Committee on Finance. - Vote 37: Agriculture (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (19th Dáil) – Thursday, 12 Mar 1970

Committee on Finance. - Vote 37: Agriculture (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That a supplementary sum not exceeding £8,938,000 be granted to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970, 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.

—(Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries.)

Mr. Meaney

I was advocating that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the National Dairying Council should carry out a more aggressive publicity campaign to popularise the consumption of milk, butter and cheese on the home market. It is my contention that there is a lot of leeway to be made up here and I am very disappointed there has not been better progress made. It is a sad commentary indeed that you can travel to most of the towns in Ireland and you cannot get a good, clean pint of milk. In my opinion there is nothing more nutritious than a drink of clean milk. Long ago milk bars should have been established in all our towns.

We have to realise that there is in this country at the moment a large number of hotels, most of which have been built in the last ten or 15 years with very considerable State aid. They should be encouraged to play their part in popularising the drinking of milk and the eating of cheese in their hotels. There are very few hotels which present cheese on the table. There is no apology to be made for asking them to do that, because thousands of pounds of State money were poured into them.

The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries has been under fire of late in regard to the proposed changes in the milk price structure. It is obvious to anybody connected with the industry that the Minister is working in the right direction. As I said at the outset, he is working to help the small and the medium sized farms. It is ridiculous to say that the milk producers are victimised. I know it can be said that perhaps a small farmer with 35 to 50 acres can now produce 20,000 or 25,000 gallons of milk and that the price will be cut as his production increases. In the main those farmers carry their calves to the mart and sell them straight away when they are no more than a day or two old. They are in a position to pull back a bit if they want to gain the full price and they are also in the position that they can rear some of their own stock. The Minister, in my opinion, is working in the right direction and the thanks of the small farmers of this country are due to him.

The Minister mentioned the beef incentive bonus. This is something I consider very welcome. At the outset £8 was allowed for each animal, but this has since been increased to £12. As time goes on, further increases will be called for. As a result of this scheme it is obvious that many people who would otherwise have gone into milk production stayed as they were and continued producing beef. The incentive of £8 was considered very low at the start but, as I said, it has now been increased to £12. I would recommend to the Minister that he would think of increasing that further to £16 or £20. After all, is it not better value to have a cow or a heifer producing under the beef incentive scheme than to have them producing milk for creameries at the subsidy of 1s 2d per gallon? Cows producing 600 gallons will be costing the Exchequer £35 each per annum. Even if the Minister increased the beef incentive bonus to £20, there is still a saving of approximately £15 per animal.

This is a great scheme because the bigger man will be inclined to produce more beef. There are people with up to 100 cows who are still complaining about the price of milk. Of course, they will complain more now with the sliding scale; but surely to goodness the time has come to make some effort to stop people going on increasing their herds? If you take the man with a 100-cow herd, each cow producing 600 gallons, he was getting in subsidy alone approximately £3,500 per annum. That could not continue in present circumstances.

There is now the sow incentive scheme which applies throughout the country but mainly in the west. Strange to note, it takes in only a portion of County Cork. I do not know who drew the line in regard to Cork. I have been informed that it was not the Department of Agriculture, but another Government Department for another purpose in the past.

Mr. O'Sullivan

Maybe it was the Department of Local Government.

Mr. Meaney

I do not think that is the case. There are people with land valuations of £8 to £15 and there is no £10 sow subsidy to support them. If the Minister were to extend the scheme to valuations of £40 and £50, and maybe to a larger number of sows, he would probably be working in a better direction. I would like to hear the Minister's views on that suggestion because as I see it our pig numbers are on the increase. Previously we were working on what was known as the four-year cycle. The number of pigs was allowed to build up for three or four years and then there was a drop and the cycle had to start again. We are living in a different world now and when the farmers have built up their sow herds and pig herds I am sure the Pigs and Bacon Commission will be able to sell the produce on the world market at a remunerative price.

I would like to see the Dairy Disposal Company moving into the western counties. There would be nothing wrong in their moving in and erecting fattening stations. They could then lease the slips and the gilts to the farmers and buy the bonhams at a very good price and fatten them. Such a scheme would help greatly to popularise rearing of bonhams and pig fattening in the west. When describing the size of a farm we say that it is 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 or 80 acres but we should not forget that with every farm there is a yard which could be used for rearing bonhams. When considering what it would take to maintain a farmer the farmyard should be reckoned. There are grants for everything that one might wish to do around the farmyard. The Dairy Disposal Company could play a great part in advising on the type of animal that should be bred.

There is a provision in the Supplementary Estimate of £47,000 for the prevention of disease in livestock. There are many schemes such as the brucellosis eradication scheme, but we all know the set-up in marts throughout the country. It is ridiculous to bring calf heifers to marts in the same lorry or sell them in the same ring as cattle which have aborted have been brought or sold only a couple of hours previously. The Department should discuss this problem with mart owners. It is not an easy problem to solve but an incentive should be given to the marts to solve the problem. It is a waste to vote money for the prevention of disease when elementary precautions are not being taken.

