Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Dec 1968

Vol. 237 No. 13

Committee on Finance. - Vote 37—Agriculture.

I move:

That a sum not exceeding £49,197,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1969, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries including certain Services administered by that Office, and for payment of certain subsidies and sundry Grants-in-Aid.

I propose also to move after the debate on this Estimate a Supplementary Estimate for £7,626,500 which will be required in the present financial year. I will deal with the items covered by the Supplementary Estimate in the course of this speech so that the debate may cover both the Main and Supplementary Estimates.

The total net Estimate for 1968/69, including the Supplementary Estimate, amounts to £56,823,500. This figure shows an increase of £7,140,500 on the final total Estimate, including the Supplementary Estimate, for 1967/68.

The total Estimate of nearly £57 million includes £30.7 million for price support, of which milk accounts for £25.6 million. It also includes over £15 million for agricultural development grant schemes; £3 million for disease eradication; nearly £2½ million for agricultural education and advisory services and £2 million for research.

As usual, notes on the main activities of my Department were circulated to Deputies some months ago giving data likely to be of help to them in the debate on the Estimate.

Before going on to the details of the Estimate I would like to say a few words about the outturn of agriculture in 1967 and the position in 1968. The final figures for 1967 show that farmers increased their gross output by about £17 million and their net farm income by £13 million—representing an increase of 10 per cent—over 1966 to bring the income figure to its highest level ever. The principal factors contributing to the increase in output were the good demand for cattle and beef; the substantial rise in milk production, which was achieved mainly through greatly improved milk yields; and the significant increase in the area under wheat and sugar beet. Weather conditions were generally favourable; yields of most crops were very good and the general level of prices was higher than in any previous year. Agricultural exports rose in 1967 to the record figure of £144 million compared with £123 million in 1966, an increase of 17 per cent and accounted for over half of total domestic exports. All this was gratifying following a rather disappointing year for agriculture in 1966.

The indications are that 1968 will be the best year yet in Irish agriculture. Cattle, sheep and pig prices have been maintained at high levels. Milk production has again beaten all records. We have had a remarkably good grain harvest, with record yields per acre and excellent quality. The sugar beet crop is giving a very good return, both in yield and sugar content.

The high yield of wheat this year, which is much above the 1967 record of 31 cwt an acre, can only be described as phenomenal, and over 97 per cent of this bountiful crop, totalling about 386,000 tons, has been paid for at the milling price. Not only is there enough millable wheat to provide the 75 per cent of our flour requirements, which has long been the Government's declared policy, but there will be a very substantial excess of millable wheat which must be disposed of on the feed market at a considerable loss. If this position could have been foreseen—and, in fact, it was not possible to foresee it—there would have been a levy of some 10s a barrel, or 80s a ton on all millable wheat under the Agricultural Produce Cereals) Act, 1958. I shall have more to say about this later in my speech.

Farm costs have, of course, increased during 1968. Wages, rates, feed and fertiliser costs and other items have risen, but, after making full allowance for these, economic experts estimate that family farm income in 1968 should be much in excess of the record figure of 1967. It is provisionally estimated by these experts that net farm income may show an increase of about £15 million, or approximately 10 per cent over 1967. The final figure for income cannot, of course, be established until some time next year, but the trend is unmistakable.

Many loose and inaccurate comparisons are made of agricultural and other incomes. In fact, the trend in total agricultural income in 1967 and in 1968 has matched the trend in other sectors during these years, and the higher total income was shared by a lesser number of people.

It is notoriously difficult, of course, if not impossible, to establish reliable and meaningful comparisons of per caput incomes in agriculture and other sectors, and the talk we hear about various alleged per head income gaps does not take into account the difficulties in making a valid comparison and the qualifications that go with it. Agriculture is a very diversified industry within which there are wide income ranges and different levels of production, size of enterprise, efficiency and employment. Such comparisons are usually in the form of generalisations of a quite invalid nature. For example, the incomes of full-time industrial adult workers are contrasted with alleged per head incomes of those working in agriculture who include young members of farming families aged over 14 years as well as the aged and a considerable number of people who devote only part of their time to, and derive only part of their income from farming. Another very important fact that is commonly ignored is the changes made in recent years in the regulations governing Social Welfare payments to small-holders, which, in fact, now constitute a guaranteed minimum income from the State throughout the year for many thousands of persons in this category, irrespective of their actual earnings from farming.

All these facts throw a very different light on various figures which are bandied about for propaganda purposes and are obtained by manipulation of statistics to fit in with a preconceived conclusion. One thing that is certain is that it will continue to be the Government's policy to ensure that all farmers who work their land fully and efficiently will share equitably in the growing prosperity of the nation and to pay special attention to the needs and problems of small farmers.

The facts and figures I have given for 1967 and 1968 are a striking vindication of the Government's agricultural policy, and they refute the reckless and absurd assertions, made all too commonly, and for propaganda reasons, that agriculture is, somehow or other, "down and out", is a static, poverty-stricken and inefficient industry and is too great a burden on the rest of the community. In fact, with State help, agriculture has made great strides in modernising itself. Agricultural output increased by about a fifth in volume in the past decade. Considering that the agricultural sector is such a large part of our economy, this rise was a substantial one. It was a significant factor in the increase in farmers' incomes from £109.9 million in 1957 to £145.9 million in 1967 and in the increase of £61 million in agricultural exports over the same period.

This progress was achieved by an industry which is by its nature subject to special difficulties, aggravated in our case by the fact that such a large proportion of output has to be sold in export markets which, as everybody knows, are in an unsatisfactory state.

The fact that agriculture accounts for such a large proportion of our national income, exports and total labour force does not provide a complete picture of its total contribution to the national economy. We must look at agriculture's contribution to industry generally and realise how many industries are based on it. The food processing industries, for instance, which are so heavily dependent on agriculture, account for over one-third of the gross output and one-quarter of the total employment of all manufacturing industries. If we consider in addition the degree of dependence of the fertiliser industry, the agricultural machinery industry and the transport industry on agriculture we get a much better appreciation of the overall significance of agriculture in our economy. We must bear this wider context in mind when considering the high and steadily increasing amount of Government expenditure in relation to agriculture.

The figure published in the Budget tables this year was in the region of £72 million but the actual figure will be many millions in excess of this when account is taken of the extra £4.5 million to meet the rising cost of creamery milk support, as well as other provisions made in the Supplementary Estimate. I defend expenditure of this order as necessary and desirable in the national interest but there would be no point in pretending that the raising of such large sums presents no problems for the taxpayer. It is, of course, important to ensure that the money is deployed in the best interests of agriculture and the nation. In my speech on the Estimate for Agriculture in May last year I referred to the setting up of a group to examine the various forms of State expenditure on agriculture with the object of ensuring that we are getting the best value for the money spent and that, in particular, an equitable proportion goes to the smaller farmer. The report of the group engaged in this review is now almost completed and I expect it to be in my hands within a few months.

When introducing the Estimate last year, I referred to the significance for Irish agriculture of the reactivation of Ireland's application for membership of the European Economic Community and said that any prospect of participation in the Community's agricultural arrangements was to be welcomed. As Deputies know, the Council of Ministers of the European Communities has been unable to reach agreement on the opening of negotiations for membership with the four applicant countries. Various other arrangements between the member States and the applicant countries have since been proposed but as yet nobody can say what, if anything, may emerge from these. From the point of view of an early expansion in our agricultural exports to the EEC, however, I am afraid that most of these proposals give little room for optimism. Indeed, until we become members of the Community the prospects of our regaining the valuable agricultural trade which we had a few years ago with the Community are anything but bright.

Our traditional trade in cattle and beef with certain member States has been almost at a standstill during the past two years or so. The introduction in the summer of 1968 of a common guide price for beef in all six member States coupled with a new graded import levy system is likely to prove even more restrictionist than the measures previously in operation. In the case of our other main agricultural export, dairy products, we are all only too well aware of the surplus production in the Community. Not alone is there no immediate prospect of our supplying dairy produce to the Community but the disposal of EEC surpluses abroad at a fraction of the prices obtaining within the Community has been seriously depressing world markets for dairy produce and causing grave difficulties for agricultural exporting countries such as Ireland.

Until such time as Ireland and Britain are admitted to membership of the EEC, the Free Trade Area Agreement between the two countries remains the essential basis on which our mutual trade is conducted. The agreement, which gives trade between the two countries a special character, is a two-way arrangement. It provided improved access to the British market for our vitally important agricultural exports—accounting for about 60 per cent of our total exports to that area—together with links with the British guaranteed price system in the case of our store cattle, store sheep and carcase beef and lamb. For the British, the important advantage is the assurance of increasing access to the Irish market for industrial products. It is only on a fair balancing of advantages that trade between the two countries can be developed in a satisfactory and equitable manner, and in this context agriculture is obviously of vital importance to us. If for any reason our exports to the British market were to decline, it would inevitably follow that exports from Britain to this country would also fall. In fact, of course, since the coming into operation of the Free Trade Area Agreement in 1966, exports in both directions expanded, and this is a trend which we would like to see continuing. This is of importance both for ourselves and Britain, of whom we were last year the ninth most important customer in the world.

As the House is aware, the Taoiseach's recent discussions with the British Prime Minister and other Ministers dealt with the effects on our economy of the British import deposit scheme, and also covered a number of important agricultural questions arising in relation to the working of the Free Trade Area Agreement. The agricultural issues discussed included recent statements by British Ministers about the continuance from 1970 to 1972/73 of their selective agricultural expansion programme. On this, the British Government took the view that the programme is not inconsistent with their international obligations and will not frustrate the agricultural objectives of the Free Trade Area Agreement, and it was arranged that the Agriculture Ministers of both countries would maintain close contact to this end. It was also arranged that these questions and other trade and economic issues arising out of the discussions with the British Prime Minister would be further considered at the meeting of the Anglo-Irish economic committee set up under the Free Trade Area Agreement, on 9th and 10th December. This meeting is in preparation for a meeting of Irish and British Ministers, and subsequently of the Taoiseach and the British Prime Minister. In these circumstances, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me, at this stage, to speak in any greater detail about the Free Trade Area Agreement or our general trade relations with Britain, except to emphasise the importance of the full implementation of the agreement on both sides, in its spirit and in its letter. This is the most effective guarantee of continuing expansion in our mutual trade, to the advantage of both countries.

After these general remarks, I should now like to deal in detail with the various sectors of the industry, beginning with cattle.

1967 was a good year for the cattle trade. Demand was good and exports of live animals and carcase beef were at satisfactory levels. 620,000 store cattle were exported to Britain and the Six Counties and the figure would probably have been higher had it not been for the disruption of trade caused by the foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in Britain. Exports of carcase beef to Britain set a new record at 108,000 tons and for the first time Ireland was the principal supplier of carcase beef to the British market. Our exports of boneless beef to the US were also at a record high figure of more than 34,000 tons valued at £12 million, a major contribution to our dollar earnings. All in all, exports in 1967 of cattle, beef and by-products of the beef industry were worth £90 million which represented 62 per cent of total agricultural exports and 34 per cent of total exports.

This year the cattle trade has been very buoyant and prices have been at record levels. There has been a strong demand for our store cattle from British feeders and exports of carcase beef to that market are also at a satisfactory level. The US market for boneless beef has remained steady also but exports to the US will be appreciably down this year on the high 1967 figure. The likely position in 1969 is rather uncertain. The estimated overall total of meat imports into the US is now expected to exceed for the first time the level at which import quotas would be "triggered off" under US meat import control legislation passed in 1964. In that event imports from this and other countries would be subject to specific quotas in 1969 unless an alternative system of voluntary curtailment of their exports were to be accepted by the various supplying countries. The whole matter is at present under very active examination by the US authorities: and my Department and the Irish Embassy in Washington are keeping in the closest touch with developments. Exports of cattle and carcase beef to the EEC remain at a very low level. Import levies now charged by the Community on live cattle amount to about £50 per head, on top of which there is a duty of 16 per cent. Any worthwhile export trade is ruled out by protection of this order.

The store cattle study group which was appointed to examine all aspects of the store cattle trade and to make recommendations considered desirable for the future development of the trade has submitted a very comprehensive report which I am having examined. The report will be published shortly and will, I am sure, be of great interest and assistance to all concerned with this highly important sector of our agricultural production and trade.

Arrangements for the establishment of a body to promote exports of meat and livestock are now almost completed and I hope to announce full details of the new body in the very near future.

The original provision under Subhead K.22 in respect of the export support payments on carcase beef and carcase mutton and lamb was £3.7 million and there was an offsetting appropriation-in-aid of £1.8 million representing receipts from the British Government under the Free Trade Area Agreement in respect of exports of carcase beef, mutton and lamb to Britain during the year. The net expenditure provided for was accordingly £1.9 million. Due to strong market conditions for beef in Britain, the rates for guarantee payment there, and consequently the rates of export support payable here, have so far been appreciably lower than was originally anticipated. Mainly because of this, gross expenditure is now estimated at £2.7 million and receipts from the British Government at £1.4 million, leaving net expenditure at £1.3 million or £0.6 million less than the original Estimate.

During 1967 the number of cows artificially inseminated showed a further increase to 983,000 as compared with 930,000 in the previous year. The 1966 trend to beef breed inseminations was continued with the Hereford displacing the Friesian as the most popular individual breed. The position of the other breeds was largely unchanged but it is worthy of note that interest in the Shorthorn breed was renewed somewhat, and the demand for Charolais is now growing. On the question of progeny testing, proposals to expand and improve the service on a national scale were recommended by the National Agricultural Council and were subsequently considered by the interests concerned. The programme envisaged would provide for a greater intake of young bulls for testing in the AI service each year and more intensive selection of these bulls on the basis of test results. Agreement on this programme and on the detailed methods of testing involved has now been reached with AI stations but improved arrangements for milk recording generally have not yet been worked out in detail. However, I am hopeful that this latter matter will be settled by next year. Under the existing arrangements for progeny testing, 59 of the dairy bulls in the AI service have been fully tested and found satisfactory. As Deputies are aware, the AI operating bodies decided to increase their fees this year. This was the first increase since 1952 and was attributed to higher costs of operation.

The Angus animals purchased in the United States last year completed their period of quarantine in Spike Island and services from three of the bulls imported are now available to pedigree breeders through the AI service. I gave approval for the import of a number of Charolais cattle from France this summer. The first consignment of 47 animals has already been imported. It is expected that a further consignment of 40 animals will be imported by the end of the year.

As I mentioned last year, I am particularly concerned about the problem of scrub bulls. In 1967, I arranged for an intensive comb out of such bulls following which legal proceedings were instituted in respect of 483 unlicensed bulls. A further intensive search has been undertaken this year and in the interest of our cattle industry, I will have no hesitation in prosecuting those keeping scrub bulls. I would again ask all who are genuinely interested in the welfare of the industry for their fullest co-operation in helping to deal with this problem.

As has already been announced, the Government have decided that the calved heifer scheme should be discontinued in June, 1969. The scheme has been mainly responsible for the increase of well over a quarter of a million in our cow numbers between 1963 and 1968. Very long notice has been given of the termination of the scheme so that no herd owner can claim that he has been caught unawares.

Last August, the National Agricultural Council recommended that the Government accept the case made by the ICMSA for an increase in the price to creamery milk suppliers. As was recently announced, the Government, after careful consideration of this recommendation, decided to grant, as from 1st September, 1968, an increase of 1d per gallon for the first 7,000 gallons a year delivered by each creamery milk supplier to a creamery. The cost in a full year will be nearly £1.7 million.

The total cost of creamery milk support has become a serious problem. At the same time, it is recognised that the cost of milk production, especially for the small and medium producers, has increased, and so, also, have creamery costs. While it is estimated that the total net income from creamery milk in the year 1968 will be several million pounds above the 1967 figure, the increase in costs will have a bigger impact in the coming year, especially on the small and mediumsized producers. Large and intensive producers, of course, have advantages which the other milk producers lack, and the problem was to recognise all these facts and make a fair decision. It is for all these reasons that the Government decided that the small and medium-sized producers should benefit most from the increase in price, though, of course, every creamery milk supplier will get the penny a gallon on his first 7,000 gallons, irrespective of what additional quantity of milk he may supply to the creamery.

It was announced at the same time that the Government had decided, in the context of the Third Programme, on a new incentive scheme for increasing beef production by herd owners who are not in the business of commercial milk production. The reasons are pretty obvious: (1) the increasing difficulty of finding even reasonably satisfactory export outlets for rising milk production; (2) the fact that, so far as can be foreseen, beef has a better export prospect than milk products, and (3) the fact that herd owners not in the business of commercial milk production have not received from the State financial incentives comparable to those provided for milk. The new scheme will provide for an annual grant of £8 for each calved cow in excess of two in herds not in commercial milk production. Full details will, of course, be announced in due course.

I think it was right to combine these two measures. On the one hand, it was considered equitable to give further assistance to the milk producers, but especially to the small and medium-sized producer. Secondly, it was necessary to provide some reasonable counter-attraction to milk. The solution chosen by the Government will be an advantage both to the milk producer and the beef producer and will penalise nobody. As I have already stated, the milk price increase will cost nearly £1.7 million a year. The beef incentive scheme will cost about £2½ million annually.

The cost of creamery milk price support is provided for under Subhead N.1. In the original Estimate, a total of £21 million is provided and in the supplementary Estimate I am seeking a further £4.65 million for that purpose, including the cost in 1968-69 of the increase in the milk price allowance from 1st September. The total amount of £19.2 million made available for creamery milk support in 1967-68 was the greatest ever provided; it was six times the provision made five years earlier. The total which I am now seeking is £25.6 million, which is £6.4 million greater than last year's figure and represents not far short of 50 per cent of the total sum being provided for all the services of my Department in relation to agriculture.

