In regard to the Estimate for Agriculture and Fisheries, under the heading of B1—University Colleges (a)—there is a decrease of £269,000. In 1969-70 the figure was £1,022,984 and this year it has been reduced to £753,984. Many of us regard this as a retrograde step. With the possibility of our entry into the EEC educational research and advisory services should get more assistance. No matter how much farmers may object regarding increases in rates and taxation, I do not think they would have objected to an increase in this case. Research is essential so that we can find out, for example, what kind of beef is required on the Continent or whether the small, lean, meat-carrying sheep is given preference instead of the over-fat sheep. Our young people need to be educated regarding research and I am surprised that a reduction was made in this case.
In B 2—Veterinary Colleges—there is a decrease of £8,900 but I am glad to see that in subhead B 5—An Foras Talúntais—Grant-in-Aid for General Purposes (b) there has been an increase of £104,000. This group are doing valuable work and much credit is due to them. It might be a good idea if the agricultural instructors paid more visits to such organisations, kept in contact with them and acted as a link with the ordinary farmer. In this way the benefit of the knowledge gained from scientific experiments could be passed on to the individual farmer. Symposia or visits should be arranged by the Department so that their instructors could keep up to date and pass on the knowledge they have gained to the farmers. More could be done in this direction; it would be money and time well spent.
In subhead B 7—Research and Testing—there is a reduction of £17,303. There may be a reason for this but I must confess I was surprised to see this reduction. Money spent on research and testing is well spent. I do not believe we have done as much as we could in this area. There are people who argue that we should import more cattle. Recently we brought in the French Charollais and we have our own shorthorn, Aberdeen Angus and Hereford breeds. The farmers are good judges regarding the type of cattle that thrives in certain areas of the country. In the west the farmer is inclined to the Aberdeen Angus because it is a hardy animal. However, an all-out effort should be made by the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries and the research centres to obtain different breeds, to cross them and find out what type thrives best, what was the best conversion rate and, above all, what meat sells best either in the British market or in the European market. Housewives throughout the world are getting choosey. Doctors claim that too much fat leads to heart disease. Someone told me that there are more men than women dieting nowadays. Women diet for one particular reason, I suppose, to look slimmer; the men are inclined to diet to prevent them getting heart disease.
The research department should work to the maximum at crossing the different breeds of cattle, the Charollais with the whiteheads, Aberdeen Angus and so on and find out what type of cattle thrive the best in a particular area. The farmers of the Midlands believe that the whitehead, the Hereford, thrives the best. They will give £5 or £10 more for a whitehead bull than for any other calf. From a short-term point of view I think they are right if they want to sell at a price between £50 and £60, but for the farmer who is keeping it to grow into a 12 cwt or 14 cwt beast, I doubt if it is correct. If farmers start experimenting it might take years to find out. The Department, through An Foras Talúntais and the other organisations concerned, should concentrate on this type of research.
Under Scholarships and Training including Grant-in-Aid, there is a provision of £64,548. I spoke earlier on that and I think the Minister also said he intended to provide a certain number of places. Something like 4,000 young people go into agriculture each year. We have educational facilities in agriculture for only something like 500 to 600, but of this 500 or 600 who go to an agricultural school, only about one quarter of them return to farming. They enter some other branch of industry. In any case the education stands to them.
Under the Improvement of Livestock, I am glad to see there is an increase of £23,341 for some of the things I mentioned earlier on. We are all glad to see that under the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Scheme there is a reduction. The Department, under the different Ministers, have co-operated with farmers down through the years and it is gratifying that the amount allocated can be reduced by £1,500,000. It is only right to give credit where credit is due. Excellent work has been done by the veterinary surgeons, with very few exceptions. The Department caught on to some of them and struck them off the books, which they were quite right to do. However, 99 per cent of them did their work diligently and intelligently. I see an ex-Minister for Agriculture here, Deputy Haughey, and I give him credit for his contribution; during his reign the Department were concentrating on bovine TB eradication. Anyway good work has been done by the Department, by the veterinary surgeons and by the local veterinary officers in the different counties.