The BTE scheme has been in operation for a long time. Deputy Murphy asked the Minister when it would end. It is obvious that there are fewer herds affected now than there were three or four years ago. It must be remembered that a herd which was cleared a few years ago has no immunity. Once a carrier is present in that herd the disease goes through the whole herd like wild-fire. It is not uncommon to see a farmer having to sell 40 to 50 of his cows because they are reactors. This is a strong reason why the price of reactors should be increased because everyone knows that farmers are doing their best to eradicate bovine tuberculosis.

When dealing with the sow incentive scheme I forgot to mention one matter. It used to be the case that an inspector who called to a farm and saw only one or two bonhams with the sow was inclined to turn his head and walk away but I believe it is now the policy of the Department to allow all claims in such cases. It was bad enough that the sow had only one or two bonhams but to deny the farmer the grant made matters worse. The farmer will keep the sow and maybe next time it will produce ten, 11 or 12 bonhams.

There are many other matters which I should like to discuss on this Supplementary Estimate but which I will leave until the main Estimate is before us. I would, however, like to say how glad I am to see that the Minister is having pre-Budget discussions with the various farming organisations. That is the way it should be. We are living in an age in which everyone has to respect the next man's point of view. I hope the good relations now being established between the Minister and the farming organisations will continue to improve.

Mr. O'Sullivan

I should like to continue the Cork accent which appears to be prevalent here today. I suppose that is only right and proper because Cork is the largest county in Ireland and the best agriculturalists come from there. The Department of Agriculture is the most important Government Department as it represents our most important industry. I should like to pay tribute to the officials of the Department who down through the years have worked with various Governments and have had to cut their cloth according to the measure provided by the Government.

The Department should be able to give a long-range forecast of what the farming community should produce. It is very important that farmers should know what will be in demand next year and in five years. A team should be set up in the Department of Agriculture to forecast for the benefit of farmers market trends, not only in this country but in the countries to which we export. We have in the Department people with the ability to forecast market trends. We have in the Department men of experience whose sole duty it should be to forecast for the producing farmers what will be in demand not only next year but in the years to come.

I would ask the Minister to consider this. It is very important. We realise its importance when we consider that a few years ago stock raisers in the west of Ireland who had no milk production tradition were asked to produce milk at a time when the farmers knew that, not only in Ireland but in the Continent of Europe and in America, there was a surplus of dairy products. This was money thrown down the drain. We are now trying to retrieve the position with this beef incentive grant. We are trying to get these people to go back to what they produced traditionally. It is our duty in this Parliament to look for subsidies if we think they are needed, but it is also our duty to curtail any wasteful expenditure. We recognise that fact. The agricultural community recognise the fact that, while we want subsidies to help us to compete, we must also keep costs down as far as we possibly can. We want to cut out wasteful and extravagant expenditure.

It is quite clear to everybody that we are now producing a surplus of milk and milk products and that when we started to diversify, we were a bit too late. We should have started years ago. We were a butter producing country and the creameries went on producing it even when it was quite apparent that there was no market for it. Other speakers have referred to the fact that we export butter not only to Europe but to Africa and the Middle East. I have been informed that we are sending butter to North Africa at 1/-per lb. and that that butter is tested in laboratories over there and, if it has more than a specified bacteria level, it is sent back again. I think that is true. If it is not, it can be refuted.

We are importing millions of pounds worth of vegetable oils and fats, and other ingredients used in the manufacture of margarines, and nothing is being done about it. It is time that the Department woke up and did something about it. The price of butter should be brought down to the price of margarine. We are losing 3/6d per lb. if we are exporting butter to North Africa at 1/- per lb. Look at what we would save, and look at the extra amount of butter that would be consumed in this country.

The principal sources of our income are our flocks and our herds and their health is very important. We must expend a big amount of money to get rid of the various diseases that affect our herds and flocks. It took us a long time to start the warble fly scheme, but look at the good it did. If we had continued that scheme for another year it would have been very beneficial, and we would have got rid of the pockets of that disease that still exist. We must keep up the fight with the warble fly scheme and the TB eradication scheme. Even though they cost money, these schemes are vital.

The benefit that accrued from the warble fly scheme can be attributed mostly to the farming community who co-operated very well. There may have been some people who did not but, generally speaking, the farming community co-operated to a very large extent. We also had the TB eradication scheme. It was a costly scheme but it was worth the money and it is almost completed. There were some big out-breaks last year but that is to be expected. We must keep up the fight against that disease. I want to take this opportunity to thank the veterinary people who worked so hard to get rid of those diseases in our cattle and sheep.

The most important of all is the brucellosis eradication scheme. That disease has been eradicated in one county. I want to impress on the Minister and the Department the extreme urgency for the provision of money for this scheme. It is the last of the cattle diseases that we have to eradicate. It is very important that we throw extra money into this fight to rid our herds of brucellosis. I appeal to the Minister to provide extra money to get rid of this virulent disease which is affecting our herds. It is probably worse in the north of the country than in the dairying counties and it will be harder to eradicate it there but, with extra money and extra research, we can get rid of it in a few years. I am sorry that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary is not here, but we have Deputy Geoghegan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare and I am sure he will look after us.

Mr. Geoghegan

I can assure the Deputy that his remarks will be conveyed to the Minister.