About £18.7 million of the total provision represents the allowances paid direct to creameries. These are the milk price allowance of 7d a gallon paid on all creamery milk, the special quality allowance of 2d a gallon payable on creamery milk that passes a quality test, and the further allowance of 1d a gallon now being paid on the first 7,000 gallons a year from each supplier. The remaining £6.9 million represents the Exchequer's two-thirds share of the losses incurred by An Bord Bainne in connection with exports of dairy products. The current rate of Exchequer support for milk works out at an average of just under 1s per gallon. This compares with 10d last year, and about 2¼d in 1962. In the light of these figures, it cannot be maintained that the Government are unmindful of the dairying industry or of its importance to the national economy.

The increased amount required for the milk price allowance and quality allowance directly reflects the very considerable increase in deliveries to creameries this year. Deliveries in 1967 had set a record at 473 million gallons, but this year they are expected to set a new record at about 520 million gallons. All of this quantity used for manufacturing purposes will attract the milk price allowance and about two-thirds of it will also qualify for the quality allowance. I am sure that, with the incentive of 2d per gallon bonus, more and more of the milk will reach the necessary qualifying standard for this allowance in the future.

The upward trend in milk production here has coincided with an expansion of production in many other countries also, and with a considerable weakening of world markets for dairy products. Large surpluses have been built up in the EEC, and some of these have been offered on world markets at very low prices. It is extremely difficult for an agricultural exporting country such as Ireland to compete with wealthier and highly industrialised countries which are prepared to sell dairy products at give-away prices. In these conditions, the task of An Bord Bainne in marketing our dairy products abroad has become particularly difficult, and the low prices obtaining in foreign markets have substantially increased the board's export losses. On some markets indeed the price obtainable for milk products represents only a few pence per gallon of milk at the creameries. Because of these factors, the board's levy on deliveries of milk to creameries was increased as from July last. It is now necessary to provide for that portion of the increased losses which falls to be met by the Exchequer. Provision is, accordingly, being made in the Supplementary Estimate for an additional £2,470,000 on top of the £4,440,000 provided for in the main Estimate. This brings the total Exchequer grant to An Bord Bainne for the current year to £6,910,000, or more than double last year's provision.

Before leaving the subject of export marketing of dairy products, I should like to refer briefly to the question of exports of cheese to Britain. In August, last, the British authorities approached the various supplying countries with a view to securing a measure of voluntary restraint in regard to supplies of Cheddar and Cheddar-type cheese to the British market. Stocks of Cheddar cheese were piling up in Britain and it was feared that there was a risk of market collapse. The matter, which gives rise to considerable concern, has been the subject of discussions between the two Governments, but no final arrangements have yet been agreed. While Irish exports of cheese to Britain have increased in recent years, the increase has taken place on a planned and orderly basis. Our increased share of the British cheese market has been secured, not by price-cutting, but by supplying a top-quality product and by marketing it efficiently.

Exports by An Bord Bainne take place only against orders, and, accordingly, Ireland has not contributed to the build-up of unsold stocks in Britain. The quality of Irish cheese has been raised to a really high level, the cheese-grading scheme introduced by the Department two years ago being a major factor in this, and Irish cheese commands a premium price on the British market. In fact, it is selling well above the price obtained by New Zealand, Australia and practically all other exporting countries. I absolutely repudiate the charges made by some biased interests that Ireland is one of the countries which is threatening the stability of the British cheese market. No country has more careful and effective marketing arrangements. The truth is that the demand there for our cheese is such that we could sell more and still continue to get a premium price over most of our competitors. Any threat that exists to the British cheese market is mainly due to certain countries which are unloading cheese there on the market at very low prices.

During the past year or so, the export market for skim milk powder weakened considerably. Prices for skim powder had been very attractive for some years previously, but, with greatly increasing production in many countries, a weakening of the market was more or less inevitable. The prospects of an early improvement in the market are doubtful, and I would, therefore, urge creamery milk suppliers to use as much as possible of their skim milk for feeding livestock. Creamery societies can do much to help to distribute surplus skim to feeders needing supplies, and my Department and the local advisory staffs will be glad to assist in this.

As Deputies are aware, the question of the reorganisation of the creamery and milk processing industry has been examined during the past year by two American consultants. In their report, which was published in August, the consultants came down strongly in favour of rationalisation of the industry. The report is being examined by my Department and by the various interests concerned, and I am hopeful that, with the aid of the views of the American experts, it will now be possible to make definite progress towards achieving a fully rationalised industry capable of reaping the advantage of large scale organisation. Only in this way can we successfully meet the keenly competitive conditions obtaining in world markets, and only in this way can producers obtain the best possible return for their milk.

Sheep numbers, which had risen to a peak of over 5 million by 1965, have since declined to about 4.1 million. The reduction has occurred largely in Leinster and Munster and may have been influenced by the swing into cattle and milk in recent years. I am concerned to check this decline and am examining the position to see what further steps it may be possible to take to increase sheep output.

Exports of sheep and lambs, both live and in carcase form, were worth some £4½ million in 1967. The number of sheep and lambs slaughtered for export at meat factories during the early months of this year showed a considerable increase over the corresponding months of 1967. This is a desirable development and shows that producers are taking advantage to a greater degree of the better prices normally available in the early months of the year and of the export subsidy adjustments which encourage exports in those months. It is suggested from time to time that greater efforts should be made to promote exports of carcase lamb to Continental markets. It must be borne in mind, however, that the more important markets on the Continent for lamb operate restrictive import policies of one form or another. For example, in the case of France, the main Continental market, imports are regulated by a minimum price system which can result in imports being stopped completely at very short notice. This situation renders it impossible to maintain a continuing supply, and limits greatly the scope for promoting trade on a firm long-term basis. When, however, exports to France or other Continental markets are possible, Irish exporters are not slow to avail themselves of any opportunity arising.

The amended mountain lamb subsidy scheme which was operated in the autumn of 1967 was widely welcomed. Its success may be judged from the fact that subsidy was paid on some 350,000 lambs and, at 10/- a head, this meant a total payment of about £175,000 to mountain sheep farmers. As Deputies are aware, the rate of subsidy was increased to £1 a head this year and provision for the additional cost is included in the Supplementary Estimate. I believe that with this increased incentive, the scheme is now an attractive one for mountain farmers and that they will plan expansion of their flocks with confidence. It is a feature of the scheme, as it was last year, that lambs must be dipped to qualify for subsidy.

Pursuant to a recommendation made by the Survey Team on the Horse Breeding Industry, a national mare nominations scheme was introduced this year in replacement of the scheme formerly operated by the county committees of agriculture. Under the new scheme, a flat nomination value of £7 is prescribed irrespective of whether the sire used is an Irish draught or thoroughbred. Over 3,200 nominations have been awarded. As from 1969, premiums will be paid in certain cases where nominated mares produce live foals—£25 where both dam and sire are registered Irish draughts, and £15 in any other case.

It is the Government's aim to encourage a substantial expansion in pig output, and I am glad to say that various measures taken to this end are showing promising results.

A sum of £1.7 million is provided in the main Estimate under Subhead K.20 for pigmeat export support in the current year. In addition, the increase in prices announced in the 1968 Budget involved the provision of £425,000 for further export support. Because deliveries of pigs to bacon factories have been running at a higher rate than had been expected, and because of some periodic weakening in export market prices, it is necessary to provide a further £475,000 for pigmeat support in the current year, making a total of £2.6 million as compared with expenditure of £1.4 million in 1967-68.

The decline in deliveries of pigs to bacon factories which set in during 1966 after the record level of 1965 has been reversed this year, deliveries showing an appreciable increase on the corresponding months of 1967. Pig numbers in June, 1968, were 7 per cent higher than a year earlier. It is hoped that the rate of increase will accelerate as we move further away from the valley of the pig cycle, and this trend will be stimulated by the 1968 Budget measures to aid the pig industry, namely, the increase of 12s per cwt. deadweight in the guaranteed minimum price for the top two grades of pigs (A special and A), the upward adjustments also in the minimum prices for certain other grades, the substantially increased piggery grants, the generous grants towards the establishment of large scale pig fattening units, the special farrowed sow scheme for the western counties, and the new and improved aids for accredited herds.

I would particularly appeal to small-holders to avail themselves of the increased piggery grants and to get into pig production in a reasonably substantial way. There is not much attraction in fattening just a few pigs during the year on expensively-bought small lots of feed, but there is a lot of sense in fattening a hundred pigs, or maybe two hundred, on feed bought in economic quantities. There is even more sense in fattening such larger numbers if grain grown on the same farm is used. In areas where there are ample supplies of skim milk, pig producers have a valuable feed constituent available to them at an attractive price, and I would urge them to ensure that the supplies are fully utilised for what is by far the most remunerative purpose.

Our bacon export quota for the British market this year under the Multilateral Understanding on the Supply of Bacon to the UK Market is 28,010 tons, the same level as for 1967-68. Due to the decline in pig production, supplies of bacon to Britain last year fell short of the quota, but, with the recovery in pig production, we are in a position to supply the full quota without difficulty this year. In addition, the increased pig supplies are enabling the valuable export trade in pork to be revived.

The Multilateral Bacon Understanding, which was made early in 1964, is due for review after the initial five-year period and this review is now about to be carried out. The Understanding is generally accepted as having introduced an element of stability into the market and it has not in practice been a serious limiting factor on our bacon exports. It does not appear likely that the forthcoming review of the Understanding will lead to any major changes.

The increase in exports of bacon and pork makes the job of marketing a still more important one. The lower exports last year resulted in relatively better prices being obtained on the British market. In September/October, 1967, the price of the then lower exports of Irish bacon in Britain averaged about 25s per cwt below Danish bacon, but in September/October this year when our bacon exports were higher the Irish prices averaged about 31s per cwt. below Danish. This variation calls for special effort in the field of marketing in order to keep the export subsidy cost as low as possible. I am glad to say that our price has again improved relative to Danish during recent weeks.

Some attention has been directed recently to the smuggling of pigs across the Border from the Six Counties to factories here. Variations in prices between the Six Counties and here can lead to some traffic of this sort from time to time, either in our direction or in the opposite direction as circumstances provide an incentive. Some months ago, the Six Counties reduced from 150 to 145 lb. deadweight the weight of bacon pigs qualifying for the top price, whereas our Grade A Special and Grade A prices here are still payable for pigs weighing up to 160 lb. deadweight — this weight has applied since April, 1966, previous to which it was 168 lb. The only effective way to counter any tendency to smuggling of pigs between 145 lb. and 160 lb. from the Six Counties to factories here, where better prices are being paid for that weight of pig, would be to make a further reduction in the maximum weight of pigs qualifying for our Grade A Special and Grade A. I am awaiting the views of the Pigs and Bacon Commission on the whole matter.

Under Subhead K.19, a sum of £100,000 is being provided for payment of outstanding grants for modernisation of bacon factories. In order to help the bacon industry to prepare for the competitive conditions of the EEC, the scheme of grants for modernisation of bacon factories was introduced under the First Programme for Economic Expansion in 1960. Practically all the bacon factories utilised these grants to improve their premises and equipment, and the scheme is now in the winding-up stage. Assistance for further improvement works which bacon factories may wish to carry out will be available under the industrial grants legislation.

Under Subhead K.23 in the main Estimate, there is a provision of £100,000 in respect of grants for farrowed sows. This has been increased to £215,000. The scheme of grants was originally intended to last for one year from its inception in September, 1966, but it was extended to June, 1968. The scheme was well availed of and has been of significant help in reversing the downward trend in pig production. On the termination of the scheme at the end of June, it was replaced by the Special Farrowed Sow Scheme for Western Counties. I am confident that this new scheme will make a major contribution towards expanding pig production and helping the smaller farmers in the western areas.

Financial incentives were introduced this year for owners of herds reaching accredited status under the Accredited Pig Herd Scheme. Details of the incentives have already been announced, and I hope that they will stimulate greater interest in this valuable breeding scheme. Commercial breeders are being encouraged to obtain their breeding stock from accredited herds by the payment of a grant of £10 in respect of each approved in-pig gilt purchased from an accredited herd and payable when the gilt farrows. This step, together with the selection of premium boards from accredited herds only, as has been the case in recent years, will ensure that the genetic improvement achieved in these herds will be passed on to commercial herds.

From what I have said, it is obvious that very special efforts, and a great deal of money, are being devoted to the pig industry. I believe that this is fully justified because the industry's potential is very considerable. There are, however, no easy or facile formulas for dealing with this matter. What is needed is hard, unspectacular and unremitting effort by everyone concerned, from the production to the export marketing end.

As regards the marketing arrangements for pigs, schemes for centralised purchasing have been prepared by the Pigs and Bacon Commission and by the Irish Bacon Curers Society. The question of centralised purchasing was considered by the National Agricultural Council, who felt that it needed to be further examined. I have since arranged for officers of my Department and representatives of the Pigs and Bacon Commission and of the Irish Bacon Curers Society to examine in detail the practical and technical operational aspects of the schemes submitted by those two bodies.

It has been suggested that central purchase of pigs would transform the industry. I have, personally, quite an open mind on this question. I am open to conviction, but only to practical and convincing arguments. There is no point in suggesting that centralised purchase would have a kind of magical effect, and, in fact, there are many problems to be faced, not least the problem of how minimum prices are to be converted into fixed prices; how we are to avoid freezing the bacon industry into a rigid pattern with margins guaranteed all along the line and curers becoming commission men rather than businessmen; and what the cost of such an arrangement would be, and who would meet it. I notice, incidentally, that in the Six Counties— the only area in Europe where central purchase of pigs has operated—a committee of inquiry have been set up to review the whole position. Clearly, this is a matter which must be examined in a detached and objective manner and not in a propaganda atmosphere.

In 1967, the continuing increase in broiler production was the most notable feature of the poultry industry. About 11 million broilers were produced, representing an increase of approximately 10 per cent over the figure for 1966. Production in 1968 is expected to show a further but smaller increase. Growers here now have available to them some of the world's best strains of broiler stock which have been imported during the past few years.

Another feature of the industry has been the increase in recent years of large units for commercial egg production. As a result of a recent survey, it was ascertained that a total of approximately 1¼ million laying hens or about 25 per cent of the total are now accommodated in large units. Commercial egg production is obviously becoming less attractive to the ordinary producer.

While the present indications are that there will be an increase in the supply of turkeys, prospects for exports are not bright as the number of turkeys produced in Britain in large units has also expanded further.

Coming now to the provision in the Estimate for dealing with diseases of livestock, I should like first to mention that the increased provision for bovine tuberculosis eradication represents mainly increased costs of testing and does not imply any significant change in the incidence of the disease.

County Donegal was declared a brucellosis-free area on 1st June, 1968. Four other counties—Cavan, Leitrim, Monaghan and Sligo—are under test and, if all goes well, they, too, may be certified brucellosis-free by about the middle of 1969. It was originally intended that in the present year the scheme would have been extended further but, owing to difficulties in providing the necessary laboratory facilities for the purpose, this has not been possible. The net reduction in expenditure on the scheme is taken into account in the Supplementary Estimate.

I am concerned that, despite all the efforts of my Department over the years, outbursts of sheep scab are still occurring because of neglect on the part of a very small number of flock owners here and there to dip their sheep. Some means must be found of bringing the defaulters into line if the disease is to be finally eradicated and my Department are at present actively searching for a solution to this problem.

Liver fluke causes very heavy losses and presents a highly complex problem which cannot be dealt with by straightforward eradication measures. The expert advisory group which I set up last year has recommended, first, a short-term programme aimed at effecting an immediate reduction in fluke losses and, secondly, a long-term programme of research into the practical aspects of the disease. The short-term programme includes the provision of facilities locally for the laboratory examination of faeces samples for accurate diagnosis of the disease. Such facilities have been provided already at a number of my Department's District Veterinary Offices in the South and West and it is proposed to extend this service to a number of other centres. Farmers have been exhorted to avail themselves of these facilities.

There have been suggestions that the general dressing of all cattle under the Warble Fly Eradication Scheme has been dropped too soon and that there is still widespread warble infestation in the national cattle herd. My information is that, while there are some pockets of infestation, the level of infestation in the country as a whole is quite low and there are large areas where the pest has virtually disappeared. I am confident that the measures now in operation, whereby warble infestation is compulsorily notifiable, free dressing is available for cattle notified to my Department and penalties are prescribed for defaulters, are the most appropriate and effective in the present circumstances. In a letter to all herd owners early this year I asked them to inspect all their cattle regularly each year from February to August and to notify promptly any animal showing warbles. I now repeat that request.

Proposals put forward in the Second Programme for Economic Expansion for the extension of the Department's veterinary service included provision for the establishment of a number of regional veterinary laboratories to supplement the service being given from the Veterinary Research Laboratory at Abbotstown, the aim being to provide an improved diagnostic, investigational and advisory service for the whole country. The siting of the laboratories was decided on the basis that they should be located in areas with a high density of livestock and in centres with good communications to facilitate the rapid transmission of perishable specimens submitted for examination. The first regional veterinary laboratory is already in operation at Sligo. Construction of the laboratories at Cork and Limerick should be completed early in the new year and that at Athlone in the spring. Arrangements for the construction at Kilkenny of the fifth laboratory are in hands.

At the time the Estimate was being prepared, outbreaks of foot and mouth disease were still occurring in Britain and it was in consequence not possible to forecast when all the special precautionary measures that had been taken here at the height of the emergency to prevent the disease getting into this country could with safety be removed or what would be the cost to the Exchequer of implementing these measures in the present financial year. Accordingly the amount included in the Estimate in respect of such expenditure was merely a token one. As the House is aware, the epidemic in Britain was finally stamped out in June last and as a result all the emergency controls and restrictions we had introduced have now been withdrawn. A fairly considerable amount of expenditure was of course necessarily incurred since April last in connection with these controls and restrictions. The Supplementary Estimate provides for an extra £106,000.