There is an increase of £1,848,000 under the Brucellosis Eradication Scheme. That is also money well spent. I do not know whether it is the fault of the Department—may be it was lack of staff or lack of finance —but it is a pity they cannot concentrate on more counties than they are dealing with at the present time. There are four or five counties free of the disease in the North-West. There are four or five counties across from Westmeath, Meath, Louth and so on. These counties are participating in the scheme at the present time.
However, I wish to indicate a shortcoming in the scheme and to give the example of two farmers in my county. Both of them had 50 to 60 cows. One farmer was building up his herd. He went to Trim and bought a cow which was riddled with the disease and infected his whole herd. Another farmer close by was in the same position with his herd. He was a conscientious man and questioned the Department's inspectors as to what he should do. The inspector said: "The only thing you can do, if you are not going to be robbed, is to advertise them for sale on the public market." The farmer said: "No. I have a conscience. This will ruin me but if I do what you suggest I could ruin and rob 50 or 60 other farmers." He sent the cows away to a meat factory and got an average of £43. The first farmer, who was a cleverer and slicker man, called a public auction. Farmers came from Cork and Kerry, from all over the country, and he got from £70 to £120 for cows that were contaminated with brucellosis and they spread this disease to perhaps 50 or 60 farms where they had not the disease before.
The Department's answer will be: "We have not the staff or the money." I still think that where there is a herd like that in any county, whether it is inside or outside the scheme, the same rules and regulations should apply and the farmer should be allowed to avail of the compensation and to clear his farm off immediately instead of calling a public auction resulting in the contamination of perhaps 50 herds from different parts of the country. The Minister himself is a progressive farmer and should try to meet this situation. Apart from that, full credit is due to everybody concerned with the scheme. I had my own herd tested a fortnight ago and I got word today to be at, home at half past nine in the morning. One cow has gone down and been taken away. It does show the speed with which the staff work. They are doing excellent work but, as I say, it is being nullified when a man with a herd which is badly infected with the disease can put it up for sale.
Under the heading of General Disease Control, there is a reduction of £14,000. I wonder whether the Warble Fly Scheme comes under that heading. While I have praised the Department in the last ten or 15 minutes I think they have slipped up badly in this regard. I am not certain whether it was the fault of the Department, of the Minister or the advice they got from the National Agricultural Council at the time. I had arguments here with Deputy Blaney over it. I do not want to blame anyone personally. I do not know myself which of the three is responsible but three or four years ago, if my memory serves me right—the officials would have the figures—the disease was down to less than 4 per cent; it was almost eradicated. Two years ago it was back to 16 or 17 per cent and about a year ago the disease had reached the proportions of around 30 or 40 per cent again. Here was money well spent a few years ago.
They refused to continue the scheme for one further year despite the advice of the NFA and all farming organisations. I think the National Agricultural Council made a recommendation at that time to that effect. At any rate the scheme was halted and that was a serious and a grievous mistake and the farmers are paying for it now.
It is unfair that this year the farmers are being charged the full cost of the scheme. Resolutions were passed by the different Committees of Agriculture about this and the Department were asked to bear their fair share. They refused to do so. That is wrong and the Minister should reconsider his decision. We are told on various occasions that we lose from £5 million to £10 million worth of cattle each year through disease. I do not know the exact figure. We provide a free doctor service for certain sections of the people. In many cases a beast dies because the farmer, and especially the small farmer, has not got the £2 or £3 to pay to the veterinary surgeon. He waits and waits to see will the beast improve and he does not call in the vet until is it too late. I wonder could the Department or the Minister devise a scheme whereby farmers under a certain valuation could get a free veterinary service. This would pay the nation in the long run.
With regard to the eradication of the warble fly, it was said a few years ago that this would improve the quality of the hides and the leather. Unfortunately, while the hides were improved and the people who were buying them—I do not know whether they have a monopoly—got hides which were much more valuable, the increase in price was not passed on to the farmers and they are wondering why, and who has got the benefit of it.
Under the heading of lime and fertilisers, there is an increase of £189,500. We on this side of the House welcome that. I am glad to see that Fianna Fáil are converted to and are preaching the policy that we preached for many years. I am glad that Fianna Fáil Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries and Deputies now admit that our national prosperity depends, to a large extent, on our exports of livestock. They have emerged as enthusiastic advocates of the improvement of our grassland to secure an increase in our exports. We heartily congratulate them on that conversion to the Fine Gael policy which we preached in the past. It might be no harm to suggest that an apology is due—we will hardly get it —to those who were maligned on this side of the House for so long for preaching such a policy, a policy they have now adopted.