Mr. O'Sullivan

The next matter with which I want to deal is the improvement in the breeds of cattle. A lot of work has been done but a lot remains to be done: progeny testing, improvement of breeds, the crossing of the different breeds, the best type of animals that can be got; all these things are very important. There has been a big improvement in our herds and, with able direction from the Agricultural Institute, the Department and the agricultural advisers, much work has been done. I would ask the Minister to continue with that work to improve the breeds of our cattle. At times since the economic war the price of cattle was not good and it did not matter very much whether they were pure bred or half bred; the skin was the same price. Now cattle is our main industry and I am glad to say that the dead meat export trade is flourishing at the moment. I hope the demand continues. We should also continue with the improvement of the export of store cattle which have been the source of great income to the small farmer. I would like to see the small farmer holding his calves until they would be at least a year or two old. It is a pity to see farmers selling their calves at a young age instead of keeping them until they would get better prices for them. Somebody else reaps the benefit instead of the breeder who should get the profits.

This is not a matter on which the Department of Agriculture could intervene, but in a country where there is so little raw material for industry the hides and wool that are being exported should be utilised for the manufacture of goods in factories here. Our vocational people should look into this. There is a need to train craftsmen to produce goods from the excellent leather and wool that are being exported at very small prices.

In the summer months in certain parts of the country the water supply is insufficient. Many of our regional water supply schemes which are in blueprint will not be implemented in the near future. The Department of Agriculture should take over all rural water schemes and operate them in the interest of the agricultural community.

The land project has certainly transformed the rural areas. Travelling through the country now one sees farms that were derelict years ago producing excellent grass and feed for our livestock. It is certainly a tribute to the land project people and the agricultural community who brought that land back to cultivation.

Due to the land project, land that some years ago people thought would never be reclaimed is now growing crops, even barley. Although the gentleman who initiated it is not in the House now, the land project and the lime subsidy scheme will be a monument to him when he is gone.

My colleague, Deputy Murphy, spoke about bacon factories. Certainly we in West Cork have been agitating for a factory for a long number of years. Money and machinery were available but commercial interests and others saw to it that we did not succeed. There should be a bacon factory in a county that is producing more pigs than any other area of comparable size in the country. To take pigs to the market from 50 miles out costs about 15/- a head. If there was a bacon factory at home within easy reach of these people they would save most of that 15/- a head. They would also save on pig feed. It is not a barley-growing district and every bit of feed has to be imported at extra cost. If these things were rectified West Cork would have a good claim to a bacon factory.

The beef subsidy scheme started last year and it was a success. It enabled people who were in the milk business to switch over to beef for which there is a demand at the moment and for which there is likely to be a good trade in the future. It has been suggested that the subsidy should be increased to £16. I think it should be doubled, that it should be at least £24. When it is considered that the dairy farmer has to be subsidised to the extent of something like £35 a head, it can be seen that a switch to beef would be in the interests of the country as well as in the interests of the farmer. The small farmer, the three, four or five-cow man, even if he switches to beef, only gets a subsidy for the number over two, and there is no real incentive in that. The subsidy should start from the first one. Anybody who produces quality milk must have at least a dozen cows. The cost of equipment, the cost of putting up various sheds and stalls and maintaining them in proper condition and producing quality milk is very high and the man with the three or four cows cannot pay that kind of money. Therefore I would ask the Minister and the Department to look into this matter. It might involve a lot of money in the beginning but it would be money well spent.

I hope the Minister and his officials will consider the few points I have raised. I would like to be able to praise the Minister like his friend, Deputy Meaney, behind him. Of course, whatever a Fianna Fáil Minister will say the Fianna Fáil Party will praise him. That is only natural; it could happen over here although I do not think it would sometimes. The Government should get it into their heads that they are not governing for the Fianna Fáil Party but for the whole country. While Fianna Fáil are in a majority here they have a minority of votes in the country. The Government should get this fact into their heads and realise that they must act in the best interests of all sections rather than merely in the interests of Fianna Fáil.

Mr. Tully

As in the case of previous Supplementary Estimates, here again we have a remarkable example of the Government coming into the House towards the end of the financial year with a Supplementary Estimate amounting to £8,938,000. There must be some explanation for this but the one given in the Minister's speech does not seem to me to be reasonable. It appears as if the Government, when framing their Budget last year, deliberately omitted to include a number of matters for which they should have made provision or, alternatively, they made a very bad guess of what it would cost to run the country for 12 months. Possibly the fact that a general election was in the offing had a bearing on the manner in which they then allocated the amount of money to be collected and spent.

During the past few weeks we have had before the House Supplementary Estimates amounting to £25-£30 million. This is an extraordinary amount of money and there must be an explanation for dealing with it in this way. We were threatened last June with a mini-budget, which did not materialise for a reason we all know is now in the past. Is what should have been covered in that mini-budget now to be added on to taxes for the coming year or will the Government say that the buoyancy of the revenue has been so great they are able to absorb this extra stupendous amount of money without extra taxation? In his reply the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries might perhaps explain this point; if he does not, I hope to get the answers from the Minister for Finance. The Supplementary Estimates will be passed here in a few hours, but I do not think the people of the country realise what is happening.

We must never forget that when dealing with agriculture we are concerned with our primary industry. First, it is the largest money spinner and, secondly, it employs, directly or indirectly, the greatest number of people. I can never understand how we continue to talk about the wonderful things that will happen to Irish agriculture when—or rather if— we get into the Common Market. Having regard to the whole story of agriculture in this country, including our debate here today, it is evident to anyone who wants to see that if Ireland goes into the Common Market we are walking our farmers into something for which they are totally unprepared.