I might mention that the total expenditure by my Department on the special precautions since October last year, when the epidemic started in Britain, is of the order of £240,000. Everybody will agree that this is a comparatively small price to pay for preserving our freedom from this dread disease which, if it had come here, would have played havoc with our livestock industry and our whole economy. At this point I would like again to pay tribute to all our people at home and abroad for their wholehearted co-operation in combating the danger with which the country was confronted.

The fact must be faced that we are exposed to a continuing risk of introduction of foot and mouth disease or other serious animal disease from external sources. My Department has in operation permanent controls designed to minimise the risk, including rigorous restrictions on the import of meat and meat products which can be a potent means of transmitting infection. I would appeal to everyone concerned to co-operate fully with my Department in these protective measures.

As Deputies are aware, the British Government set up a committee under the chairmanship of the Duke of Northumberland to make recommendations on future policy as regards the prevention of outbreaks of this disease. A Deputy Secretary and the Director of Veterinary Services of my Department have given evidence before this committee, in the course of which they explained in detail the position of our country and the policy of the Government in this regard.

I would like to draw the attention of Deputies and farmers to the Order I made last year under the Diseases of Animals Act, 1966, about the dehorning of cattle. This Order provides that on and after 1st February 1969, horned cattle, with some exceptions, may not be sold or exported. Public notice of the intention to introduce the prohibition was given early in 1966 and since repeated, thus enabling farmers to dehorn calves which might be coming forward for sale or for export as mature animals in 1969. A similar Order has been brought into effect in the Six Counties. Horns on cattle can be a source of serious loss and sometimes danger to the farmer. Dehorned cattle can be more easily managed, fed and transported. Horn damage to meat and hides is avoided as well as injuries to cows' udders. It is thus very much in the farmer's own interest to dehorn his cattle and the best method of doing so is fully described in my Department's leaflet No. 23 which can be obtained, free of charge, on request.

Earlier in my speech, in reviewing agricultural developments in 1967 and 1968, I referred to the remarkably good yield and quality of the 1968 grain harvest. The very big intake of wheat and barley in a comparatively short period could have given rise to very serious storage and drying problems were it not for the expansion of these facilities this year and the excellent co-operation of all interests, including millers and farmers, with my Department during the harvest.

The problems which arose in 1967 in regard to intake and drying facilities were caused largely by the increased numbers of large combine harvesters and increased use of bulk transport for the grain. I had the position examined in detail in consultation with the interests involved. Arrangements were made with the Agricultural Credit Corporation for the making in 1968 of loans for the provision of storage with associated drying facilities and the Corporation's hire purchase facilities were also made available for the purchase of drying machinery. By arrangement with the Irish Flour Millers' Association, 23 additional intake points were open from the beginning of the harvest and drying and storage facilities showed a big increase on 1967.

In addition, in order to encourage growers to dry their own wheat, or to arrange to have it dried before sale, I included a provision in the annual Wheat Order this year for payment to growers for artificially dried wheat. I also provided that the bonuses of 2s 6d and 5s per barrel previously paid for undried wheat delivered in the months of December and January respectively would be paid in November and December. These provisions were made as incentives to growers to dry their own wheat, or where undried wheat could be safely held, to arrange for late delivery and thereby ease the strain on intake points at the peak of the intake period. The arrangements I have outlined would normally have provided adequate facilities for a smooth and efficient intake of the crop, notwithstanding the increase in the acreage. The record yield and exceptionally heavy intake over a very restricted period meant delay in some areas. In general, however, the harvest was completed very smoothly and efficiently.

As I mentioned earlier there will be a large quantity of surplus wheat for disposal on the feed market. This will involve a substantial charge on the Exchequer and I am providing £1 million under this heading in the Supplementary Estimate to meet the loss expected to arise in the current financial year. The balance will be provided in the Estimate for 1969/70.

The Agricultural Produce (Cereals) (Amendment) Act of 1958 provided for the imposition of a levy on wheat growers to meet the loss on disposal of any surplus of millable wheat. This Act had the full support of farmers' representatives. It is now obvious that There should have been a levy on the 1968 crop which has produced a surplus of over 75,000 tons of dried wheat. Up to now, my Department's practice was to decide in July, on the basis of the total acreage under wheat, as reported by the Central Statistics Office, and the experience of recent years in regard to yield and millable quality, and after consultation with An Bord Gráin, whether a levy would be required and, if so, how much it should be. In the years 1963 to 1967 it was decided in July of each year that no levy was required, and this decision proved to be correct in those years. In 1968, my Department and An Bord Gráin, taking into account the 17½ per cent increase in acreage and applying the record per acre yield of 1967, concluded that a levy would not be required. The assumption was a reasonable one but as we now know, the phenomenal yield and quality of the 1968 crop—which far surpassed what could have been expected in July —were such that, in fact, a levy should have been imposed to finance the disposal of the grain.

Obviously, the way the levy procedure has been operated—that is on the basis of an advance estimate of the crop—has been proved faulty this year. While we cannot expect the 1968 experience to be regularly repeated, the underlying trend is for yields to increase. In future, as recently announced, the imposition and size of the levy will be decided on the actual outturn of the crop, which is clearly the fairest approach from all points of view. To enable this to be done, it will be necessary to pay for millable and potentially millable wheat in two stages. The first payment, to be made on delivery, will represent two-thirds of the total value of each supplier's wheat, and the second payment, to be made after the harvest, will represent the balance due less any levy found to be necessary on the basis of actual total deliveries of millable and potentially millable wheat. The levy will come into operation at this stage if deliveries of millable and potentially millable wheat exceed 240,000 tons dried, which at present represents 75 per cent of the flour grist. These new arrangements constitute the most efficient and practicable method of implementing the 1958 Act.

The area under barley in 1968 was maintained at around the level of previous years. The yield was satisfactory and the crop was harvested and marketed without any serious difficulty.

There has been in some quarters the usual kind of misrepresentation about the wheat and barley prices and arrangements for 1969. In fact, the combined net effect of these—that is, the increase in the barley price and the necessary adjustments in regard to the wheat supply arrangements—will be to raise the overall value of these two crops to growers compared with what it would otherwise have been. The price for wheat remains the same. It is not a low price; actually, it is rather higher than the EEC price.

No change is being made in policy as regards the percentage of Irish wheat in the grist. This target remains at 75 per cent which, at the present level of consumption of bread and flour, now represents about 240,000 tons. On this quantity, the full price is guaranteed, and the levy arrangements sponsored in 1958 by representatives of wheat growers, and given statutory effect in an Act passed in that year, will come into operation, as they envisaged, if there should be a surplus of millable wheat over the guaranteed quantity. The levy will not be imposed unless the actual outcome of the crop is that there is a surplus. This is, surely, a better procedure than trying to estimate the yield and quality of the crop before it is harvested and either imposing a levy which may not, in fact, prove necessary, or not imposing a levy when one should, in fact, have been applied.

The only other change is that the minimum falling number for potentially millable wheat is raised from 130 to 140. Experience showed that 130 was too low a figure and that the inclusion of wheat between 130 and 140 in the potentially millable category only spoiled potentially millable wheat with a higher falling number.

There is much talk about increased costs of growing cereals but little publicity is given to the striking increase in yields per acre. The wheat yield per acre went from about 25 cwts. in 1960 to 27.8 cwts. in 1966, 31 cwts. in 1967, and around 36 cwts. in 1968. Barley yields per acre have also reached record levels in the past two years. I recognise that 1968 was a remarkable year, but, beyond any doubt, the trend in yields is steadily upwards. This, obviously, has important financial advantages for the growers at any given price level.

The position in regard to oats production and marketing has been a source of some concern to me. In his Budget Statement, the Minister for Finance indicated that, beginning with the 1968 harvest, there would be a floor price corresponding to the feeding barley price for clean oats of good feeding quality. A scheme was introduced for this purpose and applied to oats grown in the western counties. To meet the cost of disposing of oats purchased under this scheme I am providing for a sum of £150,000 in the Supplementary Estimate. Provision is also being made for a sum of £30,000 in respect of grants for the provision of drying and storage facilities for oats in the area covered by the scheme. These measures should ensure that the growers in the west whose opportunity to grow other cash crops is limited will secure reasonable prices for oats produced by them.

In addition I have arranged for the abolition of the certification fee hitherto payable under the seed oats certification scheme, and of the inspection fee payable under the field approval scheme for oats with a view to improving the general quality of the oats produced. The Department's research work in cereal seed breeding of varieties designed to suit the country's requirements has been highly successful. One of the factors resulting in the increase in wheat and barley yields has undoubtedly been the general use of the improved varieties bred by the Department.

The high level of demand for facilities under the Land Project continued during the past year. Notwithstanding the temporary restrictions on visits to farms during the foot and mouth disease crisis, 5,000 more schemes were issued in 1967/68 than in the previous year and the total value of the grants offered at £3,652,000 was £414,000 greater than in the year before and over twice the value of grants approved in 1957/58. The amount paid in the past year by way of grants to farmers was £2,450,000 or £674,000 higher than in the preceding year and the highest figure ever reached. The acreage reclaimed also showed an increase of 31 per cent over the previous year.

My Department has had the mountain fencing scheme and the mountain grazings (supplementary keep) scheme under review. As an added incentive to farmers to improve mountain-type grasslands, the grants under both the mountain fencing scheme and the mountain grazings (supplementary keep) scheme are being substantially improved. The new mountain fencing grant will be two-thirds of the estimated total cost of both labour and material subject to a maximum of 15/-per perch of fence or £12 an acre of land enclosed. Hitherto the grant was paid only on the cost of material used and the limit was 10/- a perch or £9 an acre of land enclosed. In regard to "surface treatment" of mountain grazings, the maximum grant for approved works such as surface seeding, liming and manuring under the supplementary keep scheme is being raised from £4 to £8 an acre. These increased grants should help farmers to produce more and better keep for stock in mountain areas during critical periods, as when weather is severe or during mating and lambing times.

Expenditure under the Land Project fertiliser credit scheme also rose from £353,100 in 1966/67 to £375,300 in 1967/68 to reach the highest level ever. The extra provision made in the Estimate is mainly to meet the continued upward trend in the grants to farmers under the general scheme and the improved financial assistance under the mountain grazings schemes.

The provision under Subhead K.8 includes £2.15 million for grant expenditure under the farm buildings scheme and £500,000 for the water supplies scheme. As will be seen from the Supplementary Estimate, a saving of £150,000 on this subhead is anticipated. Grants paid under the farm buildings scheme in 1967/68 amounted to nearly £1.9 million and would have been higher but for the contraction in field work consequent on the precautions taken against foot and mouth disease. For the same reason expenditure under the water supplies scheme was less last year than expected, although at £380,000 it showed an increase over 1966/67.

I have already alluded to the substantial increase in the rate of grant for farm piggeries and to the new grants towards the cost of large-scale pig fattening units. The latter grants are at the rate of one-third of the approved capital cost (excluding working capital) and are payable in respect of units capable of accommodating at least 3,000 pigs at one time. A number of applications for the new grant have already been received and are being examined.

The scheme of grants for milk coolers for creamery suppliers, which was introduced last year, is being continued and I am providing £50,000 for the purpose under Subhead K.26.

Consumption of ground limestone in the year ended 31st March, 1968, was 1.48 million tons as compared with the record usage of 1.56 million tons in the previous year. The rate of delivery this year indicates that the figure of 1½ million tons will be exceeded before 31st March next year. An additional £50,000 for the ground limestone transport subsidy is being provided this year bringing the total to £1,150,000. Because of the importance of obtaining and maintaining a satisfactory lime status in our soils it is very desirable that our annual application of ground limestone should continue to increase.

The special campaign aimed at increasing the usage of fertilisers which was launched in 1966 and in which my Department, the fertiliser industry and the advisory services participated was continued during 1967 and 1968 with very satisfactory results. Fertiliser usage for each of the years July to June, 1966-67 and 1967-68 showed a substantial increase.

The amount provided under Subhead K10 in the original Estimate for subsidy on phosphatic and potassic fertilisers is £4,600,000. Indications are that because of the magnitude of the increase in the usage of fertilisers this amount will not be sufficient and provision for an additional £1,213,000 is being made in the Supplementary Estimate.

It was originally envisaged that during the five years of operation of the scheme of grants for glasshouse nurseries which was introduced in March, 1967, a sum of £500,000 would be expended by way of grants. In fact, during the first year of operation, grants to the extent of £150,000 were paid towards the cost of erection of new glasshouses. In the present year the demand for grants has accelerated and it is now apparent that the provision of £200,000 in the original Estimate under Subhead K.25 will not suffice and a provision of a further £200,000 is included in the Supplementary Estimate.

It is encouraging to see that glasshouse owners have sufficient confidence in the future to invest their capital in new and modernised glasshouses. Those in the industry are aware that the object of the scheme is to enable them to face open competition both at home and abroad and that gradual elimination of protection in due course is envisaged. I would also mention that the high level of consumption of tomatoes on the home market this year was largely due to the exceptionally fine weather, but that there is a limit to what the home market can absorb. Growers, therefore, must turn their attention to export markets. Imports of tomatoes into the United Kingdom are substantial and I am sure that progressive growers are aware of this fact and will not be slow to test the potential of this market, bearing in mind that we are well placed especially as regards North of England markets. Our success in increasing exports depends on our ability to compete in price, quality, grading and presentation of the produce while maintaining continuity of supply.

Under the heading of grants to county committees of agriculture, Subhead F, I am making provision this year for a sum of £780,500. There has been a significant expansion in the advisory services over the past decade and the total number of advisers employed by the committees has increased in that period from 313 to 509.

The report of the two experts who made a comprehensive review of the existing advisory service has been printed and published. This report, together with comments on it which have been received from various interested parties, is at present being examined interdepartmentally. I might add that the Government have not as yet come to any final conclusions on the recommendations in the report.

Under Subhead I.5 in the original Estimate a sum of £1,486,000 is being provided towards the non-capital expenses of An Foras Talúntais. A further sum of £34,000 is being provided in the Supplementary Estimate to offset the extension of the tenth round salary increase, retrospective to 1st June, 1966, to staff of An Foras Talúntais earning over £1,200 per annum. This increase of course applied throughout the Public Service. A sum of £90,000 is being provided under Subhead I.6 to finance capital expenditure by the institute. The total State contribution towards the cost of the institute's work in the current year is thus over £1.6 million.

In Subhead D.9 there is increased provision for grants to the faculty of agriculture of University College, Dublin, and to the faculty of dairy science of University College, Cork. The former faculty will receive the usual statutory grant of £24,984 while the latter will get a statutory grant of £13,000. I am providing for payment of an additional grant of £435,000, including the extra amount in the Supplementary Estimate, to the University College, Dublin, faculty of agriculture. This is £235,000 higher than for 1967-68. This expenditure arises from the development of the faculty to meet the growing needs of higher education in agriculture.

A sum of £220,000 is provided in the Estimate by way of additional grant to the faculty of dairy science of University College, Cork. This sum, which is £83,500 higher than that voted for 1967-68, includes £150,000 for the much needed expansion of the faculty buildings, on which work has commenced.

Subhead D.10 provides financial assistance for the farm apprenticeship scheme. This scheme has an important part to play in the field of agricultural education and training. It is a comparatively new scheme but already it has made substantial progress. Earlier this year, I presented Government awards of £500 each to the first group of apprentices to qualify under the scheme. This year there will probably be a bigger number of apprentices qualifying and I have provided in the Estimate for the payment of additional awards.

The problems of small farms continue to engage the closest attention of the Government as was evident from the measures to assist agriculture which were included in this year's Budget. The additional budgetary aid which was provided for the production of pigs, sheep and oats was particularly aimed at the smaller farmers in whose economy these commodities play a major role. Another very important measure designed to benefit this section of our farmers was the small farm incentive bonus scheme which was introduced last May. I am glad to say that this scheme is going very well. Up to the end of October over 6,000 applications to participate in the scheme were received by the county committees of agriculture and about 1,500 of the applicants had embarked on farm development plans. The bulk of the applications has been coming in from the western counties and there has been a very good response, too, from the dairying areas of the south. I believe that this new scheme, coupled with the many other Government aids that are now available, has a great potential for improving the incomes of a substantial proportion of our smaller farmers.

While on the subject of small farms, I should like to refer to developments under the pilot area programme. The scale of the programme has been increased three-fold in the past year or so, and progress has been most encouraging both in the physical sense and in the degree of acceptance by the farmers concerned of the ideas underlying it. Material progress is evident in all the pilot areas in such spheres as the provision of suitable farm buildings, and many of the areas have achieved marked increases in farm output. Of even greater significance, perhaps, has been the extent to which it has been possible to establish and activate local farmer groups whose co-operation is essential in achieving the objectives of the programme.

In Subhead C.4, there is a provision of £150,000 for our 1968 contribution to the world food programme and in Subhead C.5, £40,000 is provided for a food aid contribution under the international wheat agreement. In the Supplementary Estimate, a further sum of £13,500 is provided for emergency assistance to the Middle East. This provision has been made in response to an appeal by the UN and FAO for additional assistance for refugees in that area.

I should like, in conclusion, to say a few words about the much publicised question of relations between the Government and farmers' organisations. The remarkable increases in output, exports, income and general economic wellbeing are the present realities of the agricultural situation, through what has come to be called disharmony on the agricultural front seems to attract much more public attention.

Let me repeat again that I and the Government are most anxious that there should be effective and workable arrangements for close consultation with farmers' organisations of policy matters. I have always believed, because of the diverse and often conflicting interests within agriculture, that the most effective means of communication between Government and farmers is through some kind of representative body or council. Some time ago, I invited the leaders of the two major farming organisations to meet me for a full and frank discussion without any preconditions, but, for varying reasons, neither of them wanted such a discussion. The Taoiseach also offered to see both leaders together but the leader of the NFA wanted a separate meeting and the Taoiseach has now agreed to see each man separately. As Deputies know, the talks between the two organisations aimed at defining functions and working relationships will be resumed in January. In the Government's view it is very important that these talks should lead to satisfactory undertakings between the organisations, as this is the real kernel of the problem of how the Government are to carry out effective consultations on policy matters with farmers' representatives.