I remember the Fianna Fáil campaign and I remember the vilification of Mr. Dillon. I think it is fresh in the public memory. We cannot forget the description of "Minister for Grass" which was applied to Mr. Paddy Hogan and to Mr. Dillon, and the abuse and scorn poured on those people because they recognised the potential we had in grass, in beef, sheep, pigs and output from the land of Ireland. It has taken Fianna Fáil a long time to waken up to the fundamental fact of our economic life and, in the meantime, perhaps, the country has paid dearly for their ignorance and misjudgment. It is better late than never, but it is a pity that they did not think differently in the past.
The economy of the country suffered from their ignorance. They did not believe in improving the grassland of Ireland. They did not believe in the bullock, the heifer, the sheep, the pig, and they did not believe that we should produce anything to be exported to Britain. They have now been converted —and the Free Trade Area Agreement proves it—and they realise that this is our most important market. Perhaps our negotiators went too far in that Agreement and in their new found enthusiasm gave away more than they should. That can be discussed on some other Estimate. I may not be allowed to discuss it today.
Beef and cattle incentives under Subhead D.4 have been increased. This is money well spent. I should like to appeal to the Minister about this. The first two cows do not count. That is unfortunate. If a man has 400 heifers he gets a grant for 398 but a small farmer with four gets a grant for two only. If he has six he gets a grant for four. I will admit that the idea may be that people who are not getting their living solely from farming should not get the grant. Under the Land Reclamation Scheme and, I think, the farm building scheme a farmer must be earning his living mainly from farming before he will get the grant. Why not change this scheme to provide that a farmer earning his living mainly, or exclusively, if you like, from farming with four cows will be entitled to this grant. At the moment it is unfair to the small farmer and I would ask the Minister to reconsider his decision in this regard.
It is interesting to see that in 1960 our cattle output was worth £55 million. It increased to £58.7 million in 1962, to £70 million in 1964 but there was a drop in 1965 to £64.1 million. In 1966, it went up to £69.1 million, in 1967, to £88.7 million, in 1968, to £98 million and, in 1969, according to the figures I got from the Taoiseach yesterday, it reached a record sum of £104 million.
Gross agricultural output has also increased from £193 million in 1960 to £318 million in 1969, according to figures supplied to me yesterday. It cannot be denied that the farmers and all concerned are pulling their weight and they are to be congratulated on that improvement. No doubt the community will benefit from the vast increase in our exports of cattle.
I am surprised to see that there is a reduction of £198,000 under the heading Land Project. In 1969-70, £3,854,000 was spent under the Land Project Scheme. For 1970-71, the figure is £3,656,000, a reduction of £198,000. Why? This was money well spent. I quoted the figure earlier on. I think 1,200,000 acres of land were reclaimed since this scheme was first introduced in 1949, I think, in my home town of Mullingar. Mr. Dillon, the Minister at that time, made the announcement.
The scheme was attacked and maligned for many years afterwards, but it was a good scheme. The 1,200,000 acres put into production is helping the farmers, their families and the whole nation. I am surprised that it has been reduced this year, because I know that in my county there is a long waiting list. Up to last year there was an almost two year waiting period. That has been reduced, but it is still at least five or six months. I am surprised to see a reduction under this subhead. I would ask the Minister to have it examined, because he must agree that we have much wet land, land which is not properly drained and where there are huge hedges, boulders and rocks. Under this scheme that land can be cleared and made fertile. It can be ploughed, harrowed and sown and produce crops and help to produce cattle, sheep and pigs.
Under the beef cattle incentive scheme, there is an increase. This is money well spent and we can congratulate the Department on that.
Under the heading of Mountain Sheep, in 1965 we had 5,013,700 sheep in this country. The number now is down to 3,975,400, a reduction of over 1,000,000 sheep. It is wrong to see a reduction here, because on the mountains, which are mainly owned by small farmers, there should be an increase in the number of sheep. There should be further incentives given to those people to produce those mountainy sheep, because many farmers in the midlands and other places buy them and put them out to the Suffolk rams and they produce a very nice tidy lamb, a lamb that is much sought after for the French market whenever it is open and for our factories.
