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.