Personally, I am not wedded to any particular type of representative machinery for the purpose of discussions with Government and Ministers, provided the major organisations can agree about it. If the main farmers' organisations wish to form their own council, I am quite prepared to deal with it and to give it a reasonable share of my time and that of my officials. Agriculture is confronted with many problems at the present time, and the sooner organisations get down to the serious business of examining these in consultation with the Government, the better pleased I shall be. If they can agree on some way of working together and on the machinery which should form the basis for consultations with the Government, there would be no difficulty whatever in establishing close relations with the Minister and his Department.

John Feely, the ICMSA leader, had been closely associated with the efforts to find a solution to the problem. His sad and unexpected death came as a great shock to all of us. As well as being an extremely able, dynamic and popular leader, he was a great patriot, in the true sense of the word, and the contribution he made to his country's welfare, and particularly to agriculture, was very great indeed.

I move:

"That the Estimate be referred back for further consideration."

Towards the end of the Minister's speech, he referred to the death of the president of the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers Association. I should like to be associated with the Minister in his expression of regret. There is no doubt that organised farmers have lost a great leader, particularly in the dairying industry.

It seems to me to be entirely wrong that we should be coming in here to discuss this Estimate for Agriculture at a time when, I suppose, two-thirds of the money has already been spent. To me, this emphasises the very inefficient way in which Parliamentary business is being arranged and it draws attention once again to the enormous amount of unwanted and undesirable legislation that has been given priority in arranging the business of the House.

I referred to this last year and, as far as I can remember, I told the Minister on that occasion that we did not know what figures we were discussing. In the Minister's statement in introducing the Estimate for this year, he is talking about figures for 1967 and also the figures for 1968. Indeed, it is more relevant to be talking about the figures for 1968 because we are now well into the last month of the calendar year of 1968. Surely it should be possible to make some arrangement whereby this type of thing would not occur? I sometimes wonder what the Minister would have to say about the farmers if, instead of sowing their crops in spring, they decided to leave them until December.

I should like to be able to come in here and to compliment the Minister on his achievements during the past year and to commend him on his proposals and his plans for the year ahead, but, as I see it, the Minister has not been responsible for any achievements and he has no known plans for the future. He speaks of matters being under consideration. That is all we hear. I believe that a thriving agriculture is so important to the welfare of the entire economy that agriculture should be above and beyond Party politics.

Unfortunately, the Minister's period in office will be remembered as a time when relationships between the Minister and the farmers were never worse: it will be remembered as a time when there were no arrangements and no possibility for consultation or discussion of any item of agriculture. The farmers, in fact, have been effectively closed out.

In the closing stages of his statement the Minister referred to the desirability for having this type of co-operation and consultation with the people engaged in the industry. He has given us a most plausible statement; in fact, every statement of the Minister's regarding this important matter has been a plausible one. His statements have given the impression that there were no difficulties and that he is extremely anxious to improve relations. He infers that there is no reason why all this could not come about. We have seen that the Minister's attempts to provide the proper atmosphere for achieving this relationship have been a complete and absolute failure. We have seen the rise and fall of the National Agricultural Council, a council that was formed by the Minister largely on the basis of a considerable proportion of the people being hand-picked by himself. He chaired that council. Every one of us saw the downfall of it in advance. We told him so and the position now is that he is sitting in the chair practically alone and that the NAC has disappeared.

All of us wanted to see a national body. We all wanted to see an arrangement whereby farmers would be in such a position that they would have access to the Minister and access to his Department so that they could discuss their problems and take part in the formulation and implementation of agricultural policy. Until a situation like this is brought about, no worthwhile advance is possible. Farmers must be involved at every stage and we, in Fine Gael, say that this is one of the most important aspects of agricultural policy. Unless there is this co-operation and this involvement we will never get to the point where we will have reached the full potential of the greatest and most important industry in the country.

As I have said, the Minister's efforts have been a failure and we have had this situation now for more than two years. At the end of that two years all we have are further promises. I believe that we will have a change of Government—that is the bright side of the cloud—and I believe that we will have a Fine Gael Government after the next general election. I wish to state publicly that it is our policy to have the closest possible co-operation with the farmers of this country and to have the fullest measure of consultation and discussion on farming problems, on farming policies and on the implementation of those policies because we believe that this is the only possible way in which worthwhile achievements and progress can be made in the industry.

Recently, I attended the glasshouse conference and I must say that I was extremely impressed. All parties concerned with the development of this young and growing industry seemed to be full of enthusiasm and full of interest in what was taking place and in what the prospects for the future were. There the growers were bringing their problems to the experts and to the researchers. They were looking for the new knowledge, they were hungry for it, and they were obviously anxious to bring home the latest findings and research and to put them into practice. They were demanding solutions of their problems. They were making the pace for the researchers. One got the impression that here was the overall type of involvement, the overall type of participation which we should have in every branch of the agricultural industry.

The glasshouse grants are generous. What has happened is that all the parties concerned in the industry—the growers, the research people, the marketing people—are being brought in there and every problem is discussed, every prospect is discussed. The greatest emphasis of all is on marketing— on grading, as the Minister says—on presentation, so that the industry will be able to compete in export markets because we are reaching a point here where we shall have quantities surplus to our requirements. That is what we all want.

At that conference there was a marketing expert over from England, where some of our tomatoes are being exported. He stated that all that was wrong was he had not sufficient quantity and that, if he could guarantee his people a continuity of supply, and larger supplies, he would have no trouble whatever selling them. There was evidence to show that tomatoes produced here are well able to compete on world markets. Quite a fair percentage of production is at present being exported to Northern Ireland— and Northern Ireland is open to European competition. It is a great tribute to our growers, to the Agricultural Institute and, in fact, to everybody concerned that we are able to export this commodity without subsidy and in competition with the whole of Europe. I believe that, in this small sector of the horticultural industry at least, there is provided the type of example that should be extended to every sector of the agricultural industry.

This country faces a serious situation in the future. The Minister has told us himself that the European markets are virtually closed to Irish agricultural products. The only thing of any consequence that remains in Europe, I think, is the French lamb trade which is up and down and, indeed, most unsatisfactory too. This limits us to the British market and I should, of course, include the American market for boxed beef. I was sorry to hear the Minister say that export quantities to the American market will be well down in the present year. I saw some reference to this a few months back where other countries had jumped in, when the price went up, and that prospects in the future were doubtful. The American trade has always been doubtful. I think it is right to say that we have taken advantage of the situation in the American market wherever possible. We should continue, of course, to expand this market and to look at all the difficulties and to make sure that our claim is staked. Again, it is an uncertain outlet and we are left with the British market and with a Trade Agreement that is now showing, in my view, considerable chinks.

The Minister is much more satisfied with the situation in relation to the Free Trade Area Agreement than I am, personally.

I was quite surprised by a report which appeared in the Irish Independent on 12th November, 1968. The Minister is reported as answering questions about the British quotas on farm imports. He is reported as saying that, as far as the Free Trade Area Agreement is concerned, our exports are not affected under the Agreement. The question of regulating imports of an agricultural product into Britain could, he said, arise only in circumstances which would involve restrictions of British domestic production or marketing of the products concerned as well as a restriction on supplies from other countries and, in that event, the Minister said the British Government would be obliged to afford opportunities for the growth of imports from Ireland, which proportionately would be not less favourable than those allowed to British home producers. According to the Minister, no restriction could be applied to imports of store cattle, sheep and lambs from Ireland. He said, in conclusion, that Mr. Hughes has referred specifically to Britain's obligations under the Free Trade Area Agreement.

The Minister knows that the British are now embarking on a programme of expanding their own agriculture—expanding the number of cattle—and, of course, there is no doubt about it but that there will be an expansion in milk products in this case also. If this expansion takes place—and undoubtedly the British seem determined that it will take place to some extent—and we are tied to the British market, I think it is quite nonsensical to say that this will have no effect and that, in fact, we shall have the Trade Agreement to safeguard us.

How can we, in the course of our discussions on, and in the course of our review of, this Trade Agreement, insist that the British do not increase their cattle numbers? How can we insist that the British do not increase their sheep numbers? How can we insist that a situation will not arise in Britain, in relation to cheese and other agricultural products, where they simply will not want ours? We saw the situation which developed here in 1966 when, for a number of reasons, the British farmer decided he did not want our cattle and just did not take our cattle and there was nothing we could do about it. If the British farmers increase their cattle numbers to a point where they are supplying themselves with a much greater number of their own stores for feeding, what will be our situation? I am sure the Minister has considered this. I do not know to what extent this has been hammered out with the British authorities.

The market for industrial products for Britain has been expanding here to a considerable extent. It is quite obvious that the balance of advantage is passing over to the British side. This will create a very serious situation for us, unless we get special terms, because of the existence of the Trade Agreement. I remember, when we were discussing this here in this House, that we got numerous assurances that we got almost everything we looked for in agriculture and that the various Articles contained what was described as a "growth rate". I have here a copy of the Trade Agreement on page 36 of which Article 8 states, in relation to arrangements for imports of agricultural products:

This Article ensures unrestricted access to the British market indefinitely for Irish store cattle, store sheep and store lambs.

As I said before, this is absolutely dependent upon whether or not the British farmer decides he needs them; if he does not need them we just cannot send them over there, unless we give them away.

In the case of other agricultural products the British Government may not regulate imports from Ireland except in the context of an inter-governmental commodity agreement or other such arrangement. Before regulations may be applied even in this context, the international arrangement must involve both regulation of imports into Britain from all substantial sources of supply and the regulation of Britain's own domestic production or marketing of the product concerned.

It certainly does not make sense to me to say that it is not a breach of the Agreement for their farmers to set out now on a programme of expansion. It is said that demand is increasing. I wonder to what extent. How will this be spelled out?

The British Government have declared their intention... in addition, to accord to Ireland growth opportunities which will be no less favourable than are granted to any other supplier, including British farmers.

How will we balance these two things? When will we reach the point at which we will say to the British farmers and the British Government: "If you produce any more cattle you will not want ours or you will want a reduced number of ours." How will we insist on this and how will we get the fair play promised in this Agreement?

Paragraph 40 of the Agreement reads:

In paragraph 14 and 15 of the Record of Understandings the British Government declare that they expect that they will not need to invoke the provisions of the Article in such a way as to restrict opportunities for the import of the quantities of agricultural products which Ireland expects to have available under the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. Moreover, in any negotiations for the introduction of the type of international arrangement referred to in the Article it will be the aim of the British Government effectively to maintain access for those quantities.

That is the kernel of the matter. We were given to understand when the Trade Agreement was being discussed here that there was a growth rate factor and we were guaranteed access at economic prices for as much as we would be able to produce up to the target set in the Second Programme. Now everybody knows that we have not reached this target. This is a very serious situation. We are linked to this one market, plus a small export to America of boxed beef and the lamb trade to the Continent. We do not seem to have been able to develop any other export outlet.

I do not know what we will say to the farmers. Policy is being made from day to day. There is no long-term policy possible in the present situation and it is quite wrong—it is, indeed, unreasonable—to expect farmers to invest both money and effort if they cannot be told for five years ahead that, if they produce a certain commodity, the Government will ensure that they will have an outlet at a price which will give them a reasonable profit. Unless we can speak in a confident way to the farmers we cannot expect them to invest their money and their effort. We cannot have a day-to-day policy. We cannot say one day that we are short of wheat and, because we are, we will increase the price and then, when that wheat is produced, say that we have too much wheat and we must reduce the price. We cannot say we want cow numbers increased to such a figure and, before that figure is reached, throw up our hands in holy horror and say: "We are sorry. We were wrong again. You must stop producing milk." I have no doubt but that agricultural advisers are going around the country telling small farmers that their best prospect for raising their incomes lies in milk production. The Minister says milk is now a serious embarrassment.

We are at cross purposes. There should be a definite policy. The Minister says that from now on the emphasis must be on beef; beef is the only commodity with a long-term outlet prospect, an outlet in which we can sell beef at economic prices. He must say what size of farm and the quality of land that will produce an income for a farmer out of beef alone. It is no use misleading people into a line of production we have been condemning all our lives. That production was in the past condemned in particular by Fianna Fáil. Beef was something that was not to be mentioned. Now it is the only important commodity left. We know that the biggest agricultural export we have is cattle. What are we doing about that export? At least two-thirds of the beef cattle are produced by the dairy farmers, the farmers we are now advising to slow up.

The heifer subsidy scheme was introduced on the basis that on any number the farmer has in excess of what he had in a particular year he got the £15 heifer subsidy. That is not being done in the case of the proposed beef subsidy. It is the most restricted scheme I have ever heard introduced here. The Minister describes it as a beef calf subsidy scheme. He is not able to produce any details. How did he arrive at his estimate that the scheme will cost something in the region of £2½ million if he does not yet know the details of the scheme? I asked a number of questions last week and the Minister was not in a position to answer any of them.

For the first two calves the farmer gets nothing. For those in excess of two he will get £8 per head. But these calves must be produced by a farmer who is not engaged in commercial milk. He cannot be either a liquid milk or a creamery milk supplier. If he sells any milk commercially he is out. If a farmer has five, six or seven cows and some calves, and if he makes a few pounds of country butter and sells it, is he eligible? I asked the Minister that question and he could not tell me whether such a farmer was or was not eligible. I do not know if anybody knows whether or not he is eligible. Again, if a farmer sells a few gallons of cream and uses the skim, will he be eligible? To that question there was no reply. Nobody knows. It is very important that we should know. If the Minister is anxious to attract people away from milk to beef then he should have a graded system. He should say: "In 1967 you had 50 or 60 cows; if you reduce that number to 30 we will give you £38." Why was that type of scheme not introduced? Why was it not done on the same basis as the heifer subsidy scheme? You would probably get a worthwhile response if you did that. You would get an assurance that there would be a proper swing to beef. If people could afford to change over part of their production to beef you might get somewhere with it, but this £8 is too small. The Minister agreed the other day that it might be too small, that it is probably too small.

When one has regard to the fact that milk in any form practically, is eosting 1/- a gallon for export by way of subsidy one sees that for a 600 gallon cow that is £30. To take the cow out of that type of production we are giving £8, so there is a saving of over £20 in subsidy. It does not suggest to me that this has really been got down to when we have this sort of limited scheme. Are we afraid that if we introduce a better scheme we will reduce milk production too far? The Minister says the indications are that we will still have increased milk production, and consequently embarrassment.

A serious situation has arisen in the export of cheese because of the quantitative restrictions the British propose to impose on cheese imported from this country. As the Minister said, obviously we are doing an excellent job with cheese. Immense strides have been made in the quality of the cheese we have been exporting, and the number of brands. If we have increased our exports of cheese to the British market, it is because there is a demand there at a premium price and not a rock-bottom price. I listened to an economist from the British Farming Union talking through his hat about this and saying we had disturbed the British market with our exports of cattle and cheese. He must know that the people who upset this market in Britain were those who were selling at give-away prices and upsetting the market. I hope the outcome of the negotiations now taking place will establish beyond yea or nay that we will not be restricted in the quantity of cheese we export to the British market, provided we do not sell at very low prices, provided we sell at competitive prices, and prices up to the standard which farmers would expect to get if they were in the same position.

The situation in the cattle industry is unsatisfactory. It is satisfactory in so far as this year prices have been good. All round prices have been good. We had sufficient to export and the prospects for the future are good. At the same time there is a conflict between milk and beef and we are reaching a point where we will have to make a certain sacrifice. I hope we do not get back to a dual-purpose type of animal. That is the worst thing possible. It is neither one thing nor the other.

The Minister referred to various reports. His contribution on these reports was most disappointing in fact. There is an enormous number of reports with the Department now and has been for some considerable time, and little or no action has been taking place. We had the Knapp report followed by the Cooke-Sprague report. Very little has been done about the proposals in the latter report for the rationalisation of the creamery industry. It is vitally important that the recommendations of those reports are implemented as soon as possible. We must make the industry efficient. We must get reduced costs of production so that we can sell in competition with all other suppliers and, at the same time, leave a reasonable margin of profit for our producers at home.

There is also the store cattle report. This committee or commission was set up in April, 1967, I think, and it reported in about April, 1968. That must be a valuable report. There must be many recommendation in it. All of us should be made aware of them as soon as the Minister gets them in his Department. I do not know what all the secrecy is about, and why we are not entitled to know the broad recommendations of reports so that we can think about them and evaluate them. The Minister should tell us the type of recommendations made. All of us know that the main interest in the report would be how our beef numbers are to be kept up. How is the quality to be improved? What can we do about promotion and selling generally? How can the whole industry be encouraged and supported in the way it should be? If the beef subsidy is the outcome of one of these recommendations I would be very surprised, and I would think it is a watered-down version of whatever recommendation was made. There is a great deal to be said for some form of subsidy for store cattle when the beast reaches the age of six months and we know we have a well-reared calf. If we tied it in with some sort of standard we would be getting somewhere.

What is recommended about transport? The transport situation is getting worse every day, and much more expensive. Many Deputies have asked questions about transport, both from the Minister's side of the House and this side of the House. The situation is that three per cent of our cattle are carried by CIE, 17 per cent, as well as I remember the figure, are carried by licensed hauliers, and the remaining 80 per cent approximately are carried by what are described as illegal hauliers. Surely the Minister should use his influence to put a stop to this and not have men who are providing a first-class cattle haulage service in a situation where they are running into holes and corners away from the Garda because they are supposed to be acting outside the law. There is also the situation that if CIE cannot do it they can ring down the country and tell a man that he can do it. In other words, they can give him a licence. CIE are now a licensing authority. They do not have to go to the court. CIE can tell someone: "We are not free now. It is an awkward hour for us. It is an awkward run and we will not do it." Surely this is a situation about which the Minister should be concerned, and use his influence. It has been going on far too long.