Farmers who put out these ewes with a Border Leicester ram or a Scotch ram or any of the white-faced rams and produce a cross-bred ewe, a hardy type of ewe which, when crossed with a Suffolk ram or any of the black-faced rams, produces excellent meat, the type of meat the English, French and German housewives want. From the information we have, it seems they do not look for the over fat one, they look for the nice, tidy, lean one produced very often from the mountain ewe.
The producers of wool are getting a very raw deal. In 1957 they were getting 21.9 new pence per lb. for their wool. I addressed a question to the Taoiseach yesterday, 17th February, 1971. I asked the Taoiseach the price of wool for each year since 1956 and the production of wool each year since 1956. In 1957 it was 21.9 pence. In 1964 it was 21.1 pence. In 1970 it was 11.4 pence, little more than half, and when one takes into consideration that the value of the pound has dropped by more than half, the farmer now is only getting a quarter of the price he was getting in 1957. What exactly the Department can do about that it is hard to know. There are different types of synthetics. We have not got, perhaps, the demand for wool, but any housewife knows that anything she has to buy which is produced from Irish wool will cost three, four or five times what she paid for it in 1957. Why is it that while the consumer is paying through the nose for those products, nobody can see to it that the farmer gets a fair and just price? If 21.9 pence was looked upon as reasonable in 1957 and, indeed, in 1956 it was 18.9 pence, surely nobody can say that the farmer is getting justice at the moment? In 1967 it was worse. It was 10.4 pence.
Those are questions which are troubling the farmers of Ireland. Many of the sheep are produced in the West of Ireland. Different Ministers seem to be very concerned at times about the West and the Taoiseach in Castlebar not too long ago promised wonderful things for the West. Here is an area where something could be done for the struggling sheep farmer, in the West.
In regard to dairy produce, including Grants-in-Aid, there has been a reduction this year. In my county, they tell me they are getting 3d. a gallon less for milk than they were getting two or three years ago. I have been shown documentary proof of this. Yet we are told milk prices have been increased. I cannot understand it, but my own neighbours have shown me their figures. The Department of Agriculture is slipping up in that they have no grand plan or design. They have no proper programme. Every farmer was told to get into dairying. They did so and then two years ago there was a surplus and they were encouraged to get out of it. Recently we had a demand for butter from Britain and we had not got the butter to export to them. The ICMSA have been at war with the Minister over the past few months. Those people have a good case.
Dairying is of importance to the whole farming community, and of national importance, because those people produce calves that are fed in the midlands and in the rest of the country, and they produce the milk for butter and cheese. From what we are told, unless the Government come immediately to the aid of the dairying industry, there will be a crisis there. People will go out of milk production. It is very hard to get a farmer, his wife, his son or daughter, to milk cows every day of the week, morning and night, or to get the workers to do it, and they cannot be blamed. If other people have a five day, 40-hour week, there is no reason why these people should not feel that they are entitled to it too, and should not be expected to stay at home and slave. The Minister should immediately get in touch with Mr. O'Keeffe, President of the ICMSA, with Mr. Maher, President of the NFA, bring them before him and tell them that this Government are interested in the future of agriculture in this country, and in preparing the farmers of Ireland to be in a position to accept the challenge of the decade which lies ahead and to be prepared for entry into the EEC. It is time for the Minister as a farmer, who has worked on the land, to call the people together. If other Ministers will not allow the Minister enough money it is time for him, to stand up and say: "I want to represent those people. I want to see our primary producers and those who have kept the nation going and have worked hard for years getting more." It is time for the Minister to say that he is not prepared to see this difference of £8 10s per week between the income of urban workers and that of farmers. It is time for the Minister to go into the Cabinet and assert himself and tell the other Ministers that we must sit down and iron out the problems before the war between the Minister and the farmers escalates further. The fewer people we see on the streets protesting the better for the country. The fewer strikes there are the better for us all. The time has come for the Minister to say to the Taoiseach: "Do not stand idly by any longer. It is our duty to come to the rescue of the farmers." It is time the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries invited these people into his office and to examine the problems.