During the years, and particularly in the last couple of years, it has been the practice to encourage increases in various types of output. As soon as the farmers are geared to that and when a substantial amount of money has been spent on a particular project, the Government decide they have had enough and try to switch to something else. This has happened both in regard to beef and milk products. According to the figures given to us today by the Minister, and to the figures in the winter issue of Bainne, in a statement from the managing director of Bord Bainne, Mr. Joseph C. McGough, the position is that we are selling a substantial amount of butter at 1/- per lb. If we go into the Common Market the alternative to competing with these countries—Morocco, Algeria et cetera—is to have increased stocks of butter in cold storage at home.

The Common Market butter mountain, which will be almost 500,000 tons by the 31st March, 1970, is a constant threat to all markets. Is it seriously suggested that the Government are facing up to their responsibilities when, knowing that the Common Market are having the greatest difficulty in dealing with the milk products problem, we continue to encourage an increase in milk and butter production? Surely it is accepted, if Dr. Hallstein has only one solution for excess production of milk and butter in the Common Market, namely, a subsidy for the slaughter of cows, the Irish farmer will never be prepared to accept such a solution. I know that many years ago Fianna Fáil found a solution to one of their problems in the slaughter of calves but even they would find it difficult to sell this new idea to the dairy farmers or even to the backbenchers of their own party.

If the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries have no better policy than to continue to subsidise and encourage the production of something which can only be given away for 1/- per lb, they are not doing their job. Like everybody else in this country, the farmers are entitled to a decent living. Some of them are perhaps getting a lot more than they are entitled to. I have very little sympathy with the larger farmers who have been squealing a lot about the system of subsidy. I do not consider they have any legitimate grievance. If the Government are serious about going into the Common Market it is unfair to continue to encourage the small farmers to increase the amount of milk and milk products knowing, if we ever get into the Common Market—which I hope we will not —we shall be badly caught and the income of the small farmers will drop to nil overnight.

I consider the Department are failing in their job in regard to the handling of milk products on hand at the present time. I heard Deputies here— one from Fine Gael in the last few days and a Fianna Fáil Deputy today —complain about the large amount of margarine being purchased here. Let me put two points before the House, because it appears some people do not understand plain facts. Margarine is bought by two types of people: it is bought by the health-conscious because doctors say butter, in certain cases, causes, or helps to cause, heart disease. This statement, as we all know, has been made again and again. It has not been challenged by those who would be in a position to challenge it. It has been challenged only by people like ourselves, non-medical people, who are not competent to say whether or not the statements made are technically correct.

The second type buying margarine is composed of those who cannot afford to buy butter. By far the greatest amount of margarine is bought by people who cannot afford to buy butter because the price of butter is too high and, while they can buy margarine at half the price of butter, they will continue to buy it. It is ridiculous for anyone to suggest that the solution is to put a high levy on the production of margarine. This would simply result in putting up the price to the price of butter, making it dearer for those who are now compelled to consume it. The inevitable result would be that these people would revert to the old "bread-and-scrape" diet, a slice of bread with a microscopic film of butter or margarine over it.

Many years ago, when the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party had an embarrassing amount of beef on his hands, he found a solution with which many people did not agree, for the disposal of the surplus beef. Is there any reason why the present Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party should not have a discussion with the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries and decide that one way to dispose of the stocks of butter would be to dispose of them to the lower income groups at the same price as, or a little cheaper, than they pay for margarine? If we can sell butter abroad at 1/- per lb surely it is not unfair to ask that the same butter should be made available to those who are now compelled to eat margarine. Up to 12 months ago it might have been argued that something like this would seriously affect the sale of butter at an economic price but, since it is now a proven fact that a very high proportion of the lower income groups, apart altogether from the health faddists, are purchasing and eating margarine, there should be no reason why the Government could not make butter available to these people at quite a low price.

Again, I do not think we are dealing with milk in the right way. If someone goes into a hospital he finds that there is a certain amount of milk made available to the patients. The amount made available is conditioned by the price paid for the milk. With a surplus of milk, coupled with the fact that there will be no substantial loss if the milk is supplied in larger quantities, could arrangements not be made to enable local authorities to make an abundant supply of milk available to hospital patients? I assure the House that the poor would appreciate a pint of fresh milk, for which they did not have to pay, every day. There are many people who buy half a pint of milk per day and, if they are living on their own, they find it extremely difficult at the end of the week to find the money to pay for those half pints of milk. We are told that there is such a surplus of milk it would pay the Government to throw it away rather than process it into some kind of milk product. Is there any reason why there should not be some arrangement whereby milk could be made freely available to school children? In a country like ours, with an abundant supply of milk, it is deplorable to see so many puny little children who get a drop of milk in their tea, and no more, because the price is prohibitive. The price is purely and simply an artificial price and, because it is, there is no reason why milk should continue to be such a scarce commodity for some.

The experts in agriculture have had a field day here today. It was very interesting to listen to people like Deputy Michael Pat Murphy, Deputy Meaney and Deputy O'Sullivan, who all come from the same county, and who all have the finer points in relation to agriculture at their finger tips. I speak about agriculture simply as one coming from an agricultural county. I have not got the expert insight into agriculture that they have but, at the same time, what I am trying to put across is the ordinary man's point of view.