Then we have the case of the B & I. We have a situation now in the south of Ireland where the ports are practically closed for the export of cattle from the whole of the south. Freight rates have been increased by about £3 a head from Dublin. What will that amount to on a beast from Cork if he is to travel by road or rail from Cork to Dublin and from Dublin across with a £3 increase from here? What will compensate the pig producers for this increase in cost? There is nothing that I have heard mentioned in any proposals to overcome these increased costs of production, except there was a good demand during the past year and prices were good but they were not good enough to carry that sort of increase.

A serious look should be taken at this situation and at the transport situation in England when cattle arrive there. This is something about which the Minister has not concerned himself sufficiently. You had this run down of cattle wagons by British Rail and Irish cattle have to be transported in England by road at very seriously increased costs. Altogether, the cost of marketing cattle will increase considerably when all these charges and considerations are taken into account. Enough interest is not being taken, and enough energy is not being put into this, in finding a solution to that problem.

The price of milk has been increased by 1d a gallon on the first 7,000 gallons. In fact, that was a very much smaller increase than the milk producers felt they were entitled to. There is no doubt that their costs of production have increased considerably and prices have fallen because of the fact that there was no worthwhile outlet for skim.

The Minister spoke about pigs and this is a related subject. It is unfortunate that we had no plans under way for the utilisation of skim before we ran into the difficulty about the disposal of skim. The Minister spoke about encouragement to small farmers particularly to get into pig production and on a fairly big scale. Last week I spoke to a small farmer, an intelligent small farmer. He told me that he went to considerable trouble to inform himself on this whole subject of getting into pig production in a reasonably big way. He decided that he should put up a piggery to accommodate 200 pigs. He decided on this having visited all the places that had been working on pig production on this sort of scale. He visited the various types of piggeries in Moorepark and he had a first class proposal.

He went to the Agricultural Credit Corporation and looked for a loan for the erection of this piggery. The answer he got was: "Are you not over-ambitious in this thing?" He came away very depressed and he asked me what he would do. I asked him what he was doing at the moment. He said: "I have nine cows and you know the situation; the output for milk production is poor". He thought he could solve his problem in this way. He said he was within reach of a considerable amount of whey and that he thought he could work on it that way. He asked me what I would do if I were in his situation. I said: "I would go back to the corporation and tell them that I was not over-ambitious and was determined to find a solution to this problem". I have always found the corporation extremely reasonable any time I had to approach them on behalf of anybody. I always received a reasonable response. Is it that credit is restricted and that they have not got the money or what sort of co-ordination is there between the Minister and the Agricultural Credit Corporation in their policy? I hope when this man goes back again he will get what he requires.

If we are to get anywhere in the pig industry we must have piggeries up to this size. The Minister says that pig production should help to provide viable holdings for many people, particularly the small farmers in the west of Ireland. It is most disappointing to hear that this sort of discouragement is being given to a farmer who goes about it in the right way, and goes to the trouble of finding out all about it and its possibilities and then he is told: "Sorry, you are over-ambitious". I hope the Minister will do what he can to ensure that the policy he has on this will also be the policy when people go to look for credit, wherever they go to look for credit, especially when those are people who know their business and what it is all about.

The Minister referred to the pig industry. He went back a few years and said we had a stage in 1965 when we killed 1.8 million pigs and that this dropped in 1967 to 1.4 million, a considerable drop. Now the figure is going up again and the Minister says that it will improve as we get away from this valley in the graph. As long as I remember this valley has been up and down. Every time people get into pig production the numbers drop.

That is why the ACC would not give him the loan.

The ACC see that pigs are about to drop in numbers again and they think that if they give this man money they will be in trouble. You will have no steadiness in the pig industry unless you have this relationship between good quality and cost, and bacon prices kept even all the time. That is where the whole trouble lies. There is not nearly sufficient interest taken in compound feeding stuffs, and in the quality and price of that and distribution costs. I could never see why we could not get the pig industry here on a sound footing, more especially when we reached the point when we were not able to supply our small quota on the British market. That is something we should be ashamed of, that we failed to supply our quota and that we had to cut out pork exports altogether.

The Minister referred to what has been done in the breeding line. A good job has been done and I am glad we have reached that point. For far too long we have done too little. The incentives given to the accredited herds and the progress made there is good. No matter what farm commodity we export in the future we must be in a position to export it as something that is top class quality. That is one of the ways we will ensure that we have top class quality. One thing that has not been done sufficiently well is that enough advertisement has not been given to these accredited herds and how people can get breeding stock from the accredited herds.

We are doing something and getting results and on the whole we are doing a fair job of selling. I understand that we can sell increased quantities. It appears that we can at the moment, sell unlimited quantities of pork. It is not going to cost the country anything more, but, perhaps, less, than it is to export bacon. Standardisation of curing should be checked up on. We probably have too many factories curing and working at half capacity. One way of overcoming that is to increase the numbers of pigs produced. There should be some sort of standard curing process for export and a quality control that would insist on this type of cure. The Danes are able to do it. Why could we not do it? We have to compete against them and we are competing unfavourably at the moment. They had a big head start on us. They had their foot well and soundly in in the British market before we commenced these imports.

I am glad to see from the Minister's statement that he is at least concerned about the pig industry. It is an industry that has cried out for concern for quite a long time and the minimum has been done about it. I hope that he will get the results which he expects and which we all hope he will get.

Referring to the disposal of dairy products, on the whole I think that An Bord Bainne are doing a good job in very difficult circumstances and in very difficult times due to the position in the EEC and the dumping of milk products outside the EEC. We have to stand up to this sort of competition. It is an extraordinary thing that the British Government have not found a way to exclude this kind of dumping. They are probably not anxious to exclude it, but are continuing, as ever, on their cheap food policy. We are, unfortunately, having to meet it. Bord Bainne should be selling all milk products that are exported. No commodity should be excluded from this arrangement, even cream. Cream is excluded at the moment. A better job could be done and greater quantities of cream could be exported. I think it would be reasonable to expect An Bord Bainne to have the entire export of milk products, including cream. They should have responsibility for quality control. If you have this sort of divided responsibility it is not fair to the group trying to market the product. They know what is required and they should have the responsibility of producing the ways and means of getting this type of quality. They should have more say in the production end and in the processing end.

The Minister referred to sheep. It is right to say that during the 1967 census the sheep numbers were down by 425,000. That is a fantastic drop. It is a drop of nearly half a million on sheep. Surely there must be something wrong? The Minister mentioned a number of new incentives that have been brought in. Are they sufficient? Is there enough enthusiasm being put into sheep production here? Sheep production is also one of the ways by which people could be attracted from excess milk production when too much milk appears to be an embarrassment. It is serious that we can arrive at such a situation here in a short time and that we can have this trouble before these measures are taken to overcome the difficulties. I asked the Minister a question here recently about the cost of exporting £1,000 worth of agricultural products such as cattle and beef, sheep and mutton, and pigs, and so far as I could gather—and I know it is not easy to give a complete answer to that sort of thing—the subsidy on sheep was not much more than 50 per cent of the subsidy required for the export of cattle in any form, or pig meat in any form. This is certainly a situation which should be examined and more incentives should be provided not only for the in-lamb subsidies but for the general improvement of accommodation and hill pastures. There should be wool marketing facilities for people engaged in sheep production generally. The price of wool dropped to one-half its normal price. We had the wool marketing measure, but I do not know whether anything has taken place since we had this wool marketing legislation or what other worthwhile improvements the Minister has in contemplation or under way. I think the price of wool has not improved. Farmers sold wool at very low prices but then the price of wool jumped when they had the clip sold. There is much to be examined in the arrangements for the marketing of wool. All this comes into the value of the production of sheep and more should be done to encourage sheep production.

Before I finish speaking about the cattle business, I should like to refer to the Cork Marts and the fact that £3 million is being sought at the moment for take-over by Cork Marts of the International Meat premises here in Leixlip. This is a very desirable development. I understand that if it is possible to achieve this and if it is possible to get this amount of money subscribed that approximately one-third of the meat processing capacity of the country and one-third of the export trade in carcase meat will then be in the control of the producers themselves. This is a very desirable situation and one that we should all be very anxious to see coming about. Producers should have a greater say and greater interest in processing and in the end product and in the reward that comes by seeing the thing through themselves to the consumer's table. When the Minister is replying, I should like to hear him encouraging farmers in this country to invest in this type of enterprise so that they would have a controlling interest in processing and marketing of their own products. This is something that deserves the fullest possible support of all of us.

The Minister referred as well to the small farm incentive scheme. One of the complaints we all hear from time to time is that in the west of Ireland and particularly in parts of the south of Ireland the normal advisory staff are not able to cater for the number of applications that are coming in. I do not know whether the Minister has any information as to whether any progress has been made in this regard. With the employment of suitable staff of one sort or another they might cope with this in order to implement the scheme. I have some doubt personally about the scheme and about the income levels mentioned as the goal, but any improvement that can be brought about and any ways and means that can be found to bring the smaller farmers up to a level where they will have an acceptable income—that is an income comparable to people employed in other industries, bearing in mind the compensations that there are in a life of farming and the demands that it makes at the same time on people engaged in it—are welcome.

I feel we should have heard more about the pilot scheme. We just heard that it has been extended and that improvements are being made. There should be some general pattern now emerging and the Minister should be able to come in here and say that as a result of the work we have been doing on these farms, it is obvious that we should be dropping certain enterprises and promoting others and that we should be finding ways and means of indicating where farms of a certain size could be made viable whereas others could not be made viable. There is not nearly enough being done in this whole effort to produce viable holdings. A large amount of money is being provided by way of subsidy to agriculture but we are not solving many of the problems. We are not solving them because we are just keeping these people in existence at a certain level rather than finding ways and means of getting them out of the rut.

The man who is trying to bring up his income to an acceptable level by putting up a piggery is a case in point. It is a great pity that the consolidation of holdings and the whole responsibility for land structure is the responsibility of the Land Commission rather than being directly under the Department of Agriculture because the problem is here for Agriculture to solve not for the Land Commission. Whereever you have this sort of divided responsibility the end result is poor.

When the Minister sends out his advisers to a pilot area one of the most important jobs they should do is to examine that area in detail and see the number of farms which, on their present size, are viable or potentially viable. If it is not possible on any particular holding to say: "We will be able to bring that man up to a standard where he can live in some kind of frugal comfort" there should be handsome and generous inducements made to him to get him out of that rut and retrain and educate him for some other purpose in life or to find him a supplementary income some way or other. Unless it is done on a farm to farm basis—and I know that circumstances are different all over the place——

Get him more land.

Get him more land if it is available. If it is not available I feel he should be told: "You have no prospect or little or no prospect unless we can find alternative employment for you or an additional income from some other source than farming".

I feel that not nearly enough is being done through co-operation in the country. Much more could be done through co-operation. At the present time the IAOS is an organisation with responsibility and with neither the money nor the power to carry out its function properly. We have been giving lip service to co-operation over the years, and nothing more, and it is time the whole thing changed. Co-operation is not being taught in the schools. As far as I know, our agricultural graduates are getting no special coaching in this subject. We have failed to get the idea of co-operation over to the people and we have failed to give the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society the support that it needs and deserves.

As I see it the whole basis of it should be broadened; and it should be reorganised, revitalised and given a wider range of responsibility and scope. We have been doing the minimum about it and quite a lot could be done in this country through co-operation— co-operation at every level and between all sections, from the Minister in charge of the Department down to the point where the product reaches the consumer's table or whatever the final destination is.

One of the serious defects in the present set-up is that we have not got this co-operation and we have not got a lead or example from the top. I hope that the Minister at last means what he said towards the end of his speech this evening, that he is anxiously looking forward to this type of co-operation. The Minister has made this type of statement before. He has also told us that the Taoiseach has now promised to see both farming organisations separately to try to find a solution to this problem. I hope a solution will be found to it. Indeed, it is one of my great ambitions to see the differences between the two farming organisations in the country resolved to see one organisation representing the industry and, when that has been reached, to see that that organisation has free and full access to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and to his Department. If that does not come about, and come about fairly soon, I feel that the present situation cannot be continued; and in those circumstances the Minister should feel an obligation to meet with the largest single organisation in the country. If no other solution can be found, I cannot see any other way out of it. I can see that there are many people to be blamed for the present situation; but I think the Minister has the main responsibility and that a considerable amount of the blame rests on his shoulders.

The Minister referred to education and the agricultural advisory service. I was looking through a report recently of a visit to the Netherlands by a group of people from this country. That report contained a lot that should be carefully considered here in our approach to agricultural education. I was impressed by the very large number of agricultural advisory officers that there were in the Netherlands when one considers the size of the Netherlands and when one considers the proportion that we have similarly employed here.

I was also impressed by the fact that there is an arrangement there for the fullest possible measure of consultation and involvement at every stage. They consider it important, and I think it is extremely important. This is a report of a study tour of the Netherlands from 19th to 29th May in which two people from the Department of Agriculture and two agricultural instructors took part. It is a very valuable report and a report which the Minister should take a look at if he has not already done so.

One of the things I noticed is that there appeared to be opportunities for agricultural education in schools all over the place. They have no distance to go to a school and, in fact, even the last two years of primary education can be spent in one of these schools. There is a statement somewhere in the report that there is now nobody engaged in farming in the Netherlands who has not got training in agriculture. That is a very important situation to arrive at. I remember being over there about three or four years ago doing a tour, visiting some of the colleges and being extremely impressed by the methods of training and the equipment they had for the training of people who were going back to farming. It is extremely important that everybody who is farming should be able to approach it on a scientific basis and should be able to reach a point where he is able to receive knowledge. That is a very important point but I do not think we have reached that point here. In addition, I think we have insufficient space in our resident colleges for the number of people who want agricultural education.

That is a bad situation to have arrived at. The situation in this country at the moment is that if a boy wants to do a second year in an agricultural college it is not possible for him to do so because there is no accommodation for him. It is a terrible thing to deny that opportunity to a boy who wants to stay a second year in such a college. Certainly, people who are going into farming in the future need to know their job well and one of the greatest means of getting to know this job is by attending one of those schools.

In County Dublin the County Committee of Agriculture is one of the many in the country who run day schools in the winter time for people interested in agriculture. The schools are run for a certain number of days in the week and a considerable amount of knowledge is imparted in this way. It does not entail any great sacrifice on the boys or on the parents of the boys concerned. They spend a half day indoors and are then brought out to see some worthwhile projects in the afternoon. They see other peoples farms and obtain knowledge in this way. This is something that is brought out in the Netherlands Report —that opportunities are always available and close at hand without any great sacrifice to the people concerned. We will have to get that sort of thing going here if we want to get the sort of production in agriculture which we desire.

The Minister referred to disease and disease control. The foot-and-mouth disease was also mentioned. Indeed, we were all extremely relieved and pleased that the measures taken here were satisfactory and that we succeeded in keeping this dreaded disease, which could have wrought such havoc here, out of this country. The Minister referred to the Committee set up in Britain to go into this thing in detail and to the fact that we had given evidence before this Committee. I must say that, personally, I am extremely disappointed with the attitude of the British people towards foot-and-mouth. I do not believe they are serious in this at all and we should tell them so. They know what was the origin of the outbreak which occurred in Britain which cost them so much money, which cost us money as well— and indeed a considerable amount of concern and anxiety—and which is likely to do so again in the future. Despite this they accede to the demand of the consumer to get imported meat from areas where the disease is known to be endemic and will also be so in the future. One thing which was brought out in their report is that there should be strict import control. Despite that they are back in a situation in which they are importing meat from the very source where they have established beyond yea or nay the disease originated. I hope when we were giving evidence before that Committee we did not pull our punches in telling them this. Certainly, when I got an opportunity I told them on one occasion what I thought was the situation. The British representative there said he had to agree that there was something in this and that there was considerable disagreement in the British Parliament about the approach to this whole problem. However, they are not taking additional safeguards in Britain and we should tell them so because it is a matter of serious concern to all of us here.

I must say I was concerned to see the amount required for TB eradication, that was under that heading. It was not clear that increased services were responsible for this large additional amount. I am very glad to hear the Minister saying that in fact this is so and that it is not due to any additional outbreaks of the disease or any further spread of it. If that were so it would be a very serious situation for us. The Minister did not tell us whether we were reaching a point where the outbreak of TB would be reduced in the years ahead or what the prospects were of ever reaching a point where there would be quite a considerable reduction in expenditure on this bovine TB eradication. Will we ever reach a point where we can get any lower than we are at present, or will we have to continue indefinitely to expend large sums of money on seeing that we do not get the disease back again?

When I referred to brucellosis previously, I said eradication facilities should be provided for people who want to take advantage of them on their own. The Minister said he was looking into this thing but nothing seems to have come out of his consideration of it. It is only in areas where we are on the job and trying to eradicate the disease that the facilities are provided. This is a mistake. Anybody who separates the cattle in his herd with brucellosis and who scrutinises them very well on his own, and does so in his own interest, should be assisted along those lines. When we were vaccinating with Strain 19 the job was done free. That was with the live vaccine but now when we have changed over to the dead vaccine nothing is paid. In fact, the position is now much worse in relation to brucellosis than it was before as far as facilities for overcoming the disease are concerned.

I think I have covered most of the points I had in mind. The Minister says the calved heifer scheme is being discontinued from June of next year and that there was adequate warning given of this. That is a fact but it represents quite a considerable loss to the people engaged in the dairying industry and this has not been referred to at all. This is a further loss of income to those people. I referred to the difficulties those people have, the reduction in the price of skimmed milk and the loss of income generally, but this is also a considerable loss to them. There is a drop of approximately £1½ million.

