of wool buyers, which is dealt with in sections 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. These provisions are very important because, unless buyers have got suitable premises and competent staff (and these are the broad requirements for registration), any regulations that might be made for the purchase of wool on a graded basis could be stultified. The advice of An Chomhairle Olla will be obtained on the standards for registration, and, in the light of this advice, regulations will be made dealing with premises and the associated plant and machinery. Existing buyers of wool will be entitled to registration if their premises and associated plant and machinery comply with the provisions of the relevant regulations. Their continued registration will be subject to their compliance with the Act and any Regulations made there-under.

The licensing of wool exporters under section 7 will not involve any detailed control on wool exports. Existing exporters will be entitled to receive licences initially, but the continuance of their licences and the issue of new licences will depend on the suitability of the licensee as an exporter.

Section 9 of the Bill sets out what is to be done if it is proposed to cancel registration or revoke a licence. Briefly, a month's notice of intention must be given to the person concerned, who has the right to request an inquiry into the matter. Where that happens, a practising barrister of at least ten years' standing will be appointed to carry out the inquiry. Wherever the final decision is to cancel or revoke, as the case may be, a statement of the reasons involved will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas.

I should like to turn, now, to the provisions dealing with An Chomhairle Olla, which are contained in sections 12 to 18 and in the Schedule. This body will play a vital role in the successful implementation of a rational system of wool marketing. An Chomhairle Olla will include representatives of producers and of the trade, and it will be relied on for advice about grading and standards of registration. It will also fix a code of practice to be observed by exporters. Furthermore, it will be empowered to undertake promotion measures, such as mounting publicity campaigns abroad to stimulate exports, and will consider ways of increasing the use of home-produced wool by Irish manufacturers. It will, therefore, become the focal point of all wool improvement efforts. In the course of time, it may become clear that other functions should appropriately be assigned to it. For that reason, provision is made in section 14 of the Bill for the making of orders, with the consent of the Minister for Finance, assigning further functions to An Chomhairle.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Committee on Wool Improvements, An Chomhairle Olla will not, itself, engage in the purchase and sale of wool. The reasons for this are set out in paragraphs 128 to 134 of the Committee's Report, which points out that, in our circumstances, a marketing board

Would have to relate its purchase prices for wool to the realised price on world markets. The only solution to this problem appeared to the Committee to be a two-part price system comprising a basic payment to producers at the time of purchase of their wool and an appropriate extra payment later related to the board's resale receipts.

The financing of a wool marketing board would involve heavy capital to meet wool purchase and operational costs. Also it has been represented that the operational costs of a board could be expected to be high especially in view of the relatively small size of individual producers' clips in this country and the necessity to operate a two-part price system.

The Committee while believing that ultimately the establishment of a wool board might become feasible and generally accepted, considers that at this stage it would be preferable to introduce such control measures as are necessary in the short term within the framework of the existing trade.

The Committee also states that "should the measures it has recommended prove inadequate in the course of time and experience, a more thorough organisation of marketing under a wool board should be adopted". Two members of the Committee, however, signed the Report with the reservation that they would not favour the organisation of marketing under a wool board, while, on the other hand, one member thought that "the only ultimate solution is a complete marketing board", and signed the Report "as a stepping stone to such a board".

I accept the general consensus of views expressed by the Committee. I believe that the first essentials are grading, registration and export promotion under central authority, and that these objectives can be fully realised without the major, and possibly hazardous, step of taking over the job of buying and selling. In other words, I believe in a combination of private and public enterprise in this particular sector of our agriculture, but my views are not fixed and rigid, and I am prepared to re-examine the position, if necessary, in the light of a few years' experience of the functioning of this Bill. My expectation, however, is that the fundamental objective of securing the best possible return for our wool by raising the standard of presentation and marketing can be secured under this Bill which, as I have said, gives effect to the recommendations of persons who have a detailed knowledge and long experience of all aspects of the trade.

The introduction of this Bill underlines the stop-gap approach of the Government to the various problems of agriculture. It underlines once again the non-existence of an overall, long-term, comprehensive policy for agriculture. There is no advance planning, no anticipation and nothing is ever done until the crisis point has arrived. In the case of wool marketing, the crisis has not only arrived but has been well passed. It is well known to all of us that in the past couple of years the income of sheep farmers from wool has been halved. This is due in no small measure to the fact that we have had no organised system of marketing. It is well known that the Government and the Minister for Agriculture have been under pressure for a considerable time to take action in this important matter.

As a result of this pressure, the Minister tells us this evening something that we know, that this Committee on Wool Improvements was set up as far back as January, 1963 and the Committee reported in July, 1966. Apparently that Report, in spite of the conditions prevailing, has remained untouched in the Minister's Department ever since. We now have a Bill which bears all the hallmarks of the type of legislation we have become accustomed to expect from the Minister. The sheep farmers are expected to pay the piper but certainly the Minister is ensuring that they will not call the tune. In my view, it is very like the Livestock Marts Act. The Minister is the Fuehrer, all power is imposed in him; he has the discretion either to grant or wihhold licences for exporters; it is he who will decide whether or not a woolbuyer is to be registered and at his discretion, he can exempt anyone he thinks fit from the entire provisions of the Bill.

This is not democratic government; this is government by ministerial degree because there is no provision in the Bill for an appeal to any independent authority. The Minister's decision is final in all cases. He demonstrates his generosity by saying that represenations may be made to him and he will consider those representations, but he does not bind himself in any way to change his mind or to be influenced by those representations. Representations may be made. That is as far as anybody can go. It is the Minister who will finally decide at his own discretion and that decision cannot be questioned or subjected to scrutiny by any independent authority. That is not democratic government.

This is an undesirable provision and the sooner the people wake up the better it will be, because, as things are going, the time will come when farmers will wake up one morning to find themselves being told by the Minister for Agriculture that they may not have rashers and eggs for breakfast, even though they produce pigs and rear fowl. This approach is quite wrong and, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Minister persists in this attitude towards our primary producers. Surely the better way would be to bring the producers with you, give them confidence and receive in return their co-operation? There is nothing in this Bill to inspire that confidence and co-operation.

It is proposed to set up a wool marketing council of 11 members; it is proposed to give the producers three members on this council. The Minister will select those who will serve on the council. He will handpick them. He will even handpick the three. It is difficult to see the sense in all this. It is difficult to understand why the man who spends 12 months producing the fleece will have only the same say as to what is to happen to that fleece as the man who takes it from him and puts it on the market. This is a disgraceful way to treat the producers. It will be resented by them. This Bill will be quite unacceptable to sheep farmers, unless there is considerable amendment of it on Committee Stage.

I have examined the Bill and nowhere in it can I see any provision for the setting up of co-operatives to grade and market wool. It is a confused piece of legislation, the most confused I have ever seen. It is vague. Everything is left to the discretion of the Minister and everything the Minister decides will be right, despite an Chomhairle Olla. This council will have no power to decide anything. All they may do is give advice. I should have thought that a representative of Córas Tráchtála would be invaluable on this council from the point of view of market research and ensuring guaranteed prices to the producer.