There are one or two figures in this issue of Bainne worth bringing to the notice of the House. They may make some people think. I should like to compliment those who produced this issue of Bainne. It is an excellent production with this splendid article by Mr. McGough and also the article on land reform. The numbers engaged in milk production in the country seem to be rocketing. Even though everybody is losing money on milk production everybody seems to want to go into milk. There is a moral in this somewhere. This should be taken into account by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries when changes in subsidies are being considered. It says here in this article in Bainne that, over a ten year period, the intake of milk to creameries more than doubled from 250 gallons ten years ago to 520 gallons last year. The number of dairy farmers increased by 15,000. Cow numbers increased by a quarter of a million and the average yield per cow increased from 372 to 534 gallons. Taking all this into account and remembering that the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, even with those figures in front of them, are still encouraging the further production of milk, with no outlet for that milk except at give-away prices, proves to me anyway that the Department are just not doing their job.

The change over to the beef subsidy scheme recently made me smile. I am old enough, though I was only a small boy when Fianna Fáil took office, to remember Fianna Fáil fulminating against grass. One of the counties that got it heavily was County Meath; we heard all about the man and the dog walking around the wide acres. The man engaged in beef production was regarded almost as a sinner. Now there is a complete change round, very rightly so in this case, and the figures show that beef production is on the up and up. Even Fianna Fáil, apparently, can change their mind.

There is another item in this Estimate in regard to which there would seem to be no set policy. I do not mean a policy now for 1970 or 1971, but a policy for the future. If we go into the Common Market farmers will find themselves in dire trouble. There is the old cliché about not being able to plough the rocks of Bawn. I am afraid the Irish farmer, who has been ploughing anything and everything and producing wheat on it, will find when he goes into the Common Market ploughing the rocks of Bawn very simple as compared with what he will meet there. The loss last year, according to the figures given here, was very substantial. That was only one year.

An additional sum of £500,000 is required in respect of losses arising on the purchase and resale of the 1968 wheat crop. Would the Minister say what is the policy of the Department of Agriculture with regard to wheat?

I would also like to get information with regard to farm buildings. Difficulty has been experienced with regard to the payment of grants for such buildings. One sometimes finds that having had the work inspected a man is given the impression that the grant will be paid when the job is finished but then does not get the grant until the builders suppliers are threatening to bring him to court. Sometimes a man is told by the Department that the job does not qualify for a grant. Delays in payment of grants are very great.

Any one looking through the Official Report since 1954 will find that I have been saying that a man with a job and a few acres of land is the most comfortable man in the country. According to the Department of Agriculture a man living in a small cottage, with perhaps one acre, may be refused a grant for some necessary stabling. This is a new arrangement and perhaps the Minister would comment on it.

A further £96,000 is provided for An Foras Talúntais. This body are doing a wonderful job. They are always short of money. The amounts provided are not sufficient to meet the cost of what they are allowed to do. It is impossible for An Foras Talúntais to plan ahead. At the beginning of the financial year they do not know whether they will have enough money to complete the jobs on hands. There should be a more liberal approach to this matter. We are an agricultural country. It is the duty of the Department of Agriculture to see that the experts they have employed are given the requisite amount of money to carry out their work properly.

I would be grateful to the Minister if he would let us know whether the Department of Agriculture have anything else in mind with regard to milk and milk production vis-à-vis the Common Market application other than what is contained in the document circulated this morning. If the Minister gives only certain small increases, and if the day comes when the Irish farmer has to go into the Common Market, he will find he is going into a group where everybody else is better equipped and able to supply what he had hoped to sell in the Common Market. This is a very serious matter on which we should have a clear statement from the Minister.

Mr. J. Lenehan

It is a remarkable thing that the people who cause the most agitation with regard to lands and farming are generally those who know the least about these matters. They are often teachers, shopkeepers, publicans, doctors or priests. These people speak about agriculture, fisheries and such matters to a far greater extent than do those engaged in this work. They do this not for the benefit of the unfortunate farmers but for the sake of publicity.

It is nonsensical for the Department to try to operate a one-storey agricultural policy throughout the country. It is useless to try to operate in Mayo, Galway and Leitrim the same type of policy as in Meath, Kildare, Westmeath and Limerick. Such a policy cannot work. It is unfortunate that the people who deserve and require it are not getting the money. The bigger farmers are getting the money. The Parliamentatry Secretary, who has travelled all over the country, knows that a different policy should be formulated for the west. It has been said that milk suppliers in the west should not have gone into milk production. I do not agree with that. These are the people who should go in for milk production. The people in the better lands of the midlands should concentrate on beef cattle production. The small farmers in the west would not be able to use their tiny uneconomic holdings in the same way as people in counties like Meath, who can use their land like ranchers. A farmer in the west who tries to follow the example given to him by the landlords 100 years ago has failed to change. Incentives to milk production must be given to the smaller farmers of the west and not to the people living on the lush grassland of Tipperary and Limerick who have their cows milked by machine and deliver it to the town, and then spend the rest of the day in that town doing nothing. That does not happen in the west. I ask that any special incentive which can be given should be given to the small farmers. Small milk suppliers should get the greater incentives.