There is a glorious future ahead for the farmers of this country and for our people if the problems which exist today are settled, and if all unite. The standard of living of all sections can be improved. If this wrangling is continued, the country will disintegrate and much of the blame will be laid on the Minister's shoulders and on the Government. Now is the time when the farmers should buy new tractors. They should be using fertilisers and lime on their land. I am a member of the NFA and I do not want to be called a scab. We should have freedom in this country to join an organisation, or not, but those who join organisations should obey the rules and regulations. The vast majority of the farmers are obeying the rules. There is only a month or two left for ploughing, harrowing and sowing. If the farmers are not called together our nation will suffer. I hope that the Minister faces up to this problem immediately.
I refer now to the amounts spent by the committees of agriculture. I hope the Minister does not interfere with these committees which have done valuable work. They are the connecting link between the Department and the farmers. They are the unpaid servants who come together often. If the Minister wishes to make any change, it might be a good thing to banish politics from these committees of agriculture. Everyone interested should do that. The intention, when the Bill was introduced, was that the farmers' organisations should nominate different people to the committees of agriculture. The local farmer bodies, and the peoples' representatives should co-operate, and co-ordinate their work and efforts in the interests of the community as a whole. The committees of agriculture have done valuable work. It would be a bad day for the country if they were under the control of the Department in Dublin. People in the country resent any interference from the city. It is different when members of the committee are neighbours of their own. The members of committees of agriculture have encouraged the farmers to avail of scientific and technical knowledge and the educational facilities available from and through the agricultural instructors. The local representatives of Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael and Labour have done wonderful work in helping to organise classes. Their members have approached the parish priest to have announcements read out about lectures and classes in the local halls. It would be a retrograde step to break that link.
The committees of agriculture should not be subject to too much authority from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. The policy should be to hasten slowly in that direction. In 1968 the amount spent was £1,363,199; in 1970 the figure was £1,825,923. In 1968 the amount paid by the State was £795,182, while in 1970 the sum paid was £999,465. Despite the fact that expenditure increased by over £500,000 the State's portion increased only by £200,000. It is unfair that more of this money should not be coming from the State.
I asked a question about the number of agricultural instructors. I thought there had been a greater increase in the number of such instructors employed in the last few years. The number employed in 1968 was 330. In 1969 the number employed was 338. In 1970 there were 384 agricultural instructors. The Minister and the Department should try to increase the number of such instructors because they are doing an excellent job. They are needed. The vast majority of the farmers are prepared to co-operate with these men. These men help the farmers of the country to become interested in educating themselves to adopt the most up-to-date methods and techniques and to become more efficient. Money spent on this is giving employment to our own young men at home in Ireland. Many of them are farmers' sons. We never object to increasing money for agriculture, if it is properly spent. In the past, if a family were well-off and if they had three or four sons with, perhaps, two of them with good brains, they would educate the intelligent ones and make solicitors, doctors or civil servants of them but the dud would be left on the land.
That is what happened on a farm in the past. But that day has gone and if a farmer is to hold his own he must be progressive, he must have the technical knowledge and he must be as up to date as any manager in any industry. Therefore, it is a pity to learn that we have not many more agricultural instructors and that the increase has been so small over the past few years.
The Minister should also concentrate on another matter. In the majority of committees, and as a member of a county committee of agriculture I am perhaps myself to blame as much as others, we see far too many temporary instructors and not enough permanent men. We should appeal to committees to keep temporary men for only two or three years before making them permanent. When you have a man employed for two or three years in an area he gets to know that area but then he applies for a permanent position and we find then that a man from Westmeath may be shifted to Leitrim, Sligo, or somewhere else. Could they not hold more interviews at the same time? Let the committees put up as many appointments as possible. Where you have a good man who knows the farmers in an area, knows the type of land, the type of agriculture the farmers are engaged in—and it will take him two or three years to get to know all that, to know that a farmer should have on his land, if it is hilly land, low land, sandy land, gravelly land, loamy land or heavy land—and he goes for an interview you may find he is sent from Westmeath to Leitrim or Galway. But there is as much difference between the land in these places as there is between chalk and cheese. Perhaps the Department could divide the country into regions and if an agricultural instructor had been in a dairying area for two or three years then if he had to go somewhere else send him to another dairying area; if he had been in a tillage area like Louth and if he had to be changed, then send him to Carlow or some other tillage county.