Where wool marketing is concerned, the first essential is to ensure that the customer is satisfied. The customer must be assured that he is getting a continuing and reliable supply of wool of standard type and in accordance with the proper description. If wool is ordered by an American or a continental firm according to a certain specification and description and the exporter does not adhere to that specification and description, then he should lose his licence. There is no reference to any such penalty in this Bill. There is no provision for fines. If a man in the circumstances I have mentioned does not lose his licence, he should at least be subjected to very heavy fines. The great drawback in a good deal of legislation here is that there is no provision for fines and, when offences are committed, the responsible Minister and his Government are very slow to put a firm out of business. The inclination is to let the firm get away with it.

The farmers should be assisted by the Minister to do their job, whether it be producing, processing or marketing. It is wrong to exclude them to the extent to which they are being excluded here. I do not know how the Minister ever hopes to get co-operation while he adopts this attitude. If we are to get the best prices for our wool, there must be proper grading. That is long overdue.

The Minister referred to the findings and the recommendations in the report. The producers' representatives were not prepared to accept the report because of their minority representation. I cannot see that anywhere. In fact, I can see the direct opposite. I can see an insistence by the representatives of the producers that they would be in the majority, or have at least 50 per cent representation. The Minister proposes to give them three.

In the Schedule, it is provided that most decisions will be by vote. When it comes to fixing prices, or any other decision, the farmers will be at a definite disadvantage because those who simply take the wool from them and sell it will be in a stronger position numerically. That is quite wrong. In paragraph 15, it is provided:

Every question at a meeting of An Chomhairle shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members present and voting on the question and, in the case of an equal division of votes, the chairman of the meeting shall have a second or casting vote.

If we are to be successful in this, we shall have to change the whole situation. The producers must be entitled to the maximum price for their wool on a long-term basis. There are certain difficulties in this. Wool will be bought according to grade. We shall have to go a bit further. There will have to be an annual review of prices and the price will have to be decided early in the year in order to protect the consumer. The manufacturer will have to be protected. The manufacturer makes his contract early in the year. If the manufacturer contracts to buy wool at £x in the early part of the year and then finds in September or October that he must pay £x plus £y, his whole budget will be thrown out of gear. What will happen then will be that he will turn over to synthetic fibres and the market will be lost.

The only way we can build up a reliable trade for Irish wool is if we are able to guarantee standards and if we are able to decide and fix prices early in the spring and say: "This is the price for this year." This is extremely important because traditionally the farmers of this country, in their efforts to decide what is the best time to sell wool, have done an immense amount of crystal gazing. What will happen if this sort of price fixing and annual review does not take place is that one farmer will sell wool early in the year and another man, through this crystal gazing, will sell in October, say, and it is quite possible that if the price of wool improves between June and October, the man selling in October could get as good or, perhaps, a better price for low grade and badly produced wool than the other man got early in the spring for best quality wool. This is what leads to confusion and thus people are able to say: "I got as good a price though I did nothing at all. I threw in the daggings. I did not wash the sheep or do anything that was necessary. I had a whole lot of branding fluid on them, but still I succeeded in getting a better price than the clever fellow up the road who went to all this trouble." This is where you have discouragement for the producer of well graded and well produced wool.

There is an immense amount to be done in the breeding of sheep for the type of wool that is in demand and there should be a good deal of encouragement in any legislation for the production of wool that is more in demand than the type of wool that is less in demand. That is fairly well covered in this Bill through the price differentials it is proposed to operate but it is not clear how this will work if we are to operate on a free market throughout the year with certain differentials for grades.

I do not think we are going far enough in this or that it is likely to succeed fully. Certainly, it will represent an improvement to have all wool graded. This Bill could be a good one but it is not as it stands. Therefore, I hope that on the Committee Stage the Minister will be prepared to accept considerable amendment to various parts of the Bill to make it more acceptable to the producers and to make it more likely to be successful.

I am glad to see one thing in the Bill, that all wool must be sold through particular channels, because one of the things that has bedevilled marketing systems for far too long is that as long as the price is satisfactory and going well farmers will sell through a particular channel but as soon as there is a fast buck to be made outside it they will forget about the organisation that has been set up and the reliable system that had been instituted, and they will go and make the fast buck. There is provision in the Bill to alter that practice.

The introduction of a Bill of this kind provided a great opportunity to bring about immense improvements and substantial increases in incomes, particularly of mountain farmers who are so dependent on wool, where they are very often not in a position to flesh the lambs or the sheep as are the lowland producers. It is extremely important to do everything possible here to make this a success. All organised farming groups who are interested in this type of thing should be represented on this proposed wool council and this council should be given power and responsibility. Only in that way shall we ever gain the confidence of our farmers, our producers.

I hope that in the course of the Committee Stage the Minister will be prepared to accept considerable amendment. It is wrong that he should exclude the co-operative societies as they appear to be excluded—they are not mentioned in the Bill. I suppose it could also be said that they are not necessarily excluded and that they could be registered as buyers and could at a later stage be encouraged and brought into the Bill but they are certainly not in the Bill as it stands. There does not seem to be any encouragement for co-operatives in this whole business of selling or marketing wool.

The recommendations of the report of the Committee on Wool Improvements, as far as I can read it, came down completely on the side of a wool marketing board—a board that would buy up all the wool and have a guaranteed price, that price to be fixed early in the year as happens at present in England. This wool marketing arrangement in England seems to be working very satisfactorily and obviously the only fault that has been found with it is the cost of setting up the organisation. At some stage in that report I remember seeing a figure of £5 million as the likely cost of setting up such a board. Personally, I do not like the idea of excluding private enterprise totally nor do I like to see arrangements being made to put people out of business who have been in business during the years, particularly if they have given service but I know that many of the people buying wool here were exploiting the producers in no uncertain way. I am aware that in certain parts of the country wool has been purchased from farmers in the present year with dud cheques. I came across this only last week in Limerick.

If the Minister goes down round the Galtees they will have serious things to say to him about the present situation in relation to wool marketing. Some of them have got dud cheques for their wool and others have the wool still in the barns. There is nothing in this Bill to provide grants or encouragement for the building of sheds in which to store wool or for shearing sheds. Neither is there anything in the Bill to provide advice to producers as to how to produce the best possible wool and how to get it on the market in the best possible condition. Perhaps, that sort of operation could be included in the functions of An Chomhairle Olla but there is no specific mention of it.