There was a discussion on butter and margarine. Various excuses have been given for the sale of margarine. We have heard about poor people buying it. There is much political propaganda on this subject. The huge oil companies who manufacture margarine are in a position to use tremendous advertising power. They have convinced some people in this country that butter is harmful and will lead them to an early grave because of heart trouble which may follow its use. In countries which have the highest per capita rate of butter consumption there is the lowest per capita rate of coronary thrombosis so that that story does not hold water. During the war their theme song used to be “Lilli Marlene” now it seems to be “Lily Margarine”. They have achieved the position in which they are because tremendous advertising power was brought to bear on margarine.

It is despicable that in an agricultural country where butter should be obtainable at a reasonable price it is not being purchased more extensively. I am not at all sure that the price is the controlling factor. Indeed, I am convinced that it is by no means the controlling factor. It is the advertising capacity of the oil companies who produce this cart grease and sell it as something that tastes better than butter rather than the fact that people are not able to buy butter.

The question of pig production was raised and I think it was Deputy Meaney who said that the number of pigs is increasing. The number of pigs may be increasing but the number of pigs in the west has been declining. Anywhere you have an increase in the number of dancehalls you are bound to have a decrease in the number of pigs because no farmer's daughter who has to look after pigs will go into the dancehall afterwards. In many places where people are so vocal about agricultural production and so vocal in their attacks on the Government we find they are the same people who put up the dancehalls often in the guise of alleged social centres. This induces those people away from their work with the result that often on a Monday morning, or, indeed, any other day, boys and girls are not able to go out on the farms to help their unfortunate fathers and mothers. Some of the people who express criticisms here today should remember the days of the Russian and Canadian bacon and it was only when this Government got into power that that eventually disappeared off the market. It was sold here as bacon and I do not forget it.

I should like to see the beef incentive scheme extended generally. The reduction in the number of sheep is due mainly to the tremendous export market for carcase mutton which has been developed and which gives tremendous employment. I should like to see an increase in the foreign sales of mutton, beef and pigmeat rather than the sending out of live animals which provides very little employment. Anything that can be done to develop this industry should be done. We have not yet had time to find out whether the incentive scheme has been really successful in the west but I believe it has. It is not sufficiently flexible and some inspectors have been too rigid in their decisions and I would ask the Minister to take cognisance of that.

One of the most valuable animals that could be produced has practically disappeared from the Irish scene and that is the donkey. Some scheme for the propagation of these animals should be introduced because there is no question about their selling for tremendous prices but, unfortunately, they are unobtainable. It is possible, of course, that there is no scarcity of asses but there is an absolute scarcity of donkeys.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think there is any subhead for that.

Mr. J. Lenehan

I should like also to refer to the mountain fencing and grazing scheme. A great deal of work has been wasted here because the people who have done the fencing have done nothing else. They should be induced to seed and manure the land which, generally speaking, they have not and as a result they are only like pounds for putting sheep and pigs into. They have not improved the land. Greater incentives should be offered to them to do so. Despite Deputy Tully's allegations about smoke signals in Mayo and that we are out of contact with the world, there are two Departments between which I should like to see much greater contact, the Department of Lands and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. They are not showing the co-operation that we would all like to see between them. I must say I take a dim view of a man like Deputy Tully who deprecates on the one hand the fact that the Minister is giving an extra £9 million to the farmers and on the other hand tries to maintain he is not giving enough. That does not make sense. I am not saying he is giving enough but he is giving three times as much to the farmers as it took to run this State in 1931. I would ask Deputies to remember that and to remember that any worthwhile scheme which was introduced was introduced by the people on this side of the House.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

This Supplementary Estimate covers a wide field and it is for a considerable sum. While I welcome the opportunity for a debate on our major industry, nevertheless, it is strange that it is about two years since we had a full-scale debate on agriculture. The last time we had a debate on agriculture was December twelve months when a Supplementary Estimate for a considerable sum was rushed in on the final day of the Christmas term. Apparently the tendency on the part of the Government is to give the Dáil no opportunity of having a detailed discussion on this industry.

I understood, and I expected, that when this Supplementary Estimate was being introduced a token Estimate in respect of the main Estimate would have been introduced first as has been done in the case of other Estimates and as has been done in the case of the Estimate for the Department of Local Government, the debate on which lasted four weeks. I hope we will not have to wait another two years before Deputies on all sides of this House have an opportunity of saying all they want to say and all the farmers of this country expect them to say about the problems which confront this important industry now as we are about to enter the EEC.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not be aware that the main Estimate is still to come.

Mr. T. O'Donnell

I intend now to look at this Supplementary Estimate, the main item of which is the subvention for the dairying industry. We had the Minister in his introductory speech again trotting out his old argument, which he has trotted out on many occasions here at Question Time, about State assistance to the dairying industry. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to put this important industry in its proper perspective. I, no more than any other Member of this House, do not attempt and I have never attempted to justify unnecessary State expenditure. I want to examine this industry and its place in the national economy. The Minister, from his brief, would certainly appear to be deliberately trying to convey the impression of massive support for the dairying industry. He says that the amount provided by the Exchequer for milk support has risen at a very sharp rate in recent years. He says it had quadrupled in five years. He then goes on, as only Deputy Blaney could, to tell us what the Government have done and are doing for the dairying industry. It is well that we should examine the situation. It is vitally important that not merely the Members of this House but the public at large should be aware of the role which the dairying industry plays in the national economy.