Another thing the Minister said at Question Time one day was that he was considering the position of the liquid milk supplier. The costs of the liquid milk supplier have been increasing at least equally with the increased cost of producers in the dairying areas. In fact, his costs are increasing more so because he has to produce milk in winter. He has not got anything at all.

Could the Minister tell us when he is replying what he intends to do for the liquid milk producer, if it is only to bring him up to the level of the small increase given to farmers in the dairying areas? A strong case can be made here because very little has been done in this area to deal with the problem of surplus milk. I appreciate it is not the Minister's fault, but, again, it is his overall responsibility. Surplus milk was being sold at give-away prices last year and became a matter of serious concern for people in this area. In a portion of this county where they sought to supply milk to a certain creamery, they were prevented from doing so even though it would have meant increased incomes for the farmers concerned.

On the warble fly question, I hope the report the Minister has got to the effect that we are having this trouble again is wrong. A good job was done and if the report is correct it should be looked into very seriously. If it is right to think that there is an increase in warble fly, the Minister should go back to the original measures applied and wipe it out as it can be wiped out.

I will say no more. I had intended to refer to potatoes, particularly in the Dublin area. A peculiar thing is that the acreage has dropped throughout the country. Until recently the price received was poor. It has jumped by £4 per ton, due to very late blight and to the fact that people did not have the stalks burned. People cannot be warned sufficiently in this respect. In any cases where the stalks were burned the blight did not get to the tubers and the crop quality was firstclass. Before this season is out, there will be a serious shortage of potatoes due to the late blight and in this connection I have some doubt about the quality of the sprays being put out. The results can be disappointing.

I will finish on the note on which I started by appealing to the Minister, finally and definitely, to settle these differences with the farmers, to join with the Taoiseach in getting in and settling them once and for all so that we shall get back on a basis on which the Minister can rely on the wholehearted co-operation of the farmers. There are big problems ahead which can be solved only with the co-operation of all the people concerned.

I agree with Deputy Clinton that, perhaps, the most important matter mentioned in the Minister's brief is on page 31 where he referred to the dispute between his Department and the farming organisations. He suggested that he and the Government are most anxious that there should be effective and workable arrangements for co-operation and consultation on policy and other matters. He also said that he invited the farming organisations to meet him and the Taoiseach last year. Perhaps, it would be as well if we did not go too deeply into those invitations because some of them, with strings attached, were not the type that were required. If the Minister is serious about wanting to settle the dispute with the farming organisations, it can be dealt with very easily.

I made the suggestion, when the dispute started originally, to Deputy Haughey, who was then Minister for Agriculture, that the matter could be dealt with if he approached it in the right way. The same position now exists. It is easy for a Minister to take a strong stand on some point, particularly if he is a Minister with such a strong will as the present Minister and his predecessor. The whole story about who is right and who is wrong is involved here. Thousands of farmers believe the Minister is wrong and the Minister thinks he is right. I do not think very many think he is right. It should be clear to him that the time to settle has come.

The dispute has done irreparable harm to Irish agriculture and will continue to do so if the dispute is allowed to continue. He said that personally he is not wedded to any particular type of representative machinery for the purpose of discussions with Government and Ministers, provided the major organisations can agree about it. He said that if the main farmers' organisations wish to form their own council, he is quite prepared to deal with it and to give it a reasonable share of his time and that of his officials.

Is that not the kernel of the whole problem? The NIEC were set up some years ago and at the time I, and other members of the Labour Party and other Parties, appealed to the then Minister and to the Taoiseach to include agriculture. It seems stupid that the NIEC should have been set up without having representatives of the primary industry. We forecast at that time that there was bound to be trouble if that situation continued. The Taoiseach said that he proposed to set up a National Agricultural Council. We know what happened. The NAC were only a cover for something else. They never had and never will have the support or the trust of the farmers' organisations or of the individual farmers. From the very start the NAC had not a chance of success. In my opinion they are, by their existence at all, doing more harm than good. I suggest that that body should be disbanded and replaced because they are non-effective. The NAC could be replaced by having agricultural representatives on the NIEC. It is the only way in which we can have farming organisations, and agriculture in general, getting a fair do as far as national planning is concerned.

One of the things which has formed a persistent pattern as far as agriculture is concerned here is the failure to expand production. Alongside, has been a drop in the work force. Figures have been given again and again and the Minister's argument has been that one can prove anything with statistics. I will give bare figures and facts which cannot be twisted in any way and if the Minister can deny them in his reply I shall be very glad to hear him.

Between 1961 and 1967, 57,000 people left agriculture, an average of nearly 10,000 a year. In addition, agricultural output during the last three years increased by only one per cent. It appears that the agricultural output forecast for 1969 represents only another one per cent increase. Why? We talk about industrial output and we are glad when it is up. The Taoiseach spoke about an increase of three per cent or four per cent this year and said that the prospects for next year look to be as good.

While this is happening in industry, agricultural output is increasing by a mere one per cent. One of the reasons is something which some years ago appeared to be peculiar but which is very evident now. If a farmer, who had a sizeable number of people working on his farm, reduced the number of farmhands and had the work done by machinery, he considered that he had increased his output if he did so per man but did not increase it per acre. This appeared to be one of the reasons why there was no increase or very little increase in agricultural output during the years. It is peculiar that when agricultural workers were being laid off, according as they were being laid off it happened that for every man who went from the land a tractor or some such machine was put on the farm. If the Parliamentary Secretary cares to check the figures he will find that they tally almost exactly. Do not ask me why. That appears to be the pattern.

The Minister referred to the amount of money expended on agriculture and to the tremendous increase in the subsidies to agriculture throughout the years. Deliberately or otherwise, he did not refer to the fact that a great deal of the money allocated to agriculture does not find its way into the pockets of the farmers but is spent on the Minister's Department and on the payment of expenses for various schemes through that Department and that the only money which goes into the pockets of the farmers is that which is paid to them by way of subsidy in one way or another. It is unfair that the non-farming public should be given the impression that the farmers are responsible for the increases in the cost of everything and are being feather-bedded—that is the word usually used. I would suggest that nothing could be further from the truth, that, in fact, the very opposite is the case. For example, there is the recent increase of 1d per gallon to suppliers of less than 7,000 gallons of milk to the creamery. This amounts to approximately 5/- per week or £12 per annum. This is typical of a mistake which the Department and the Minister have been making for a number of years.

When agricultural land was derated the Department felt that the small farmers should go out and dance a jig, that they were "made up" All it meant for most of them was shillings per week. It made very little difference at the end of the year. There is a similar situation in the case of the recent increase in the price of milk. The unfortunate farmer who is getting this extra penny is getting about 5/-per week if he is producing only 7,000 gallons. It is an extraordinary fact that 86 per cent of farmers supply fewer than 7,000 gallons. So, if the Government intend by some policy or pattern to reduce the general milk supply by this means, they will not succeed because only about 14 per cent of farmers are supplying more than 7,000 gallons per annum. It is obvious, therefore, that this is a misconception.

One of the biggest faults of those who run Irish agriculture and have been running it down the years is that they always depend on short-term planning. They imagine that if they can get something which looks all right now it does not matter about what will happen next year or the year after. The result is that, first of all, we had the ill-starred Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain. We all remember that a couple of years ago the Taoiseach and the Minister came back to this House and told us of the wonderful victory that they had had and told us that for the first full year there would be an extra £10 million to Irish agriculture. This was the story. We all know what the result was. For that mess of pottage Irish industry had been handed over almost completely over a period of years to British influence. Then there is the question of plans for exporting commodities. Deputy Clinton referred to pigs. The greatest trouble with regard to the pig industry is that there are valleys and peaks which follow a certain pattern. I am not surprised that the Agricultural Credit Corporation refused to give a loan to an applicant who wanted to erect a 200-unit piggery because at the present time we are approaching a peak and in a short time, almost certainly, unless a miracle occurs, we will not be able to sell the extra pigs produced and there will be a valley.

The Minister recommends that everybody should go in for 100- or 200-unit piggeries. He has no use, apparently, for the small producer. I think he is wrong. It is my belief that we will not have pigs produced at an economic rate until we get back to the stage where pigs are fed by every small farmer and every cottier, not on the balanced ration, which costs more than the pig is worth and certainly more than the profit made on the pigs over the years, but on the roughage which is always available in a farmhouse. Unfortunately, the Minister does not seem to agree with that idea. He says that everybody should apply for whatever facilities are available and have a 100- or 200-unit piggery. This is the sort of thing that the Government and the Department seem to be falling down on.

The Ceann Comhairle will remember that he ruled me out of order during the debate on the Financial Resolution when I made a certain reference. I should like to approach the matter now from a different angle. Milk and milk products seem to be the mainstay of Irish agriculture. No Government have ever attempted to find any other outlet for agriculture. The fact is that the more milk and milk products are produced the worse it is for the country. Whatever small benefit the farmer may get from it, the country suffers progressively. According as production increases, more money must be collected from the taxpayers to subsidise their sale even on the British market. In reply to a Parliamentary question put down two or three weeks ago we were told that for every 1/2d worth of milk products sold in Britain there was an average of 1/2d paid by the taxpayer and that for every 2/2d worth sold abroad there was over 2/-paid by the taxpayer. It would seem that irrespective of where the commodity is sold, the Irish taxpayer is subsidising it heavily. This seems to be an impossible situation. I do not know if the Government have ever considered the point that as the years go by this is a millstone which could become heavier. An effort should be made to find another outlet for Irish farmers.

This year there was a good season for wheat. Last year the season was not so good. Anybody who lives in the country, as I do, knows that if the price of wheat is bad one year farmers are not terribly anxious to produce wheat in the following year, but that if there is a scarcity and the price is fairly good if they get it into the mill fairly early, everybody wants to produce wheat the following year. It is rather extraordinary that the Minister did not suggest that the wonderful crops this year were due to Fianna Fáil. Because of the fact that we had good weather, there was a tremendous crop of wheat and yields of most crops were higher than ever before. What is the result? Because of that, the Irish taxpayer again must dig into his pocket and pay for the extra wheat which was purchased and which is not wanted. Surely this is a situation in which a quota system should be introduced, as was done in the case of beet some years ago? Alternatively, there is the action the Minister has suggested now. Surely, there should have been some arrangement made before now whereby there would be a levy on overproduction?

But to say that the production should go as high as it can go and then say that the Irish taxpayer has to pay for it seems to be too ridiculous particularly when a lot of us can see, if we want to see, that we are back again to the day of the wheat rancher. We see the fellows who grew hundreds of acres of wheat this year and were lucky and next year they will chance their arm again and if the weather is good they will try to get away with it. We know that some years ago a number of them went broke because they did not get out of the wheat the price of ploughing the land. The wheat rancher is the fellow who can spoil everything and who will continue to spoil everything unless a quota system is introduced. I cannot see why the Department have not decided to do something about that.

The Minister says that the agricultural income for 1967 as against 1966 is up by £12.7 million. He did not say that there was a drop in the previous year of £8 million over 1965. Therefore, the net increase over the two years is not as he would suggest an increase of £12.7 million but an increase of £4.7 million. I think this is fair comment. It is very easy to give a very bright appearance to some things simply by showing figures in a certain way. Those are facts, but if the Minister considers them to be incorrect he can contradict when he is replying. We are told that the expected increase in agricultural income in 1969 will be about £2 million. If this is so that would be about one per cent again. The farmer is not going to get very much profit for his labours, particularly in view of the continual drop in money values. He is not nearly as well off as he was some years ago. I have some figures here which are very interesting. If we take 1953 as the base 100, gross agricultural output was 127.5 this year and the net output was 111.4. In 1967 manufacturing industry, with the same base of 100 in 1953, was 188.6 and total industry was 198.4, so that in fact the increase in agricultural output is very, very much smaller than that in industry. During the period 1953 to 1967 the total numbers employed in agriculture fell from 421,000 to our 300,000 which is a fall of approximately 26 per cent.

Now, the agricultural price index, if we take a base of 100 for 1953, was 188 in 1967, the consumer index was 153 and the wholesale price index was 138. Again it shows that the man on the land is getting the worst of the bargain by far. I do not know whether it is fair to comment on the Second Programme for Economic Expansion but it was mentioned by the Minister and in it the target was a 3.8 growth per annum and the growth was actually slightly under .8 per annum. Again, in passing, 80 per cent of our agricultural exports are either beef cattle, beef or dairy products so that when we talk about our exports we can see that they are all tied to the one basket. In regard to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, which was mentioned. I understand that there was to be a review of the quotas and particularly of the butter quota, that we had machinery which would allow us to review the butter quota periodically, but the only increase was an extra 1,000 tons last year and this year apparently the British do not even want to allow that extra 1,000 tons. They are over-supplied of course with cheese and we seem to be in serious difficulty, agreement or no agreement, with regard to the export of cheese. Again, milk powder is one of the things at present which seems to be over-produced.

A lot of people have been employed producing milk powder over the last few years and now it looks as if they are in serious trouble. If the demand for it drops any more the next thing we will find will be a lay-off in employment and then, of course, we will have no alternative but to let these people go on the labour exchange or go to England where, despite the bad conditions, they still seem to be able to get employment.

Another point which I think is of great interest is the fact that the agricultural income in 1967, over the whole range of agriculture, was £169 million and if we take the figure for those employed in agriculture as 322,000 this gives us roughly an income of £525 per head. This is very small in view of the fact that the income in non-agricultural employment for the same year, over the whole country, was £931 per head, a difference of £406 per head. The Minister says that you cannot figure like that, that there is a difference in the size of farms, that there is a difference in this and in that. While I would say that that is true, it is true to the extent that we all know there are big farmers making money; but if you take those into account, as receiving very much more than the national average, how many thousands are there in receipt of very much less than the national average?

This is the really serious point. There are a lot of people, therefore, who are receiving very small incomes for their very hard work on the land. It is no use the Minister saying to the House: "Well, in the west of Ireland, in the undeveloped areas, we let them draw the dole all the year round. We are great fellows". I have yet to meet the farmer, big or small, who wants charity or the dole from anybody. The farmer wants a fair income and he is prepared to work for it if he gets the chance. While the unemployment assistance—the dole as it is usually called—is being given to these people, there is only one reason why they are accepting it and that is because they cannot live without it. That is a reflection on the Government. The Government should not place people in the position that in order to live a life of hard work, which they do on their holdings, they have also to go to the employment exchange to get unemployment assistance—not unemployment benefit. As a matter of fact in 1964 the difference between agricultural income at £455, and non-agricultural income at £770, was only £315. Now we find that the difference is £406 per head, which is very substantial. I believe that this can become worse because according to "Little Neddy" the British will be able to produce £160 million extra worth of agricultural produce by 1972. If that is so, we shall have to lose a fair share of our exports to Britain. I am quite sure we shall get a wallop just the same as other countries have, even though we are supposed to have a water-tight agreement to guarantee a market for our goods.

One thing which I cannot understand in this country at the present time— and, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister might enlighten me at a later stage—is the chronic shortage of fruit and vegetables, not only in the cities and in the towns, but even in some villages. The only fruit one can get in the shops is fresh foreign fruit or tinned fruit, 90 per cent of which is imported; and the only vegetables one can get are tinned vegetables.

Or Erin Foods.

If one could even get Erin Foods it might not be so bad.

The Deputy said the only vegetables one can get are foreign.

I said one can get foreign vegetables. Erin Foods have not yet got control of the Irish market and the foreign product is coming in. Indeed, the big British supermarkets, which we have allowed and encouraged to set up here at their will during the last few years, almost certainly stock only British or colonial products. Can anybody tell me why an effort is not made to produce vegetables, even on the scale they were produced a few years ago? Can anybody tell me why, if Irish people grow apples, they are usually sold at a couple for a penny, and if one goes into a shop the next day one gets an apple resembling it very much, in a Canadian or Australian wrapper, for eight pence? Can the Department of Agriculture not direct their attention to remedying this position? Why is it that it is so difficult to get fresh vegetables in the country? Why is it that, with the exception of places like the North Dublin Co-op, who are making an effort to try to satisfy the market, fresh vegetables are not available? Why is it when farmers grow the produce they do not get a market for it, yet the foreign produce is bought freely? I believe we are fast losing our taste for fresh fruit and vegetables because so much of the tinned produce is coming in from outside. Apart from anything else, the cost to the country and the loss in wages to those who would produce it is colossal. Why can we not produce early-in-the-year strawberries? Why must our big hotels import them from the Channel Islands at fantastic prices? Why do they not produce them in this country? That is only one fruit; there are many other fruits as well. Our growers should be encouraged to produce these commodities for which there is a big demand.

On the question of meat marketing which was referred to both by the Minister and Deputy Clinton, I would say that the Cork Marts are to be complimented on their efforts to control the meat industry, or one-third of it, as they say, if they succeed in their aim. If they do, would it be too much to ask that they should follow it through to the retail end? I cannot for the life of me understand where the profits go, having regard to the price one pays for meat in butchers' shops and more so in hotels and restaurants in this city and throughout the country. It is not uncommon to pay 15/-, 16/-, or 17/-, as Deputy Martin Corry said here the other evening, for a steak here in the city, and not in the hotel he mentioned but in pretty small ones throughout the country. This is pure profiteering, and it is one of the things which can only be dealt with by the people who produce the commodity following it through to the final sale of it.

I mentioned a few minutes ago that British supermarkets in this country were selling British products. Instead of sending our cattle on the hoof to Britain, is there any hope of our being able to slaughter them here, export them to Britain and retail them through the meat shops? If it is feasible on one side, it should be feasible on the other. This is one way in which the market can be got and held, because it will ensure the supply, the standard and price. The present position is too ridiculous for words.