Grants are needed badly for the provision of adequate shearing sheds, particularly in the mountain areas, so that sheep can be shorn dry, an important precaution in relation to the quality of the wool eventually. Suitable storage spaces for the storage of wool should also be provided. It has been suggested to me that if there were an all-out effort made to operate this on a co-operative basis, there are many buildings in the country which are becoming obsolete, like small closed-down national schools, which could be secured and used for this type of wool storage. There is an opportunity here which may be lost if we do not interest ourselves sufficiently, leaving it entirely to the free play of private enterprise. It is quite possible that the Minister may find when he starts out on his campaign to register wool buyers that he will have to eliminate many of the gombeen buyers who are there at the moment and that this may leave a vacuum in certain parts of the country. This is a vacuum that could and should be filled by co-operative buying, grading and marketing and it is something that should be organised and encouraged.

The Bill is disappointing because it is vague and gives very little information as to what the future holds in relation to the whole development of the industry. I hope that before we finish with this Bill, we will get something more specific about it and I hope we will get the Minister to shed a lot of the power he proposes in this Bill to hold and that we will get it opened up to the various people who are interested in the production side. There are a number of associations such as the Combined Mountain Sheep Farmers Association that are obviously very interested in this type of legislation and have been pressing for a considerable time for improvements in wool marketing. They must be brought in and must be brought in in a fair percentage of the entire number on this Comhairle Olla and that Comhairle Olla must be given power and must be given the necessary assistance to do its job. I hope that the Minister will see the good sense of this and if he does not bring in amendments, that he will accept the amendments we hope to bring in.

There does not appear to me to be in this Bill any provision for market research and promotion. This is where Córas Tráchtála should be brought in because in this way you could have guaranteed markets at competitive world prices and they are the best people, I think, to assess the situation and the possibilities.

There is not much more at this stage that I want to say on this Bill. I intend to table a number of amendments which I hope the Minister will accept. The Bill itself is vague and non-constructive and producers are clearly not getting a fair crack of the whip. The Bill is undemocratic and totalitarian, but if the Minister is agreeable to change his attitude to the producers, and if he is agreeable to accept the amendments we will bring in later on it could be a very different measure and a very worthwhile measure. It could lead to a considerable increase in the income of farmers who have lost heavily due to falling wool prices and, as the Minister said, due to the competition of synthetic fibres in recent years. I feel that we could build up this trade again and could make wool attractive to use, provided it is produced and exported according to exact descriptions and provided we are able to give a constant supply and an early indication of what the price will be over a period ahead.

As I see it, it is proposed by the Minister to set up a wool marketing board, An Chomhairle Olla. I speak on behalf of the people of Galway, who, I am sure, will have a very great interest in this board. I welcome the setting up of the board because it is time some effort was made to do something effective in relation to the marketing of wool for those people who earn a living by it. Approximately ten years ago one would get 5/- or 6/- a pound for washed wool. Today you will not get the same price. The fact that the people I represent are good producers of wool meant a lot to their incomes. I am not blaming the Department of Agriculture or the Minister for Agriculture in any way, but due to circumstances beyond their control, the price of wool in recent years has fallen to 3/- a lb, 2/6 a lb in some cases and even lower, and at times people have failed to get sale for it. I hope the setting up of this board will result in an increase in the price of wool for those people who produce it.

The setting up of this board reminds me of another board recently set up by the Minister for Agriculture, that is, the National Agricultural Council. When the Minister set up that Council, he appointed himself boss of it and it was he who appointed each and every member. It is stated in this Bill that this board shall consist of ten members and a chairman. I am sure the Minister pictures himself in the chair, and I wonder who are the ten members he will pick. He has stated that three places on the board will belong to producers, handpicked of course by himself, and the remainder I am sure will be ex-Fianna Fáil TDs, ex-Fianna Fáil Senators, ex-Fianna Fáil county councillors and other men of that description.

From North Galway, no doubt.

I am sure we will have a few of them. We have a few of them on the National Agricultural Council. Surely if the Minister is setting up a Wool Marketing Board, he should not pick as representatives on that board burned-out politicians, or at least, half-burned out politicians, as he has picked for the National Agricultural Council?

Clipped politicians.

Would it not be a good idea to give farmers' organisations such as the NFA the representation they deserve on this board? I say that sincerely to the Minister for Agriculture. The farmers' organisations, who are the main people we hope will benefit from the setting up of this Comhairle Olla, should be given representation.

The Minister has taken to himself the sole right to grant a prospective exporter or a prospective wool buyer a licence. Surely that is shades of the Planning Bill again and of the dictatorial attitude of this Government to ensure that any independent body representing any independent group such as the farmers have to bend to the whim of a Minister? I wonder if, in the granting of licences to prospective wool buyers and exporters, the Minister will take into consideration their political affiliations? That is a good question.

Not at all.

The Minister is about to take unto himself power to grant licences.

Who would the Deputy suggest should grant licences?

When I am finished, if Deputy Cunningham wants to speak, he can do so. When I am trying to say a few words, I would appreciate it if he would cease interrupting. I know you people over there are pastmasters in that art. Would the Minister take into consideration their political affiliations? I am quite sure, and it would only be human nature, all things being equal and some things being more equal than others, that he would do so.

These are some of the things which strike me as I read through this Bill and the brief statement made by the Minister. I do not think that in the setting up of a Wool Marketing Board any individual should have the same power over it as the Minister now proposes to take unto himself. In all fairness, the producers, who are told at this stage that they will have three places should at least, as producers, have not less than half the places, and they should try to work out some policy for themselves that would be beneficial to each and every one of them and would in turn be beneficial to the economy of our country

From time to time there is fluctuation in the price of wool. I would suggest fixed prices for wool when this Wool Marketing Board is set up. Prices should be fixed for one year. I would suggest that a price of 5/-per lb. should be fixed for greasy wool and that the washed wool get 5/6 or 5/7, as it is entitled to that few pence extra. I would urge the Minister not to take the power unto himself which he proposes to take in this matter. If he does, he will find out, as he did, in relation to the National Agricultural Council which he set up, that it will backfire on him and he will exclude from it, due to their political affiliations, certain sections of our farming community who do not altogether share his views.

I have nothing further to say on this except again to urge on the Minister to ensure that all branches of agriculture are represented, and that this dictatorial attitude, which is so prevalent in the Fianna Fáil Party, is forgotten about as far as this Comhairle Olla is concerned and to see to it that it is something which will be beneficial to the farmers and the people rearing sheep in this country, and also the economy, particularly of County Galway.

The speech we have just heard is quite typical of Fine Gael and the line running through all their speeches on subjects such as this, the Marts Bill and other measures which the Minister and previous Ministers for Agriculture have introduced. The suggestion is that the Minister should divest himself of all responsibility for agriculture. Let any other organisation, it does not matter who they are, run agriculture in this country. The Minister is the last person, according to them, who should have any say in what should be done, how licences are to be issued and who should issue licences. Is there anybody outside the Minister and his Department who should be responsible for issuing licences of one kind or another?