Here we have an industry which is giving full-time employment to 110,000 dairy farmers and their families. According to recent official figures, 110,000 dairy farmers are employed directly. Taking into account farmers and their families, it is reckoned that the number of people directly employed on the land in connection with the dairying industry is 350,000. Furthermore, it is estimated that approximately 8,000 to 10,000 people are in full-time employment in the various creameries and milk processing plants throughout the country and, of course, there are many more in indirect employment in ancillary activities—transport and so on.

The dairying industry nets approximately £30 million per annum in direct exports and it goes without saying that it is the basis and foundation of our cattle export industry. We cannot have cattle exports unless we have the cows to produce the cattle so it probably is contributing £70 million or £80 million more in cattle exports. I do not want to argue here that this House and the country should continue to subsidise the dairying industry because of its high employment content, because of the social implications or for any such reasons. I believe that this industry must be examined also from the standpoint of its performance and its efficiency. How is this sector of our economy performing vis-à-vis the other sectors and particularly in relation to competitive products being produced by other dairying countries particularly in Western Europe and in the EEC? The dairying industry is the only sector of our economy which has reached the target of the Second Programme for Economic Expansion. The Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries here this morning, having presented a deliberately false picture of this whole thing, acknowledged the fact that the dairying industry has reached the targets of the Second Programme. I say it is the only sector of our economy that has done so. He attributes this to good Government policy. He has not got it in him to pay tribute to the thousands of farmers throughout the country, through whose hard work and efficiency, this healthy state of the dairying industry is largely due.

Since the Second Programme was introduced it has been deliberate Government policy to increase milk production in this country and I defy any Deputy or the Minister to contradict me on this. I also challenge the Minister, when he is replying to this debate, to produce the Second Programme for Economic Expansion and to quote from it any sentence which, even indirectly, indicated that there would be a stage reached where we would have to limit milk production. All the resources at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, all the advisory services, the Agricultural Institute, for which there is a subvention here, all the media of propaganda since the Second Programme was introduced, have been directed to one purpose and that was to increase milk production. The greatest credit is due to the dairy farmers, to their advisers and to everybody responsible for the fact that, despite tremendous obstacles—particularly the elimination of bovine TB—they have been able to reach a stage where milk production now just about reaches the figure projected in the Second Programme. Agricultural advisers, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Agricultural Institute were persuading and advising and doing everything possible to get dairy farmers to increase the number of cows, to improve the grass output, to improve their efficiency in every way and, at the same time, certain incentives were given for the production of quality milk. Small farmers have responded magnificently to the appeal for the production of quality milk.

The Minister this morning made no mention of the tremendous expense incurred by many dairy farmers throughout the country in complying with what was deliberate Government policies. Farmers have modernised their farmyards. They have introduced new systems of grass preservation. They have changed from hay to silage. They have changed from milking with buckets to modern streamlined parlours. They have changed from leanto sheds to cubicles for cows and so forth. They were encouraged to do this by deliberate Government policy. They received grants to do so but, of course, they had to put their hands in their own pockets and they spent a large sum of money in doing so.

I am now charging the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries—I said this before at Question Time and I am repeating it—with having played a deliberate and dirty confidence trick on the dairy farmers because he encouraged them in recent years to increase milk production and their efficiency. Out of the blue some months ago there was a panic announcement. We had too much milk and there would have to be a reduction in the amount of milk produced. Then the Minister in a most insidious and irresponsible manner attempts to drive a wedge between the small and the large dairy farmers saying that his policy and the policy of the Fianna Fáil Government now and always was to help the small farmers. He announces that this year certain categories of small farmers will get an increase of 1d per gallon. This is a graduated scale now. Who in heaven's name does the Minister think he is codding? If he says the miserable increase he is announcing for the small dairy farmer, the man producing up to 7,000 gallons, will make it possible for him to live and survive on a small dairy farm he is certainly trying to cod us.

The Minister even quoted statements this morning made by the National Farmers' Association at the time the Second Programme was being introduced and he now poses as the great advocate and defender of the small farmers. At the same time, a colleague of his, Deputy Seán Flanagan, Minister for Lands, announced publicly some months ago that there was no future for anybody with under 70 acres. We have another Minister administering an abominable plan for small farmers in dishing out dole. We now have three policies. It is time we put an end to the kind of codology where the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries says one thing, another Minister says another thing and a third Minister advocates a still different policy.

Not for one moment do I accept the new price structure introduced by the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries in which on the surface it would appear he will help the small dairy farmers while, at the same time, he will prevent the big fellow from becoming a millionaire. If there was a case for limiting milk production and if there were social, economic or other arguments in favour of concentrating milk production on the small holdings, why was it not announced when the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was introduced? Why was no indication given even two or three years ago? Even as late as four months ago dairy farmers in the south of Ireland were invited to a two-day conference at the Dairy Research Institute in Fermoy. I have said hard things in the past about the Agricultural Institute but let me say this now. The Dairy Research Institute has made a wonderful contribution to the growth of the dairying industry in recent years.