Animal diseases were mentioned here. I also was a little bit worried about the money that has been spent on TB eradication. It was found in Britain that, while for a period, human beings were taking TB from animals, it reached a stage that when TB was eradicated, the animals were contracting it back from human beings who unfortunately had contracted the disease one way or another. For a period it looked as if it was going to spread again, but I understand that is not the case. However, with regard to brucellosis. I do not know whether the Department are aware that this year, for some extraordinary reason, there was a very serious crop of human cases of brucellosis in all walks of life and that many people were seriously ill having contracted it. Most people were said to have contracted it through drinking milk. I do not know whether this is so or not, but even people who have no connection at all with animals seem to have contracted it. I understand it is a very serious disease and continues for a long time. Therefore, the sooner the eradication scheme is carried through the better it will be both for human beings and for the animals.

On the question of the water grants given by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Department of Local Government, does the Minister know that a farmer who is bringing water to his house and who decides that at the same time he will bring water to his farmyard, if he applies for a grant he may just sit down and wait until he is tired before he will get a grant from either one Department or the other. If he inquires from the Department of Local Government why they have not paid him the grant, which may be due for six or 12 months, he will be told that the pipe at a certain stage is common cost and that, because the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have not cleared their side of it, he will have to wait. I have met dozens of these cases over the past 12 months. I have got sick and tired of taking the matter up with either of the Departments, because it does not seem to have very much effect. If the Department of Local Government can clear their end of it in a reasonable time, surely there is no reason why the Department of Agriculture should be blamed, as they are blamed, for holding up what must be a very simple matter; it should be quite easy to clear the Department of Agriculture side, too. This is something I should like to see looked into.

It is about time that something was done regarding the wages and conditions of farm workers. We have an agricultural wages board and they fixed the minimum rate. This question has been put on the long finger and, apart from the fact that there will be a general election in the spring, I do not see much hope for farm workers as regards holidays. When the 1961 workers Holiday Bill was being passed through this House these workers were not given the same holidays as anybody else. They were left to one side and the impression was given that they were a separate class—second-class citizens.

I hope the Minister will bring them up to scratch. Their wages are still the lowest in the land with the exception of one employer by whom they are paid a figure even lower than the minimum agricultural rate and that employer is the State itself. The State pays its own labourers, as it calls them, even less than the farmers are paying them. Farm workers are expected to work a 50 hour week for eight months of the year for which they are paid a minimum rate of about £10. For the remaining four months of the year, they work a 44 hour week for the same rate and, indeed, there are some farmers who work it in such a way that they do not have to pay the full £10.

However, there are some excellent employers among the farming community but as long as this minimum agricultural rate is fixed, there will always be the mean type of person to take advantage of it and if there is no alternative employment for the man concerned in his area, he must continue to work for that farmer. There was a time when it was not necessary for farm workers to be very skilled men but those days are gone and farm workers now who do not know how to work machinery or who do not know about the running of a farm in general, will not be wanted. As I have said, the wage offered to them is lower than that offered to anybody else. The farm worker gets fewer holidays and, in addition, if he is a single man, he must pay income tax.

I appeal to the Minister to try to do something about this particular problem. People are leaving agriculture because there is no future in it for them. People working in agriculture have nothing at the end of the week except what they get in wages; they have nothing to get at the end of a long life's service on a farm but the wages they get for the last week on which they worked on that farm. There is no pension fund or anything of that kind for them. They are just handed their insurance card. I appeal to the Minister and his Department to try to give them some little encouragement. Where there is a big group of farm workers together, they can be organised in trade unions and get their rights and, as I have said, there are some decent farmers who will pay a decent week's wage but I am talking in particular about the ones—there are not many of them but there are some —who will give nothing except what the law allows them to give. The time has come when this should be changed.

Recently an Act was passed through this House dealing with poisons. This Act dealt with the type of insecticides used on farms but, unfortunately, it was not considered proper that a representative of the farm workers should be put on the board governing that particular section of the Act. I believe there are still many people working on farms who are asked to use certain chemicals that have a detrimental effect on their health but no effort has yet been made to try to remedy this. This is a matter which the Minister might have a look at.

Another matter, too, which has been raised time and again in this House by other Deputies and by myself has been the question of the danger of driving unprotected tractors. Every time we raise the matter we are told that arrangements are being made to have the matter dealt with immediately. We have not been told that a commission was being set up; if we were told that, we might pack in altogether.

(Cavan): Everything is being done by a commission.

Hardly a week goes by but we can take up the papers and read that somebody has been killed while driving a tractor on which there was no protection. All the Minister would have to do to prevent these accidents would be to get his colleague in the Department of Labour to insist on certain safety regulations for new tractors. If that were established, it should be very easy to ensure that every tractor would carry a safety cab or safety protection of some kind. This matter has been put on the long finger for far too long and there is no point in saying that the matter is being looked at. It should be dealt with now.

There is another aspect to this matter and that is that some farmers lay off adults whom they have working for them and get very young people to drive their tractors for them. Very often, these young people have not the sense to realise that they are not dealing with a plaything and the result is that very often we see a lad of 15 or 16 years of age with no licence and no experience, driving about an uneven field. This problem should be dealt with by the Department because they are the people who, unfortunately, must take responsibility for it.

There are a number of other things in the Minister's brief that would require comment but it was argued that, because of the short time available, that we would make relatively short contributions to the debate. I do not propose to take very much time because of the fact that I am only standing in for Deputy M.P. Murphy who, unfortunately, was not available to deal with the matter. However, I have no doubt that he will have a few words to say on it tomorrow and, therefore, it would be unfair of me to take up any more of the time of the House but I should like to refer to one or two other matters. The Minister says on page 18 of his statement:

While the present indications are that there will be an increase in the supply of turkeys, prospects for exports are not bright as the number of turkeys produced in Britain in large units has also expanded further.

That is a rather unfortunate sentence because, what the Minister is saying in effect is: "Hold on until the last minute. Britain does not want as many Irish turkeys as last year and turkeys will be given away for nothing on Christmas Eve". The people who raise turkeys for the purpose of helping to put them over the Christmas period, will find that, because of this statement, when it comes to the end, they will be expected to take very low prices. This comment by the Minister is one that the brief could very well have done without.

The outbreak of foot and mouth disease has been mentioned and I should like to compliment the Minister and everybody else concerned, including the NFA and the various other farming organisations and, of course, the Irish workers who remained in Britain, all of whom contributed to the efforts to keep the foot and mouth disease out of this country. It was successful. It could have been a tragedy. Somebody mentioned here earlier—I think Deputy Clinton—that the British Government do not seem to be as annoyed about it as we are. Why should that be? It is a very small item in the British economy. I am quite sure it pays them to expend the £150 million or £200 million it cost them, because of the disaster, to buy Argentinian meat and that, within a few years, they will have recovered what they lost. I think that is the whole secret in this problem. The amount of their economy which is bound up with this is so small that it really does not matter. They were criminally careless. Elementary precautions would have stopped the disease in the first couple of weeks. It was only when it got out of hand that they made any effort at all to contain it. I hope it does not come here. We saw it once. I was involved in the first foot and mouth disease epidemic in this country as, being then in the Army, one of my first jobs involved the shooting of herds of cows. It was a horrible experience. I hope I never see anything like it again.

The foot and mouth disease epidemic in Britain last year created an artificial boom in the Irish cattle trade. It is fair to say that prices are up by about 15 per cent. Anybody who thinks that that will continue, would be foolish. There was a lot of talk a few years ago, during the period of artificially high prices, about a drop in prices— they did come down from that level— and anybody who feels that that will not happen again is just not looking at the matter correctly.

Since we have been squeezed out of Europe because of the EEC, and since Britain will not be taking the quantity of cattle this year, prices will not be so good. We must face up to this. I remember the then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries talking here of the 638,000 head of stores which Britain would take and which Britain had agreed to take. In fact, this was entirely untrue. They said they would take up to 638,000 head of stores— an entirely different thing. They proved that, in the next year, by taking only 360,000 or 370,000, thus proving that our then Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries just did not know what he was talking about.

The way things are at present, it is quite possible we may again find ourselves put in an embarrassing position by the British Government and the British people. I am not a bit annoyed when some Deputies on the Government benches tell us that it is a Labour Government in Britain that is doing this. The Labour Government in Britain are looking after the interests of the British people. If only our Government were looking after our interests half as well, we should not have landed ourselves into the mess in which we now find ourselves. When the negotiations with Britain are taking place, some effort should be made to negotiate a better agreement than the one we have.

Discussions are at present taking place in Brussels. I understand that the agricultural committees of the EEC are reviewing prices of agricultural products. I think everybody is aware of the EEC system. There are two sets of people involved—the civil servants, whose job it is to see that the matter is done efficiently, and the elected representatives who, while agreeing that it should efficiently be done, are also aware that, if they are to continue in politics they must be re-elected. Over the few years of operation of the EEC, the civil servants have been advising reductions in the price of certain agricultural products. The elected parliamentarians say, when it comes before them and they have the final word on it: "We cannot reduce the price of this commodity. My country produces this commodity and the price cannot be reduced". The result is that there is an artifically high price for a number of agricultural products within the EEC. Butter is over-produced there. Beef is not over-produced there yet but I understand that, within a short time, it will be. I wonder what all those Fianna Fáil Deputies mean when they still tell us that all our problems will be solved by our getting into the EEC. If any country in Europe should have a dread of what will happen on their going into a community where a commodity they have to sell is already being over-produced there, surely it is this country?

The whole agricultural economy of this country has been dealt with by successive Ministers as if it were something that is not very important, as if it were another facet of our economy which would come up for debate here for a couple of hours—although millions of pounds are involved—and would not matter very much afterwards. It is about time the Government and the Minister looked into the whole matter and decided that we can no longer put up with makeshift excuses and makeshift plans to get us out of trouble. The other day the Ceann Comhairle ruled me out of order when I wanted to say that the Government can no longer put plugs here and there in the sinking ship in the hope that it will make the next shore. The Government have gone too far on this occasion. With the general election around the corner, they must realise they will be judged more on their agricultural policy and its results than on anything else. For that reason, I believe they will make an extra effort—they must make that extra effort—to try to get Irish agriculture out of the doldrums in which it now is.

(Cavan): Too late.

This is a very important Estimate. Deputies have covered a lot of ground in the debate and made certain complaints. Mention was made of farmers receiving the dole. I represent the hard-working, efficient farmer. Deputy Tully asked us to consider what will happen to us eventually and what the cost of our produce will be when it is for sale in the Common Market. I would remind him of some of our State-sponsored bodies such as Bord na Móna, CIE and the ESB. We shall not be priced out by anything more than by simultaneous demands in our community for increased wages, shorter hours and less activity.

Deputy Fanning, therefore, suggests that, with a reduction of wages, everything in the country will be all right?

In 1967, farm incomes increased by £113 million, or ten per cent, over those in 1966. All round, 1967 was a very good year for our farmers. The year 1968 was a still better year. Deputy Tully said the Minister should have been able to see what was going to happen with regard to wheat. We have no Minister in the Cabinet who can read the crystal ball. It was the best year we have ever had for quite some time. I hope we will have a repetition of it next year. The Minister announced the levy on wheat last week. Speaking as a farmer, if we got 22 barrels to the acre, as we did in my constituency, we would much prefer to pay 3/- a barrel levy rather than have a bad harvest. We thank God for the good years. I hope certain people will also thank God for the bad years. They blame the Government for the bad ones.

One has to work hard to produce wheat. One has to pick the best variety. In my constituency we had people putting down 60 and 70 acres of wheat one year and going out of wheat altogether the next year. Perhaps they did not sow wheat last year; they could not read the crystal ball any more than the Minister. Farmers are very dependent upon the weather and upon yield. They are also dependent upon markets. It is a pity there is so much fighting and bickering. Deputy Tully talked about the way in which farmers treat their workers. I do not believe they treat them as badly as Deputy Tully says.

I said there are exceptions.

I see workers being treated pretty well. If it is a wet day there is no such thing as a wet time card or a cut in wages. If a worker stays at home with a reasonable excuse he gets his full day's wages. That is as it should be.

It is difficult to formulate agricultural policy. The Minister is, I think, doing a good job. I heard Deputy Clinton upbraid him because he would not meet the NFA. I think the Minister has done a better job for the NFA by not meeting them. If the NFA took over control of agriculture in six months' time there should be no agriculture. The NFA and the Creamery Milk Suppliers cannot reach agreement between themselves. Indeed, it is not easy to get farmer to run with farmer because one is jealous of the other, It is a pity.

With regard to running the marts, I am fully behind that provided it proves effective. We hear a great deal about the middleman reaping all the profit. Perhaps, the farmers could get some of the profit by joining the marts and going into the meat trade. But who will be in control? Will every county have representation?

There has been a good deal of debate about the Free Trade Area Agreement. That was a good agreement. There may be some flaws in it. There are flaws in every agreement. The Taoiseach has assured us that agriculture will be all right.

The two-tier price for milk and the penny per gallon for the man with the 7,000 gallons are good incentives. The scheme with regard to beef is a good scheme. There can never be enough beef. It is an ideal product because very little labour is involved in the production of beef.

As a dairy farmer and a tillage farmer I regard the price of milk as a good price. Some people do not regard subsidies as an advantage. Candidly, I do not think they are an advantage. I would much prefer the farmer to get whatever he should get in his monthly cheque. There is a subsidy on fertilisers. The small man uses two or three tons of fertiliser in the year. The big man uses double, treble and four times that amount. It is he who reaps the benefit of the subsidy. My advice is to get rid of subsidies. We subsidise the consumption of our butter in Britain so as to ensure a proper price for our own milk at home. Our butter sells cheaper in Britain than it does here. I think subsidisation is bad in principle.

We had a discussion about taxation a couple of weeks ago. The argument was we were taxing the people to meet the costs of certain commodities. Wheat was one of them. We produced 320,000 tons of wheat when, in fact, we needed only 260,000. It was all millable and the extra production had to be met. The Opposition seem to have some objection. If production is as good next year we have been warned, but I wonder will they cry out next year for a levy. It is only right and just that we should meet the situation this year.

I hope Deputy Tully will tell me what kind of harvest we will have next year. If it is a good one we will have plenty more wheat. As I say, there should be some kind of quota for the growing of wheat. There is no sense in a man growing 50, 60 or 100 acres of wheat year after year. He is not rotating his crops. The ordinary working farmer who grows 15 or 20 acres of wheat rotates his crops. He grows beet, root crops and puts in grass seed. To my mind it is the big ranchers who are killing the farmers.

As regards the growing of malting barley we have a quota system. This year the production was very good. If in the coming year I were paid 3/-a barrel on the extra wheat over and above my quota I would be well paid for it. Pig feeding has been a burning question for a number of years. I was a member of the General Council of County Committees of Agriculture and I know that in certain counties they expect us to produce feeding barley as cheaply as possible for them. That division is here in this House among certain Deputies. I admit that the price of feeding barley is not very good. Farmers will grow wheat rather than feeding barley. We were told some years ago that wheat would make a good substitute for animal feeding.

I do not wish to detain the House much longer. Other speakers want to get in and there is some type of agreement that everyone will get a fair crack of the whip. Cattle, to my mind, are fairly good at present. Every farmer will agree that this was the best year he ever had. I know it was the best year I ever had. Whatever Government are in power, they cannot control the weather.

Great play was made about the NAC, the council which the NFA did not agree with. We who were members of the Committee of the Beetgrowers' Association made the growing of beet easy for farmers. Perhaps, those who take our places will have a lot to their credit, too, after a number of years. It is a pity that things happen between the different farmers' organisations.

The question was asked: why will not the Minister put advertisements in The Farmers' Journal? I said recently that I was in favour of that on condition that this cartoon which was copied from Dublin Opinion was taken out of The Farmers' Journal. I buy The Farmers' Journal every week and read it for some of the information in it. I do not believe in having a cartoon week after week criticising the Minister. During the referendum campaign they went all out—this is a Fine Gael paper—against Fianna Fáil, and still they are cribbing that we do not give our advertisements to that paper.

(Cavan): I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but all the papers were against Fianna Fáil in the referendum except the Irish Press group, and they are not deprived of advertisements.

The Farmers' Journal caters for farmers and every farmer must buy it.

(Cavan): I am pointing out that the advertisements were not withdrawn from the Irish Independent and the Irish Times.

The Minister has a hard job. As I said, one county is against another in regard to the price of feeding barley and pig feeding. We produce feeding barley in my county, and in Deputy Fitzpatrick's county they want to get it cheap. I do not think that is right. Pigs are a fairly good price at present. I do not think they were ever as high as they are, and I hope that will continue. It is all very fine to come in here and say the Minister is sitting on the fence and will not meet the farmers. If the Minister met the NFA tomorrow morning that would be the worst day's work he could ever do for the NFA. If he said: "Take over complete control, run the organisation, run the Department, run the Government as you want to", within six months there would be no NFA.

If anyone were thinking of becoming an agriculturalist, he would not get very much consolation from the Minister's speech. In my opinion this is a speech which we have heard before. I have heard it outside this country. Running through what is known as the expert advice given to Ministers in different countries, there is always a word of caution: be careful; you may not be able to market what you produce. I am not criticising the Minister unjustly by saying that in the speech he delivered this evening he did not really hold out any hope of anything being marketable with any security in the future. To some extent there is a reason for that.

There has been a great deal of talk about some years having been very good. There has been a lot of talk about the weather and the relative prosperity farmers enjoy. We must remember that we have not been dealing with a normal situation with regard to the livestock trade over the past 12 months. In the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement, 1965, as I read the position, we guarantee to sell to Britain a certain number of cattle. I think it is 600,000 or 800,000. That is mainly live cattle. In that Agreement there is nothing from the other side to say it is mandatory on them to take these cattle.