It does not matter whether they are mart licences or the licences proposed here. It is suggested that if they are issued through the Minister, as is the usual practice, there is something tainted about them. Most of the mart licences, for instance, have been issued since we heard in this House of all the ills that would flow from the issuing by the Minister of mart licences. People could not sell their cattle on their own land; they could not have auctions; they could not have this or that; there was to be a strangling of all sales of cattle in any way except through licences issued by the Minister. Since then, since the furore here at that time, we have not had one complaint about the method of issuing licences, nor did we have one complaint that farm auctions or auctions of cattle were stopped in any way. We did not have one complaint since then.

Now we are on the hobbyhorse once again just because in this Bill it is proposed that licences should be issued by the Minister. Of course, the tune across the way is in the same key as before. The Minister should not have power to issue licences. If he has power to issue licences, he should not issue licences to Fianna Fáil supporters. He should give them to everybody else but not to Fianna Fáil supporters.

Who said that?

The last speaker.

He did not. He was talking about the appointment of the board. Do not be mixing it up.

As a matter of fact, Deputy Geoghegan said that there would be a few licences issued in North Galway.

It was on the appointment of the board he was speaking.

I am glad to hear that Fine Gael are not now accusing the Minister in advance of issuing those licences.

Wishful thinking.

It is amusing to listen to the same pattern developing on this as that which developed on the occasion I have mentioned. The Minister is wise in doing the job this House put him there to do, that is, to run his Department in the best possible way. You can see that in the Budget today and you can see it in some other things he has done. The Minister cannot run his Department by divesting himself of all the powers that have been suggested in the past and I am sure will be suggested again by the people opposite. It would be foolish for him to run away like that from his responsibilities.

He will issue dog licences next.

You are doing a lot of barking.

I can bite, too.

With or without licences.

I am afraid this is rather a disappointing Bill. It is designated a Wool Marketing Bull— sorry; I should say "Bill".

What he meant is that there is a lot of bull about it.

There is no doubt that the economy of the country with regard to small farmers, particularly in the West and in the hilly districts in parts of the constituency I represent, is very largely dependant on sheep farming and as such, we should ensure that those people will have stable selling conditions. This Bill is entitled a Wool Marketing Bill. I think I could describe it best, as Shakespeare would, of being much ado about nothing because in looking through the Bill, the only thing I can see emanating from it is that it is desirable and a good thing that it should be so, so as to produce a better standard of wool, and cleaner wool, but there it begins and there it ends.

The small or hill farmers' difficulty is the disposal of their wool which is a necessary adjunct to their economy. It is the same every year. There has been no stable price relative to wool in any year that I can recollect. When they take their wool to sell it they have not the least idea what they will get. They have to take what they are offered from the local buyer. The committee which it is proposed to set up under this Bill is supposed to assist in the marketing of wool. I cannot see anything in the Minister's speech that will ensure price stability for the wool producer. I am only concerned with the producer. I am not interested in the wool dealer. He is able to look after himself and he usually has a very substantial organisation at his back.

The people with whom we are concerned are those who produce the wool and I want to ensure that they get a decent price for their product on the market. There is nothing in the Bill to stabilise the price of wool. It is a well known fact that the marketing of wool, not nationally but internationally, as a whole, has been one of the biggest rackets that has existed over the years. If it were not so there would be a stable price.

I suggest to the Minister that if he wants to establish a wool marketing board let him stabilise and fix the price of wool. He is giving himself the power to do what he wishes to do. He is giving himself absolute control over the production and sale of wool and in producing a Bill like this, beyond the fact that it will help people to grade and put better wool on the market which would put them in a better position than heretofore to export wool, the Minister gets nowhere at all.

For that reason, when the Minister replies, he should give us some information. If you have a Wool Marketing Bill there should be some indication in it as to the benefit it will confer on those who have wool to sell. In case the Minister thinks I am striking hard ground with regard to wool, I hasten to assure him that I have no wool to sell. I do not go in for sheep but my neighbours do and up on the hilly country they depend entirely on it.

There is the question of setting up this board. "An Chomhairle Olla" is the correct term for it. The idea has to be conveyed to the public and to Dáil Éireann which is expected to pass this Bill that this board is set up to give fair play to the proposal. One of the problems with which the farming community has to contend with—it is all over the world and enters into every agricultural discussion whether it be in Africa or in Europe—is that the middleman has been able to exploit the farming community. The man who does the work, who produces the sheep, or whatever it may be, is entitled to full profit but he is always faced with the problem that the middleman can step in and take the greater part of the profit.

Here is an opportunity for the Minister in introducing a Bill such as this to protect the farmers against the middlemen and I should like him if he has been listening to anything anybody has said here—I do not think he has; he seems to be in constant communication with his Galway colleague behind him; he was doing the same while Deputy Clinton was making a forceful and constructive speech; he was not listening to him—when he gets up to reply to give some information other than which he gave in his opening speech. Let him explain what this Bill means, whether it will confer any benefits on the people whom he is supposed to protect and defend, and they are the farmers of Ireland, against the middleman and the people who have been exploiting them over the years.

There is no question but that this exploitation in regard to wool marketing is perhaps greater than that in any other sector of our economy. I ask the Minister, when replying, to give some indication as to whether this Wool Marketing Board will have power to buy wool or to ensure that there is a fixed stabilised price for it. If he does that, his Bill will be acceptable to us and he will be conferring on the agricultural community some benefit and that is why he represents the Government in this Dáil as Minister for Agriculture.

The committee set up reported to the Minister in July, 1966, I think, and after a period of two years this Bill has ultimately come before the House. I think that any Bill that makes an effort to improve either the marketing system for our wool or gets a better price for our producers is desirable. We all know that the price of wool has dropped by more than one-half over the past few years. If it continues at its present price it is very doubtful that producers will take an interest in producing wool that will be fit for marketing.

The motive behind the Bill, which I am quite satisfied is the motive in the Minister's mind, is to ensure that the producer gets a better price and that we have a better marketing system.

Deputy Cunningham says that the Minister should not be asked to relieve himself of the responsibility of dealing with the situation but under this Bill the Minister is actually doing that. I do not know whether it is the right or the wrong thing. It is a matter of personal judgment whether it is better to deal with it without a committee or set up a committee but the grumble from this side of the House concerns the type of personnel on this committee. I can recall a committee set up by his predecessor, the present Minister for Finance, to advise him in the west of Ireland. He appointed two members from each county and I think most of them were members of the agricultural community. The two appointed from the county I know best were from a Fianna Fáil cumann. One did not own a sod of land and would not know a heifer from a bullock. If this is the type of committee the Minister intends to set up, he will not get the results he expects to get.

When the Minister is setting up a committee he should appoint people who have some experience of wool production and not appoint people solely because they are members of the same political party to which he belongs. I honestly believe that this board should consist for the most part of producers. If the wool trade is entitled to three representatives, the producers are entitled to at least five representatives. The Minister would be well advised to move an amendment on Committee Stage providing for an increase in the representation of producers to five. If he does that, he will get the results he probably desires.