The changes that are being made at present are detrimental to all concerned. A man who may have been engaged in dairying is sent to parts of Westmeath where there is nothing but bullocks and sheep. He is thrown back a couple of years and he has to start all over again. The knowledge he has learned in the previous years is of no use to him. I would ask the Department to see if anything could be done in that regard.
The figure for horticultural employees in 1968 was 78 and it has only increased by four. There is a first class market on our doorstep for horticultural exports, for such things as soft fruits and mushrooms. I wonder why a greater effort has not been made to increase our exports in such fruits as raspberries, strawberries and apples as well as mushrooms and various types of vegetables. Enough has not been done in this direction. In regard to poultry and home farm management I was surprised to see that in 1968 we had 94 people in the service and in 1970 there was a reduction to 89. Those of us with experience of agriculture have to admit that the vast majority of these people do very excellent work. I admit that in regard to poultry they have not got the same amount of work to do now as they had, because many small farmers are going out of poultry and large combines have entered into the business. The farm home management section have been doing an excellent job and they have done much for the housewife to lighten drudgery in the kitchen, by helping them instal labour saving devices. Few city people realise that only a small percentage of the farms have those amenities.
I should like to say a few words about marketing. The marketing system here has been antediluvian as regards agricultural produce. I will agree that in recent years the problem has been tackled with varying effectiveness. As far as Bord Bainne are concerned they made a most impressive effort and it has been made possible to sell steadily increasing quantities of dairy products at prices which are comparable to those received by our competitors. Since their establishment they have vastly improved the marketing of our dairy produce but in regard to other products the Department are too conservative and lacking in initiative. They are to a certain extent to blame for not doing as much as they should have done in various other quarters.
In our embassies abroad we are too inclined to ape big nations like America, Britain and Canada. We have our diplomats who attend functions with their top hats, starched shirts and long coats. They have a few drinks with the boys and meet the people. But that is not good enough. What we want in those embassies are aggressive young agricultural salesmen to go to those functions and to preach that we have the best beef, mutton, bacon, eggs, cheese, tomatoes, small fruits, vegetables and various other things— that we have as good as can be got in any other nation. Regularly at chambers of commerce meetings we hear people saying that various Government sections could not get a market for them abroad but that they themselves were able to go out and get the markets. It was never as important as it is now to get markets because since the Free Trade Agreement, while we have increased our agricultural exports to Britain, we are now buying £30 million to £40 million more from Britain than she is buying from us. The only worthwhile way in which we can improve and increase our exports and increase them immediately, is from the land.
If you export £50 million worth extra of beef, mutton, cheese or other agricultural produce over the next year or so there would be a net profit of £45 million or £46 million. We have the land and we have the people working on it; we might have to buy a couple of million pounds worth extra of artificial manures to increase the output by another £50 million. Therefore it is of the utmost importance to have those marketing people, aggressive young salesmen, trained in all the arts of salesmanship. Remember that they can be so trained because many of us know what a good salesman can do if he comes to you when you are going somewhere in a hurry; if he has a good flow of language then before you know it you are signing your name and after that you find yourself paying a bill of £30, £40 or £50. It shows what good salesmanship can do and we should have those aggressive young salesmen in our embassies.
When the markets are obtained it is possible to come back to the farmers, confident in the knowledge that they will not let the country down. The farmers have always been in the front line in time of emergency and have never failed to respond to the call of duty. During the last war they had to provide the food for our people. The only unfortunate part was that our Government then stood idly by and allowed our produce to be shipped over to feed Britain. Our cattle were sold at 40s-45s a cwt. and sheep were sold at £3 or £4.
We were told in the past by the patriots in the Fianna Fáil Party that England's difficulty was Ireland's opportunity. England was in difficulty during the last war and Ireland had her opportunity. Yet, we fed John Bull and the British Army with cheap food. The Department of Agriculture should have been on their toes and should have demanded from the British Government a fair price for our produce. We remember that the people in Britain were rationed to two ozs. of meat per week; we had the land and the potential but we did not get the direction and there was no lead from the Government at that time to increase our agricultural produce. It was in 1948 when a trade agreement was concluded——