What was the purpose of the conference held three or four months ago? Its purpose was to show dairy farmers how they could gear their production and how they could improve their grassland to the stage at which they could keep one cow to every .9 of an acre. Experiments had been carried out at Fermoy. There was no question of only small farmers being invited there. Medium sized farmers and large sized farmers were also invited. They were shown how to increase their cow carrying capacity and their grassland. Apart from the fact that the Minister seems to be deliberately attempting to introduce class distinction and drive a wedge between the small and large farmers, the tragedy is that now we are on the eve of entry into the European Economic Community—at least we presume we are—the dairying industry is the one sector of our economy about which it can be said with any kind of reasonable accuracy which is in a position to compete with the other agricultural nations in Western Europe.

I say this despite the fact that some weeks ago I asked the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries if he could give me some indication as to what the likely prospects would be for the dairying industry in the event of our entering the European Economic Community. Despite the fact that we are talking about the EEC since God knows when all the Minister could say was: "The situation is being examined and I hope to be in a position to make an announcement about it some time soon". Surely to heavens the Minister should be able to give some indication about what our prospects would be. I have no access to official advice or anything else but I can stand over a forecast I will now make in relation to the prospects of the dairying industry in the EEC. I have already said that our dairy farmers have achieved the targets of the Second Programme in the amount of milk they have produced but, more important still, they have put up a magnificent performance in improving the quality of milk. I understand that 70 per cent or more of the milk that goes to creameries qualifies for the quality bonus. They have produced what they were asked to produce when the Second Programme was introduced. They have improved the quality of their milk.

What about the dairy produce? There is not much use producing milk of top quality unless we examine the end product. What about the product? Here, again, a very satisfactory situation emerges. We find that the total export figure for the dairying industry is around £30 million. In other words, we are exporting approximately £30 million worth of dairy products every year. When we analyse this further and get a breakdown in the figure, in the quantities and the prices, we find a rather remarkable situation. In 1968 Irish butter on the British market, according to the latest figures available to me, commanded a price second only to that of the Danes. I shall give the figures: Danish butter was making £337 per ton, Irish butter £328 per ton, British butter £320 per ton, Dutch butter £307 per ton, Australian and New Zealand butter £300 per ton and butter from other countries is also making £300 per ton. These figures show that Irish butter is commanding premium prices on the British market. Bord Bainne advertises in the Sunday Times and I saw recently an excellent, although most unusual, advertisement for “Kerrygold”, which said, “Do not use Kerrygold for cooking”. The only thing that prevents an expansion of sales on the British market is the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. Irish butter is making only £9 less than Danish butter on the British market and there is considerable demand for it. All the information that I have leads me to believe that we could sell far greater quantities of “Kerrygold” on the British market but for the fact that the British Government will not allow us to do so.

I shall return to the question of butter later on but I now want to deal with another important product, namely, cheese. In 1968, British cheese —I have extracted these figures from official records—was selling at £270 per ton, Irish cheese at £245 per ton, New Zealand cheese at £240 per ton, Australian cheese at £225 per ton and others at £200 per ton, which means that of the countries exporting cheese to the British market Irish cheese commands the highest price. It is second only to British cheese. I shall not deal with other products, but according to the information I have obtained from trips to Britain and discussions which I have had with consumers and people in the trade there is considerable scope for expansion of cheese sales on the British market but again, there are quantitative restrictions.

Another interesting figure illustrating the competitiveness of the Irish dairy industry is the cost of butter production. In 1967, butter production costs in this country ran at £470 per ton whereas in the EEC countries they ran at £800 a ton. It is important to note that the butter which cost £800 to produce in the EEC was sold for £100 a ton. If the EEC and free trade means what it is supposed to mean, we shall have a wonderful competitive advantage in relation to our butter and cheese prices in the EEC.

We hear a great deal about the British market for agricultural products. Is it not an extraordinary state of affairs that our butter exports to Britain constitute only 6.1 per cent of the total imports of butter into Britain? In other words, we have only 6.1 per cent of the butter market, 9.4 per cent of the cheese market, 24.6 per cent of the skimmed milk market, 15.5 per cent of the whole milk powder market, 99.9 per cent of the chocolate crumb market, 15.1 per cent of the condensed milk market and our share of other dairy commodities on the British market is only 7.2 per cent.

Discussions have been held both here and in Britain in recent times and I understand that dairy produce was one of the matters under consideration. In view of the fact that this country is amongst Britain's best customers for industrial products surely there is a cast iron case for getting tough and demanding a fairer share of the British dairy produce market than the present 6.1 per cent for butter and 9.4 per cent for cheese?

When the Second Programme for Economic Expansion was introduced the Government started out by saying that milk was the main line of production. In fact, farmers in parts of Ireland which had never produced milk were encouraged to go into milk production and creameries have sprung up in places where milk was never produced before. In places like Wexford, the midlands, Mullingar and even in Athenry we now have creameries. As a result of Government policy to encourage milk production traditional lines of production in those areas were dropped. That was a ridiculous policy. It is even more ridiculous to say now, "We are sorry; milk is over-produced; you will have to cut down on this". The unfortunate farmers who have spent thousands of pounds increasing the number of cows, improving their land and installing the most modern equipment are now left in a very serious position. Many farmers who were able to launch into milk production only by borrowing heavily from the Agricultural Credit Corporation, now find that their income is being reduced.

Dáil Éireann debate - Thursday, 12 Mar 1970