I could not agree more with Deputy Clinton that there should a fixed price. I would suggest that there should be a pool. The price could be fixed in the month of January or February for the following year. In that way people who had wool either early or late in the season would know approximately the price they would get for it. People who clip early and sell the wool early could find while supply was controlling price, that the price could fluctuate in the later part of the season. In this context one should consider the turkey trade where very often the price in early December is much higher than in mid-December, or vice versa. It might involve a rather heavy task but I suggest that there should be a guaranteed price of so much per pound and there could be a pool so that everyone would get the same price. If that suggestion were adopted I have no doubt that the Minister would get the results he desires.

I should like to make a few brief remarks on this Bill as I come from the largest wool-producing county. I am glad to see Deputy Geoghegan here, but his colleague, who went to great pains in writing to the public press to let the hill farmers know that he was going to fight their cause, is conspicuous by his absence.

He has gone to meet a constituent. The Deputy will appreciate that. He will be back shortly.

He has to cover 135 miles in a couple of minutes.

Is the Deputy speaking about Deputy Molloy?

I was speaking to him just now.

I am surprised he is not here.

I have told the Deputy where he is. He has gone out to meet a constituent.

He should be on the ball, and I hope he is on the ball.

He will be back.

Deputy Coogan.

It is time a wool Bill was introduced. Up to now there has been a rather loose situation in the wool business. I do not know if this Bill will accomplish all that we would like but we concede that, at least, it is a step. If the Minister is big enough to accept certain amendments that will be put down, he may find that the Bill will benefit the people concerned.

Stabilisation of price is the main problem of the wool business in the West. Farmers find themselves in a dilemma. They do not know whether to burn the wool or what to do with it when it comes to the time to sell. This has been the position over the years. There is great need for a cleaning up, not only of wool, but in the marketing of wool.

I have certain reservations in regard to this Bill. We know the composition, for instance, of the National Agricultural Council and what it has caused throughout the country. It is not representative of farmers; it is representative of a political Party. A lot of the blame can be attributed to the Minister for that. Are we to have a similar situation in regard to the setting up of the board proposed in this Bill? The Minister should be big enough to forget political hacks and should appoint people who produce wool and who can express the views of producers and not Party views. I hope the Minister will be big enough to accept amendments that will be put down from this side of the House. Let us not have the wool being pulled over the people's eyes. Do not think that we are all lambs. The people will not be fooled by the set-up that we have. I hope my colleague will come in at this late hour even though he has to be sent for to come in.

I should like to say a few words on this Bill in view of the fact that I come from an area which is largely a sheep-producing area. I have no doubt that the Minister intends this Bill to be of benefit to the producer and hopes it will help in the production of a better type of wool. Our experience is that boards have been set up comprised of people who knew very little of the problems they were intended to solve. Not very long ago persons were selected by the Department of Agriculture to administer the lamb subsidy scheme. It is well known that these people went into markets and tried to dictate to persons who had been dealing in sheep all their lives. They did not know what they were talking about. The danger is that the Minister might appoint such persons again.

I represent farmers from the West, many of whom live solely on the profits of their sheep. The areas are mountainous and suitable for sheep rearing. I am glad the Minister is taking a keen interest in wool prices. The price of wool is of vital importance to the sheep farmer. If the price is good, he can be satisfied with a reasonable price for his lambs. If the price is good, the man on the mountain farm will get £1 per head for his small fleece and the larger fleece will fetch £1 10s. If any farmer can calculate on £1 per head for his flock, he goes out to two or three fairs and has a return for his lambs. Last year was very disappointing. The price flopped all of a sudden and many farmers were left with their barns full of wool.

There is a very good price now.

Since when?

Have you some to sell?

The price flopped last year. I should like to say a word about the people who have been registered wool buyers. I know some of them in my area and they have been reared to this business. For the last 12 or 18 months they have been worried about what their future as wool buyers will be. It is all very well talking about having premises, plant and staff. Those honest-to-God wool buyers had to provide premises as best they could. They ran this as a sideline for portion of the year apart from their grocery or some other business. Their customers knew well that they will get the top price. There was no bargaining. These fellows bought only good wool. They gave top prices, and that settled that. If we lose some of these people we will be doing a grave disservice to the wool industry.

The Minister should appoint some agricultural instructors throughout the various counties who have special training to give lectures to farmers in the sheep-rearing areas. Only recently I was at a meeting where it was suggested that an instructor should be specially trained for that area to lecture the people on how best to handle their flocks of sheep. If that type of lecture were given frequently during winter it would be of great help to farmers in assisting them to produce their wool in better condition in May or June. Those buyers should be left as they are, except buyers who have not given satisfaction or who, as Deputy Clinton mentioned, have issued cheques that are not genuine. In these days it is not easy for a man to provide premises and plant as mentioned here. The Minister should seriously consider those who have given long and faithful service. I know some of them and I certainly would not like to see them deprived of their agency.

Seeing that wool has become big business in many parts of the country, it would be only right to ask the Minister to give more representation on this board to the producers. It is only natural that they should seek stronger representation to make their case when it comes to deciding what should be done. We have reference here to a vote being taken and the Minister acting as chairman. It is only right that the producers should have stronger representation. I hope that this scheme works out well, but, again, I should like to say that the agents who have given good service should be very seriously considered.

Wool production is practiced on only a small scale in my constituency but in the Galtee Mountain area the production of wool forms an important part of the economy of the small farmers there. The establishment of An Chomhairle Olla is a step in the right direction. I sincerely hope that the council, when established, will be successful in implementing the recommendations of the Committee on Wool Improvement to examine the whole question of wool production and wool marketing and reported to this House in July, 1966.

While, as the Minister says, the sheep industry is geared basically for the production of high quality meat, the production of wool is also of considerable importance. As my colleagues from the west have pointed out, the price of wool—which, unfortunately, fluctuates from year to year being dependent on factors outside our control —in any particular year can mean a very big difference to the income of the small farmer of the western seaboard and other intensive sheep-producing areas. One of the functions of An Chomhairle Olla will be to compile a register of wool buyers. This is a very desirable step and one long overdue. I had an experience in my constituency some years ago where a certain fly-by-night gentleman purchased the entire wool crop of a considerable number of small farmers at the foot of the Galtees and they were never paid for it. I do not want this experience to be taken as a reflection on all wool buyers. I am well aware, as my western colleagues have pointed out, that those who engage in the buying of wool are men of experience and integrity. But I feel the compilation of this register is a necessary step towards nationalising the entire marketing of wool.

It is also true to say that the wool business has been facing increased competition from man-made fibres. With the considerable amount of technical research going on in the development and marketing of new and better types of fibres the competition for man-made fibres will increase. However, I agree with the Minister that there is a good potential for wool. I am pleased to note that one of the functions of the Comhairle will be to try to promote the utilisation of Irish wool by Irish manufacturers. In this context, I am pleased to note the considerable progress which the Irish clothing industry has been making on the export market in recent years and in the export market for woollen garments. There is intense competition for man-made fibres but nevertheless there are grounds for hoping that there will be a reasonably good continuing market for Irish wool.