That situation to date has not worried us very much. It did in the first year of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. Actually the exports to the United Kingdom fell. Since then we have had foot and mouth disease with very heavy slaughtering in Britain and the demand for cattle has gone up considerably. That demand is still persistent because the stocks in Britain have not yet been replaced. In addition, that trade is likely to continue fairly stable for the time being, because the period of fine weather, which everybody from the Fianna Fáil side has been talking about so much, has not obtained in the United Kingdom and, therefore, foodstuffs are not as plentiful as they would be under ordinary circumstances. The shortage of supply there has meant that Britain has had to continue buying to replace a fall in slaughtering due to foot and mouth disease. Probably the same conditions will prevail next spring. They will be replacing stock they normally would have bought and fed during the winter, but which they are unable to do because they had not the foodstuffs available.

The Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, according to the Minister, gives us the only possible outlet for our cattle trade. I think at long last we all agree in this House that the cattle trade is imperative to the economy of this country. The Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement is not the be-all and the end-all of the cattle trade, nor is the subsidisation of agriculture the end of agricultural production or the foundation even of the agricultural economy. The reasons we have found ourselves in considerable difficulty over the years may have been due to the fact that the wealthier countries have been concentrating strongly on subsidisation to procure production. The two principal offenders, shall I say—and I use that word advisedly to save interruption—have been the United Kingdom and Germany. Those two rich, industrialised countries with assets at their disposal have poured money into agriculture and into subsidisation and have been producing out of all proportion to what existed in days gone by. Therefore, agriculture has been disrupted and the traditional buying countries, the traditional markets of the past are disappearing. That is why I say that the Minister and those who advise him—I do not know what advice they have given him or if they advise him contrary to what he is doing—are not concentrating on marketing.

Let me say here that there is one, perhaps encouraging, thing in the long speech the Minister made. He said he will set up what I think is called a "meat marketing commission". The words "meat marketing board" were used by the Fine Gael Party two years ago, and it was suggested to the Minister that he should create a meat marketing board to stabilise the agricultural prices of livestock. Now he is apparently thinking on those lines but he is still thinking on the lines of traditional markets alone. That is borne out, in fact, in his speech. He stressed the fact that the British market is our only outlet at the moment and after that he mentioned the EEC. He mentioned the fact that we were unable to export stock into the EEC on account of their agreement among themselves with a locked gate price, or whatever you like to call it, which imposes a tariff of about £50 per head on a beast going in there.

I mention this to show that the Minister's mind is still concentrating on traditional markets, the former stereotyped markets in which we have always tried to sell. There is no doubt that, had this locked gate price not come into existence, there would be sense in trying to confine ourselves with our comparatively limited agricultural production to the United Kingdom and Germany. There are only six countries in the EEC. Why has the Minister come in here without any marketing policy whatsoever? I have not enough data to hand or the advice and statistics the Minister has—even if I had the statistics I would not understand them as well as those trained in economics— but surely in the whole wide world there are more countries in which it is possible for Ireland to sell products rather than the United Kingdom and the EEC?.

The Minister's statement is discouraging to the extent that, although he covered a wide field dealing largely with marketing and the profits accruing from marketing—he dealt with beef, sheep and pigs—no matter what he dealt with the only avenue of expansion appeared to be, possibly, in the export of pork and pig meat products, because a fall in pig production in other countries for different reasons has created a shortage. This has given us the possibility of a market. That is the only hope I can see in the Minister's speech for anyone who is hoping to expand by increasing his pig production.

Deputy Clinton referred to a small farmer he knew who was going to expand pig production considerably and was refused the credit to which he was entitled because it was considered he was going into something that was not safe. Therefore, are the Minister's remarks about increasing pig production desirable? Are they correct or not; or is it that the Agricultural Credit Corporation are correct in refusing, as they should refuse when they cannot see an adequate return, to lend money to the particular farmer Deputy Clinton cited here? I could cite the same thing in my own constituency. People who want to expand on the same lines have the same answer given them, that it is not a safe and sound proposition. In other words, I take it that the policy of the Agricultural Credit Corporation is as they get it from the Minister or his Department? Is it they do not like to lend money unless they get someone who is going into general agriculture, such as pig production, cattle, milk, and so on? For that reason, I think the situation in regard to marketing is really only being confused by the Minister's speech. He has given little hope for the future for those who intend to increase production.

One other thing that shows our pig production has fallen below the requisite demand is the fact that there have been questions in Dáil Éireann recently about smuggling across the Border. People do not smuggle across the Border unless there is a demand from here, unless there is a shortage of the product. Of course, there is a shortage of supply in Northern Ireland where they are coming from. They are trying to get them from there; with all the other little things that are happening across the Border they are trying to get them down from there. They did not have the foot and mouth disease and, therefore, they have pigs to spare. That should have been foreseen. The rearing of pigs is a rapid process which can be brought to fruition inside 12 months. That could have been foreseen and our pig production could have been stepped up considerably to the immeasurable benefit of our small farmers who are not financially in a sound position. Many of them are living from hand to mouth and many are living on credit.

In his long speech the Minister said virtually nothing about horticulture. An Foras Talúntais are doing a magnificent job. They get very little publicity in this country for what they are doing. The only real publicity they got in the Minister's speech was in relation to the glasshouses. I understand they have a scheme at present whereby they are encouraging people to go in for glass as much as possible with the idea of tomato production. I have my own view on that. Perhaps I disagree with some of my own colleagues. I was on an Agricultural Commission of the Council of Europe some four or five years ago and we visited a big centre in Britain where they went in for glass. It was like some of the centres we have here, like Kinsealy in County Dublin. They had decided that, in view of the possibility of the unification of Europe and a generalisation of trade throughout Europe, tomato production was a risky thing. Although we could compete in matters of climate as to sun and warmth very favourably with Holland we could not compete with the Channel Islands or with Spain. In this particular college I was in, which was not very far from London, they have gone out of tomato production under glass and have gone in for cut flowers instead. In a place like Britain you are going to have a bigger market for cut flowers than you would have in a country with a small population such as ours. At the same time, the very fact that four or five years ago they saw inherent danger in excessive tomato production should sound a note of warning here. I am informed, and reliably informed, that there is a tremendous market for apples not only in this country but outside it. There is considerable domestic market here but there is also a considerable market for export. I am also informed that with the more modern type of machinery available it is possible now to take the core out of an apple and to peel it. This applies primarily to cooking apples and I understand that Bramleys are the principal apple grown. They may be processed into plastic bags and preserved in the same manner as dehydrated vegetables. I am informed that a considerable market exists for that and that considerable employment would be provided.

We must realise that, though one criticises the Minister for not finding markets, it is difficult to get markets and it is difficult to sell the traditional products. We should concentrate in so far as we can on by-products such as horticultural products. There should be greater encouragement here for people who grow vegetables. They should be processed and dehydrated and there are British markets for those. Some years ago dehydrated vegetables were non-existent. Domestic labour was available to prepare vegetables but today the housewife has to prepare the vegetables hereself and there is nothing simpler than to open a plastic bag and drop its contents into water. That is the method of the future.

I mentioned that I thought the Government and the Department of Agriculture had misjudged the situation. When the Government opted into the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement they met Mr. Wilson and his colleagues and they got into it under the impression that we would be in the Common Market by 1970. I have sat on these benches for a number of years now and I have listened to the former Taoiseach in regard to this question saying that we would be in the Common Market by 1970. I believe that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was made for two reasons. It was a hurriedly conceived document without being worked out properly to safeguard Irish agricultural interests. Those who were drafting the Agreement on behalf of us here and the advisers with them believed what the former Taoiseach said—that we would be in the Common Market by 1970. The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was for the purpose of getting the Irish economy into order with a view to going into the Common Market in 1970. I have always expressed the opinion, both inside and outside the Dáil, that so long as we persist in a policy of trailing on the heels of Britain we would not get into the Common Market.

I was not in the House at the time the Free Trade Area Agreement was debated. I was a Deputy but I was laid up with flue or something. I felt that the foundation of that Agreement was wrong from the word "go". Even if it had been intended to be used as a permanent agreement I believe it is inconceivable that the Minister—it was not the present Minister who negotiated it—negotiating it could have been so foolish as to have signed an agreement whereby all the advantages lay on the side of the British. As I see it, if the British wanted our cattle they would buy them and they related the price of the cattle to the subsidy that existed. That gave us a shorter period for the purpose of getting that subsidy. There was no guarantee whatever because it was a question of supply and demand. If they wanted our cattle they would take them. Fianna Fáil Deputies and Ministers can get up and say: "We have the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and without that where would we sell our cattle?" I say it is not worth the paper it is written on so far as exports go. Tomorrow morning if the British, with their new system, push more money into agriculture and increase their production, find they want fewer of our cattle and they buy fewer of our stores—I think it is uneconomic for us to sell stores—there is nothing we can do about it. There is nothing in the Agreement to protect the Irish farmer. If they find that they cannot take those cattle under the Agreement they can come over and have a discussion. If we cannot provide the cattle we may ask for a conference with the British. If they cannot take them they can, to my mind, notify us to that effect. It is not a beneficial Agreement for Irish farmers as a whole. That is why we find ourselves in this position today. The Minister has made a speech here this evening. I have heard the same type of speech at many European conferences in which it is suggested that we should cut down production, make it more economic and trade in other markets. I understand that the Minister is to leave shortly for London for discussions with Mr. Hughes, his opposite number in the British Parliament. I warn the Minister that Mr. Hughes is a Welshman and very tough. Welsh farmers have got it very hard in the past and he is going to give nothing away. Let the Minister try and amend that part of the Agreement. Let him try to get a bigger quota for processed meat. This is very important for rural Ireland. First of all, it is economic to sell the finished product processed here—it will give employment and keep the people in the area from which they came—and, secondly, it is important to get into processing. Agricultural processing in this country will leave us in the position that we will be able to expand on that line and to export to other parts of the world. It is only nonsense to say that we cannot sell in other parts of the world. There is a shortage of meat and a shortage of protein in the world today. There are many countries whose populations are increasing all the time and their demand will increase in the future. Strange as it may seem, one of the parts of the world where the population is exploding beyond all imagination is South America. They were themselves at one time exporters of meat but, if one can have regard to the forecasts given by economists, international experts, they will be short of meat for themselves in the future and it is possible that we may in time to come be able to sell some of our goods there. We can only do that by processing. At the moment the processing of meat in this country is negligible on account of the mistaken policy of trying to adhere to the traditional exports of stores. I hope nobody would take from that that I am advocating giving up the selling of stores. What I am advocating is a big change over as soon as possible from the store trade to the processing of meat with all the advantageous by-products that it will leave us in this country.

I want to refer to one other matter. I shall be brief as I understand that we are not supposed to speak too long on agriculture as many people wish to express their opinions. I asked the Minister a question last week about honey. Honey is a very useful little industry which could be widely developed in this country but the situation is entirely monopolistic with regard to the buying of honey. Honey is bought by only three or four firms in this country and they can give whatever price they like. There is no fixed price for run honey or section honey. I do not think the Minister would be doing anybody any harm if he were to fix a floor price and so ensure that any people who go in for that profitable by-line would be assured that they would get an adequate return for this work and the trouble they go to.

The Minister today introduced an Estimate for a record sum for agriculture. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries comes in here and provides a record subsidy year in year out to help our farmers to produce more and to keep agriculture to the forefront.

As everybody knows the year that is dying, 1968, was a record year for agriculture. We had very favourable weather conditions and our farmers took advantage of the situation. We had a record milk production, record agricultural exports, we had phenomenal yields of wheat and barley and the beet campaign which is more than half way through at the moment is going to be a record one also. The amount produced per acre will be a record, too. This, of course, is very gratifying to the agricultural community. I suppose, it was helped somewhat by the fact that we had favourable weather conditions but it was helped also by the fact that the know-how of our farmers has increased. The present generation of farmers are keeping well ahead of the times. They know their job. They are looking on it now as a business and not just a way of going on from day to day. It is also noticeable that the number of farms owned by younger people is increasing. Years ago it used to be said that one never saw a young farmer or a small rat. We are coming to the end of a record year. We have had a record beet harvest. The factories are working to full capacity and it is likely to go on for some time in January. We will probably end up with too much sugar on hand and next year it may not be so easy for farmers growing a large acreage of beet.

We should always look at agriculture, and the manner in which our subsidies are given, from the point of view that the land should support as many people as possible. We have in this country different sized farms. There are big farms, middle-size farms and small farms. It is on those divisions that all our subsidies should be based. We have many very large farms and surely to goodness they should nearly be able to survive with very little, if any, support at all? We have middle-size farms which would need some support and then we have small farms. That is why I think we should have a two-tier price in nearly all lines of agriculture. I think it is true that there are small farmers in this country who cannot really survive no matter what subsidy they get. The only way they could survive is to get more land. That is very obvious to me.

As I said, it was a record year in milk output and it was a record year also as regards the amount of subsidy that was paid in milk price support. We all know that the dairy farmer is the hardest working member of the farming community. He must work seven days a week for most of the year. He must get up at all hours. He has cows calving at any hour of the day and night. He must be on the job at all times. As well as being a farmer he must also take the place of the "vet", which reminds me that at the moment the veterinary service seems to be the most over-worked service we have with cattle testing and all the rest. It is often hard to get a "vet" to come if one has a sick animal. Therefore, we have more and more farmers learning the know-how of the veterinary business. Most of them now know how to give injections to animals and to assist at calving time and things like that. The country needs more "vets" as far as I can see in my part of the country anyway.

To get back to the milk business we have year after year the farmers getting more money from the Exchequer to keep up the price of milk or to increase the price of milk. That is all very well. It is as it should be but the point is that, whereas the Government are giving extra subsidies, our milk processors are really giving nothing. In the last ten or 11 years I do not think they have increased the price they are paying for milk. They have increased the pay of management and staff but they are not inclined to increase the price of the raw material. I think that is very unfair. There would not be a need for all the subsidies if they had followed suit penny for penny for the last ten years. I know of course, and this is what galls me, that a lot of those people who are processing milk in this country are foreigners and that the profits often go out of the country. I think they should be made in some way or another— perhaps it could be done locally—to pay extra for the raw material they are getting. Actually at the moment some of them do in fact try to bring down the price of milk. They threaten everything in regard to this. Their general idea is to put no increase on the price of milk.

The yield of milk per cow is increasing. We all know during the eradication of bovine TB that there were many herds wiped out because there were reactors in them. The Department bought them. It is very hard for people in this country to bring up their average per cow. However, I am sure in the next four years or so that the amount each cow will be producing will increase because farmers will once more be able to cull their herds. While I am on this question of milk there is one thing I want to say regarding this time of the year and this is something which I feel very strongly about. This is the time of year when cattle are being sold, whether it is at a fair or at a mart. The sales begin everywhere around the 1st November. They are conducted up to Christmas and into the New Year. You have culled cattle sold at these fairs and marts and you also have sold in the very same place heifers which have aborted. This is something which the law should be very strict about.

Since the Marts Act came into operation those places can be disinfected but there should be more publicity to deter people from selling cattle which have aborted. If an aborted heifer gets into a herd it is very hard to get rid of it and in the meantime the farmer concerned will find it very hard to carry on and make ends meet. I would ask the Minister and his Department to see that there is more publicity given to this and anyone who is caught offending should be dealt with very severely.

This has been a record year for the output of butter also. Once again it has been a success story for the sale of butter under the brand "Kerrygold" on the British market. We should congratulate the people who launched this campaign because it has been a great success since it started. A lot of thanks is due to those people for the way the campaign was carried out.

Factories often find it hard to get rid of surplus milk. This is something which is very good for pig feeding. Pig dealers will tell you that the difference between feeding on meal and feeding on whey from the milk surplus is 10d to 1/- which is a lot when you are fattening pigs. You have a lot of people who go in for summer fattening and pull out in the winter, although now we are getting people who are fattening for the winter as well. Creameries are storing this whey now. I heard of one creamery which has 40,000 gallons of this whey stored.

This can be fed to pigs during winter and it will help greatly in fattening pigs. The people who are fattening them will be able to make a greater profit because of this. However, it is very hard to contain this whey. People do not realise that you can bulldoze a large hole in the ground, build up the inside of it and fill it with whey and there it stays. The Department should look into this and people should be encouraged to adopt this method of storing the whey. This would be a great help to the factories who have a job getting rid of it. They often have too much of it and it often flows into the rivers. We often read in the papers where there are prosecutions because the fish have been killed.

While I am speaking about milk I should also refer to the calved heifer scheme which is now coming to an end. This was of great benefit to everybody. There was a time when people were only in this for what they could get out of it. When they got what they wanted they got out of it. However, they are now obliged to prove that the calved heifer was mated with a licensed bull. Unless the Department is satisfied that they are likely to keep the animal for another year they do not qualify under the scheme. It is right and proper that this should be the case because the right people will then get the benefit of this calved heifer scheme.

There is now to be a beef heifer scheme. This is something which should be encouraged because it will take some of the heavy pressure off milk. Everybody seems to be heading for more milk. We wish the Minister and the Department a lot of luck in this new scheme. They will probably have learned a lot from the calved heifer scheme. I hope the people who qualify for this new scheme are the people who want to benefit from it not the people who are only in it for what they can get out of it.

We notice also from the figures released that the number of sheep in the country is going down. I will be truthful and say that a lot of people who keep lowland sheep have given up raising them for the very simple reason that they turned their hand to more profitable ways of farming. A lot of them have gone into milk and a lot of them have gone back to grain. It has been a record year for sheep prices. Farmers have received record prices for their lambs although this has not meant an increase in the price of wool. This is something over which we have no control because the price of wool is going down all over the world. I was glad to see during the year that the Minister had increased the subsidy to hill-farmers for mountain lambs from 10/- to £1 a head. This was very much appreciated because we all know those people find it very hard to live.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 11th December, 1968.
Top
Share