Deputy McLaughlin made a point which I hope the Minister and the Department have not missed. He said that it is vitally essential, in order to ensure that the standard and quality of the wool are improved, that there should be an adequate and specialised advisory service available to farmers. We have seen recently the reasonably successful quality milk bonus scheme. I would express the hope that An Chomhairle Olla will be able to learn from the experience gained by An Bord Bainne in the encouragement of the production of high quality milk and that An Chomhairle Olla will be able to devise some scheme of incentives. I have said time and time again that I am a firm believer that our farmers have the capacity and the ability to produce the highest quality farm produce, whether it be high quality milk, meat or wool, but they must be given the necessary assistance by way of technical advice and information and they must also be given the necessary incentive. In other words, it must be made worth their while.

I notice that the Minister is accepting the general recommendation of the Committee which examined the question of improving our wool. It is not envisaged that An Chomhairle Olla should engage in the actual buying of wool but I think that in the not too distant future it may be necessary for An Chomhairle to be reconstituted. One member of the Committee said the only ultimate solution is a complete marketing board and An Chomhairle Olla is a step towards this. I sincerely hope that the newly-constituted Wool Marketing Council will achieve the objectives which the Minister hopes it will achieve.

In general, this Bill can be welcomed as a step in the right direction, a step which must result in the production of better quality wool and consequently a better return for our farmers.

I listened to the debate, despite Deputy Esmonde's suggestion that I did not. I usually hear things without appearing to be listening. Having listened to it, I must say I have not been very much helped in regard to what the Bill should contain, despite the all round criticism of it.

Of course, the tone was set by Deputy Clinton who apparently knows nothing about what is in the Bill, never mind knowing anything about what should be in it. He does not appear to have read the report, and as a result, he has attributed things to me which in fact are a direct result of the report. One criticism which was made and made generally from the Opposition benches was a criticism of the Committee which reported. Members of the Opposition should take into consideration that the people who sat on this Committee gave their time and their thought and their experience for the benefit of the Government and the people as a whole and at least they should get some appreciation, rather than all-round criticism.

No one criticised the report.

The whole point about Fine Gael is that they do not want the Government to do their job. They want it to be left to some unnamed person. I suppose the basic reason that this is so is that, in my estimation, they never hope to be the Government so they are seeking ways of trying to get someone to do the job other than the Fianna Fáil Party. I suggest that instead of wasting their time as they have been doing, and contradicting each other as they have been doing, they should give some little thought to trying to be a useful Opposition at least.

Would the Minister tell us something about the Bill?

They engage in carping and cribbing criticism of everything that comes before the House. That is still the role they seem to play. That is not opposition and the sooner the Fine Gael Party realise that, the better for themselves, and for this House, and the country, and for the sheep and wool producers we are talking about here this evening. Deputy Clinton says we have no policy. When he was exposing himself to the viewers of this country on television, he was asked had he got a policy, and I have not heard him since making any effort to produce one. It is easy to talk about a lack of policy. That is a nice easy thing for an Opposition to do, but the people get tired of it, and the people have shown they are tired of it on more than one occasion. They expect a little more, and the Fine Gael Party should try to give them a little more. They should stop this destructive criticism, this carping and cribbing criticism, this talk of lack of policy, while, at the same time, they have not one notion what their policy would be in these circumstances or any other.

Will the Minister tell us something about the Bill?

I am a very silent listener. I should like also in a friendly way to advise the Fine Gael Party that they are not codding anyone by trying to introduce into this debate something which they have tried to destroy since it started, that is, the NAC. Charges have been levelled that the NAC are a completely Fianna Fáil body, dominated by the Minister for Agriculture and by the Fianna Fáil Party. That is a scandalous travesty of the truth and well Deputies in Fine Gael know it.

I have said in this House before, and I will say it again, and again, and again, that I did not appoint all the members of that body. Six of the ten who sit on that body were not my choice. I did not choose them. They were nominated to me and I put them on the NAC. Now, will we stop this lying sort of propaganda? Will we stop this destruction of that body which, incidentally, is the only body in my knowledge over the years in this House that was ever even attempted to be set up to try to get an all-round picture of the views of the agricultural community as a whole? I say again to Deputy Clinton and to his cohorts in Fine Gael——

I did not make any such approach this evening——

Some of the fiddlers behind the Deputy did.

Is it right for the Minister to refer to some Members of this House as "fiddlers"?

There is an old story Who Called the Fiddler something——

I shall call somebody else something. Call him a violinist, if you like.

The Minister, without interruption.

The conductor of the Fine Gael Party orchestra started off. He had various instrumentalists, some of whom reminded me of fiddlers.

The Minister is now fiddling with the Bill. Let him come to the Bill.

Even though the music was hard to listen to, now if there is any criticism of the music, they cannot take it: they cannot listen to the criticism. I have said before and I say again that I was a most silent listener to the greatest lot of trash I have heard in this House for a long time about any matter. That talk was uttered by people who obviously do not know what they are talking about. They made no effort to educate themselves before standing up to speak here on the subject. Here is Deputy Coogan's proposal which he made several times and repeated beyond that stage which is normally tolerable in this House under the Rules of Order.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

Deputy Coogan said five times: "Will the Minister not be big enough to accept the amendments Fine Gael will put down?" That is typical of Fine Gael's approach to matters—something that Fine Gael do not yet know what they will put up.

They know well.

That is Fine Gael. The fiddlers are there.

There is a lot of fiddling in the corrupt Fianna Fáil Party. The less the Minister says about fiddling the better.

If Deputy L'Estrange wants to get right into trouble let him get outside this House and say what he said in this House, and good and proper, I shall fix him.

There is corruption in housing in this country.

Let Deputy L'Estrange not talk about housing.

The Minister must not make allegations across the floor of this House——

There is a little old house in this town that Deputy L'Estrange knows a fair bit about and that it would be better not to talk about. Let Deputy L'Estrange take it from me that he should be very careful. That is all I will tell him.

The standards of Fianna Fáil are disgusting. The Minister for Local Government who preceded Deputy Blaney stooped to the same level. This mud-throwing is a sure sign that Fianna Fáil are losing ground.

You clown.

Let the Minister come to the Bill and not mind the fiddling.

Will Deputy Coogan please cease interrupting and listen while the Minister is speaking?

Yes, we are listening to a lot of fiddling.

If Fine Gael cannot take it, let them not sit here listening to it. That is my advice to them.

We can listen to it and we can give it, too.

To Deputy L'Estrange, who was not here at all, who was rather out of it, who does not know what Fine Gael said——

I was listening to the debate on the monitor upstairs and I came down to the House.

I hope the Deputy will listen while he is here.

Let the Minister come to the Bill. That would be better. We shall listen. The notes the Minister is striking are very jarring.

Do Fine Gael want to hear any more?

Not of the type we have already heard from the Minister.

Whether you listen upstairs, as Deputy L'Estrange did, or down here, listen you will. I have been asking about Fine Gael policy. What do they advocate in regard to sheep, wool or anything else? What have Fine Gael put across here tonight which is worthy of consideration?

The Minister can read it in the Official Report. He was asleep when I was talking.

God knows, one would not blame me if I had gone asleep while the Deputy was talking but I did not. The Deputy spoke about mountain sheep men and said they depend very much on wool. Deputy McLaughlin talked at least a little more knowingly than some of his colleagues. He mentioned that the clip of a mountain sheep was worth £1. He did not advert to the fact that, in the Budget today, we were informed that the subsidy on mountain lambs has gone up to £1 per head.

It was 6/- a pound a few years ago.

Do not talk about that as a permanent feature. It was not.

I got 4/11d a lb for it.

If Deputy L'Estrange will give me 6/- for every 4/11d I produce, I shall take it.

But, for Scotch sheep——

If Deputy L'Estrange had said 5/- I would have excused the 1d but to say 6/- is an exaggeration which they use when it suits their case. Apart from that altogether, we have been charged here that the three representatives who will be from the producers are not enough, that the number is totally inadequate, that there should be six or seven. The Bill says that not less than three should be people representative of the producers—not less than three should be representative of the people in the trade. Nobody has said there will be only three people representative of the producers. Nobody has said that there will be only there of the others.

That is typical of the vagueness of the Bill.

Why not say that, then, instead of making charges that there will be only three persons representative of the producers when the Bill says there will be not less than three? There is as much difference between the two there as there is between Deputy L'Estrange's 4/11d and 6/-. Fine Gael see a thing only when it suits them.

That wool did go 6/- about eight years ago.

Of course.

It went 13/11d.

It went 15/- one time, too.

We have this sort of business from the Fine Gael benches. We have Fine Gael Deputies criticising Fianna Fáil for, they allege, having no policy, for not bringing in the Bill earlier and, now, because we have brought in the Bill. They criticise Fianna Fáil for what is in the Bill without adverting to the fact that it is, generally, the result of a recommendation of a body representative of the Department, of An Foras Talúntais, of the breeders, of the producers, of the exporters, of the buyers, and so on —of the lot. They gave us a report from which we produced this Bill. The criticism is that we did not produce it sooner and, now that we have produced it, Fine Gael allege it is not the right sort of Bill and we are being blamed, in fact, for what is not in the Bill. We have this suggestion by Fine Gael that only three people may be appointed to represent the producers when, in fact, such is not the case.

Tell us how many.

That sort of cod-acting does not get the Deputy anywhere. I do not answer those sorts of questions, as the Deputy should know.

If the Bill is vague, the Minister should give us the information we require.

It is not in the sense it was put to this House. It was put to this House by the Opposition as containing a phrase that indicated that only three persons representative of the producers would be there. I am saying that this is not what the Bill says. I am making a correction of that allegation. I am saying the Bill can be read in quite a different way.

We may take it, then that the producers may have four or five—not less than three?

As far as it goes, the Deputy may take it as the Bill says it and not as Deputy Clinton, or some of his colleagues, says. As the Bill says it, it will be done. We had Deputy Donnellan from the west, a right sort of sheep country possibly both east and west of it. He talked about getting a price and said he wanted a guaranteed fixed price. He mentioned 5/-for greasy wool and 5/6d for washed wool. He was a little less difficult than Deputy L'Estrange. Possibly he does know a little about the subject.

Unfortunately, I might know too much.

The Deputy's colleague was more modest in his demands but the fact remains that it will not be possible to guarantee a price. Eighty per cent of our wool goes on the export market. In addition, we ourselves are open to import wool from various parts of the world. Therefore, the price that is being, has been and will be paid on the home market to our producers is largely the world price, and how any of the Opposition Deputies could bring about a position wherein before the wool is sold, there should be a price fixed for it, I do not know, unless of course they are asking that the Government impose more taxes— which they would vote against—in order to set up a pool of a few million pounds so that there could be a guaranteed price to the producers before their clips would be sold. Unless this is what they mean, there is not much sense in what has been suggested. Before Committee stage is reached, I suggest that they should think about it and possibly have some discussion about it. This would help to keep them from contradicting themselves about the price they should get, should there be a fixed price.

The next matter they raised is that the Minister, as in other instances, wishes to dictate to the farming community. Here again we see that the sole purpose of the Front Bench Fine Gael Deputies is to try, by every means at their disposal, to create as much cleavage, difficulty and disunity——

The Minister is doing that himself.

(Interruptions.)

That is their sole purpose, their sole contribution. They are not succeeding, as is evident by the fact that they continue to remain in the Opposition benches, where, in fact, I think they are giving bad service as a bad Opposition.

The Minister would say anything after that. He is throwing petrol on the flames all the time, but Mr. Feely left the public gallery to-day very quickly when there was no announcement of an increase in the price of milk.

The fact of the matter is that the Deputy and all others in Fine Gael are four-square behind an increase in the price of milk to be paid for by the Exchequer out of additional taxes that were not imposed in this House to-day—is that what the Deputy is advocating? It would be clearer for the people outside if they knew that was what the Deputy and his Party were advocating. To give higher prices by putting on taxation—if the Deputy's party advocated this, it would be a new breakthrough for them.

Fianna Fáil always voted against the taxation we imposed in every Budget.

Fine Gael always vote for an increase in this, that and the other, but with no increase in taxation. We have seen that game played so often that the people know it and do not vote for them.

Does the Minister not remember increased taxation was opposed by Deputy Lemass in 1956?

Times move on.

Your party voted against the taxation that year.

The Minister should be allowed to conclude without interruptions.

But Fianna Fáil voted against all taxation imposed in that Budget.

No wonder. The country at the time under the Deputy's form of government had gone far beyond its capacity to pay even that £105 million. Only a short time afterwards, the Deputy's Party realised they could not raise it, and got out and left the bills to be paid by Fianna Fáil.

How is this relevant to the Bill?

(Interruptions.)

Deputy Esmonde described the Bill as very disappointing and said it had more to do with presentation, cleaning and grading of wool than it had to do with the marketing of wool. The purpose of this Bill is not and should not be disappointing to the Deputy because it is a fact that unless we are prepared to grade and present cleaner wool than in the past, the marketing difficulties we have already will be encountered in the future in greater degree because the competition is there from man-made fibre. Whatever chance we had of selling wool in the rag-tag manner in which we did it in the past, we would get worse prices than ever for it in the future. It is for this reason that I say that Deputy Esmonde is misleading himself when he says that he is disappointed in this Bill because of its emphasis on clean wool and presentation and grading of wool and because there is not enough reference to marketing. The whole basis of the marketing of wool must, according to this report and according to my own convictions, rely on grading, better presentation and cleaner wool. If we are not prepared for that, there is not much place for us in the world wool market.

Deputy Esmonde also made a plea —for which I am sure he had good reason but he had no facts to support it—that we should use this Bill to protect the producer from the middleman. He did not back up that statement and what he has in mind I do not know. I do not know who he thinks is the middleman battening on the producers, but if that is what he wants, this Bill can contribute by means of the control of registration and the licensing of wool buyers and exporters. The measure certainly gets down to controlling any malpractices that may have arisen by way of middlemen or otherwise in the sale and marketing of wool. I ask the Deputy to reread the Bill and not to be disappointed about its contents because it can, and it is intended to cope with any malpractices that may exist at present in the handling and marketing of wool.

Deputy Reynolds, and possibly Deputy McLaughlin to some extent, were the only Opposition Deputies who made any effort to be reasonable in their approach to this measure. Perhaps it is because Deputy Reynolds comes from Leitrim that he realises the useful purpose this Bill can serve, and despite the embarrassing situation in which he might have found himself in following his leader in this debate, he could not find it in himself to deal with the Bill as his colleagues did, because he knows from his experience of the wool trade in his own country that this Bill will do a good job. Certainly Fine Gael are not helping the measure to do any job by their criticisms and by implanting doubts about it, by attributing all sorts of motives to the Minister in regard to the actual appointing of the Comhairle itself and in the granting of licences to those who will operate as buyers and exporters in future. This is the stock-in-trade of Fine Gael. They try to destroy all the time and never give anything a chance. To them, it is always too late and too little, and in this case they say it is not quite up to their standards. We do not know what these standards are because they say nothing about what measures they would substitute, except Deputy Coogan's proposal that I should agree blindly to accept whatever the Fine Gael Party may produce as amendments to this Bill when they get down to reading the Bill and understanding what is in it.

The Minister does not expect us to have amendments in before the Second Stage?

No, but I expect people mature enough to have got as far as this House to realise that they should not expect me to give an undertaking that I would blindly accept amendments they have not yet formulated, when we do not know whether they are good or not, or what effect they might have.

The Minister may be surprised.

He will not be surprised if you come along with a lot of amendments that make no sense or some of which will not make sense or which, if accepted, would nullify the intention of the Bill. This is the sort of thing we will get from Fine Gael either by design or lack of thought, or both. If Fine Gael come along with something different they will have changed their way of life, will have changed their outlook and will have become a better Opposition.

Deputy Clinton must have made a first-class speech when the Minister is so annoyed.

A typical Fine Gael speech—nothing in it but destructive criticism.

(Interruptions.)

Would Deputy Coogan and Deputy Allen cease interrupting?

Deputy McLaughlin had a few things to say which would appear to indicate that he had some reasonable thoughts in his mind and knew something about the wool business; again this is quite likely from the constituency he represents. However, he did go a little bit over the edge, which, I suppose, is expected of him by his Front Bench colleagues, that having been reasonable part of the way, he should be unreasonable before he finished; otherwise, he would be rapped on the knuckles after going out for not having a go.

The fact is that Deputy McLaughlin criticised the Department's officers, and this is something I will not let him away with. He criticised them for their handling of the lamb subsidy scheme and of going into the markets of this country and knowing nothing of what they were doing. First, let me, to begin with, say that this is untrue. They know a great deal about what they are doing; otherwise they would not be there. Secondly, let me say for the information of Deputies and for the information of the sheep producers in the constituency of Sligo-Leitrim of whom there are many, that the subsidy scheme was changed a year ago to such a degree that our officers do not go into the market now. They have nothing to do with the subsidy scheme now operating, and there is no such thing happening in the past 12 months at all, as was suggested by the Deputy.

He is a year behind the times.

Yes, and the subsidy was paid this year to our farmers for their mountain sheep and the Cheviot breeds down in Wicklow and the mountains around the country. They were paid 10/- a head and no questions asked, and no condition that they had to be sold. That worked so well that we have increased it by 100 per cent, from 10/- to £1.

Because the sheep numbers are down by over 90,000.

Do not start narking. At least give us credit for the fact that we are giving 20/- per lamb, which is 20/- more than Fine Gael gave to such people.

They were getting 6/- a lb. for their wool. Last year they got 10d.

Ten years ago it was going at 6/- a lb.

Do not try to discount the subsidy of 20/- per lamb merely because you sold wool at 4/11d five years ago. The £1 for the lamb this coming season is something they never got before.

The price of lamb is down to half of what it was ten years ago.

Perhaps Deputy L'Estrange and others might add up the full account. Will he tell us in the same years what price they were getting for their lambs, what price they were getting for their sheep? Give us the whole picture. Do not start running around in circles, chasing your tail; you will get dizzy doing that.

Lambs were sold at 30/- and £2 last October.

Rubbish. I do not know where you got them.

The Minister is in possession.

Like the halfcrown calves this time last year—we could not find them when we went to look for them.

What about the time you were cutting the calves' throats.

There should have been a few throats cut other than calves' throats and it would have saved us a lot of bother since. By talking about 2/6 for calves and £1 for lambs Deputy L'Estrange in his own destructive way is trying to tear the heart out of anybody who has any of these things to produce or to sell. He is trying to take away any confidence they may have got from the good prices and the firm market they have experienced over the past nine months. However, the people are getting to know Fine Gael and they are learning at last that their prophecies and their promises do not mean anything.

Remember Deputy Haughey's advice: "Keep your cattle".

The Deputy should not talk about advocating the keeping of cattle. I remember a year—the Deputy remembers it also—when we were told by the Minister for Agriculture: "Hold on to your cattle until 1st April". As I said before, 1st April is All Fools' Day, and there were a lot of fools in this country that day because they could not get 90/- a cwt for their cattle. Do you remember that?

Yes, and you remember the time when one got £3 for a two-year old bullock.

The Deputy is away back in the past. At that time the Deputy and his henchmen from Fine Gael and Cumann na nGaedheal of those days were advocating that we should continue to pay the British £5 million land annuities, which at that time would be the same as the total amount of our cattle exports.

(Interruptions.)

If Deputies would cease interrupting, the Minister could get on with his speech.

Get on with what? Talking about cattle 30 or 40 years ago.

The Deputy will cease interrupting.

It is very hard.

The Deputy has a remedy.

I am paid to be here.

The Deputy must allow the Minister to continue.

To finish on a very pleasant note, may I say to the Fine Gael Party that I hope what I have said to them tonight has not fallen on deaf ears, that they will mend their ways between now and Committee Stage, that they will read the Bill and——

We have read it in detail.

——will consult with the people in their Party who know a little bit about wool and the sheep business, and as a result, if there are to be amendments, that there will be some sense and some worth in them, and that they will be reasonably useful in furthering the interests of this Bill. In return, I promise that——

You will accept them.

I will give them every consideration.

Consideration is no good.

You want an open cheque, but not on your life.

Question put and agreed to.

Tuesday next.

Could we not have two weeks? A week is very short time in which to draft amendments.

We can order it for Tuesday, and if anything else comes up, I do not mind waiting.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 30th April, 1968.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, April 24th, 1968.
Top
Share